Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study - 2016 EA
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study August 2016 Municipality of Bayham AYH MERIT ECH -� 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202 Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2 Q �co t 519.623.1140 � �pOrtuni Is�o www.merit h ca Project No.: 4423 E R I E C H August 12,, 2016 Municipality f Bayham 44 Plank Road tra or ville, ON NOJ 1YO Attention: r. Paul Shipway CAO, Municipality of Bayham Dear Mr. Shipway,, Re,,,, Port Burwell Master Draminage Study F ,,,.s"W ss.sxn:; .�aPik.tw'1.,w�:.n'�,f.,inn:..t.e4a..'�_nrrvk`S.r.iC-Y,»3*rk.,`m.Y.x'.a5.,,..'�:*�.Y'�s..�;kK�..+.�!.?.�'Ps�A,N.�..?.�'....R}"-Y,ta?3.s:.::..i'..,r iKm;,?+z'.-.�`Y....."+`ti' ✓.vr.. cn'.r'...�+'.. :? va.. ."ws. Sf a- "c....a , ., Y h ..:-. 1, 'vi'tK*°rt"r,� .vrhT:.,,{kb,"n+..�.4`.YS.Hr..,ttJ.'.�..n"+"€X?�`f,l..k:+....n-::?,l,�t+.+',.......✓.R�:'a:.:Y+Rt.x..rvC.:.'.&➢i/'re�»'s..r:....M"eN+.,.rtv -;32c-...x.Fk.*3.M..+5.9.9.+s-.'�v5,v.."n+.�Y*;4a'.n.,..xF.i'M?./c.:'.£.v m.�n"�nAk.'a�'.e: Please find enclosed our Master Drainage Study forte village of Port Burwell. This report was built upon the previous work preparedforte Municipality that identified the problem statement. Port Burwell requires re e iation of the storm sewer system. The opportunity to design this storm system for future evelo ent and to incorporate the village as a complete system as explored iti this study. The recommendations from the study allow the Municipality to implement e village-wide storm sewer network through individual infrastructure projects. The study followed e Municipal Mass Environmental ssess ent Process and was W confirmed as a Schedule B. Notice of Completion of the Study will be submitted concurrently with this report® W Yours very truly, MERITEC ENGINEERING EC A.J. FROESE a 4 t 55 t2A 0 Amain a J. Froese, Senior je ana er EOFO AF/ Enclosures(1) cc Consulting Engineers Professional Engineers MEV2014 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Stud .docx Page 1 of Ontario Ontario Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop St. North Suite 202 Cambridge ON NiR 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334 MERITECH Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Executive Summary Port Burwell is a village comprised predominantly of residential homes, with some commercial and tourism businesses, and is located in the Municipality of Bayham. The existing road network is comprised of local streets with road-side swales, catchbasins and storm sewers, with County roads having curb and gutter and storm sewers. The storm sewers on Municipality and County roads intertwine and share outlets, which are either to the Lake Erie beach or to Big Otter Creek. A Storm Sewer System Assessment and a Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report were completed in 2015 for Port Burwell and Vienna. This information, along with new information provided by Elgin County, formed the background for this study. Known historical flooding concerns raised by residents, combined with results from an existing conditions assessment, lead to the conclusion that the village of Port Burwell needed a review of the storm sewer system as a whole. The Master Drainage Study is proposed to provide a guideline to future reconstruction works for remediation of storm sewers and the drainage network. The Class EA process was followed as Schedule B was identified for some of the potential options. Consultation with residents, taxpayers, and agencies was seen as important to the outcome of the study. Four alternatives were evaluated within the study: Alternative # 1: Do Nothing Leave the existing system in its current condition. Portions are clogged or broken and do not convey flows, portions appear not to have an outlet, and some sewers are located on private property. Alternative # 2: Repair the Existing System This alternative involves designing a system that is within the same alignment, location, and is the same size as the existing system. The sewer capacity would not be increased to carry larger storm flows; sewers would remain within private property and easements may be requested. All outlets would remain in this option. Alternative #3: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using the Existing Outlet Locations This includes increasing pipe sizes throughout the village, with sewers sized to convey the 5-year storm event but maintaining the locations, but not the size, of all the existing outlets. Alternative #4: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, with New Outlets This option involves sizing the storm sewer network for the future needs of the municipality. Increased pipe sizes throughout the village would be required to convey the 5-year storm event. An evaluation of which outlets should remain or be removed - or if new outlets should be added — adds to the completeness of this alternative. R\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page i Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT ECIi The evaluation of the alternatives included conveyance capacity, completeness of the system, physical environment, social environment, and financial considerations. Based on the analysis, Alternative #4, designing the system with new sewers to re-designed outlets based on new drainage divides, was the preferred alternative. The Master Drainage Plan includes the determination of drainage catchments and preliminary sizing of storm sewers. Proposed outlet sizes and locations have also been identified, to be included in future detailed design and construction projects. Implementing the recommended system upgrades requires cooperation with Elgin County, and it is recommended that the Municipality request that the County include the recommended storm sewer works within County roads within their road works program or that the two agencies work together on funding programs for the work. Other recommendations include implementing an annual catchbasin cleaning program using vacuum trucks such that catchbasins are cleared and will function as much as possible prior to and after reconstruction. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page ii Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT ECIi Disclaimer This report was prepared by Meritech Engineering for the Municipality of Bayham. The comments, recommendations and materials presented in this report reflect our best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Except for approval and commenting municipalities and agencies in their review and approval of this project, any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance upon, or decisions as a result of, are the responsibility of such third parties. Meritech Engineering accepts no responsibility for damages suffered by any third party, other than an approval or commenting municipality or agency, as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. Use and Reproduction of This Document No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed in any form, or by means including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and scanning without the prior written approval of the author. For Further Information For further information regarding this report please contact the author at the following address: Meritech Engineering Attention: Mr. Ian S. Robertson, P.Eng. Director of Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202 Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2 t (519) 623-1140 f (519) 623-7334 email: ianr@meritech.ca F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page iii Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT ECW Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................. 3 Background .............................................................................................................. 4 StudyPurpose........................................................................................................... 4 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA)........................................................... 4 Master Plan Process ............................................................................................... 6 Consultation and Notification................................................................................... 6 Notice of Commencement....................................................................................... 6 Public Information Centre ....................................................................................... 7 ProblemStatement....................................................................................................... 7 ExistingCondition...................................................................................................... 7 LandUse............................................................................................................... 8 Floodplain.............................................................................................................. 8 CurrentPolicies...................................................................................................... 8 Existing Drainage Network...................................................................................... 9 Storm System Parameters......................................................................................10 ProposedAlternatives ..................................................................................................11 Alternative # 1: Do Nothing ......................................................................................11 Alternative # 2: Repair the Existing System................................................................11 Alternative #3: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using the Existing Outlet Locations.12 Alternative #4: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, with Fewer Outlet Locations ..........13 Evaluation of Alternatives.............................................................................................14 Summary of the Evaluation .......................................................................................18 Alternative #1: Do Nothing ....................................................................................18 Actions Necessary for Implementation .................................................................18 Alternative #2: Repair the Existing System..............................................................18 Actions Necessary for Implementation .................................................................18 Alternative #3: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using Existing Outlet Locations...18 Actions Necessary for Implementation .................................................................19 Alternative #4: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using New Outlet Locations........19 Actions Necessary for Implementation .................................................................19 PreferredAlternative....................................................................................................19 Design Considerations...............................................................................................19 Flooding of Private Property...................................................................................20 Priorityof Work.....................................................................................................20 Drainage ..............................................................................................................20 East Beach Design Project......................................................................................21 Catchbasin Cleanout Program.................................................................................21 DesignParameters................................................................................................21 Implementation...........................................................................................................21 Priorities..................................................................................................................22 Category ..............................................................................................................22 ExistingCondition .................................................................................................22 Cost Estimate Assumptions .......................................................................................23 DeterminingStage Limits..........................................................................................27 DesignObjectives.....................................................................................................28 DesignCriteria .........................................................................................................28 General ................................................................................................................28 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 1 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Roads ..................................................................................................................30 Sewers.................................................................................................................30 Runoffcoefficients: ............................................................................................30 Design storm parameters: ..................................................................................31 Frames and Grates/Covers..................................................................................31 Catchbasi ns.......................................................................................................31 Manholes ..........................................................................................................31 Outlets..............................................................................................................32 Service Connections...........................................................................................32 List of Figures Figure 1: Port Burwell Study Area .................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Process.............................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Port Burwell Storm Network (1981).................................................................. 9 Figure 4: Storm Sewer System Existing Condition...........................................................10 Figure 5: Repair the Existing System .............................................................................11 Figure 6: Replace System, Same Outlet Locations...........................................................12 Figure 7: Replace System, Fewer Outlet Locations..........................................................13 Figure 8: Section Classifications ....................................................................................24 Figure 9: Existing Conditions.........................................................................................25 Figure10: Priorities .....................................................................................................26 Figure11: Staging Plan................................................................................................29 List of Tables Table 1: Floodline Elevations ......................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Evaluation Criteria...........................................................................................14 Table 3: Evaluation of Alternatives................................................................................17 Table 4: Cost Estimates by Priority................................................................................23 Table 5: Stage Creation Methodology Comparison..........................................................27 Table 6: Cost Estimates by Stage..................................................................................28 Appendices Appendix A: Public Consultation Appendix B: Existing Documents Appendix C: Storm Drainage Area Plans and Sewer Design Sheets Appendix D: Priority Ranking Tables Appendix E: Proposed Stages and Rough Cost Estimate Tables F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 2 Jim 0 n 4� qk. 10 4 i,. kv all �r IL IR va 04 pit -�+�` .+r . ;'�`�, / 4 t _ E .ice. �•- �,�• � � .� ,✓ •p dam! 1,{ �r r ■ MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Background The Master Drainage Study is founded on the development of a comprehensive understanding of existing urban drainage conditions. This was accomplished through detailed investigation of the existing drainage system. The current approach built upon the analysis completed as part of the Storm Sewer System Assessment and Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report, both prepared by Meritech Engineering in 2015 for Port Burwell and Vienna, but provides substantial added detail regarding the urban infrastructure. These reports will be referred to as "the 2015 reports"throughout this Master Drainage Study. The previous investigation found that many sewers in Port Burwell were in disrepair and in need of replacement. Other sewers were found to be of sizes smaller than the industry standard and there are many outlets to be maintained. Residents' concerns over historic flooding were brought to the team's attention at this time as well. It was recognized by the Municipality that attention was needed on the system, but budgetary constraints also needed consideration. The opportunity to review the village as a whole system became evident as an answer to the question "where do we start?". Study Purpose The Master Drainage Study is proposed to provide a guideline to future reconstruction works for remediation of storm sewers and the drainage network. The Class EA process was followed as Schedule B was identified for some of the potential options. Consultation with residents, taxpayers, and agencies was seen as important to guide the outcome of the study. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) The planning of major municipal infrastructure projects or activities is subject to the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, R.S.O. 1990, and requires the proponent to complete an Environmental Assessment. The Municipal Class EA process was developed by the Municipal Engineers Association, in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). This process is an alternative method to Individual Environmental Assessments for recurring municipal projects that are similar in nature, usually limited in scale, have a predictable range of environmental impacts, and are responsive to mitigating measures. The Class EA solicits input and approval from regulatory agencies, the municipality, and the public at the local level. This process leads to an evaluation of the alternatives in view of the significance of environmental impacts and the choice of effective mitigation measures. The Class EA describes the process that proponents must follow in order to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. As presented in Figure 2, it is a five- phase process that extends from problem identification through to detailed design. The three types of projects to which the Class EA process applies to are: Y Schedule 'A' projects. These are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental effects, and include the majority of municipal road maintenance and F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 4 MERITECH Port Burwell Master Drainage Study operation activities. These projects are pre-approved and may proceed to implementation without following any additional steps of the Class EA planning process Y Schedule 'B' projects. These have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. They are subject to a screening process which includes contacting directly- affected public and relevant review agencies. Design includes progressing through Phase 1 (Problems and Opportunities) and Phase 2 (Alternative Solutions) Y Schedule AC' projects, which have the potential for significant environmental effects. These projects must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA document - Phase 1 to Phase 4 The Municipal Class EA provides an opportunity for any member of the public or agency to request the Minister of the Environment to order a Class EA project to become subject to an Individual Environmental Assessment. This is known as a Part II Order (or "bump-up") request and is made in certain circumstances where concerns are unresolved during the Class EA planning process. For further details the reader should refer to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment manual (MEA, October 2000, as amended 2007 & 2011). ILWiPHASE 4 PHASE S .: OPPORTUNITY SOLUTIONS PR CC CEPTS FOR EAWNIMMENTAL -- IDE.rm PRoeLarA 'IDerr.Y urERxAnvE APPRovfa- IDOEsrcvl caxca�r's` yp cDMNM 'COMPEER LONTMDT ' DN OPPDRNNTry �D���IPR�� x nRocEe[I FOR rREFFnN pY� R�ALRI aR+1nN�Gs AWN„ soLurlDN� TENDER d I ENVIRDNMEMAL T DL4CREnIXURY POaIC SELECF SLNEDutE s DETAIL MVENR)RY x SNQv gEPDPT IESR} CDNSU1TATgN N,ION£w� (APPENOR I I - -J.-A, - Di NAsu I—AL vLACED ON PROCEED TO ANb EGPVOMIC vIJQLN%REC9Ra Y CDNSTRi1GTIDN AND NVIRONMENT OPERAnON INYrRX DF fd11wE1NN1 1P MD � TD REVIEW AGENCIES _ __ a INVEN}DRM MAYORAL ORD�r• AND PII X I DDETERMWE APPl1CA6N.IT'1 SOCIAL ECCkIDMN: MAY PRDCEEQ ATN AE Ri A MASTERVW APPROACH/ ENWRONL lAT aN EnvIROrvNE CGPY DF MONITOR EDR rvb�CMDE FASRALxCNW IeeA 9S6m A2TI�+ F NVIRDNMEM1TAL RQVISNTiS AND _ COMMR'FEENTS IDBIIIF!S.•ACT DE PROCEED e,ELRR�WTrvE�INl8 .grRIpJAL EMS W ABANDON ¢EVALUATE AlTEPNAIiVE AND MIIIGATINO MEA6URE6 DE81GNi'IDENTIFY RRIFGT flECDMMENDEQ DESIGN REWEST MWI9TER YAlMN ___� mbAVS OF NOnFICATION TO REDIRST All ORDER' A EVALUATE ALTFRNATNE FORmoill� �1. mi�ll.. 90LUTIONi.DEIVTRY CJ' V V RECPMMENDED SOLUnONi M'MHT[.� S D011YAT RENEW wwna AGBIDSQI•P�9lY [+�_-�_+� CTLY DPFlONAc AcnriON �PIISLAi I+ i' AL MEDIATNM'~� Q Rr ISr SrWAOA4eYl / I _______________'Q` ww[OaI�aPIDRIOXITM r .1. e4 +V IVGALPFWMiWE S0.VIIbA V V [ R 6ELECi PREFER O ORCER� U£61[til � M5CREwG GRANTED, ORDER SVC PRgcEEa MATRR LOrv3UlTenory A5PER RET1•RREO WlTIaR r;i scHEDULE ♦ R AaNlsrtRs wrrNDbr S SELEGY PRFFFAREQ PREFERRED DIRECPIXI EOIA MINIBTEP'H r---, REVIEW ENWEONMENYAL '� NE ►-�Scvfoule cl spNlrlcANc€a cNDlc€ -p iNDrcarss FasirelE EYENTs NAN_ REVIEW AND LONPIRM �L - ixOOATFS PROSAeLE FYENB CHOICE DE 9CREDVLE � HDIViGOA�E v-- -' .FSIMIIURY FlNALIdATp ® 15e.5.rvien 43 CamM[.���� OF PREFERRED Df61GNN O Df[KOH rOWD:ON Clb[CE OF SCHEwI[ Y� j DPnD VAL Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Process F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 5 MERITECH Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Master Plan Process The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (EA) provides for comprehensive Master Plans such as the Port Burwell Master Drainage Study. By following the Municipal Class EA process the proponent (Municipality of Bayham) will satisfy Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the EA process. A Master Plan is usually developed when a series of work is needed throughout the study area (i.e. when not one single solution to the problem is ideal). The focus of a Master Plan is to review a system (in this case the storm runoff conveyance network) in its entirety and develop the framework in which future improvements, works, and development should be implemented. This process facilitates the long-range goals of the municipality. Often the proposed alternatives outlined in the Master Plan are each individually subject to the Municipal Class EA process. With this in mind, it has been confirmed to complete the Master Plan in conjunction with the Municipal Class EA, Phase 1 and Phase 2, in order to comply with the needs of a Schedule B Municipal Class EA. Should any recommended alternative requiring Schedule C works be completed, Phases 3 to 5 of the EA would need to be completed at a later date. The primary advantage of completing the study in accordance with the Class EA guidelines is that it provides a comprehensive framework for soliciting public input and documenting the alternatives that have been considered. It will also streamline the implementation of study recommendations in that the Municipality will be able to simplify the process required for implementing the report's recommendations. Consultation and Notification As part of the Municipal Class EA procedure, public notices are published and information meetings are held to keep the public informed of the process and allow for public involvement in the selection of a preferred alternative. Public consultation is an important and vital part of the environmental assessment process and is provided in Phase 2 under a Schedule B project. A kick-off meeting was held with the Municipality of Bayham and Elgin County staff on January 29, 2016 to establish the direction of the EA process. Minutes are attached in Appendix A. Notice of Commencement The notice was issued on February 26, 2016 to the Bayham website (www.bayham.on.ca) and posted in the Alymer Times on March 2, 2016. The notice is enclosed in Appendix A. The following agencies were circulated the notice with the request for comments: Y Elgin County Y Long Point Conservation Authority Y Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (Regional and Environmental Approvals Branch) Y Port Burwell Provincial Park R\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 6 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT ECM Y Elgin County Tourism Y Thames Valley District School Board Y Port Burwell Public School Y Ministry of Natural Resources (Southern Regional Office) Y Ministry of Natural Resources (Aylmer District Office) Y Department of Fisheries and Oceans Y Ministry of Infrastructure Y Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Y Union Gas Y Hydro One Y Port Burwell Public Utilities Y Rogers Y Wightman Telecom Y Eastlink Y Transport Canada Y Otter Valley Utility Corridor & (Rail) Trail Board of Management Y Bayham Harbourfront Committee Y Environment Canada Public Information Centre Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in the Aylmer Times on June 8, 2016, as well as posted at the Museum, Public Washrooms, the LCBO and on the website at www.bayham.on.ca on June 8, 2016. The notice is enclosed in Appendix A. Residents were given the opportunity to review the presentation boards and ask questions of the project team. Copies of the boards were also posted on the municipality's website and circulated to agencies and individuals who had indicated interest in staying informed. Copies of the boards and resident survey forms are in Appendix A. Problem Statement Known historical flooding concerns raised by residents, combined with results from an existing conditions assessment, led to the conclusion that the village of Port Burwell needed a review of the storm sewer system as a whole. This provided the opportunity to review the number, size, and location of outlets to Big Otter Creek and the Lake Erie Beach. The analysis is to review alternative solutions and determine which is best suited for the Municipality of Bayham and the village of Port Burwell, to provide an appropriate drainage system for current and future conditions. Existing Condition Understanding the environment surrounding Port Burwell is important to understanding the proper solution to implement within the village. The existing condition includes understanding the potential for future growth along with land use, floodline elevations, and the drainage network and storm events. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 7 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Land Use Elgin County describes Port Burwell as a Tier 1 settlement, which means it generally has a larger population and full municipal services. The County's Official Plan provides language to the goals of the community in regards to economic development, tourism, growth, and environmental protection. New growth is expected to be more concentrated in Tier 1 areas, including Port Burwell. In the Municipality of Bayham's Official Plan the village of Port Burwell it recognized as having the capability of accommodating growth. This growth is restricted to predominantly single family residential low-density housing with a target of 20 units per hectare. The Harbour Residential/Commercial designation allows for densities from 35 up to 75 units per hectare (apartments) and requires Site Plan Control. Appendix B includes copies of the Municipality's Official Plan "Land Use and Constraints" map and the Municipality's Zoning By- law mapping. Floodplain The Long Point Region Conservation Authority provided values for the 100-year and Regional Flood elevations. Table 1 shows the ranges of the elevations. The 100-year elevation for Lake Erie of 175.7 is confirmed on the 2015 Elgin County Lake Erie Shoreline Hazards mapping. Location Cross-section 100- ear elevation Regional storm elevation Big Otter Creek at Lake 1.0 174.20 174.85 Big Otter Creek, 5.0 176.11 177.37 downstream at bridge Lake Erie -- 175.7 -- with wind set-up) *from Vittoria, Port Ryerse, Lynedoch and Port Burwell Floodline Mapping Study April 1987, MacLaren Engineers Table 1: Floodline Elevations Current Policies The Official Plan (Bayham) requires new residential units, mobile trailer parks and commercial developments to provide adequate stormwater management/drainage to the satisfaction of the Municipality. For development in the Harbour Residential/Commercial area, flooding is to be reviewed for Site Plan Approval. Water conservation and water use efficiency is encouraged and promoted by the Municipality. Under "Community Improvement Goals and Objectives" the Municipality set an objective to improve conditions in "older deteriorating but potentially stable and predominantly residential areas or neighbourhoods so as to maintain their long-term viability" (7.1.2.1). F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 8 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Existing Drainage Network The Storm Sewer System - Assessment, Meritech 2015 «AGE of PORT auawEcc describes the storm sewer system N of Port Burwell. A survey of each JL structure located within the village W of Port Burwell was done using I W ,,pY GPS (minus County infrastructure), and was added to the Municipality's database. CCTV inspection of the E r� sewers was done from these p structures to determine condition, ��'"" N$$ " " R.W/CC/AM fir. and to piece together the existing networks. Since the issuance of that report, further information was made available by Elgin County. ' h ' HANNA r SZ The overall network from 1981 is ATE LDD Sr shown in Figure 3. _ Q W �V ~ Robinson Street (County Roads 19 W and 42 between Bridge Street and — E L /N° ZON _ ST OUMY ROAD 42) Victoria Street and County Roads " -� 19 and 142 between Bridge Street s and Wellington Street, shown as Union St. and Erieus St. on Figure 3), Victoria Street (County Road 50 o s° ARE between Wellington Street and , " 0 V , �T i Robinson Street) and Wellington Street (County Road 142 between BROOK sr Victoria Street and Robinson l Street) are all County roads and -- their drainage is interdependent with the drainage on local streets. Figure 3: Port Burwell Storm Network (1981) Three main outlets exist. The area north of Wellington Street drains into Big Otter Creek below Bridge Street, outlet number 1 on Figure 4. The central portion of the village discharges to the beach, near the washroom facilities at the southern limit of Erieus Street and Hagerman Street (outlet number 2 below). Outlet number 3 drains the commercial area on Robinson Street. Smaller diameter outlets numbered 5 and 6 have minor catchment areas. The area west of Big Otter Creek drains out outlet number 4, then through ravines within the Provincial Park, and finally towards Big Otter Creek. The 2015 assessment found that a large portion of the sewers across the village are in disrepair with cracks, collapsed sections, or blockages. It also found that many sewers were less than 300mm in diameter, and that structures were connected to the sewers with "blind connections", making maintenance and inspections difficult. Figure 4 shows what was found in the investigation to prepare the Storm Sewer Assessment; green lines represent F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 9 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study the sewers that were videoed. County Roads were not inspected at that time and for the Master Drainage Study reference has been made to the drawings provided by Elgin County. l Legend Outlet Location I NOMST 1 Outlet number aowvea sr t sounfr sT In " o wuuar sr tearrsai sr \ � oEwrON Sr I 2�1euR IL sr I I_w sr t 9 School UNIM Sr HMCS,JOjjib a 1 L v711J x 4 waiweroesr PMSr ® BrJXX sr 5 Figure 4: Storm Sewer System Existing Condition Storm System Parameters The system was analysed using the rational method for both the 2-year and 5-year design storms to determine the ability of the system to convey flows for each of the design alternatives, however due to the condition of the system it was determined early on that the flows do not currently get conveyed properly within the piped system and therefore are most likely to flow overland to the lake. A MOE Certificate of Approval (1-783-82-837) was issued in 1983 for some of the storm sewers in Port Burwell (see Appendix B). F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 10 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Proposed Alternatives The following sections describe the alternatives that were considered under the Municipal Class EA process to address the problem statement as identified in the previous chapter. The alternatives may be applied in part or in whole for the village of Port Burwell. Alternative # 1: Do Nothing This option is to leave the existing system in its current condition; with portions that are clogged or broken and do not convey flows, with portions of the system that appear to not have an outlet, and with sewers located on private property. Although the Do Nothing option does not have an initial associated cost, maintaining the system is not possible and the risk to the Municipality for damage caused by flooding may cost the Municipality in the future. Alternative # 2: Repair the Existing System This alternative involves designing a system that is within the same alignment, location, and size as the existing system. The sewer capacity would not be increased to carry larger storm flows, sewers remain within private property, and easements could be requested. All outlets would remain in this option, including the outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson Street in its current condition, but the pipe outlet could be replaced. There would be minimal work on outlets to Big Otter Creek. Minimal work or no work would be proposed in areas where road-side ditches can convey the flows to an outlet (such as the Addison Street area). The rural cross-section would be maintained throughout the village. Legend aOutlet Looatio,, HOMER ST Ex.pipes to Uc replaced —Ex.pipes to remain CONKER Sr 1 Outlet Number SOUTHEYST WIUJAM SE TENNYSON ST - a - r t;,' -, NEWTON$Y i'BURWELLSf 1 I I NRNNNI ST WR7flIL00 ST 1 LISBYE SJ� � - SCM1ooI 1 � I WELt➢IGfON 5T 4 pIl'f y7 g rn r J aROCIC Sf i 3 r IIf� O , Z O 6 Figure 5: Repair the Existing System F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 11 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT ECIi Alternative #3: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using the Existing Outlet Locations Designing a system for Port Burwell that conveys storm flows in accordance with Ministry of the Environment standards using the outlets in the existing location is proposed as Alternative #3. This includes increased pipe sizes throughout the village, with sewers sized to convey a 2-year or 5-year storm event (local versus collector). Utilizing road-side ditches on local streets to convey flows up to the 5-year storm when combined with the sewers would be considered. The outlets to Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie would be increased in size to convey the design flows. The outlet to Big Otter Creek south of the HMCS Ojibwa would remain, as would the small outlet out the bank south of Pitt and Elizabeth Streets. The outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson Street remains (optional). The "ditch" through the village remains, but sewers would be re-routed around private property. L end i aOutlet Location ��Drainage P.ide ,•f ccwet ivnxx sr `. � •awnsr 1 • 1 ' ,� xv.un sr r�o� (D I- ' wswwncroresr — ��i Lf �sl f. a . • IQ •urJc sr 8 Figure 6: Replace System, Same Outlet Locations F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 12 MERITECH Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Alternative #4: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, with Fewer Outlet Locations This option involves sizing a storm sewer network for the future needs of the municipality. The system in Port Burwell would convey storm flows in accordance with Ministry of the Environment standards using outlets in their existing locations. Increased pipe sizes throughout the village would be required to convey a 5-year storm event. The sewer system would be removed from private property and relocated to the municipal right of way. The drainage directed to the open ditch would be relocated as much as possible to the right of way. The drainage pattern is revised to suit the overall design of the village. The outlets to Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie would be increased in size to convey the design flows, but would be in the same location. The outlet to the south of the HMCS Ojibwa would be removed as would the small outlet into the slope along Pitt Street and the outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson Street. Legend iOutlet Location --_� m m m Drainage Divide raxnEns M ..-. 4*+#'7�Catchment and Outlet Number W, a I a f J BURWElL BT F � • - ��� _ K.—Sf f' WA-fcRl9p 1 1r{C ' rxBarEsx �•I•rrwrae � I - _I � .. - — - o n d Rrrr sr Figure 7: Replace System, Fewer Outlet Locations F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 13 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Evaluation of Alternatives Evaluation of the Alternatives was carried out to determine the recommended approach to satisfying the problem statement. Information received from agencies, residents, and stakeholders was used in this evaluation. Table 2 describes the evaluation criteria applied to each alternative. Criteria Description Conveyance Capacity Y Storm event that can be conveyed in piped system Y Outlet's ability to handle piped flow Y Opportunity for development/intensification/growth N Overland flow route Completeness of System Y Size of the area serviced with storm sewer Y Connectivity of the network N Reduced flooding Physical Environment Y Impact to Big Otter Creek (construction impact) Y Impact to Lake Erie Beach (construction impact) Y Water quality N Flood lain Social Environment Y Location of sewer on private property (easement/acquisition) Y Temporary construction impact (noise, dust, detours) Y Built heritage N Archeological potential impact Financial Y Impact on Capital Budget for construction N Operation and maintenance costs Table 2: Evaluation Criteria F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 14 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT E C H Evaluation Criteria Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 Do Nothing Repair the System New System, Same New System, New Outlet Locations Outlets Conveyance Capacity Score: 1 2 5 5 Storm event that can be Storms cannot be conveyed Not sized to convey a Conveys 5-year storm in Conveys 5-year storm in conveyed in piped due to broken or clogged specific storm event, pipes. pipes. system lengths. replacing with the same size as existing. Conveys less than a 2 r storm event. Outlet's ability to handle Current outlets do not Outlet in good shape at the Outlets would be sized to Outlets would be sized to piped flow (diameter and receive much storm flow. beach, Big Otter Creek outlet accommodate new storm accommodate new storm slope) Robinson Street outlet is has pipes that have pulled parameters (some outlets parameters (some outlets crushed. Small diameter out of upstream pipe. to be resized). Robinson to be resized, others outlets to slope/beach hard Robinson Street outlet is not Street outlet is not desired. removed). Increase in size to find/maintain. desired. Small diameter Small diameter outlets to to outlet at beach. outlets to slope and beach slope and beach are hard to are hard to find and find and maintain. maintain. Opportunity for Additional flows from Additional flows from Additional flows from Additional flows from development, increased imperviousness increased imperviousness increased imperviousness increased imperviousness intensification, growth cannot be conveyed. cannot be conveyed. can be conveyed. Future can be conveyed. Future expansion of village not expansion of village not included (on site control included (on site control assumed). assumed). Overland flow route No change to overland flow No change to overland flow Opportunity exists to Opportunity exists to route. route. change the overland flow change the overland flow path, maintain road path, maintain road drainage within roadway drainage within roadway (curbs). (curbs). Completeness of System Score; 1 2 5 5 Size of the area serviced Limited useable storm Moderate portion of the All streets to be fitted with All streets to be fitted with with storm sewer sewer in central portion of village will have storm storm sewers, with outlets. storm sewers, with legal village. Addison Street is sewer. Addison Street Addison Street remains well outlets. Addison Street independent and appears to remains well serviced. serviced. remains well serviced. be well serviced. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 15 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT E C H Connectivity of the Very few connections are Storm sewer connections All streets to be connected All streets to be connected network functional. would be restored. Blind to an outlet. Blind to an outlet. Blind connections to remain as connections removed where connections removed where blind connections. possible. possible. Reduced flooding Existing flooding remains. Small storm events should Opportunity to reconstruct Opportunity to reconstruct remain in piped system roads with better drainage, roads with better drainage, better. Existing structures road drainage to stay within road drainage to stay within below road surface elevation road way, direct private road way, direct private would remain, and continue property's drainage to right property's drainage to right to flood when pipes are of way where possible. of way where possible. surcharged. Reduces flooding. Reduces flooding. Physical Environment Score; 5 5 3 3 Impact to Big Otter No construction. Repair to outlet necessary at Two outlets remaining, One new outlet into Big Creek (construction Big Otter Creek. Permit construction required to Otter Creek to be impact) from LPRCA required. increase diameters. Permit reconstructed for sizing. from LPRCA required. Permit from LPRCA required. Impact to Lake Erie No construction. No construction at outlets. Outlets at beach to be One new outlet to the Beach (construction reconstructed for sizing. beach to be reconstructed impact) for sizing. Water quality No change. No change. Outlet to Lake Erie beach Outlet to Lake Erie beach could incorporate could incorporate improvements with bio- improvements with bio- swales. swales. 100-year floodplain No impact, current inverts No impact, current inverts Increased diameter pipe, Increased diameter pipe, are below floodline. Outlets are below floodline. Outlets invert to creek and beach invert to creek and beach are not submerged. are not submerged. to match existing invert. to match existing invert. Outlets are not submerged. Outlets are not submerged. Social Environment Score; 2 3 4 5 Location of sewer on Storm sewer currently Storm sewer would continue Storm sewer would be Storm sewer would be private property crosses private residential to cross private residential relocated to the municipal relocated to municipal right (easement/acquisition) properties, and under the properties, and under the right of way. Outlet to Big of way, outlets to be within Museum. One outlet to Big Museum. One outlet to Big Otter Creek remains on municipal or county Otter Creek is believed to Otter Creek is believed to be private property, easement property. be through private through private property. could be requested. property. Easements to be requested. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 16 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERIT E C H Temporary construction No construction. Limited construction Construction disturbance Construction disturbance impact (noise, dust, disturbance. Disturbance to with road work limits. with road work limits. detours) commercial area. Impacts extend to beach Impacts extend to beach Construction on private and along commercial area. and along commercial area. property required. Construction on private Construction on private property required. property required. Built heritage Existing sewer under Existing sewer under Existing sewer under Existing sewer under museum remains. museum remains, repair museum is relocated and museum is relocated and may be necessary. properly abandoned in properly abandoned in lace. place. Archeological potential None. May require Heritage May require Heritage May require Heritage impact Assessment, consultation Assessment, consultation Assessment, consultation with Ministry of Culture with Ministry of Culture with Ministry of Culture required prior to required prior to required prior to implementation. implementation. implementation. Financial Score; 5 4 2 1 Impact on Capital Budget None. Lowest cost. High cost compared to High cost compared to for construction Alternatives 1 & 2. Alternatives 1 & 2. Operation and Staff time to respond to Staff time to respond to System should be able to System should be able to maintenance costs requests/complaints about complaints about continued last more than 50-years last more than 50-yearswith drainage problems. flooding. with new construction. new construction. Flooding Continual costs for Flooding complaints should complaints should be temporary"fixes". be eliminated. eliminated. Maintenance cost less due to fewer outlets. Total Score 14 16 19 19 Recommended Not recommended, does Not recommended, does not Not recommended, only Recommended, Solution not satisfy problem satisfy problem statement. partially satisfies the addresses the problem statement. problem statement statement 1 = most negative, 3 = moderate, 5 = most positive Table 3: Evaluation of Alternatives F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 17 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH Summary of the Evaluation The following section describes the outcomes of the analysis for each alternative and how it satisfies the problem statement to provide an appropriate drainage system for current and future conditions in Port Burwell. Alternative #1: Do Nothing This alternative does not satisfy the problem statement and is not recommended. However, the area of Addison Street, from (and including) Homer Street to Libbye Street is predominately comprised of low impervious lots, and the sewer along Addison Street is in good repair, so it is recommended that the Do Nothing alternative is used in this area. Cleanout and maintenance of the existing system is recommended and should be incorporated into the Implementation Plan. Actions Necessary for Implementation Y Cleaning program for all existing catchbasins Alternative #2: Repair the Existing System The storm sewer network is repaired in this alternative, simply by replacing sewers known to, or assumed to, exist. This would correct the plugged, collapsed, and broken pipes. It does not address items such as inlets on private property that experience flooding. Existing drainage in some areas is overland through private property, and this would not be changed, nor would any existing pipes located on private property be modified. Through the design and construction of this work, easements could be requested by the Municipality for the infrastructure on private lands, but they are not guaranteed to be granted. The outlet at the end of Robinson Street would be repaired; maintaining this outlet is not desired by the Municipality in conjunction with the East Beach Design project currently underway. This alternative is not recommended even though the cost is moderate, as the potential risk is high and the benefits are less than the other alternatives. Actions Necessary for Implementation Y Ministry of the Environment and Climate Control Approvals for construction Y Permit from Long Point Region Conservation Authority for repair to outlets Y Consultation with Ministry of Culture on potential Archeological Study requirements Y Construction drawings, tender and construction Y Acquisition of easements Alternative #3: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using Existing Outlet Locations This option redesigns the storm sewer system such that it is upgraded to current standard with regards to sizing, and allows for intensification within the village by applying a higher percent impervious in the analysis. The outlets are proposed to remain in their current location, and they all would still convey flows. This alternative removes overland flow and pipes from private properties, with the exception of outlets. With the East Beach Design project currently underway by the Municipality, the outlet to the beach at the end of F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 18 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Robinson Street is undesirable. There still remains an outlet to Big Otter Creek that is believed to be through private property. The amount of work and cost for the design and construction of the alternative is comparable to Alternative 4 and it has the ability to properly service the village. However if there is no ability to get easements for any outlets and land acquisition is required, the process is more difficult and may not result in the needed outlet being secured. This is the reason that this alternative is not recommended. Actions Necessary for Implementation Y Ministry of the Environment and Climate Control Approvals for construction Y Permit from Long Point Region Conservation Authority for repair/replacement of outlets Y Consultation with Ministry of Culture on potential Archeological Study requirements Y Construction drawings, tender and construction Y Acquisition of easements Alternative #4: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using New Outlet Locations Similar to Alternative #3, this option would redesign the village's system to current standards accounting for higher levels of impervious cover, and allowing for intensification. All sewers would outlet to two existing locations, one to Big Otter Creek at Bridge Street and the other to the beach at the extension of Erieus Street (near the new washroom facilities). The outlets will need to be designed and a permit issued from Long Point Region Conservation Authority. This option removes all infrastructure from private properties. The new storm system to the newly-sized outlets provides the Municipality with the most reliable and appropriate storm sewer system for current and future conditions. New infrastructure should be seen as an investment, reducing maintenance costs in the long term. This is why Alternative #4 is the recommended alternative. Actions Necessary for Implementation Y Ministry of the Environment and Climate Control Approvals for construction Y Permit from Long Point Region Conservation Authority for change to outlets Y Consultation with Ministry of Culture on potential Archeological Study requirements Y Construction drawings, tender and construction Preferred Alternative As with any project, there isn't necessarily a single answer for all the areas or problems within a municipality. Even though the recommended alternative is #4, with a new storm sewer system designed with new outlets, there are specific areas to be addressed within this alternative. Design Considerations The following sections describe what needs to be included in the design of the system and the Implementation Plan. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 19 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Flooding of Private Property It is known that there are many properties within the village with front yards lower than the street. The detailed design of the system should review this situation and incorporate solutions such as lowering the road, providing positive drainage, or installing catchbasins that are above the hydraulic grade line of the sewers in a 5-year event. By sizing the sewers to convey a 5-year storm, the amount of flooding on private property should be reduced. Additionally, the re-routing of sewers to be fully within the streets instead of discharging to overland flow routes crossing private properties will reduce the volume and regularity of overland flows across private property between disjointed portions of the sewer network. Priority of Work The previous work prepared by Meritech Engineering discussing Priorities was prepared in isolation of information on County Roads. Since this information has now been provided and reviewed, the Priorities need to be revised and applied to the Preferred Alternative. This has been done as part of the Implementation Plan. The methodology of applying the priorities is still valid, with priority being assigned to outlets, sewers that service a large area, and the existing conditions within each catchment area. Drainage Three distinct drainage catchments exist in the preferred alternative, each with their own outlet. The recommended outlet locations utilize existing outlets, with sizing based on the upstream catchments. Big Otter Creek is the receiver of drainage from the catchment that is roughly north of Wellington Street. Robinson Street and Waterloo Street contain the collector and trunk sewers, and the outlet to the creek is just south of Bridge Street. The southern catchment discharges to the Lake Erie Beach, at the terminus of Hagerman Street (beach parking and washrooms). The largest sewers are on Wellington Street, Erieus Street, and Brock Street; the sewers pass through the park between Brock Street and the lake as in the existing condition. Appendix C includes drawings showing the drainage catchments and preliminary sewer sizes for the north and south catchments, which are also shown on the sewer sizing sheets also included in Appendix C. The third catchment is the part of the village on the west side of the creek. The area of Addison Street, from (and including) Homer Street to Libbye Street, is predominately comprised of low impervious lots, and the sewer and ditch system along Addison Street is in good repair, so it is recommended that the Do Nothing alternative is used in this area. Following completion of the replacement of sewers on the east side of the creek, and dependent on funding, homeowner reports of flooding or failures, and observations made during the catchbasin cleanout program, the Municipality could consider replacing the sewers in this catchment. It is expected that the sewers would be sized to convey the 5- year flows, as with the sewers on the main part of the village. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 20 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH East Beach Design Project As part of this project, it is proposed to construct a parking facility and a boardwalk at the end of Robinson Street. This is a very desirable project for the village. The secondary desire is to enhance this area by removing the watercourse that currently exists from the sewer outlet to the water. The detailed design for the storm sewer should incorporate minimizing the flows directed to this outlet, so that it can be removed and replaced with a bio-swale or bio-retention garden that would accept minimal overland road drainage. Catchbasin Cleanout Program Though identified only as recommended for the Addison Street area, it is recommended that as part of the Implementation Plan, that cleanout of structures be undertaken for project areas that will not be immediately constructed. A maintenance program should be instigated through the Capital Budget for catchbasin cleaning, every year in perpetuity for all structures in the Municipality to ensure functionality of the system is optomized. Design Parameters Description of the storm parameters, runoff coefficients, minimum pipe slopes and diameters, as well as recommendations to road cross-sections are made in the Implementation Plan to describe the assumptions made through the analysis; these should be applied to the work programs to each project. Elgin County uses the MTO Drainage Manual for the design of their storm sewer systems, with a common practice of sizing for a 5-year storm and increasing one pipe diameter for contingency as necessary (Director of Engineering, Elgin County 2016). Where directed by the County, this concept can be implemented into each of the detailed design projects. It is recommended that consultation with the County take place early in the projects to ensure an understanding of the scope of work within the County Roads. Implementation Due to the scope of the project, implementation of the alternative into detailed design and construction will take time. It cannot all be reconstructed in a single year. It is therefore necessary to prioritize projects such that they are done in a logical order. As projects are prioritized, capital budgets will be approved and as external funding is provided projects will be designed and constructed. This section describes the prioritizing of the projects as well as the parameters to be included in the designs. The analysis of staging and prioritizing the sewers did not differentiate between sewers in Bayham streets versus sewers in Elgin County roads. This allowed the system to be reviewed as a whole, it is recognized that for the detailed design of each stage coordination with the County will be necessary and it is recommended that the consultant and staff request that the County be involved and incorporate the necessary works in their right of ways and construction programs. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 21 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH Priorities As with the Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report(Meritech 2015), priorities were assigned to lengths of sewer typically corresponding to a street between two cross-streets. The priority of a section is based on two numerical factors: Category This can be described as the importance that the section of pipe plays in the overall network. Outlets are the most important section, with the least important being the first legs of sewers at the high points of drainage divides. Three categories were assigned: the first legs of sewers called "local" sewers; 'collector" sewers which are created when two local sewers combine; and a 'trunk" that is created when two collector sewers combine. Local, collector, and trunk sewer sections were assigned scores of 1, 2, and 3. These scores indirectly measure the size of the catchment area each section services. Thus the larger the area draining to a pipe the higher the score. Existing Condition This is described as the significance of structural damage and/or blockages, as determined by the CCTV inspection performed as part of the previous work, or (when this information is not existent or when there are no sewers on a certain street the possible effects of not having storm sewers present). For example, in downtown areas it is important that storm sewers exist in order to avoid nuisance ponding, flooding of businesses, etc. One of four conditions was assigned to each section: great, good, fair, and collapsed/plugged. These correspond to scores of 1 through 4. Sections of existing sewer that were not video inspected in 2015, primarily on County roads, were assigned "fair" as the County has indicated most of the sewers on County roads are steel pipe, which is likely to be experiencing significant deterioration due to its age. The category score was added to the existing condition score for each section; the sections with largest numbers represent the greatest priority. For example, a pipe segment with a small catchment that services only a few houses, doesn't have many pipes connecting into it, and is in fair condition does not need to be replaced immediately. However, the pipe leading to the outlet, with a large number of pipes feeding into it and servicing a large catchment area, is ranked high on the priority. It is also worthy of note that the pipes that service the largest areas are of higher costs. The sewer classifications are in Figure 8 and the existing conditions are in Figure 9. The tables in Appendix D show the pipe segments as they were analysed, with their representative scores. From this analysis the priorities are determined, as shown on Figure 10. Three sections of sewer were ranked lower than an upstream section. These were manually assigned a high priority, as work necessarily will progress from the outlets heading upstream. Table 4 shows the breakdown of sections by priority. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 22 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH Priority Number of Sections Total Length Cost Estimate Priority 1 (High) 11 1564 $ 3,090,000 Priority 2 (Medium) 13 1973 $ 3,470,000 Priori 3 Low 16 2205 $ 3 520 000 Priori 4 Lowest 15 1241 $ 1,970,000 Totals 55 6884 $ 12,060,000 Table 4: Cost Estimates by Priority Cost Estimate Assumptions For the purposes of estimating an average cost per metre price for storm sewer replacement and road reconstruction, the following assumptions have been made: Y New 1.5m wide sidewalk, both sides of the road Y New curb and gutter (unless the right of way is less than 18m wide) Y Sub-drain along the full length of road, under both curbs Y Re-use Granular B road sub-base material Y Imported Granular A road base Y Re-pave the entire width of road with a 9.Om asphalt width (base pavement only) Y No costs for watermain or sanitary Y Existing asphalt in boulevards to be replaced with the same Estimates of 15% contingency, 15% for engineering were added to the estimates, HST was not included. For budgetary purposes, average costs of $1,600/m, $1,900/m, and $2,200/m were used for the local, collector, and trunk sewers (these include contingency and engineering). The exact cost for each section of road will depend on details that will be determined at the detailed design stage for each road, such as the amount of restoration work necessary in the boulevards, the number of structures required due to low points and intersections, exact sewer sizes, and local market rates. Sections not included Several sections of road are not included in the costing since there is no storm sewer (currently) proposed, including sections such as: Y Pitt Street east of Victoria Street (no storm sewer) Y Robinson Street from approx. 70m south of Pitt to the public beach Y Lake Shore Line over 100m east of Elizabeth Street (the extent and outlet of the existing drainage system is unclear) Y The intersection of Robinson Street and Victoria Street (and further north) During the detailed design stage for each stage, the exact limit of each stage will be confirmed with the Municipality and County, as required, and the budget estimate for each stage will be adjusted to reflect. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 23 U N L O L �l v � • 0 3 W Cp M M n L N O� LEGEND W �� M i Local o� �.� Collector r Br William age MacNeil Trunk Newton IOWL �C m M I Q' -I � Waterloo Hannah CD : _ c o w } Wellington — o CO LL Pitt Cz W O = U � ` U m Bros;;; ;� o � w ^' U M W U > N O U V C O g W o J N d L m W z � � � z � � J U N L O �0 Gl v � C N 3 •� 0 3 3 M LEGEND � o� WL`i 16 Great o� Good Fr Q, erja William Fai r 9'e � " Newton MacNeil Failed c� a� c � czCz U � (� C/) Hannah U) Waterloo J11 � c o W = Wellington . CD c i o rn LL oC oSho c� rO Pitt PITT ST ; a W U) Ajtt T \ c 0 +r o •— W Brock ` w U U � i m u _ V o — U m W CL LU J N C7 m W Z < .. Z Q Z < < w U N L w E O IJ L �1 v E C N 3 Way 3 M M M n L N O� LEGEND �o W o N.a rvi CC p]N ti High o� Medium r & I William 9e R�I I I I I -]/ - Newton MacNeil Low & °' Lowest Cz C U U Y (Tf Cz U) Hannah Waterloo LD D I I w M Wellingtor. c o o — o LM o Cz 4- cc: o Shur U Pitt � � a N_ w U A�tt TS> Brock0 w Y V w w F- W ^'� � N W i t M V C o /0 L U P1 a J N W m W Z � Z Q Z � � J Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH Determining Stage Limits Included in Appendix E are the priority rankings of each of the sections of road/sewer in Port Burwell. There are two straightforward ways to group these sections of road into stages: 1. By priority 2. By' neighbourhood"or area of the village Both options have advantages and disadvantages, as listed below in Table 5. Advantages Disadvantages By priority Highest priority sections get Highest priorities are generally reconstructed first. the highest cost; thus, the annual costs would be highest Outlets are reconstructed first. at the beginning. Especially for medium priority sections: sections with the same priority are spread out over the village, resulting in a fragment d work program. By neighbourhood Least disruption to residents: work Difficult to determine where would commence and be complete the limits of each in one year in any given area. neighbourhood should be Combination of small and large Need to determine an average sewers and fewer"connect to priority score, to determine existing" locations results in lower which neighbourhood gets costs. worked on first Larger work areas allow the May not replace all of the contractor suitable highest priority sections at the stockpiling/storage areas. very beginning. Reduced restoration costs. Table 5: Stage Creation Methodology Comparison A hybrid solution that takes the advantages from both of these methods and seeks to minimize the disadvantages is proposed. Shown in Table 6 and Figure 11 are the proposed five stages of reconstruction. Stages 1 and 3 include all of the high priority sections; stages 2, 4, and 5 are mainly lower priority. The dividing line between Stages 1 and 3 on Robinson Street is at Pitt Street, allowing for access to the downtown core and the HMCS Ojibwa submarine site during both stages. Similarly, the Port Burwell Public School is at the intersection of several stages, ensuring that there will be adequate access points throughout the entire construction plan. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 27 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH The tables in Appendix E show the stages, their average priority, and the associated rough cost estimates. These estimates are based on the information available at the time this report was prepared, and without the benefit of detailed design. Stage 3 (the outlet to the northern system) could be moved ahead to follow Stage 1 immediately. Several considerations that may influence this decision would be the impact to downtown businesses by having back-to-back summers of construction, availability of funding, and timing of Stage 1 (potentially over multiple years). Stage Total Length Average Priority Cost Estimate Score Stage 1 2018 1,385 5.1 $ 2,460,000 Stage 2 (2019-2020) 1,660 4•2 $ 2,800,000 Stage 3 (2021) 1,694 4.8 $ 3,040,000 Stage 4 2022-2023 1,210 4.1 $ 2,060,000 Stage 5 (2024-2025) 1,034 4.1 $ 1,700,000 Totals 6,983 $ 12,060,000 Table 6: Cost Estimates by Stage Design Objectives The design objectives for future work are to: 1. Mitigate flooding on private property 2. Design all sewers to convey the 5-year storm event 3. Construct roads with curb and gutter to effectively convey surface flows 4. Reconstruct storm sewer and surface works only; no reconstruction of sanitary or watermain is expected Design Criteria These design criteria are intended to guide future work in Port Burwell, and could be expanded upon by the Municipality in the future. They are the assumptions made during the Master Drainage Study process to prepare the conceptual drainage plans, sewer sizes and catchments discussed in the preferred alternative. They should be used in the detailed design stages. General 1. The storm sewer design shall be completed in accordance with the latest version of the Ministry of the Environment's Design Guidelines for Sewage Works(currently 2008 version) or the design standards listed below. 2. OPSS and OPSD should be utilized for construction. 3. Foundation drainage should be directed to the storm sewer system through the use of sump pumps, whenever possible. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 28 cp O C U ry •� 0 3 ouu�w Liuium�'I z aS LL 1 �O W a M 1 LEGEND Stage 4 $ 2.1m Stage 5 $ 1.7m o t William High Priority JK I er�e90 " Newton Sections MacNeil Cz a� C U 'Y Cz CzHannah Waterloo ♦ I Stage 3 $ IOm •r -� o w Wellington . c CD o C) L Stage 2 $ 2.8m = CakEL e Sh Li orc, U � ` Pitt " Cz N N w U A�� .T ♦ m 0 Brock Y w w C ^_^`` u o _fa w Stage 1 $ 2.5m a N i CO c 3 v,.-J fu v/ � J N n � l7 m w 'JU Z z < Z � 0 LL MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Roads 1. All streets with a right of way width greater than or equal to 18m should have OPSD 600.100, Concrete Mountable Curb with Narrow Gutter along both sides of the street. 2. The minimum driving width (edge of pavement to edge of pavement) should be 9.0m. 3. Wherever feasible, front yards and the boulevards are to drain towards the street. 4. 100mm diameter sub-drain is to be provided under the curb Sewers 1. Sewers to be designed using the Rational Method (Q=A x I x C) to 90% of capacity. All sewers are to be designed for the 5-year storm event. a. The Municipality of Bayham will maintain a design spreadsheet that will be used to confirm the ability to convey flows as proposed by development, redevelopment, building permit applications where connections to the storm sewer system are provided or the percent impervious is increased from the existing condition 2. A time of concentration(Tc) of 10 minutes should be used for the first leg of sewers, as per MOE guidelines. 3. Double catchbasins and double catchbasin manholes are to be provided at all low points. 4. Minimum storm sewer size to be 300mm diameter, except for single catchbasin leads which can be 200mm diameter, and double catchbasin leads which can be 250mm diameter. 5. Roughness coefficient'n' to be 0.013 for PVC and concrete sewer, and 0.024 for CSP 6. Pipes installed with less than 1.2m cover between finished grade and crown of pipe shall be insulated as per OBC Volume 2 section A-7.3.5.1.(1) using 2" rigid insulation. 7. Minimum slope is 0.5% or full flow velocity of 0.6m/s, whichever is greater. 8. Maximum velocity is 6m/s (actual or with full flow). 9. Blind connections are not allowed unless approved by Public Works. 10. Maximum size for flexible pipe (PVC, HDPE) is 600mm. Runoff coefficients: Residential Single family 0.40 - 0.45 Semi-detached 0.45 - 0.60 Townhouses 0.50 - 0.70 Apartments 0.60 - 0.75 Institutional 0.40 - 0.75 Commercial 0.75 - 0.85 Industrial 0.65 - 0.75 Open Space 0.25 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 30 Port Burwell Master Drainage Study MERITECH Design storm parameters: a b c 2-year 747.96 7.467 0.8048 5-year 1007.05 7.382 0.8040 10- ear 1181.90 7.382 0.8041 100-year 1660.60 6.875 0.7978 Frames and Grates/Covers 1. Standard frame and grate for Catchbasins and Catchbasin Manholes is OPSD 400.030 "Square V Grate with Herring Bone Openings". 2. Manhole covers to be as per OPSD 401.010, 'closed"for sanitary and 'open"for storm. Catchbasins 1. 600mm deep sump. 2. Maximum spacing between manholes to be 90m (0%-4% road gradient), or 60m (over 4% road gradient). Manholes 1. Manholes shall be located at the end of each run and at all changes in direction, slope, and size. 2. Manhole sizing as per manufacturer's specifications; OPSD 701.021 used as a guide during design. Minimum size to be 1200mm diameter. 3. Catchbasins and catchbasin manholes should have a 600mm deep sump, other structures are to be benched. 4. Maximum spacing between structures is 120m (sewers 375mm diameter and less) or 150m (larger), unless catchbasin manholes, then the catchbasin spacing applies. 5. Unless pipe diameters change, drops through manholes should be 0.03m for 01 through 450 changes in flow direction, and 0.06m for changes between 460 and 900. Flows should not turn more than 901. Sewers larger than 1200mm diameter should not turn more than 450 a. When the pipe diameter increases through a manhole, the obvert of the incoming smaller pipe should not be lower than the obvert of the outgoing pipe. 6. When the difference in inverts between an incoming and outgoing pipe exceeds 0.60m, a drop structure is required. Pre-cast external drop structures are preferred, but internal structures can be used on existing structures. R\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 31 MERITE0H Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Outlets 1. Pre-cast concrete headwalls shall be used as per OPSD 804.030 and 804.040. 2. Grates as per OPSD 804.050. 3. A handrail as per OPSD 980.101 shall be installed around headwalls exceeding a height of 0.6m. Service Connections 1. Min. 100mm services, at 1% minimum slope (2%-8% preferred). Risers should be used to avoid steeper services and/or when the sewer is greater than 4m deep 2. Service connections to the main sewer should be made using factory-made tees or wyes, or strap-on-saddles. Tees or wyes should be used wherever the diameter of the sewer main is less than 450mm or less than twice the diameter of the service connection. F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 32 Appendix A; Public Consultation MERITECIrI F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx MERITE0H Meeting Minutes Meeting #1 Date: January 29, 2016 Time: 2:30pm Location: Elgin County Building, St. Thomas Re: Class EA for Port Burwell Project Kick-off Attendance: Clayton Watters, Elgin County Peter Dutchak, Elgin County Paul Shipway, Municipality of Bayham Chris Togeretz, Meritech Amanda Froese, Meritech Item Discussion Item Action 1.0 Notice of Study, EA Process -advertise in papers, website. Send to Paul. MER -contact school for use policy MER 1.1 Agencies to circulate -No additions to list Info -No circulation to First Nations necessary Info -Meritech to meet with Conservation Authority MER 1.2 County involvement -County needs assessment done on their infrastructure, prepare MER quotation to inspect and determine size, invert and location. No CCTV. -County roads to work with drainage system as determined in MER preferred alternative. Analysis entire town as a single system. -Size County Roads for 5-year, go up one size for contingency MER -Sensitivity analysis for small streets, 2-year or 5-year events MER 1.3 Storm sewer network and how the County Roads interrelate -Unknown at this time, MTO 1950 drawings to be sent to Meritech COUNTY -Send County sizing information MER 1.4 Timing for County works in Port Burwell -MRI on Port Burwell in 2019, was for resurfacing but will incorporate Info elements necessary for storm sewer, including curb and gutter replacement if necessary 1.5 Finance and Cost Sharing -County to contribute to their size needed if sewers are in poor All condition for their drainage, oversizing to be paid by Bayham. -County has included budget for asphalt, etc. Cost estimate and All MEV2014 K:\Projects\4423\00-Admin\PM\Bayham EA Meeting Minutes.docx January 29,2016 Page 2 MERITECH discussion to follow for costs above storm sewer works. -Longterm planning from general levy (Bayham) and grant programs Info -Both Bayham and County to apply together for funding when All appropriate (Province and Federal Government) Agenda prepared by: MERITECH ENGINEERING MEV2014 K:\Projects\4423\00-Admin\PM\Bayham EA Meeting Minutes.docx January 29,2016 Page 3 Notice issued: February 22, 2016 PORT BURWELL MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT The study The Municipality of Bayham has initiated the development of a master drainage study for Port Burwell to lay out a long-term strategy for the repair and replacement of the storm sewer network. The master drainage study will be carried out by Meritech Engineering, who have recently identified that the storm sewer system throughout Port Burwell is deficient and does not currently serve the Municipality's or its residents' needs. The purposes of the study are to investigate alternatives for storm drainage in Port Burwell and produce a master drainage plan that will guide the Municipality to a future storm drainage network (pipes and outlets) that will be able to serve the Municipality's and residents' needs. The study will enable the Municipality of Bayham to identify opportunities to repair/replace the storm sewer network together with road repair and reconstruction projects. The study area includes most of Port Burwell. The study was authorized by �, BI pTTER 19 PORT Bayham Council on 2 cAM GRouNDS BURELL December 17, 2015 and will COWP�/� follow the Master Plan @PATHFINLIERMAPS process described in the OJT Municipal Class Environmental Assessment T N N ® M (MCEA) manual, October " "LU 7p 2000, as amended 2007 & �R7PAIFK A L-L BURWELL �� �1 � �'0 2011. The study is being r TE oo� � N undertaken as a Schedule C �, Y Z I� L BYE ¢ J project. o o LU � 142 WF L!N ©N W We want to hear from 39 OM RACE you I�J T Public consultation is a key BROCfS FJGHT 0 part of this study. The `+ LL 0 proposed consultation planRMAN _ -- provides for public information centres at two points in the study: Spring 2016 — to review the problem statements; and early Fall 2016 — to review preliminary alternatives and examine the recommended design. In addition, there will be an opportunity to review the final Master Drainage Study report prior to completion. The first public information centre (PIC) date and details will be advertised and posted in the calendar at bayhem.on.ca. Meeting notices will also be circulated to neighbourhood residents. Study contacts All those with an interest in the study are urged to attend. If you have any questions or wish to be added to the study mailing list, please contact: Project Manager: Mr. Paul Shipway, CAO Consultant: Ms. Amanda Froese, P.Eng. FEC Municipality of Bayham Meritech Engineering 9344 Plank Road 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202 Straffordville, ON NOJ 1YO Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2 (519) 866-5521 (519) 623-1140 pshipway@bayhem.on.ca amandaf@meritech.ca PORT BURWELL MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE The study The Municipality of Bayham has initiated the devel- 19 PORT opment of a master drainage study for Port Burwell BURWELL C w°Fq to lay out a long term strategy for the repair and E ©°"'""°E"A°s replacement of the storm sewer network.The mas- " ter drainage study will be carried out by Meritech �p o Engineering,who have recently identified that the spa eu" s F 50 " storm sewer system throughout Port Burwell is w 0 deficient and does not currently serve the Munici- s �`� 142 pality's or its residents' needs. 39 Q 1 R, , The purposes of the study are to investigate m� alternatives for storm drainage in Port Burwell and produce a master drainage plan that will guide the Municipality to a future storm drainage network(pipes and outlets)that will be able to serve the Municipality's and residents' needs.The study will enable the Municipality of Bayham to identify opportunities to repair/replace the storm sewer network together with road repair and reconstruction projects.The study area includes most of Port Burwell. The study was authorized by Bayham Council on December 17,2015 and will follow the Master Plan process described in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment(MCEA) manual,October 2000,as amended 2007&2011.The study is being undertaken as a Schedule C project. We want to hear from you Public consultation is a key part of this study.The proposed consultation plan provides for public infor- mation centres at two points in the study:Spring 2016—to review the problem statements; and early Fall 2016—to review preliminary alternatives and examine the recommended design.In addition,there will be an opportunity to review the final Master Drainage Study report prior to completion. The first public information centre(PIC)will be held on Date:Saturday June 18,2016 Time:1:00 to 3:00 pm Location:Port Burwell Public School,Gymnasium Study contacts All those with an interest in the study are urged to attend.If you have any questions or wish to be added to the study mailing list,please contact: Project Manager: Mr.Paul Shipway,CAD Consultant: Ms.Amanda Froese,P.Eng.FEC Municipality of Bayham Meritech Engineering 9344 Plank Road 1315 Bishop Street North,Suite 202 Straffordville,ON NOJ 1YO Cambridge,ON N1 R 6Z2 (519)866.5521 (519)623.1140 pshipway@bayham.on.ca amandaf@meritech.ca 8c t engineering �bpo-rtunity Welcome Port Burwell - . . - Study Schedule Public InformationCentre • June 18 , 2016 Port Burwell • • • 11 • 11 • Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Class EA ` { The Class EA Process has been initiated out of the results of a study of the existing storm sewer network Op�'ortunity Is"�'� The goal is to propose an appropriate drainage system for the Village of Port Burwe#that satisfies the needs of the community and the Municipality. The current study has prepared alternatives to address drainage and deficiencies in the system, a guiding document will be prepared to guide the Municipality in future storm water works. Tonight will: To provide an opportunity for residents to add input into the study Please sign the registration sheet Please approach the design team to discuss concerns and personal experience Deficiencies are to being recorded by the design team, and your input is appreciated. To provide an update to residents and Council as to existing conditions, and alternative solutions Please review the information boards Please provide comments on the alternatives through the comment sheets a A or contact the design team below: SL Contact information: Amanda Froese, P. Eng. Paul Shipway, CAO Meritech Engineering Municipality of Bayham 1315 Bishop St. N Suite 202 9344 Plank Road The study area includes the entire Village of Port Burwell. It will analyse all options within the scope of the Village and draining to the existing Cambridge ON, N1S 4S2 Straffordville,ON NOJ lY0 outlets. This includes sections of streets without storm sewers (519)623-1140 (519) 566-5521 currently. amandaf@meritech.ca pshipwayC@bayham.on.ca Pur • ose for • Information Center MERIT ECH engineering Project Description & Class EA Process 9 �p�r'tsenity�sYov Roadways are fitted with storm sewers that collect rain water and convey it to an appropriate outlet. Storm systems can be either in pipes, ditches or a combination. These sewers are design to carry an amount of rainwater that is recommended by the Ministry of the Environment. Port Burwell has 5 known outlets to Big Otter Creek or Lake Erie. The storm sewers in Port Burwell do not meet the recommended design criteria from the Ministry of the Environment. The storm sewers in many areas of Port Burwell are in poor condition and are in need of repair or replacement due to condition. The County of Oxford owns and maintains storm sewers within their roads. 0 The Municipality of Bayham has a number of options: • Alternative 1 : Do Nothing • Alternative 2: Repair the existing system with the same outlets, same size sewers • Alternative 3: Correct the system to meet current standards, same outlets Alternative 4: Correct the system to meet current standards with new outlets/removing outlets Phase 2:Alternative implementation •... Solutions ------------- Identify Problem Identify alternative solutions'.' Notice of Completion to review Prepare 'designs for Public Notice of Project Inventory natural,social,economic Agencies and Public individual road Project Initiation Environment 30-day review period reconstruction projects Identify Impact of Alternative Solutions Master Drainage Report presented Proceed to construction Public Information Centre#1 to Council and Public. Select Preferred Alternative Today Oday Confirm Schedule B Class EA MERIT ECH engineering gp,YHAA,1 Alternative Do Nothing atancty I Legend Leave the existing system in its current condition: ; Outlet Location HOM®t Sr C Outlet numtei- With Yconot rtions that are clogged or brokenand convey flows °°"With portions of the system that appear not ST to have an outlet"' �` -1 _ With sewers located on private property a r - - _ MUM Sr TENNYSON Si' PEW%MMN$T Although the Do Nothing option does i not have an initial associated cost, Sr !-' T� HNIWIST maintaining the system is not possible — - and risk to the Municipality for damage F.r I �o 5,1, caused by flooding may cost the Municipality in the future '; 4 " Sr ► This option may be applied in part or 77 ' —~I in whole for the Village of Port Burwell. - Sr Sr --� Existing storm sewer system A MERi - ECH engineering $p,YHAA fK Alternative #2 - Repair the ■ O�1'�i'tsenity IsY�'Y'�e Exiting System Legend Prepare a system that is within the aOutlet 1-cation same alignment, location, size as HER Ex. to be replaced the existing system COWPER 57 —Ex.Pipes to remain 1 Outlet Number Sewer capacity will not be increased to carry larger storm flows SCUmIl� Sewers remain within private property, easements may be requested TENN�N� Outlet to the beach at the end of - 'E � NEWTON ST Robinson Street remains ' BURW€LC ST �' 1 5r WATERl00 - HANNAH Sr Minimal work on outlets to Big Otter - - Creek - - School 11BBYE Sf dy � All outlets remain _ - - �® � a WE 'Groh Sr Minimal work or no work proposed in 4 areas where road side ditches can "�� convey the flows to an outlet (such as Addison Street) + Current "ditch' through village remains L�Repaired sewer system MERi - ECH engineering gp,YHAA,1 Alternative # 3 Replace System Z with the Same C� utlets Qrr���ty ® Design a system for Port Burwell that conveys storm flows in accordance Leeend with Ministry of the Environment i outlet Location Standards using the outlets in the --- Drainage Divide existing location. "�� / Increased pipe sizes throughout the village, ICDW7ST with sewers sized to convey a 2 or5-year storm event t ""l"� Road side ditches on local streets may / \ o M�n! convey flows up to the 5-year storm when combined with the sewers N � , -- Outlets to Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie will auR�� $ 1 • be increased in size to convey designed - - • flows weave sr I ' � £ I•� Outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson o *ibWa • WEWNGNNST Street remains (optional) i pr, "Ditch" through village remains, but sewer re-routed around private property Minimal work proposed within Addison o �°°`� I Street area New Storm Sewer - MERIT CH engineering gp,YHAA,1 Alternative #4 - Replace System {& with NewOutlets ppa���=��SYoo -.. Legend ► Design a system for Port Burwell that _--- i Outlet Location conveys storm flows in accordance with Ministry of the Environment � R� ' —.0 Drainage Divide Standards usingthe outlets in the ` ',-- �-Latchme,tae �owrExs • �utletNumber existing location. . ` Increased pipe sizes throughout the village, y E11T ,=•"i; { ``; to convey a 2 or 5-year storm event Road side ditches on local streets may TEMYS]NST wiuuN- 1 r I - - convey flows up to the 5-year storm when combined with the sewers NE EURWELL Sf x t NkNNWi Sf r Outlets to BigOtter Creek and Lake Erie will 1 !- Wa�Ra�� be increased in size to convey designed nooi f — "' flows - ,-.�•=• Outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson WEWNGTGN 57 - Street is removed Minimal work proposed within Addison Z I : Street area ru Excavation depths over 5m along Robinson Its New . Sewer - MERIT ECH engineering Evaluation of Alternatives oA Aaiq.unity is,t 0 Evaluation D• Nothing Repair Existing System Same Outlets New Outlets Conveyance Capacity 1 2 5 5 (Can it convey an appropriate storm event?) Completeness of System Serviced 1 2 5 5 (How much of the village is serviced?) Physical Environment- 5 5 3 3 Big Otter Creek, Lake Erie Beach (does construction impact) Social Environment (How does it 2 3 4 5 affect local residents, businesses, property and built heritage) Financial 5 4 2 1 (What level of immediate financial resources) 14 16 19 19 1 =negative, 3=moderate, 5=positive MERIT ECH engineering Considerations / Further Discussion ► Does Solution have to be the same for the entire ► What if the Municipality doesn't have the funds for village? the solution? NO. The proposed work plan will present work to be done in Addison Street area can be considered separate as it is well 201 71201 8, and will provide recommendations for future serviced with road side ditches, outlets to the ravine and protect scopes. Council will review this report annually with the Ca ital budget work to determine which projects storm inlets. Maintenance of this system is recommended; will be funded in each year. Priority was previously cleaning out structures, flushing pipes. identified for areas with known concerns. ► Small diameter outlet at the end of Robinson Street ► How will this affect landowners? is a nuisance to the beach, can it be eliminated? Construction will occur within the roadways, installation Yes. of new storm sewers, catchbasins and manholes will be done by contractors. Minimal grading may occur on By redirecting some flows north and removing sewers. yards, and residents will be able to view the plans prior to Rainwater flows from the street would remain overland to construction. Disturbance to residents can be minimized, a "bio-Swale" constructed along the edge of the road and by providing access nightly to driveways, and curb-side the parking lot, that will allow for cleaning of the water, garbage collection can be done by the contractor. and then it will infiltrate into the beach. Large storm events will flow over the bio-swale. Constructing this ► What is the perceived effect on the beach? system as an amenity feature to be protected is proposed. Increasing a storm outlet size will allow for larger storm events to drain out to the beach. The drainage area ► Are County Roads any different than local roads? increase will result in more water being directed through Yes. the pipes to the existing outlet, and pond area. It is not a o Approval from the County is required for work on their significant change. road s. Co-ordination with the County may affect timing, the County has plans for resurfacing of their roads and construction can be co-ordinated. Working with the County will also be done to apply for Provincial Grants. MERIT ECH engineering $p,YHA� Preferred Alternative ( - { OAp��•anity�sY6v y Replace System New Outlets ► Increased pipe sizes throughout the village, Legend with County Road sized to convey a 5-year i OutletLocation storm, and local streets sized to convey a 2- _. . Drainage Divide year storm. .•/��.� Catchment and ► Sewers removed from private properties roWMn #®� ; �OutletWrnber ► Storm sewer under museum removed (to Big �� P ""~ ;••.,, Otter Creek) •" -� .j ► Road side ditches on local streets may 1 .�.. Y r � � , 1 w4wa+sr • convey flows up to the 5-year storm when combined with the sewers F I • ► Outlets Lake Erie will be increased in size to designed flows Existing Outlet conve Y desi g �� n to be repaired ► Outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson ICD , H'^C5 'wa ,tiet�,deiStreet is removed, integrate with a bio-swale I� donedbe and drainage from parking lot Existing sewers and i.- swales to remain, I . - ► Minimal work proposed within Addison pawed°rl Street area ' —: � _: �'' ►, .,W �;"• . ► Construction required through local streets r,�� '•�r •`� ! + ...� Outlet in slope to to be carried out over next 20 years • be abandoned z 8i°Swale garden Enlarged Outlet to at end of Robinson beaNew Storm Sewer System MERIT ECH engineering gp,YHA�1 Next Steps 11;"P�i'texnity ► Review comments and suggestions from the public and circulated agencies ► Confirm the preferred alternative based on input Assess and propose work plan to meet preferred alternative ► Present Master Plan at Council Meeting September 1 5t" with final Master Plan Report for approval by Council ► The Municipality of Bayham will accept the report and use it to guide future works within the village ► Individual reconstruction projects will be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the report To provide comments : Amanda Froese, P. Eng. Paul Shipway, CAO Meritech Engineering Municipality of Bayham 1 31 5 Bishop St. N Suite 202 9344 Plank Road Cambridge ON, N IS 4S2 Straffordville, ON NOJ 1 YO (519) 623-1140 (519) 566-5521 amandaf@meritech.ca pshipway@bayham.on.ca M Ez Fz� iU ECH engineering X-YHAlt REPORT CAO urtunity ILS 0 TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: June 16, 2016 REPORT: CAO-41/16 SUBJECT: EAST BEACH DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS BACKGROUND On April 7, 2016 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT Harbourfront Committee proposal re Port Burwell East Beach Landscape Improvement be received for information; AND THAT staff be directed to elevate and seed Part 'A' within the current confines of the drainage outlet; AND THAT staff be directed to bring back detailed design considerations and East Beach plan with public consultation plan for Council consideration. DISCUSSION As per the direction of Council landscape improvements were conducted in the month of April 2016, with the assistance of the Harbourfront Committee and a local soil donor. Staff worked with the Municipal Engineer, Spriets, to develop the East Beach Design Considerations, attached hereto as Appendix 'A'. The parameters utilized by staff and the Municipal Engineer when compiling the proposed detailed design drew upon previous community submitted considerations and the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan. A plan which determined that to create a vibrant and attractive waterfront, the following key principles should be followed during the design process, including: environmental preservation and conservation; safety and security; continuity and connectivity. These principles were balanced against financial realities, land ownership and integration of any design considerations into complementing project schedules. The Waterfront Master Planning project was an initiative undertaken by the Municipality of Bayham with the primary objective to identify strategic future public investments in services, facilities, access and parking that will contribute to the waterfront as a tourist and recreational area for local residents and visitors. Any works to be completed following consultation would be subject to a final survey of the lands, specifically the west side of the Robinson St. turnaround, and LPRCA approvals. PARKING: As noted within the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan the Municipally-owned parking lot on the east side of the Robinson St. turnaround provides parking for approximately 50-60 cars. The informal parking lot on the west side of the Robinson St. turnaround provides an additional 50-60 spots. It is the goal of the municipality to provide for approximately 150-200 parking spaces adjacent to the public beach in the future. The design proposes 150 spots (86 and 64 respectively) with room for 4 trailer parking spots. The design also proposes extension of the exterior parking post and rope system and parking islands to give structure to the parking area. The design also contemplates a fresh topping of gravel, with only the accessible parking spots being paved. ACCESSIBILITY&CONNECTIVITY The Municipality currently has a Capital Item for consideration to rebuild a larger accessible viewing platform. The design considerations attached hereto propose a larger accessible platform, with room for picnic tables and seating, along with a boardwalk connecting the East Pier to the parking lot and washrooms. The connectivity would greatly improve the accessibility of the Port Burwell East Beach. ENVIRONMENTAL&SUSTAINABILITY Building on the work of the Otter Valley Naturalists the design proposes to remove a number of trees, many of which have been vandalized and killed. The ability to integrate trees into the exterior parking delineation and parking islands would eventually provide shade in the future. Additionally once the area is established, partnerships with LPRCA and the Otter Valley Naturalists can be strengthened to provide environmental and sustainable education and information signage. As noted from the Waterfront Master Plan: In addition to the diversity of land types, one of the defining characteristics of the Port Burwell Waterfront is the vast amount of mown turf. While this provides important areas for recreation, there seems to be a greater amount than what is needed and the resulting consequence to sustainability and maintenance is considerable. The most successful wildlife habitats should include a range of ecosystems with extended transition zones. These "edge"conditions frequently house the richest diversity of species. Additionally, maintaining a continuous band or "greenway"is a good method of establishing healthy species diversity and stable populations. In many communities, municipalities have taken the innovative step of replacing some large areas of turf with wildflower meadows, as well as planting trees and establishing diverse shorelines. These measures may be more successful if they become part of a longer-term strategy of interconnected habitat that spans the length of the shoreline. This approach would also create a diversity of experience for beach visitors, tourist and local users. In consultation with the Otter Valley Naturalists, the community group has undertaken a number of these naturalization efforts including Tree Planting in Memorial Park and naturalization planting in the drainage swale within the beach. ROBINSON ST TURNAROUND A focal point of the community submissions to date has been the reconstruction of the Robinson St. turnaround. As the turnaround currently plays an important role in the Port Burwell Storm Sewer System staff respectfully recommend leaving the turnaround and integrating its reconstruction to current standards at the conclusion of the Port Burwell Storm Sewer Environmental Assessment. Possibly ready for grant application in 2017 and construction in 2018 if funding is approved. FUTURE INITIATIVES The proposed design considerations would also be a starting point for future initiatives including better connectivity to Memorial Park, downtown and the Otter Valley Utility Corridor Trail. CONSULTATION To obtain community input on the proposed design and possible alternatives and options staff would respectfully recommend Council to post an East Beach Consultation on the municipal website including Report CAO 41/16 and the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan. Notice of Consultation would be posted online, at the municipal office and libraries. Consultation would run June 17, 2016 - July 15, 2016 at noon (28 days — 19 business days), following which comments could be incorporated into a staff report to be presented at the July 21, 2016 meeting of Council. Following Council direction on July 21, 2016 staff could incorporate direction into the 2017 Budgets for Council consideration during budget deliberation. COSTING-FUNDING The costing of the project attached hereto is greater than the entire 2016 Capital Levy. To move forward with East Beach Improvements, once directed and approved by council, staff would propose the following options: 1) Conduct smaller line items (rope/posts, bury hydro service) towards year end if budget savings exist and with public works staff where possible. 2) Budget for components of the project in the 2017 and beyond budgets. 3) Make application to the Enabling Accessibility Fund for the Boardwalk/Accessible Viewing Platform component of the project— max. contribution $50,000. a. The Community Accessibility Stream is currently open and accepting applications until July 26, 2016. To be considered eligible for funding, projects must be directly related to removing barriers and increasing accessibility for people with disabilities in Canadian communities. i. Should Council support this specific component of the design staff would respectfully recommend Council direction to commence completing the application for the Boardwalk/Accessible Viewing Platform. 4) Make application to the Ontario Trillium Fund or its successor Capital Grant Program when available. a. Due to Ontario Trillium Fund (OTF) budget changes and the upcoming launch of a new $25 million community capital program that OTF will administer on behalf of the government of Ontario, OTF are suspending the investment stream for capital grants. OTF will release a new deadline at a later date when details of the new community capital program are finalized. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-41/16 re East Beach Design Considerations be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council direct staff to post an East Beach Consultation as contemplated within Report CAO 41/16 and report back to Council July 21, 2016; 3. AND THAT Council direct staff to make application to the Enabling Accessibility Fund for the Boardwalk/Accessible Viewing Platform as contemplated within Report CAO 41/16. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO LAKE ERIE .......................... EX,BEACH AREA MA B�O2001ER EX.PIER 1� �� r r 0 n-r�rlrrr -r rlJ r�_ra • o 0 Y . . , RIM$�E EX,BEACH AREA s EX, PIER 1111111J=CrC111J_ o • ® --- --�-- PROPOSED 3 m � , WIDE BOARDALK a- � PROPOSED EX.TREE EX.BE OBSERVATION DECK REMOVED REMOVED -. EX.TREE TO BE -------- REMOVED .._ KEY PLANPROPOSED 3 m WIDE BOARDWALK EX.TREE TO BE _ REMOVED SCALE: NTS EX.TREE TO BE I I REMOVED — _ EX.WASHROOM — — BE FACILITY i I I EX.TREE TO BE REMOVED Gt EX.TREE J TO BE POST AND ROPE FENCE REMOVED O 8" POSTS- 8' O/G IEX. PAVEMENT NATURAL SAND EX.FENCE TO BE REMOVED EDGE OF PROP.PAWING EX.WASHROOM 15 O PROPOSED GRAVEL — L FACILITY TO PRO •DIVIp ISLAN TURN AROUND AREA BE REMOVED ER�EUS SynD EE ING LO ? 10, . 0 z Ex. GRAVEL ? PROPOSED EDGE OF PARKING LOT ASPHALT ON NEW ROUNDABOUT O O O O BM NAIL IN HP 176.086 EX.HYDRO SERVICE s./. TO BE BURIED TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PAWING— — — — — — H.P. EX.GUARD RAIL — 31 s./. . EDGE OF PROP.PARKINCs — EX.CONC.BLOCKS — — _ TO BE REMOVED j H.P. PROPSED SIGN "PORT BURWELL" I O Q O PLAN SCALE: 1 : 250 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLANS JOB 216117 � - _ _ SPRIET ASSOCIATES PORT IMPROVEMENTS architects - engineers PORT BURWELL EAST BEACH MAY 31 2016 1 SPRIET ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS&ARCHITECTS 155 York Street London,Ontario N6A 1A8 Tel.(519)672-4100 Fax(519)433-9351 E-mail: mailfspriet.ca ,vww.spriet.ca Port Burwell East Beach Improvements Municipality of Bayham 8-Jun-16 Item No. Description Estimated Cost 1 Construct concrete curbs and islands $ 19,000.00 I 2 Construct 3.Om ( 10' wide) boardwalk with landing on sono tube piers and 2x611 pressure treated decking $ 160,000.00 3 Supply and Install Rope Fence with posts at 2.4m on centre $ 7,500.00 4 Regrade parking areas with 200mm of Granular'A' $ 55,000.00 i 5 Supply and Install asphalt at entrances $ 15,000.00 6 Bury electrical service including disconnect $ 10,000.00 I i 7 Tree planting( 30 trees) $ 8,250.00 8 Supply and Install Port Burwell sign including foundations $ 67,000.00 I 9 Contigency Allowance $ 25,000.00 i Total $ 366,750.00 Associates:A.M.SPRIET•J.R.SPRIET• K. McILMURRAY • M.P. DEVOS•J.M.SPRIET• C.S. LIERMAN •A.T.ALTENLIU OPEN HOUSE / INFORMATION CENTRE Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Class EA ■ o ■ ■ 3.00 , , � r 4POjrtunity Port Burwell t c i Public COMMENT SHEET 'a a > w w , s� a e n- „ lot �." _ t "�� � 9 mow, rs * a" Ave- w r 4 r� ou err, x x Name: Telephone No.: "'-4 h A � . Address: OPEN HOUSE / INFORMATION CENTRE Port Burwell Master Drainage Studv Class EA June 18,, 2016 1:00 p.m. 3:00 �b4pojrtuxljty Is Port Burwell Public School Gymnasium REGISTRATION SHEET � �4 3 k r +fi S Name (Please Print) Address Email/Telephone 44� 2. Cw 4.+Wr, '0Z CW-Ci A!n AV k1A s � A" e e: e 6. 7® s 9. 1 ® 11® 1 . 3® 1 ® 1 ® Ministry of Tourism, Ministere du Tourisme, 1 Culture and Sport de la Culture et du Sport Heritage Program Unit Unite des programmes patrimoine • 'r Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services Ontario 401 Bay Street,Suite 1700 401, rue Bay, Bureau 1700 Toronto ON WA OA7 Toronto ON WA OA7 Tel: 416 314 7145 Te1: 416 314 7145 Fax: 416 212 1802 Te1ec: 416 212 1802 April 5, 2016 (EMAIL ONLY) Amanda Froese, P.Eng Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202 Cambridge, ON N 1 R 6Z2 E: amandaf@meritech.ca RE: MTCS file#: 0004358 Proponent: Municipality of Bayham Subject: Notice of Commencement, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Port Burwell Master Drainage Study Location: Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham, Elgin County, Ontario Dear Amanda Froese: Thank you for providing the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS)with the Notice of Commencement for your project. MTCS's interest in this EA project relates to its mandate of conserving Ontario's cultural heritage, which includes: Archaeological resources, including land-based and marine; Built heritage resources, including bridges and monuments; and, Cultural heritage landscapes. Under the EA process, the proponent is required to determine a project's potential impact on cultural heritage resources. Realizing that this is a Master Plan Study, developing or reviewing inventories of known and potential cultural heritage resources within the study area can identify specific resources that may play a significant role in guiding the evaluation of alternatives for subsequent project-driven EAs. While some cultural heritage resources may have already been formally identified, others may be identified through screening and evaluation. Aboriginal communities may have knowledge that can contribute to the identification of cultural heritage resources, and we suggest that any engagement with Aboriginal communities includes a discussion about known or potential cultural heritage resources that are of value to these communities. Municipal Heritage Committees, historical societies and other local heritage organizations may also have knowledge that contributes to the identification of cultural heritage resources. Archaeological Resources Your EA project may impact archaeological resources and you should screen the project with the MTCS Criteria for Evaluatinq Archaeoloqical Potential to determine if an archaeological assessment is needed. MTCS archaeological sites data are available at archaeology(cDontario.ca. If your EA project area exhibits archaeological potential, then an archaeological assessment (AA)should be undertaken by an archaeologist licenced under the OHA, who is responsible for submitting the report directly to MTCS for review Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes The MTCS Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes should be completed to help determine whether your EA project may impact cultural heritage resources. Clerks for the Municipality of Bayham and Elgin County can provide information on property registered or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Municipal Heritage Planners can also provide information that will assist you in completing the checklist. If potential or known heritage resources exist, MTCS recommends that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by a qualified consultant, should be completed to assess potential project impacts. Our Ministry's Info Sheet#5:Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines the scope of HIAs. Please send the HIA to MTCS for review, and make it available to local organizations or individuals who have expressed interest in review. Environmental Assessment Reporting All technical heritage studies and their recommendations are to be addressed and incorporated into EA projects. Please advise MTCS whether any technical heritage studies will be completed for your EA project, and provide them to MTCS before issuing a Notice of Completion. If your screening has identified no known or potential cultural heritage resources, or no impacts to these resources, please include the completed checklists and supporting documentation in the EA report or file. Thank-you for consulting MTCS on this project: please continue to do so through the EA process, and contact me for any questions or clarification. Sincerely, Joseph Muller, RPP/MCIP Heritage Planner Joseph.Muler@Ontario.ca Copied to: Paul Shipway, CAO, Municipality of Bayham It is the sole responsibility of proponents to ensure that any information and documentation submitted as part of their EA report or file is accurate. MTCS makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness,accuracy or quality of the any checklists, reports or supporting documentation submitted as part of the EA process,and in no way shall MTCS be liable for any harm, damages,costs,expenses,losses,claims or actions that may result if any checklists, reports or supporting documents are discovered to be inaccurate,incomplete,misleading or fraudulent. Please notify MTCS if archaeological resources are impacted by EA project work.All activities impacting archaeological resources must cease immediately,and a licensed archaeologist is required to carry out an archaeological assessment in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. If human remains are encountered,all activities must cease immediately and the local police as well as the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services must be contacted. In situations where human remains are associated with archaeological resources, MTCS should also be notified to ensure that the site is not subject to unlicensed alterations which would be a contravention of the Ontario Heritage Act. Sarah Brent From: Paul Shipway <PShipway@bayham.on.ca> Sent: Wednesday,June 15, 2016 8:30 AM To: Amanda Froese Subject: FW: Bayham's Public Information Centre,June 18, 2016 re drainage program Attachments: 21 Erieus Jan 14 2014 flooded basin.JPG; 21 Erieus Jan 29 2013 basin overflow.JPG; 21 Erieus Jan 29 2013 flooded north yard.JPG Consultation submission Paul Shipway CAO Municipality of Bayham 9344 Plank Rd. Straffordville, ON NOJ 1Y0 Office: (519) 866-5521 pshipway(o bayham.on.ca From:John Seldon [mailto:idseldon@hotmail.com] Sent:June-15-16 7:57 AM To: Paul Shipway<PShipwav@bayham.on.ca> Subject: Bayham's Public Information Centre,June 18, 2016 re drainage program June 15, 2016 Mr. Shipway: I had hoped to attend the upcoming drainage meeting here in Port Burwell on June 181h; it is a useful process and is most welcome. However, some time ago Dianne and I were scheduled to be in Maryland, leaving tomorrow in fact (June the 16th). I have been working on a summary of the flooding experiences we have encountered at 21 Erieus in Port Burwell so when the notification of the meeting came up and I realized we would not be able to attend, I put together a summary of concerns into a letter addressed to you and it is attached. I have also attached a number of pictures illustrating flooding here at 21 Erieus; if you want more, I have dozens! If you have any questions please let me know and I will answer them in as timely a fashion as I can. Regardless, I welcome the public meeting—it is an essential part of the process for resolving serious matters like these and that is a very positive thing indeed. Regards with thanks, John Seldon Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Spam i I- , 1� A ie 7�J_ 4 ' a Sarah Brent From: Paul Shipway <PShipway@bayham.on.ca> Sent: Wednesday,June 15, 2016 8:29 AM To: Amanda Froese Subject: FW: Drainage letter - attached -John Seldn Attachments: Letter to PS re storm water mtg June 18 2016 June 12 2016.docx; ROAD 42 - PORT BURWELL-07.pdf Consultation submission Paul Shipway CAO Municipality of Bayham 9344 Plank Rd. Straffordville, ON NOJ 1Y0 Office: (519) 866-5521 pshipway(o bayham.on.ca From:John Seldon [mailto:idseldon@hotmail.com] Sent:June-15-16 8:03 AM To: Paul Shipway<PShipwav@bayham.on.ca> Subject: Drainage letter-attached -John Seldn June 15, 2016 Mr. Shipway: I believe I attached the pictures I wanted to send in my email but not the letter! Here it is along with a copy of a drawing I got from Elgin County in 2011. Thanks again. John Seldon Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Spam Phish/Fraud Not spam Forget previous vote i John Seldon Storm Water Flooding, Port Burwell 21 Erieus St. June 15, 2016 Mr. Paul Shipway, CAO Municipality of Bayham 9344 Plank Road Straffordville, ON NOJ 1Y0 Reference: Public Information Centre, June 18, 2016: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment: Master Drainage Study for Port Burwell Mr. Shipway: My wife and I are residents of the Municipality of Bayham and in particular, Port Burwell, living at 21 Erieus Street. We welcome the development of a drainage plan for this community as it is badly needed. The Public Information Centre (PIC) meeting for June 18, 2016 " ... to review the problem statements" is most welcome. I have long communicated with Bayham about the storm water problems experienced here at 21 Erieus and would truly enjoy attending. However, some time ago, we were scheduled to visit family in Maryland, leaving Thursday, June 161h, so we will not be able to attend. Consequently I have summarized the highlights of our concerns below, which I would have addressed at the meeting if I was able to attend. I am also in the process of reviewing my correspondence with Bayham over the last 6 to 7 years regarding our storm water concerns, along with the Meritech Engineering report already in place. In the meantime, the following are our primary issues of concern for 21 Erieus Street (Area#2, in Meritech's Storm Sewer System Assessment, Port BurwellNienna): 1. In the conclusions of Meritech's Assessment report it states that "Properties are situated in some instances at grades lower than the roadway." This is one of the key problems at 21 Erieus Street and has resulted in flooding of the property's north and east yards as well as the house basement for over 30 years. 2. In Meritech's complementary Cost Assessment report, Meritech's prioritizing within the proposed sewer network is by Catchment, Existing Conditions and Area Served. It does not appear to take into consideration properties like 21 Erieus which are below road grade. a. Why was this not a factor in their consideration? 3. In Meritech's Cost Assessment report it appears that assigning priority to Erieus Street reflects: a. Catchment: Assigned value is 4 in a range of I to 10 with the 10 representing the most critical location of the network(the outlet). b. Area Serviced: Assigned value is I in a range of 1 to 10, with I representing a small catchment area"... with few homes contributing to the sewer." c. Existing Conditions: Assigned value is 10 in a range of 1 to 10 where 10 represents the worst conditions. 1 John Seldon Storm Water Flooding, Port Burwell 21 Erieus St. 4. In Meritech's Cost Assessment report's Discussion section, the first table noted (numbering of the table's in this report seems to be confusing with table titles located at the bottom of each table) shows Erieus Street with a repair/replacement priority of 3 based on the catchment, area serviced and existing conditions evaluation process. a. Table#3 indicates that Priority 3 work is proposed for 11 to 19 years in the future. 5. If the needed work to correct the flooding issues at 21 Erieus is to take another 11 to 19 years it will mean that flooding of this property due to municipal road work putting the property below grade will be ongoing for a total of 40 to 50 years. This is compounded by the fact that the existing conditions are given a ranking of 10—the worst that can be assigned. a. Consequently, 21 Erieus Street is hostage to potential flooding for up to half a century because the road work was done badly in 1983, the existing storm water system was not maintained over the years and that it is in a small catchment area. 6. In the Conclusions and Recommendations of the cost assessment report, `Erieus Street at Victoria Street" is listed in the priority 1 section. It is unclear as to what that entails. a. Does this priority 1 include work at 21 Erieus street? 7. For your information I have attached a copy of County Rd 42, as constructed drainage (drawing) 1983-1984 for Plan no. AS-22, Plan 211-84 which I obtained from Elgin County in 2011. a. The date indicates that the below grade situation has been in place for at least 32 years. b. The drawing shows how a catchment basin was located on the 21 Erieus Street property. This is the basin to which our basement sump pumps accumulated ground water; from there it is conveyed by gravity to the municipal storm water system. It is debateable whether this drawing is accurate in describing the connection between the 21 Erieus yard catch basin and the municipal storm water system. Recall that Bayham's Mr. LeMay(no longer with Bayham) directed the writer(at the writer's cost)to install a check valve in the discharge line from the basin to prevent storm water from backing into this basin during periods of high flow. However, as the municipal system cannot carry storm water away fast enough along Erieus, during periods of high storm water flow,this check valve is blocked from opening by the head of water in the municipal system and water cannot discharge from the yard basin, thereby flooding the yards and basement at 21 Erieus. The only option in this case is to pump basement sump water directly to the curb through a hose crossing the north yard to the curb on Wellington. Once again, we are held hostage to being placed below grade and a failed municipal storm water system. c. In effect 21 Erieus Street was forced into becoming a storm water receiving basin and the basement a municipal storm water pumping station. d. Another consideration is what damage will have been done to the foundation of this 100 plus year old house at 21 Erieus from 32 years plus of having water collecting around it and not just from the property itself but from the adjacent lot on the property's south side, as well. I have attached pictures of the outside flooding for your information. e. On top of all this, storm water is not a clean commodity. Flooding of property by storm water is a public health hazard. 2 John Seldon Storm Water Flooding, Port Burwell 21 Erieus St. I will continue to review my correspondence with Bayham on these matter and summarize any additional information that may be helpful, in light of Meritech's reports. However, I believe the above information addresses the most immediate points—certainly ones that I would like to have addressed at the meeting on June 18, 2016. Any insight you can provide into whether we can expect some relief from this conundrum before another 11 to 19 years pass would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, John Seldon 3 h W LAJ I � � Li u LIU L L-1 COUNTY R_+,, -Or A_+_; D _4. .....2—._. ...W...EL_.:L_-,I:_-N,?r-.-�+G-_3 T' O� Nir- _.mot S.T_ C.,.�IOmor U-rNL,_ T.,,,r-- Y R(O_,I-:—.A'__r_D am,�rF 4rfr . 2�+_.,) WELLINGTON ST PORT BURWELL AS CONSTRUCTED DRAINAGE 1983-84 SCALE 1"-40' , .:T.. _fI III"lII�llIII�IlII f I„I I II1 _ r - 1IppII I�I - ' f; _^ r, : III IIIu 1p In III �IaIIIII�1lf y� _ w.�lI W. �,IIaII RC. PLAN N° AS22 Z PLAN 21I� 84 4.1 E r_ _ , tj tLl r FII r I - � lI I- r - s C8P T-r T I{EIY"+ '. I IiI t , . _ I . y t 1 ff 1 - � ,+.. C + r- I I _ I , f _ — 1it-IT ... ._ _+ 1•era-- _ _ _ nay rw Appendix B; Existing Documents MERIT ECH F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx L N a c 0 0� aEm Q a O J o = - _ ma« m W Z a tF 4 W W a m 0_ - = ?O' _ H m ¢ E o nm 3 Q LL ~ pp Z Z m m@ o o "' Y f0 z�r. uoi o EA- V O J w H Q O a a �a o �� N a V a o E 5 y o o m LL d. u O 'O N � E m c o .. N 3 w LL u N w 3 c V o A o 'o a o a m o x o LL d m 'a o: 2 = U 5 5 0 U t c = [n W N U J N d v f0 O N _ LIIII 1�' U I • m l l yo• o a 15 H13a 13 N N ItrrrayrI � / LLJ1J Stll -'JI - W QI TM LLLL�LJ■ U aZ U LL W ul N 3 ltlIlOJS VnN � � ..a __ w� N 40tl pP P� �0 f pxw60-ZO-ZLOZ-Pa�dopy 4 payog WWd\sdeW pasinay\1ua�m�\sdeyy\uoilaniisuo��apu(\g��j gg�o Rdo�\Ialaua�00\bOb6\'f N F 'O CL 0 IiI Q � N a WLU ITE LLI� M Cl) .�TIF �.. Z r — � p !-- N Cl) s U N N s M N T N _L CP R I Q.' $ / V — IVI7-VISOJSVAOA� B ZSAlVHLVHJ p w � ,LSNOSIOO6" i 76 L J ,I N ��V�i < N m �' (A J / i O i - f LsH,lggVZITY Con a .Ls-VIgo.LJ/n � G Z N LU U Q F LU r F W N_, .LSNVHJVg,LS U� LU � O p J N W m 'Fr N a N 0 a. {f a - p Z D LU —N CU .ISAvOSNIgo Cl) Ministry t , Cert- c to No. .1-7R3-:82437. . . .. . . .. .. . of the (Continued) E Environment Ontario Certificate of Approval (Sewage) Whereas - 3 - Qr has applied In accordance with Section 24 of the Ontario Water Resourcos Act for approval of:-- STORM SEWERS STREET FROM TO Robinson Street Lake Erie Approx. 25 m North of Pitt Street Erieus Street Strachan Street Approx. 90 m S.W. of Victoria Street FORCEMAINS Brock Street Approx. 50 m West Frieus Street of Strachan Street (Proposed Sewage Pumping Station No.]) Erieus Street Brock Street Wellington Street Easement parallel Approx. 95 ►n North- County Road 42 to Union Street east of County Road 42 (Proposed Sewage Pumping Station No.2) County Road 42 Union Street Bridge Street Bridge Street County Road 42 Approx. 70 in S.E. of Chatham Street SEWAGE PUMPING STATION N0.1 - to be located on the south side of Brock Street on the west side of Hagerman Street and consisting of a submersible type sewage pumping station to be equipped with two (2) 3.18 L/s @ 5.8 m T.O.M. submersible raw sewage pumps; an emergency forcemain by-pass; an emergency overflow sewer; and all necessary appurtenances and controls; . ..4 Now therefore this is to certifythat after due enquiry the said proposed works have been approved j under Section 24 of the Ontario Water Resources Act. ! DATED AT TORONTO this 9th (Mv(A September 19 83 Appendix C,, Storm Drainage Area Plans and Sewer Design Sheets MERIT ECH F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx ve n 6� w & M E N ocnet Dime, W Pr 17 Ca[cnmen[B-u nes -, APEd Drainage Area Pr fi7.6m-300mm0 PVC am @ 3.00% ID Drainage Area Number 1 iMHl 0.48 ' I aunoff coefficient '0.76 Pr MH 1 GA`�� � ♦` I 1.10 .�C�� [`` ` �� 0.99 ♦ Ig 0.55 7 g1GO o.2s '�� 0.4o le Pr MHo. 1 C� Pr Q.am-450mmm wC St.@ 1.50% 0.97 Pr H 0 Pr 9.2m-375mmm wC San@0.60% _ MH H 95 qkb ' V� \ 'c iIE8 0.72 1 „fin 1 0.62 20 Pr H ` e.ao ♦ / � ` a.74 1a a.90 Pr 74.1m-6o0mmm we s[m@l.00% bl � Pr 13 �I m Pr H Pr 1J.9m-375 mm WC am @ 0.60% k I6 1 oc"P r MH 8 ����� ��� -- doodOO- Pr MH 931 �; Pr 37am 375mmm we St.@ O.w% Pr H 94 I ` I� °83 Pr MH 7� ` � 13 Pr MH 4 Pr 58.0m,600mmm PVC am @ 0.60%` Pr M 2 0.40 I� 0.84 0.71 I0; Im `UZ% 0.40 rydI 0 % ♦ 0.40 0% .90 I �I �1 °��° ry rM 4 �� WILLIAM ST � ' 0.40 E IN ` �/ �I I^ , Iy s Pr 120.3m-6]Smme ConcConc Shn@O.fiO% MH 7�L� Pr 6.6m-300mm0 PVC am @ 0.60% � E I� 0 44 0.92 cT[� 0'24 Pr H 4 r MH 7 jOC 02�aoI '/ °`39 ♦♦♦ op Pr ST♦ Pr98.5miJ5m'nc 5[m@`% o.b`♦♦♦ 0.45 / // 0z40 S� Q��� ' Pr 16.Om-300mm0 PVC 5fm @ O.fi0% 30 9 0.40 ♦ / R 53 1 3]SmmO PVC San 111,111 - Pr MH 80 0.40 0.40 _- Pr MH -�-m-.Pr MH 88 Pr MH 2 ' r 90.em-300mmm wC am @ 1.80^ 0.55 r ioo.zm-ersm conic am @ 0.90 Pr H 5 Pr 49.7m-750mmm Cmc am @ 0M%Y�/ `♦ / Pr 14.7m-825m Conc S[m @ 0.80% / Pr H 6 Outlet \,1 ` 0.40 //� R53.Bm-6JSmm®Cnn=S[m@2:63% 062 I�n ; Macneil Ct \ oZg1 V) I Pr 66.7m-300mmo PVC am @ 1.00% VI o ` / V1 ♦ / Pr MH ,nc 5 6 0mmo0.60% 0.40 ' In z Imo. LU s Conc San @ 0.60% Pr MH 40 rMH 26 ♦ W 2 IN Q .� H E Iv U 0.17 Pr MH 6 V 1.07 d Z5 (n I� y1 Ln 0.90 0.68 @ Pr Twin 6DA-75mmm Conc Rm@3.00% 02� LLI E gp19 31 0.40 I IE 0.40 Y d� 32 O IE ` Pr MH r MH 27 'E 0.52 IE Q J I R54.3m-525mmm we San@0.60% Pr 39.8m-1200mmo C mn R n @ 0.60% y' 35 ` V / 2g 0.28 I,E 0.40 E / 93 o.ao// ♦ $ // ♦ '/ ♦ // HANNAH ST � 62ae Pr 15.1m456mmo we am @ B.66% - H s Pr 11.5-1200mi�m Conc San @ 0.60% ♦ Pr 24.bm-1O50mmm Cmnc S.@ 0.60% ♦♦ R�7m-975mmm ten,am @ B.70%♦♦ WATERLOO ST °1740 36 / Pr922.6m-1206mmmvanc sty@ o.w% mmm n R 78.9m mmm one r n3.7mco0m�Pve s[�@.W% 0.40 r MH Pr 12o.an-600mmm we Stm;a 1.00'` r M 91 Pr MH 1 r 4 �Pr MH 3 Pr MH 32 Pr MH 30 ✓� Pr Pr MH 3 Pr MH 30 Apr MH 2 9.Sm-600mmm PVC San @ 1.00%40 0.61 0.38 Pr 54.5m-375mmm wC St,@ 2.50% ♦♦ // g J ` �I 36 /a ♦ 0.40 R 52.9m-600mmm PVC San @ 1.00% 1 O.fiS 0.52 w1 E? 0.50 ` / c nil 0.97 Pr M 110 PE MH 105 0.70 �I gl 60 / w- 33 0.63 rMH 114 I 1 0.40 ` / G 0.40 s8 I 1.07 r H 1 3 I �; ` / VI 0.95 i o.50 Pr MH 102 r r MH 1 1 1 ` K; °a P `��� yr MH 99 3 1 sn ! ? y 177--375mmmwCs[m@ 1.00% 0.75 0.27 Pr%11-300mmm wC 5trn @ 1.- 83 0.25 Iy ' ` IE.. IE Pr 56.6m-300mmm PVC s[m @ 1.00% I 061 / w7 `1 ; 61 // I ` Ie ' 0.95 d I ois aa0 / WELLINGTON ST Pr 4.lmaoommm cs[m@1.00% o.z3 ` IP /// 0.53 ♦♦ 75 / 4 ♦ m 0.55 o.bs c 4) s R 12z.emi50m�PVC St.@off% Pr mu 1 _ Q 4) s� rr 122.3m-1asommm con,see @ e.bo IN.7m-90ommm Conc Sim @ 1io% Pr MH 10 Pr 1o8.4m-90pmme�Conc s[m @ 0.60% MH ��� a�i3i.omasommm conic snn @ o.so% r- Pr MH �m � ♦ ♦ 0.66 P�99.3m-a5ommm wC s @1,`hn g ` ♦ ' ♦ .16 Pr 59.1m-900mmm Cmrc am @ 0.60% ' ♦♦ °.50 / t 'Aa s Pr 106.7m-375mmm PVC Stm @ 1.00% I _ 3 I I Pr 10 Semmm Conc san @ 0:60% 0 88 Pr 171mmm wC Sbn`oar;+ ` Pr 69.zm<Sanmm wCSan @ o.,% 1 0 99 / / r ` Pr]s3m�oommaPvc stm @ afio% 0.B 0.65 I °39 ♦ See Dwg 4423-Stm2 \\ / Pr MM LD ' 0.55 r mu--fu0mm0 PVC S.@ 1.80 r 3002m-825m m Conc am @ 0.8 Pr H 5 Pr 44.Jmasommm wnm sxm @ 0^60% % ' 15 $eE DW 4423-$tm l / Pr 19Jm-825mm0 Conc Stm @ 0.80% Pf H 6 0.40 9 / ` Prs3.em-6]smmmcOrKSYm@z.63% IEo ` Macneil Ct / 1 0 0241 1 j I Pr 66.]m-3oommm Pvc scn @ I.DD% N o / ♦ / Pr MH ` ' n 1�j1 v ` __ g F1'3J.9m-JSOmmO Conc 6hn @ 0.60% 0.40 r e Pr/MHJS40`x/-_ MH 26 Q 11 I Ia ` El / \ ` Im Q W a. E I � I€� W a °zs7 Pr MH U 1.07 V) `a 0.68 (n 1$ < 03800 ' ¢e /T. Wr .mmmo Conc 5[m @ 3.00% p.40 W .4 uj °90 @ I rQ-r 0.40 0.40 Y E 040 0340 LO IN I lY IE J Pr MH 0 W � Ip Q r O I^ ` W P 593m-525mmm P c Stm @ O.W% r MH 27 E•8 0.52 I _ �P H I£ p291 ` c Pr 39.Bm-1200mmm Conc 5[m @ 0.60% I 8^ 35 -- 0.28 E 0.40 E *t20 HANNAH ST Pr 11.5m-1200mmm Conc Stm @ O.60oh ` Pr 24.6m-I0-o Conc stm @ 0- ♦ Pr 33.7m-9]smm0 Conc a.@ 0.]0%♦ 0.17 Pr 15.1m450mm0 PVC 5[m@0.60% �MH ♦ ♦ WATERLOO ST Pr�2.6m-1200mm�Cnrc s�@ o�D% a nc�mSt�O-6b4E R]8.9m-9J�mm0 one Strn .7m6�➢Omm=PVC .0=% 0.40 r MH �" p izo.an=6opmmm Pvc Stm @ 3.00 M 91 / Pr MH 1 Pr MH 3 Pr MH 32 m Pr MH 3 Pr MH 30 s - �- Pr MH 2 r MH 2 r M Pr 9.5m-6OOmm00.61 we so-n r.OD Pr 54.5m-375mmm PVC S. 2.50% 1 ♦♦` 0Q55 /// ` 0340 ' EI ` 0353 ' ♦ 0340 p17 ♦ a 42 ` ' rn 0.40 ' 1 o ♦ I Pr 52.9m-600mm0 PVC Strn @ 1.00% 1 0.65 0.52 4,1 `` e ♦ P H }P MH 105 E) 0.50 a€I 0.47 I rM 310 MH 114 0.70 ml ^1 OA0 `� UI 0.40 *L6 I 1507 1 r H 1 3 1 ' 0.50 0.44 ### fa IPr MH 9 0.93 I8 ' I � u 54 E Pr77.Im-375mm0PVCstm@1.00% 0975 I�, 0.40 IN ' 1.27 I3 Pr 58.Sm-300mmm PVC S[m @ 1.00% 0.27 I E I 0.50 0 75 Pr s8.6m-3oommm PVC stm @ 1.00% 1 0624 1 0.25 ` 1 0540 ; °73 °a1 WELLINGTON ST Prs9.1m-3➢DmmmPVCSm@1.D➢% ➢J53 IP //// p.53 ♦�♦ 1 0.75 0.40 9 Pr 0.55 0.65 1z2.am4sommm PVC u_@ Dom% _ H 12 Pr MH 1 r MH r]223m-1050mm0 Conc�@ o.6a 1D9.7m-9DOmm0 ConcConc SOn`@ 1.10% p�MH 10 Pr 1De.am-900mr�Conc stm�@ 0.6D% � �' Pri3z.amasommm cant Shn @ 0.90% r �� Pr MH ` ♦♦ ' ♦♦ E Prr99391.16 Pr 59.1m-900mmmGmc S[m@0.60% 76 ` `qhkb ♦♦ p.50 ♦ ' ` Pr 106.7m-3]5mm0 PVC Sbn @ 1.00% I ♦_ 09.Bm-ID5O Conc @ .5[m 060% lr Pr 113.1m375mmm PVC Stm @ 1.00% Pr 69.2m-450mm0 NC Stm @ 0.60% ' ` 0 69 Pr 1mm0 0 88 + , Pr 79`-600mmm PVC S.@ 0.60% 0.49 06 1 78 75 0.65 I U9 ♦ I O5� ' 5 0.40 ' 0.50 I f Pr H 13 ' Pr MH 1 ` too' ! 91 r MH 14 0.56' �I �I r l .3mf0pmm0 PVC Stm s6 0.40 0.06 '��>�,7,�,�. 0.39 ' i � 0.75 EI In Pr 12 Pr 1176mfi0pmm0 PVC SVn@0.60% a E1 W Pr MH 11 0 52 yy 0.75 0.66 A\ 0.40 ' I H 0.40 � 61 U Pr 2].7m-375mmm PVC 5tm @ 0.60% r M 15♦♦♦ 0�70 ` 071 ' IIJ ♦ ` 0.4p. °690 Q a r MH 12 W $I m 0.40 I U 1 ®4 ` rMH119 '1 U (n 1 r M 27 w a wl 0652 E� 0 Q Im? 0.68 �'�n.., p640 �I r MH 108__ __g ++ mI 0 0.4 .4 879 . m1 0.50 uj pp 0.40 = 0.40 (�Z E EN U W I ml yHgpq r MH 118 ml 0.72 m z .1 Sl IE I n1 @,1 / (i Im rl� 051.40ca 1 0.46 1 0 // o8o ` d Pr MH 111 b1 ' Pr MH 1 _ Pr=2zem37smmPVC son @ o�qyPra6. 67 0.56 m .�➢ p ml N r MH1 rMl 1 0.40 M Pr 40.Om-30ommm PVC Stm @ 1.OD% Pr 9.4m-1200mmm Conc S[m @ 0.601h Pr 20.Sm-375m� vl Pr MH Pvc slm ♦ m ' Pr 71.2m-300mm0 PVC Stm@1.00% 1 `` 088 '' Pr ST Pr 31.3m-�OmmO Conc S[m@0.60% ♦ 0.40 I ` *j�7-9 �� 1 Pr M 116 0.40 31I Pr MH 133 0 22 ` r H 64 ` 0.40 0.40 r H 12 z E.o�E4Q�o: pf MH 1. 30.3m-IN10mmm Conc 5[m @ 0.60% � Pr MH 1 K e n �Pr 4➢.1m-1200mmm coot stm Pr MH 135 C N Q � Outlet#2 N co Pr 52.7m-900mm0 Core 5[m @ c ro a m Pr I 1H 123 Leoend Q .■■ Detlet DI110e m Catchment B-&nes C 5 Area Drainage Area 3 ID Drainage Area Number E m LAKE ERIE amnon 6oent Ina s Page 1 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) Ws) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) North of Wellington Street,to Outlet 1 Ma le Meadows 77 791 1 2.35 0.65 1.528 1.528 10.00 10.57 101.394 430.219 58.0 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.57 90% 1.926 William Street 77 79 1 1.528 10.57 79 4 1 2 0.44 0.45 0.199 1.726 10.57 11.68 98.776 473.688 120.3 675 PVC 0.60% 651.117 1.820 1.10 73% 2.001 Victoria Street N of Newton 1 2 3 1.10 0.55 0.604 0.604 10.00 10.88 101.394 170.088 103.8 450 PVC 1.20% 312.318 1.964 0.88 54% 2.003 2 3 4 0.72 0.60 0.433 1.037 10.88 11.34 97.442 280.715 55.0 525 PVC 1.00% 430.062 1.987 0.46 65% 2.126 3 4 5 0.83 0.40 0.330 1.368 11.34 12.24 95.507 362.794 90.3 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.89 76% 1.867 79 4 1.726 11.68 4 5 6 0.22 0.40 0.087 3.181 12.24 12.55 91.989 812.925 48.5 675 PVC 1.20% 920.818 2.573 0.31 88% 2.933 Milton Street N of Newton 93 6 7 0.71 0.40 0.286 0.286 10.00 11.32 101.394 80.450 112.2 375 PVC 0.80% 156.820 1.420 1.32 51% 1.420 Shakes Bare St N of Newton 94 801 8 1 0.84 0.40 0.335 0.335 10.00 11.26 101.394 94.240 107.1 375 PVC 0.80% 156.820 1.420 1.26 60% 1.491 Newton Street 4 5 3.181 12.55 5 6 9 0.18 0.40 0.070 3.252 12.55 12.79 90.822 820.359 53.8 675 PVC 2.60% 1355.408 3.788 0.24 61% 3.977 93 6 0.286 11.32 6 80 10 0.35 0.40 0.142 3.679 12.79 13.48 89.964 919.396 100.2 825 PVC 0.80% 1283.893 2.402 0.70 72% 2.618 94 80 0.335 11.26 80 81 4.014 13.48 13.59 87.546 976.050 14.7 825 PVC 0.80% 1283.893 2.402 0.10 76% 2.666 81 82 11 0.39 0.40 0.156 0.156 10.00 N12.44 101.394 44.050 90.8 300 PVC 1.80% 129.738 1.835 0.82 34% 1.624 82 83 0.156 10.82 97.685 42.439 16.0 300 PVC 0.60% 74.904 1.060 0.25 57% 1.091 Strachan Street N of Waterloo 82 83 0.156 83 31 34 1.07 0.40 0.427 0.583 11.08 96.613 156.481 113.3 450 PVC 0.60% 220.842 1.389 1.36 71% 1.514 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Page 2 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) (L/s) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Strachan Street S of Robinson 83 84 12 0.70 0.40 0.279 0.279 10.00 10.93 101.394 78.648 68.8 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.93 58% 1.267 84 85 13 0.25 1 0.40 0.102 0.381 10.93 11.44 97.222 102.850 37.8 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.51 76% 1.359 85 22 0.381 11.44 11.69 95.089 100.593 17.9 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.24 74% 1.359 Shakespeare St N of Waterloo 4.014 13.59 81 1 29 1 32 1 0.90 0.40 0.358 4.372 13.59 14.26 87.203 1058.978 89.7 900 PVC 0.60% 1402.261 2.204 0.68 76% 2.436 Shakespeare St S of Robinson 94 95 14 0.74 0.40 0.295 0.295 10.00 11.03 101.394 82.963 84.5 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 1.03 86% 1.546 95 20 0.295 11.03 11.15 96.810 79.212 9.2 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.12 58% 1.279 Erieus Street S of Robinson 86 87 15 0.55 0.40 0.220 0.220 10.00 10.81 101.394 62.075 66.7 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.81 64% 1.464 87 24 0.220 10.81 10.92 97.737 59.837 6.6 300 PVC 0.60% 74.904 1.060 0.10 80% 1.182 Robinson Street W of Victoria 17 18 16 0.48 0.70 0.334 0.334 10.00 10.48 101.394 94.043 67.6 300 PVC 3.00% 167.491 2.370 0.48 56% 2.441 18 19 17 0.99 0.40 0.395 0.729 10.48 10.84 99.217 200.832 60.8 375 PVC 3.00% 303.681 2.750 0.37 66% 2.956 19 20 18 0.28 0.40 0.111 0.840 10.84 11.21 97.601 227.676 48.4 450 PVC 1.50% 349.182 2.196 0.37 65% 2.349 95 20 0.295 11.15 20 21 19 0.47 0.40 0.187 1.322 11.21 11.87 96.047 352.574 85.6 600 PVC 1.00% 614.012 2.172 0.66 57% 2.237 21 22 20 0.62 0.40 0.247 1.569 11.87 12.44 93.403 407.004 74.5 600 PVC 1.00% 614.012 2.172 0.57 66% 2.334 85 22 0.381 11.69 22 23 21 0.59 0.40 0.235 2.184 12.44 13.10 91.231 553.482 72.0 675 PVC 0.60% 651.117 1.820 0.66 85% 2.056 23 24 22 0.48 0.40 0.192 2.376 13.10 13.76 88.861 586.569 71.9 675 PVC 0.60% 651.117 1.820 0.66 90% 2.083 87 24 0.220 10.92 24 25 23 0.24 0.40 0.094 2.691 13.76 14.17 86.629 647.545 48.5 750 PVC 0.60% 862.341 1.952 0.41 75% 2.157 25 26 24 0.21 0.40 0.083 2.774 14.17 14.55 85.288 657.273 44.7 750 PVC 0.60% 862.341 1.952 0.38 76% 2.167 26 27 25 0.17 0.40 0.068 2.843 14.55 14.88 84.093 664.012 37.9 750 PVC 0.60% 862.341 1.952 0.32 77% 2.167 MacNeil Court 88 89 26 0.92 0.40 0.370 0.370 10.00 10.56 101.394 104.143 53.1 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 0.56 59% 1.651 Elizabeth St N of Hannah 88 89 0.370 10.56 89 90 27 0.62 0.40 0.246 0.616 10.56 11.24 98.853 169.192 1 57.2 450 PVC 0.60% 220.842 1.389 0.69 77% 1.541 90 91 28 1.20 0.40 0.482 1.098 11.24 1 11.83 95.912 292.564 1 54.3 525 PVC 0.60% 333.125 1.539 0.59 88% 1.747 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Page 3 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) Ns) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Hannah Street 90 1 91 1 1.098 11.83 91 1 92 1 29 0.51 0.40 0.202 1.300 11.83 13.02 93.545 337.842 120.0 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.19 71% 1.834 Victoria Street N of Hannah 5 92 30 0.80 0.40 0.321 0.321 10.00 11.07 101.394 90.342 101.8 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 1.07 52% 1.587 91 92 1.300 13.02 92 7 1 1.621 13.02 13.09 89.136 401.342 9.5 600 PVC 1.00% 614.012 2.172 0.07 65% 2.324 Milton Street N of Waterloo 97 28 31 0.68 0.40 0.274 0.274 10.00 11.20 101.394 77.059 87.8 300 PVC 0.80% 86.492 1.224 1.20 89% 1.395 Shakes Bare St S of Waterloo 99 2 9 33 0.47 0.40 0.189 0.189 10.00 10.96 101.394 53.119 78.4 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.96 55% 1.395 Strachan Street S of Waterloo 101 31 60 0.50 0.40 0.200 0.200 10.00 10.92 101.394 56.273 75.7 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.92 58% 1.423 Erieus Street N of Waterloo 86 33 35 0.52 0.40 1 0.210 0.210 10.00 10.79 101.394 59.056 64.7 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.79 61% 1.436 Erieus Street N of Waterloo 102 33 82 0.52 0.70 0.361 0.361 10.00 10.80 101.394 101.594 76.5 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 0.80 58% 1.635 Waterloo Street 92 7 1.621 13.09 7 28 36 0.17 0.40 0.069 1.690 13.09 13.50 88.881 417.277 52.9 600 PVC 1.00% 614.012 2.172 0.41 68% 2.334 97 28 0.274 11.20 28 29 37 0.38 0.40 0.153 2.117 13.50 14.37 87.489 514.533 113.7 600 PVC 1.00% 614.012 2.172 0.87 84% 2.443 81 29 4.372 14.M 99 29 0.189 10.96 29 30 38 0.53 0.40 0.213 6.891 14.37 14.90 84.656 1620.401 78.9 975 PVC 0.70% 1875.000 2.511 0.52 86% 2.850 30 31 1 6.891 14.90 15.12 83.053 1589.709 33.7 975 PVC 0.70% 1875.000 2.511 0.22 85% 2.838 83 31 0.583 12.44 101 31 0.200 10.92 31 32 39 0.61 0.40 0.246 7.919 15.12 15.81 82.388 1812.414 101.2 1050 PVC 0.60% 2115.211 2.443 0.69 86% 2.760 2 33 7.919 15.81 15.98 80.411 1768.903 24.6 1050 PVC 0.60% 2115.211 2.443 0.17 84% 2.748 r1086-- 33 0.210 10.79 2 33 0.361 10.80 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Page 4 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) Ns) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) 33 34 40 0.45 0.55 0.247 8.737 15.98 16.56 79.946 1940.210 92.6 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.58 64% 2.857 34 35 8.737 16.56 16.63 78.390 1902.456 11.5 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.07 63% 2.830 Robinson Street N of Wellington) 13 103 41 0.44 0.75 0.327 0.327 10.00 10.81 101.394 92.163 77.1 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 0.81 53% 1.603 103 104 42 0.28 0.65 0.179 0.506 10.81 11.17 97.750 137.386 54.5 375 PVC 2.50% 277.221 2.510 0.36 50% 2.485 104 35 0.506 11.17 11.35 96.214 135.228 15.1 450 PVC 0.60% 220.842 1.389 0.18 61% 1.458 34 35 8.737 16.63 35 27 43 0.28 0.40 0.111 9.354 16.63 16.88 78.202 2031.897 39.8 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.25 67% 2.870 Outlet 1 @ the Bridge 26 27 2.843 14.88 35 27 9.354 16.88 27 Outlet Totalarea: 26.73 12.196 16.88 16.88 1 77.557 2627.554 60.4 675 Conc 3.00% 1455.941 4.069 Two pipes in the outlet confi uration 60.4 675 Conc 3.00% 1455.941 4.069 Total 2911.883 90% South of Wellington Street,to Outlet 3 Elizabeth Street N of Wellin ton 105 106 50 1.07 0.50 0.535 0.535 10.00 10.89 101.394 150.570 103.6 375 PVC 1.50% 214.735 1.944 0.89 70% 2.119 Elizabeth Street S of Wellington) 107 108 51 0.72 0.40 0.289 0.289 10.00 11.11 101.394 81.521 94.3 375 PVC 0.80% 156.820 1.420 1.11 52% 1.420 108 109 52 0.75 0.40 0.300 0.590 11.11 12.07 96.484 158.040 80.5 450 PVC 0.60% 220.842 1.389 0.97 72% 1.514 109 106 1 53 1.78 0.50 0.891 1.481 12.07 12.86 92.612 380.920 79.3 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.79 80% 1.884 Victoria Street N of Wellin ton 110 8 54 0.93 0.40 0.373 0.373 10.00 11.03 101.394 105.100 98.1 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 1.03 60% 1.651 Victoria Street(S if Wellin ton ill 112 55 0.84 0.40 0.336 1 0.336 10.00 1 10.85 101.394 94.510 1 85.2 300 PVC 1.50% 118.434 1.675 0.85 80% 1.868 112 113 56 0.56 1 0.40 0.223 1 0.558 10.85 1 11.37 97.586 151.334 1 61.2 375 1 PVC 1.50% 214.735 1.944 0.52 70% 2.119 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Page 5 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) Ns) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) 113 8 57 0.49 0.40 0.195 0.753 11.37 12.20 95.385 199.567 69.2 450 PVC 0.60% 220.842 1.389 0.83 90% 1.590 Milton Street N of Wellin ton 114 9 581 0.63 0.45 1 0.282 0.282 10.00 11.12 101.394 79.455 91.7 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 1.12 82% 1.539 Shakespeare St N of Wellin ton 99 10 59 0.25 0.40 0.098 0.098 10.00 10.66 101.394 27.678 54.1 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.66 29% 1.163 Strachan Street N of Wellin ton 101 11 61 0.25 0.40 0.098 0.098 10.00 10.71 101.394 27.602 58.6 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.71 29% 1.163 Strachan Street S or Wellin ton 115 11 62 1.02 0.40 0.409 0.409 10.00 11.19 101.394 115.251 113.1 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 1.19 66% 1.699 Wellin ton Street W of Erieus 13 12 73 0.69 0.75 0.514 0.514 10.00 11.28 101.394 144.761 122.8 450 PVC 0.80% 255.007 1.603 1.28 57% 1.651 Wellin ton Street E of Elizabeth 106a 106 1 74a 1.27 0.40 0.508 0.831 10.00 10.92 101.394 234.107 99.3 450 PVC 1.00% 285.106 1.793 0.92 82% 2.017 Wellin ton Street E of Erieus 105 106 0.535 10.89 109 106 1.481 12.86 106a 106 0.831 10.92 106 8 74 0.53 0.65 0.346 3.193 12.86 13.83 89.711 795.671 132.0 750 PVC 0.80% 995.745 2.254 0.98 80% 2.513 110 8 0.373 11.03 113 8 0.753 12.20 8 9 75 0.23 0.55 0.126 4.445 13.83 14.28 86.377 1066.541 59.1 900 PVC 0.60% 1402.261 2.204 0.45 76% 2.447 114 9 0.282 11.12 9 10 76 1.16 0.50 0.582 5.309 14.28 15.10 84.942 1252.650 108.4 900 PVC 0.60% 1402.261 2.204 0.82 89% 2.513 99 10 0.098 10.66 10 11 77 0.66 0.40 0.265 5.673 15.10 15.71 82.443 1299.086 109.7 900 PVC 1.10% 1898.670 2.985 0.61 68% 3.238 101 11 0.098 10.71 115 11 0.409 11.19 1 12 78 0.81 0.40 0.323 6.503 15.71 16.55 80.680 1 1457.4121 122.3 1050 PVC 1 0.60% 1 2115.2111 2.443 1 0.83 1 69% 2.650 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Page 6 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) Ns) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Robinson Street S of Wellin ton 13 14 63 0.62 0.75 0.469 0.469 10.00 11.12 101.394 131.960 106.7 375 PVC 1.00% 175.330 1.587 1.12 75% 1.754 Robinson Street So Brock 125 129 64 0.40 0.40 0.160 0.160 10.00 10.87 101.394 45.199 71.2 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.87 47% 1.300 Robinson Street S of Pitt 129 15 65 0.62 0.50 0.310 0.310 10.00 11.19 101.394 87.297 94.6 375 PVC 0.70% 146.692 1.328 1.19 60% 1.300 15 14 66 0.06 0.75 0.045 0.355 11.19 11.56 96.149 94.920 27.7 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.38 70% 1.300 Pitt Street E of Erieus 116 117 67 0.56 0.40 0.223 0.223 10.00 10.74 101.394 62.864 74.7 300 PVC 1.50% 118.434 1.675 0.74 53% 1.692 117 118 68 2.03 0.40 0.814 1.037 10.74 11.43 98.038 282.360 89.9 450 PVC 1.50% 349.182 2.196 0.68 81% 2.459 118 119 69 0.50 0.40 1 0.200 1.237 11.43 12.01 95.167 326.932 84.6 525 PVC 1.50% 526.717 2.433 0.58 62% 2.579 119 115 70 0.39 0.40 0.156 1.393 12.01 12.71 92.874 359.400 70.7 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.70 76% 1.859 115 120 71 0.67 0.40 0.269 1.662 12.71 13.87 90.261 416.784 117.6 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.17 88% 1.909 Pitt Street W of Erieus 13 14 0.469 11.12 15 14 0.355 11.56 14 120 72 0.66 0.70 0.462 1.286 11.56 12.78 94.614 338.072 123.1 600 PVC 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.22 71% 1.300 Strachan Street S of Pitt 127 128 1 0.68 0.40 0.273 0.273 10.00 10.90 101.394 76.766 74.2 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.90 79% 1.525 Erieus Street 102 12 83 0.27 0.75 0.203 0.203 10.80 11.51 97.777 55.203 58.1 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.71 57% 1.409 11 12 6.503 16.55 13 12 0.514 11.28 12 120 84 0.88 0.65 0.572 7.792 16.55 17.30 78.410 1697.172 109.8 1050 PVC 0.60% 2115.211 2.443 0.75 80% 2.736 115 120 1.662 13.87 14 120 1.286 12.78 120 121 85 0.79 0.40 0.318 11.058 17.30 18.07 76.491 2349.636 123.2 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.77 78% 2.964 Erieus Street S of Brock 122 121 86 1 0.22 1 0.40 0.089 0.089 1 10.96 1 11.44 1 97.125 23.958 40.0 1 300 PVC 1.00% 96.701 1.368 0.49 25% 1.094 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Page 7 of 7 M E R I T E G H Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Port Burwell for I=A/(Tc+B)AC File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by:JEL Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 16-Jun-16 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: CHT Date: 8-Au -16 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q:peak flow(L/s) Where: ti:inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)A2.667*(S/100)A0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C:runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D:pipe size(mm) I:rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf=L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A:area ha Min.ti= 10 n:roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) Ns) (m) (mm) (%) NO (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Brock Street W of Erieus 125 129 0.160 10.87 129 121 81 0.58 0.40 0.233 0.393 10.87 12.53 97.500 106.503 122.8 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.66 78% 1.371 Brock Street E of Erieus 0.273 10.90 128 130 0.273 10.90 11.18 97.344 73.700 20.5 375 PVC 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.28 54% 1.254 129 121 0.393 12.53 120 121 11.058 18.07 122 121 0.089 11.44 121 130 80 0.46 0.40 0.184 11.724 18.07 18.67 74.627 2430.451 96.5 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.60 80% 2.991 O en Space-Outlet 3 @ the Lake 128 130 0.273 1 11.18 121 130 11.724 18.67 130 131 11.997 18.67 18.73 73.237 1 2440.616 9.4 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.06 81% 1 2.991 131 133 11.997 18.73 18.92 73.104 1 2436.2051 31.3 1 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.20 81% 2.991 133 134 87 0.29 0.20 0.058 12.055 18.92 19.11 72.668 1 2433.4441 30.3 1 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.19 81% 2.991 134 135 88 0.40 0.20 0.081 12.136 19.11 19.36 72.250 2435.708 40.1 1200 PVC 0.60% 3019.943 2.670 0.25 81% 2.991 135 1 123 Total area: 1 25.74 12.136 19.36 19.53 71.706 1 2417.3641 52.7 1 900 1 PVC 1 3.40% 13338.0491 5.247 1 0.17 72% 5.772 F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Stm-size.dsn MEV2014 Appendix D; Priority Ranking Tab/es MERIT ECH F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx Street From To Category Ex.Condition Total Rank Priority Score Score Score North system Elizabeth N. of William William Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest William Elizabeth Victoria Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Victoria Robinson Newton Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Milton N. of Newton Newton Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Shakespeare N. of Newton Newton Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Newton Victoria Shakespeare Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High Newton Shakespeare Strachan Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Strachan Newton Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Strachan Newton Robinson Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Shakespeare Newton Waterloo Collector 2 Good 2 4 24 High Shakespeare N. of Newton Robinson Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Erieus N. of Waterloo Robinson Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Robinson Victoria Shakespeare Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Robinson Shakespeare Strachan Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium Robinson Strachan Erieus Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium Robinson Erieus Bridge Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium MacNeil Ct Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Elizabeth MacNeil Hannah Local 1 Great 1 2 55 Lowest Hannah Elizabeth Victoria Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Victoria Newton Waterloo Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Milton Newton Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Shakespeare S. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Strachan S. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Erieus N. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Erieus S. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Waterloo Victoria Shakespeare Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium Waterloo Shakespeare Robinson Trunk 3 Fair 3 6 3 High Robinson Wellington Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Robinson Waterloo Bridge/outlet Trunk 3 Fair 3 6 3 High Table D.1: Storm Sewer Network in Port Burwell (North System) F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx Street From To Category Ex.Condition Total Score Rank Priority Score Score South system Elizabeth N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Elizabeth S. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Victoria Waterloo Wellington Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Victoria Pitt Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Milton Waterloo Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Shakespeare N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Strachan N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Strachan S. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Wellington Robinson Erieus Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Lake Shore E of Elizabeth Elizabeth Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Wellington Elizabeth Victoria Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium Wellington Victoria Strachan Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium Wellington Strachan Erieus Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High Robinson Wellington Pitt Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Robinson S.of Brook Brook Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Robinson Pitt Brook Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest Pitt Victoria Strachan Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Pitt Strachan Erieus Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium Pitt Robinson Erieus Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High Strachan Pitt Brook @ Park Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Erieus N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low Erieus Wellington Pitt Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 High Erieus Pitt Brook Trunk 3 Failed 4 7 1 High Brook Robinson Erieus Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High Brook Erieus Strachan Trunk 3 Failed 4 7 1 High Park block Brook Outlet Trunk 3 Good 2 5 9 High Table D.2: Storm Sewer Network in Port Burwell (South System) F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx Appendix E; Proposed Stages and Rough Cost Estimate Tab/es MERIT ECH F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx Street From To Priority Stage Approx. Length Budget North system Elizabeth N. of William William Lowest 5 53 $ 80,000 William Elizabeth Victoria Lowest 5 120 $ 190,000 Victoria Robinson Newton Medium 5 298 $ 480,000 Milton N. of Newton Newton Low 4 112 $ 180,000 Shakespeare N. of Newton Newton Lowest 4 107 $ 170,000 Newton Victoria Shakespeare High 3 169 $ 320,000 Newton Shakespeare Strachan Medium 3 107 $ 170000 Strachan Newton Waterloo Low 3 113 $ 180,000 Strachan Newton Robinson Low 4 124 $ 200,000 Shakespeare Newton Waterloo High 3 90 $ 170,000 Shakespeare N. of Newton Robinson Lowest 4 94 $ 150,000 Erieus N. of Waterloo Robinson Lowest 4 73 $ 120,000 Robinson Victoria Shakespeare Low 4 177 $ 280,000 Robinson Shakespeare Strachan Medium 4 160 $ 300,000 Robinson Strachan Erieus Medium 4 144 $ 270,000 Robinson Erieus Bridge Medium 4 131 $ 250,000 MacNeil Ct - - Lowest 5 53 $ 80,000 Elizabeth MacNeil Hannah Lowest 5 112 $ 180,000 Hannah Elizabeth Victoria Low 5 120 $ 190,000 Victoria Newton Waterloo Medium 5 111 $ 180,000 Milton Newton Waterloo Low 4 88 $ 140,000 Shakespeare S. of Waterloo Waterloo Lowest 3 78 $ 120,000 Strachan S. of Waterloo Waterloo Lowest 3 76 $ 120,000 Erieus N. of Waterloo Waterloo Lowest 3 65 $ 100,000 Erieus S. of Waterloo Waterloo Low 3 77 $ 120,000 Waterloo Victoria Shakespeare Medium 5 167 $ 320,000 Waterloo Shakespeare Robinson High 3 343 $ 750,000 Robinson Wellington Waterloo Low 3 147 $ 240,000 Robinson Waterloo Bridge/outlet High 3 100 $ 220000 Table E.1: Stage and Cost Estimates by Section (North System) Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334 Street From To Priority Stage Approx. Length Budget South system Elizabeth N. of Wellington Wellington Lowest 2 104 $ 170,000 Elizabeth S. of Wellington Wellington Low 2 254 $ 410,000 Victoria Waterloo Wellington Medium 2 98 $ 160,000 Victoria Pitt Wellington Low 2 216 $ 350 000 Milton Waterloo Wellington Low 2 92 $ 150,000 Shakespeare N. of Wellington Wellington Lowest 2 54 $ 90,000 Strachan N. of Wellington Wellington Lowest 1 59 $ 90,000 Strachan S. of Wellington Wellington Low 2 113 $ 180,000 Wellington Robinson Erieus Medium 3 123 $ 200,000 Lake Shore E of Elizabeth Elizabeth Low 3 99 $ 160,000 Wellington Elizabeth Victoria Medium 2 132 $ 250,000 Wellington Victoria Strachan Medium 2 277 $ 530,000 Wellington Strachan Erieus High 1 122 $ 230,000 Robinson Wellington Pitt Medium 3 107 $ 170,000 Robinson S. of Brook Brook Lowest 1 71 $ 110,000 Robinson Pitt Brook Lowest 1 122 $ 200,000 Pitt Victoria Strachan Low 2 320 $ 510,000 Pitt Strachan Erieus Medium 1 118 $ 190,000 Pitt Robinson Erieus High 1 123 $ 230,000 Strachan Pitt Brook @ Park Low 1 95 $ 150,000 Erieus N. of Wellington Wellington Low 1 58 $ 90,000 Erieus Wellington Pitt High 1 110 $ 210 000 Erieus Pitt Brook High 1 123 $ 270,000 Brook Robinson Erieus High 1 123 $ 230,000 Brook Erieus Strachan High 1 97 $ 210,000 Park block Brook Outlet High 1 164 $ 250,000 Table E.2: Stage and Cost Estimates by Section (South Section) Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334 MERIT ECH Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334