HomeMy WebLinkAboutPort Burwell Master Drainage Study - 2016 EA
Port Burwell
Master Drainage Study
August 2016
Municipality of Bayham
1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202
Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2
t 519.623.1140
f 519.623.7334
www.meritech.ca
Project No.: 4423
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page i
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page ii
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page iii
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
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 1
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
Background .............................................................................................................. 4
Study Purpose ........................................................................................................... 4
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) ........................................................... 4
Master Plan Process ............................................................................................... 6
Consultation and Notification ................................................................................... 6
Notice of Commencement ....................................................................................... 6
Public Information Centre ....................................................................................... 7
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 7
Existing Condition ...................................................................................................... 7
Land Use ............................................................................................................... 8
Floodplain.............................................................................................................. 8
Current Policies ...................................................................................................... 8
Existing Drainage Network ...................................................................................... 9
Storm System Parameters ......................................................................................10
Proposed Alternatives ..................................................................................................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
Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................................19
Design Considerations...............................................................................................19
Flooding of Private Property ...................................................................................20
Priority of Work .....................................................................................................20
Drainage ..............................................................................................................20
East Beach Design Project......................................................................................21
Catchbasin Cleanout Program .................................................................................21
Design Parameters ................................................................................................21
Implementation ...........................................................................................................21
Priorities ..................................................................................................................22
Category ..............................................................................................................22
Existing Condition .................................................................................................22
Cost Estimate Assumptions .......................................................................................23
Determining Stage Limits ..........................................................................................27
Design Objectives .....................................................................................................28
Design Criteria .........................................................................................................28
General ................................................................................................................28
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 2
Roads ..................................................................................................................30
Sewers .................................................................................................................30
Runoff coefficients: ............................................................................................30
Design storm parameters: ..................................................................................31
Frames and Grates/Covers ..................................................................................31
Catchbasins .......................................................................................................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
Figure 10: Priorities .....................................................................................................26
Figure 11: 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
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 3
Introduction
Located in the Municipality of Bayham, Port Burwell is a village comprised predominantly of
residential homes, with some commercial and tourism businesses mostly related to the
beach. The existing road network is comprised of local streets, with road side swales,
catchbasins and storm sewers. The County roads have curb and gutter and storm sewers.
The storm sewers on Municipality and County roads are inter-connected and share outlets.
The outlets are to either the Lake Erie beach or to Big Otter Creek. Figure 1 shows an aerial
map of the study area.
Figure 1: Port Burwell Study Area
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 4
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:
• Schedule ‘A’ projects. These are limited in scale, have minimal adverse
environmental effects, and include the majority of municipal road maintenance and
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 5
operation activities. These projects are pre-approved and may proceed to
implementation without following any additional steps of the Class EA planning
process
• 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)
• Schedule ‘C’ 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).
Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Process
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 6
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:
• Elgin County
• Long Point Conservation Authority
• Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (Regional and Environmental
Approvals Branch)
• Port Burwell Provincial Park
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 7
• Elgin County Tourism
• Thames Valley District School Board
• Port Burwell Public School
• Ministry of Natural Resources (Southern Regional Office)
• Ministry of Natural Resources (Aylmer District Office)
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• Ministry of Infrastructure
• Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
• Union Gas
• Hydro One
• Port Burwell Public Utilities
• Rogers
• Wightman Telecom
• Eastlink
• Transport Canada
• Otter Valley Utility Corridor & (Rail) Trail Board of Management
• Bayham Harbourfront Committee
• 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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 8
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-year elevation Regional storm elevation
Big Otter Creek at Lake 1.0 174.20 174.85
Big Otter Creek,
downstream at bridge
5.0 176.11 177.37
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).
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 9
Existing Drainage Network
The Storm Sewer System
Assessment, Meritech 2015
describes the storm sewer system
of Port Burwell. A survey of each
structure located within the village
of Port Burwell was done using
GPS (minus County infrastructure),
and was added to the Municipality’s
database. CCTV inspection of the
sewers was done from these
structures to determine condition,
and to piece together the existing
networks. Since the issuance of
that report, further information was
made available by Elgin County.
The overall network from 1981 is
shown in Figure 3.
Robinson Street (County Roads 19
and 42 between Bridge Street and
Victoria Street and County Roads
19 and 142 between Bridge Street
and Wellington Street, shown as
Union St. and Erieus St. on Figure
3), Victoria Street (County Road 50
between Wellington Street and
Robinson Street) and Wellington
Street (County Road 142 between
Victoria Street and Robinson
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
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 10
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.
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).
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 11
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.
Figure 5: Repair the Existing System
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 12
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.
Figure 6: Replace System, Same Outlet Locations
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 13
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.
Figure 7: Replace System, Fewer Outlet Locations
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 14
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 • Storm event that can be conveyed in piped system
• Outlet’s ability to handle piped flow
• Opportunity for development/intensification/growth
• Overland flow route
Completeness of System • Size of the area serviced with storm sewer
• Connectivity of the network
• Reduced flooding
Physical Environment • Impact to Big Otter Creek (construction impact)
• Impact to Lake Erie Beach (construction impact)
• Water quality
• Floodplain
Social Environment • Location of sewer on private property
(easement/acquisition)
• Temporary construction impact (noise, dust, detours)
• Built heritage
• Archeological potential impact
Financial • Impact on Capital Budget for construction
• Operation and maintenance costs
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
M
a
s
t
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
C
E
A
\
P
o
r
t
B
u
rw
e
l
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
.
d
o
c
x
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
6
P
a
g
e
1
5
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
1
Do
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
2
Re
p
a
i
r
t
h
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
3
Ne
w
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
S
a
m
e
Ou
t
l
e
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Alternative #4 New System, New Outlets
Co
n
v
e
y
a
n
c
e
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
S
c
o
r
e
:
1
2
5
5
St
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
co
n
v
e
y
e
d
i
n
p
i
p
e
d
sy
s
t
e
m
St
o
r
m
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
du
e
t
o
b
r
o
k
e
n
o
r
c
l
o
g
g
e
d
le
n
g
t
h
s
.
No
t
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
a
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
t
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
,
re
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
s
i
z
e
as
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
.
C
o
n
v
e
y
s
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
a
2
y
r
s
t
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
.
Co
n
v
e
y
s
5
-
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
i
n
pi
p
e
s
.
Conveys 5-year storm in pipes.
Ou
t
l
e
t
’
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
h
a
n
d
l
e
pi
p
e
d
f
l
o
w
(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
sl
o
p
e
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
d
o
n
o
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
m
u
c
h
s
t
o
r
m
f
l
o
w
.
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
o
u
t
l
e
t
i
s
cr
u
s
h
e
d
.
S
m
a
l
l
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
ou
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
/
b
e
a
c
h
h
a
r
d
to
f
i
n
d
/
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
.
Ou
t
l
e
t
i
n
g
o
o
d
s
h
a
p
e
a
t
t
h
e
be
a
c
h
,
B
i
g
O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
o
u
t
l
e
t
ha
s
p
i
p
e
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
p
u
l
l
e
d
ou
t
o
f
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
p
i
p
e
.
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
o
u
t
l
e
t
i
s
n
o
t
de
s
i
r
e
d
.
S
m
a
l
l
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
ou
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
a
n
d
b
e
a
c
h
ar
e
h
a
r
d
t
o
f
i
n
d
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
.
Ou
t
l
e
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
n
e
w
s
t
o
r
m
pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
(
s
o
m
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
to
b
e
r
e
s
i
z
e
d
)
.
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
o
u
t
l
e
t
i
s
n
o
t
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
.
Sm
a
l
l
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
sl
o
p
e
a
n
d
b
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
h
a
r
d
t
o
fi
n
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
.
Outlets would be sized to accommodate new storm parameters (some outlets to be resized, others removed). Increase in size to outlet at beach.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
g
r
o
w
t
h
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
l
o
w
s
f
r
o
m
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
ca
n
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
l
o
w
s
f
r
o
m
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
ca
n
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
l
o
w
s
f
r
o
m
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
ca
n
b
e
c
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
.
F
u
t
u
r
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
n
o
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
(
o
n
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
as
s
u
m
e
d
)
.
Additional flows from increased imperviousness can be conveyed. Future expansion of village not included (on site control assumed).
Ov
er
l
a
n
d
f
l
o
w
r
o
u
t
e
No
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
o
v
e
r
l
a
n
d
f
l
o
w
ro
u
t
e
.
No
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
o
v
e
r
l
a
n
d
f
l
o
w
ro
u
t
e
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
e
x
i
s
t
s
t
o
ch
a
n
g
e
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
l
a
n
d
f
l
o
w
pa
t
h
,
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
r
o
a
d
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
(c
u
r
b
s
)
.
Opportunity exists to change the overland flow path, maintain road drainage within roadway (curbs).
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
Sy
s
t
e
m
S
c
o
r
e
:
1
2
5
5
Si
z
e
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
wi
t
h
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
Li
m
i
t
e
d
u
s
e
a
b
l
e
s
t
o
r
m
se
w
e
r
i
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
vi
l
l
a
g
e
.
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
i
s
in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
p
p
e
a
r
s
t
o
be
w
e
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
.
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
vi
l
l
a
g
e
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
s
t
o
r
m
se
w
e
r
.
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
re
m
a
i
n
s
w
e
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
.
Al
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
t
o
b
e
f
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
st
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
,
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
.
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
w
e
l
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
d
.
All streets to be fitted with storm sewers, with legal outlets. Addison Street remains well serviced.
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
M
a
s
t
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
C
E
A
\
P
o
r
t
B
u
rw
e
l
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
.
d
o
c
x
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
6
P
a
g
e
1
6
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
ne
t
w
o
r
k
Ve
r
y
f
e
w
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
.
St
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
.
B
l
i
n
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
m
a
i
n
a
s
bl
i
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Al
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
to
a
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
.
B
l
i
n
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
All streets to be connected to an outlet. Blind connections removed where possible.
Re
d
u
c
e
d
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
.
S
m
a
l
l
s
t
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
p
i
p
e
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
be
t
t
e
r
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
be
l
o
w
r
o
a
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
r
e
m
a
i
n
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
f
l
o
o
d
w
h
e
n
p
i
p
e
s
a
r
e
su
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
ro
a
d
s
w
i
t
h
b
e
t
t
e
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
,
ro
a
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
t
o
s
t
a
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
ro
a
d
w
a
y
,
d
i
r
e
c
t
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
’
s
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
t
o
r
i
g
h
t
of
w
a
y
w
h
e
r
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Re
d
u
c
e
s
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
Opportunity to reconstruct roads with better drainage, road drainage to stay within road way, direct private property’s drainage to right of way where possible. Reduces flooding.
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
c
o
r
e
:
5
5
3
3
Im
p
a
c
t
t
o
B
i
g
O
t
t
e
r
Cr
e
e
k
(
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
a
c
t
)
No
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
p
a
i
r
t
o
o
u
t
l
e
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
a
t
Bi
g
O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
fr
o
m
L
P
R
C
A
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Tw
o
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
fr
o
m
L
P
R
C
A
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
One new outlet into Big Otter Creek to be reconstructed for sizing. Permit from LPRCA required.
Im
p
a
c
t
t
o
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
Be
a
c
h
(
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
a
c
t
)
No
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
N
o
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
.
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
a
t
b
e
a
c
h
t
o
b
e
re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
z
i
n
g
.
One new outlet to the beach to be reconstructed for sizing.
Wa
t
e
r
q ua
l
i
t
y
No
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
N
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
O
u
t
l
e
t
t
o
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
b
e
a
c
h
co
u
l
d
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
b
i
o
-
sw
a
l
e
s
.
Outlet to Lake Erie beach could incorporate improvements with bio-swales.
10
0
-ye
a
r
f lo
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
,
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
i
n
v
e
r
t
s
ar
e
b
e
l
o
w
f
l
o
o
d
l
i
n
e
.
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
ar
e
n
o
t
s
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
.
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
,
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
i
n
v
e
r
t
s
ar
e
b
e
l
o
w
f
l
o
o
d
l
i
n
e
.
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
ar
e
n
o
t
s
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
p
i
p
e
,
in
v
e
r
t
t
o
c
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
b
e
a
c
h
to
m
a
t
c
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
r
t
.
Ou
t
l
e
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
.
Increased diameter pipe, invert to creek and beach to match existing invert. Outlets are not submerged.
So
c
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
c
o
r
e
:
2
3
4
5
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
e
w
e
r
o
n
pr
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
/
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
)
St
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
cr
o
s
s
e
s
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
Mu
s
e
u
m
.
O
n
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
t
o
B
i
g
Ot
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
i
s
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d
t
o
be
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
St
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
c
r
o
s
s
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
Mu
s
e
u
m
.
O
n
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
t
o
B
i
g
Ot
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
i
s
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d
t
o
b
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
St
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
ri
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
.
O
u
t
l
e
t
t
o
B
i
g
Ot
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
o
n
pr
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
co
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
Storm sewer would be relocated to municipal right of way, outlets to be within municipal or county property.
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
M
a
s
t
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
C
E
A
\
P
o
r
t
B
u
rw
e
l
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
.
d
o
c
x
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
6
P
a
g
e
1
7
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
c on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
a
c
t
(
n
o
i
s
e
,
d
u
s
t
,
de
t
o
u
r
s
)
No
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
t
o
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
r
o
a
d
w
o
r
k
l
i
m
i
t
s
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
o
b
e
a
c
h
an
d
a
l
o
n
g
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Construction disturbance with road work limits. Impacts extend to beach and along commercial area. Construction on private property required.
Bu
i
l
t
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
mu
s
e
u
m
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
mu
s
e
u
m
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
,
r
e
p
a
i
r
ma
y
b
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
mu
s
e
u
m
i
s
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
i
n
pl
a
c
e
.
Existing sewer under museum is relocated and properly abandoned in place.
Ar
c
h
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
No
n
e
.
M
a
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
o
f
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ma
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
o
f
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
May require Heritage Assessment, consultation with Ministry of Culture required prior to implementation.
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
:
5
4
2
1
Im
p
a
c
t
o
n
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
fo
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
No
n
e
.
L
o
w
e
s
t
c
o
s
t
.
H
i
g
h
c
o
s
t
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
&
2
.
High cost compared to Alternatives 1 & 2.
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
St
a
f
f
t
i
m
e
t
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
re
q
u
e
s
t
s
/
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
“
f
i
x
e
s
”
.
St
a
f
f
t
i
m
e
t
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
la
s
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
0
-
y
e
a
r
s
wi
t
h
n
e
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
System should be able to last more than 50-yearswith new construction. Flooding complaints should be eliminated. Maintenance cost less due to fewer outlets.
To
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
14
16
19
19
Re
c
o
m
m
en
d
e
d
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
No
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
,
d
o
e
s
no
t
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
.
No
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
,
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
sa
t
i
s
f
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
.
No
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
,
o
n
l
y
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Recommended , addresses the problem statement
1
=
m
o
s
t
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
,
3
=
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
,
5
=
m
o
s
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e
3
:
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 18
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
• 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
• Ministry of the Environment and Climate Control Approvals for construction
• Permit from Long Point Region Conservation Authority for repair to outlets
• Consultation with Ministry of Culture on potential Archeological Study
requirements
• Construction drawings, tender and construction
• 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
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 19
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
• Ministry of the Environment and Climate Control Approvals for construction
• Permit from Long Point Region Conservation Authority for repair/replacement
of outlets
• Consultation with Ministry of Culture on potential Archeological Study
requirements
• Construction drawings, tender and construction
• 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
• Ministry of the Environment and Climate Control Approvals for construction
• Permit from Long Point Region Conservation Authority for change to outlets
• Consultation with Ministry of Culture on potential Archeological Study
requirements
• 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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 20
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 21
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 22
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 23
Priority Number of Sections Total Length Cost Estimate
Priority 1 (High) 11 1564 $ 3,090,000
Priority 2 (Medium) 13 1973 $ 3,470,000
Priority 3 (Low) 16 2205 $ 3,520,000
Priority 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:
• New 1.5m wide sidewalk, both sides of the road
• New curb and gutter (unless the right of way is less than 18m wide)
• Sub-drain along the full length of road, under both curbs
• Re-use Granular B road sub-base material
• Imported Granular A road base
• Re-pave the entire width of road with a 9.0m asphalt width (base pavement only)
• No costs for watermain or sanitary
• 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:
• Pitt Street east of Victoria Street (no storm sewer)
• Robinson Street from approx. 70m south of Pitt to the public beach
• Lake Shore Line over 100m east of Elizabeth Street (the extent and outlet of the
existing drainage system is unclear)
• 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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 27
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
reconstructed first.
Outlets are reconstructed first.
Highest priorities are generally
the highest cost; thus, the
annual costs would be highest
at the beginning.
Especially for medium priority
sections: sections with the
same priority are spread out
over the village, resulting in a
fragmented work program.
By neighbourhood
Least disruption to residents: work
would commence and be complete
in one year in any given area.
Combination of small and large
sewers and fewer “connect to
existing” locations results in lower
costs.
Larger work areas allow the
contractor suitable
stockpiling/storage areas.
Reduced restoration costs.
Difficult to determine where
the limits of each
neighbourhood should be
Need to determine an average
priority score, to determine
which neighbourhood gets
worked on first
May not replace all of the
highest priority sections at the
very beginning.
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 28
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
Score
Cost Estimate
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 30
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
Semi-detached
Townhouses
Apartments
0.40 – 0.45
0.45 – 0.60
0.50 – 0.70
0.60 – 0.75
Institutional 0.40 – 0.75
Commercial 0.75 – 0.85
Industrial 0.65 – 0.75
Open Space 0.25
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 31
Design storm parameters:
a b c
2-year 747.96 7.467 0.8048
5-year 1007.05 7.382 0.8040
10-year 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 0°
through 45° changes in flow direction, and 0.06m for changes between 46° and 90°.
Flows should not turn more than 90°. Sewers larger than 1200mm diameter should
not turn more than 45°
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.
Port Burwell Master Drainage Study
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx August 2016 Page 32
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 Bu rwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix A: Public Consultation
MEV2014 K:\Projects\4423\00-Admin\PM\Bayham EA Meeting Minutes.docx January 29, 2016 Page 2
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
quotation to inspect and determine size, invert and location. No
CCTV.
MER
-County roads to work with drainage system as determined in
preferred alternative. Analysis entire town as a single system.
MER
-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
elements necessary for storm sewer, including curb and gutter
replacement if necessary
Info
1.5 Finance and Cost Sharing
-County to contribute to their size needed if sewers are in poor
condition for their drainage, oversizing to be paid by Bayham.
All
-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 3
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
appropriate (Province and Federal Government)
All
Agenda prepared by:
MERITECH ENGINEERING
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
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
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
Municipality of Bayham
9344 Plank Road
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0
(519) 866-5521
pshipway@bayham.on.ca
Consultant: Ms. Amanda Froese, P.Eng. FEC
Meritech Engineering
1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202
Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2
(519) 623-1140
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-
opment 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 mas-
ter 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 Munici-
pality’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 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, CAO Consultant: Ms. Amanda Froese, P.Eng. FEC
Municipality of Bayham Meritech Engineering
9344 Plank Road 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2
(519) 866.5521 (519) 623.1140
pshipway@bayham.on.ca amandaf@meritech.ca
8c
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
M
a
s
t
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
u
d
y
C
l
a
s
s
E
A
Schedule B
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
r
e
#
1
Ju
n
e
1
8
,
2
0
1
6
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
G
y
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
,
1
:
0
0
p
m
–
3
:
0
0
p
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
To
n
i
g
h
t
w
i
l
l
:
To
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
a
d
d
i
n
p
u
t
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
Pl
e
a
s
e
s
i
g
n
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
Pl
e
a
s
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
e
a
m
t
o
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
De
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
t
o
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
e
am
,
a
n
d
y
o
u
r
i
n
p
u
t
i
s
ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
d
.
To
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
o
a
r
d
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
h
e
e
t
s
or
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
e
a
m
b
e
l
o
w
:
Co
n
t
a
c
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
:
Am
a
n
d
a
F
r
o
e
s
e
,
P
.
E
n
g
.
P
a
u
l
S
h
i
p
w
a
y
,
C
A
O
Me
r
i
t
e
c
h
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
13
1
5
B
i
s
h
o
p
S
t
.
N
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
2
9
3
4
4
P
l
a
n
k
R
o
a
d
Ca
m
b
r
i
d
g
e
O
N
,
N
1
S
4
S
2
S
t
r
a
f
f
o
r
d
v
i
l
l
e
,
O
N
N
0
J
1
Y
0
(5
1
9
)
6
2
3
-
1
1
4
0
(
5
1
9
)
5
6
6
-
5
5
2
1
am
a
n
d
a
f
@
m
e
r
i
t
e
c
h
.
c
a
p
s
h
i
p
w
a
y
@
b
a
y
h
a
m
.
o
n
.
c
a
Th
e
C
l
a
s
s
E
A
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
a
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
n
e
t
w
o
rk
T
h
e
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
T
h
e
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
T
h
e
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
T
h
e
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
t
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
t
h
a
t
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
.
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
t
h
a
t
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
.
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
t
h
a
t
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
.
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
t
h
a
t
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
.
Th
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
t
u
d
y
h
a
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
es
s
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
a
g
u
i
d
in
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
g
u
i
d
e
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
lity in future
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
w
o
r
k
s
.
Th
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
P
o
r
t
Burwell. It will analyse
al
l
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
c
o
p
e
o
f
t
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
a
n
d
d
r
a
ining to the existing
ou
t
l
e
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
storm sewers
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
.
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
r
e
f
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
ra
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
e
y
i
t
t
o
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
.
St
o
r
m
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
c
a
n
b
e
e
i
t
h
e
r
i
n
p
i
p
e
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
o
r
a
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
s
e
s
e
w
e
r
s
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
c
a
r
r
y
a
n
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
r
a
i
n
w
at
e
r
t
h
a
t
i
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
h
a
s
5
k
n
o
w
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
B
i
g
O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
o
r
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
.
Th
e
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
i
n
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
d
o
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
r
e
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
i
n
m
a
n
y
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
a
r
e
in
p
o
o
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
r
e
i
n
n
e
e
d
o
f
r
e
p
a
i
r
o
r
r
e
p
l
ac
e
m
e
n
t
d
u
e
t
o
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
O
x
f
o
r
d
o
w
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
r
o
a
d
s
.
Th
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
h
a
s
a
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
:
D
o
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
:
R
e
p
a
i
r
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
sa
m
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
,
s
a
m
e
s
i
z
e
s
e
w
e
r
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
:
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
m
e
e
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
ta
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
s
a
m
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
4
:
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
m
e
e
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
ta
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
/
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
Ph
a
s
e
1
:
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
o
r
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
•
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
•
P
u
b
l
i
c
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
•
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
Ju
n
e
2
0
1
6
Ph
a
s
e
2
:
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
•
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
•
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
,
s
o
c
i
a
l
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
•
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
•
P
u
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
r
e
#
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
r
e
#
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
r
e
#
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
r
e
#
1
•
S
e
l
e
c
t
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
•
C
o
n
f
i
r
m
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
B
C
l
a
s
s
E
A
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
6
•
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
•
3
0
-
d
a
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
e
r
i
o
d
•
M
a
s
t
e
r
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
to
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
.
Spring 2017-2030 Implementation •Prepare designs for individual road reconstruction projects •Proceed to construction
To
d
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
Le
a
v
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
n
i
t
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
:
Wi
t
h
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
c
l
o
g
g
e
d
o
r
b
r
o
k
e
n
an
d
d
o
n
o
t
c
o
n
v
e
y
f
l
o
w
s
Wi
t
h
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
h
a
t
a
p
p
e
a
r
n
o
t
to
h
a
v
e
a
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
Wi
t
h
s
e
w
e
r
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
D
o
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
d
o
e
s
no
t
h
a
v
e
a
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
c
o
s
t
,
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
s
n
o
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
an
d
r
i
s
k
t
o
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
d
a
m
a
g
e
ca
u
s
e
d
b
y
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
m
a
y
c
o
s
t
t
h
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
Th
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
i
n
p
a
r
t
o
r
in
w
h
o
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
.
Re
p
a
i
r
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
h
a
t
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
sa
m
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
i
z
e
a
s
th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
Se
w
e
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
ca
r
r
y
l
a
r
g
e
r
s
t
o
r
m
f
l
o
w
s
Se
w
e
r
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
Ou
t
l
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
w
o
r
k
o
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
B
i
g
O
t
t
e
r
Cr
e
e
k
Al
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
w
o
r
k
o
r
n
o
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
ar
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
r
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
c
a
n
co
n
v
e
y
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
s
t
o
a
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
“
d
i
t
c
h
”
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
Ne
w
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
De
s
i
g
n
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
t
h
a
t
co
n
v
e
y
s
s
t
o
r
m
f
l
o
w
s
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
,
wi
t
h
s
e
w
e
r
s
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
a
2
o
r
5
-
y
e
a
r
st
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
i
d
e
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
m
a
y
co
n
v
e
y
f
l
o
w
s
u
p
t
o
t
h
e
5
-
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
h
e
n
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
e
w
e
r
s
Ou
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
B
i
g
O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
w
i
l
l
be
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
i
z
e
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
fl
o
w
s
Ou
t
l
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
(
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
“D
i
t
c
h
”
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
,
b
u
t
s
e
w
e
r
re
-
r
o
u
t
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
a
r
e
a
Ne
w
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
De
s
i
g
n
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
P
o
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
t
h
a
t
co
n
v
e
y
s
s
t
o
r
m
f
l
o
w
s
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
,
to
c
o
n
v
e
y
a
2
o
r
5
-
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
i
d
e
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
m
a
y
co
n
v
e
y
f
l
o
w
s
u
p
t
o
t
h
e
5
-
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
h
e
n
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
e
w
e
r
s
Ou
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
B
i
g
O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
w
i
l
l
be
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
i
z
e
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
fl
o
w
s
Ou
t
l
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
i
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
a
r
e
a
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
s
o
v
e
r
5
m
a
l
o
n
g
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
1
:
#1
:
#1
:
#1
:
Do
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
Do
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
Do
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
Do
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
2
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
2
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
2
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
2
:
Re
p
a
i
r
Re
p
a
i
r
Re
p
a
i
r
Re
p
a
i
r
t
h
e
th
e
th
e
th
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
3
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
3
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
3
:
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#
3
:
Ne
w
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
Ne
w
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
Ne
w
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
Ne
w
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
Sa
m
e
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
Sa
m
e
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
Sa
m
e
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
Sa
m
e
O
u
t
l
e
t
s
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
#
4
:
#4: #4: #4: New System, New System, New System, New System, New Outlets New Outlets New Outlets New Outlets
Co
n
v
e
y
a
n
c
e
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(C
a
n
i
t
c
o
n
v
e
y
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
t
o
r
m
ev
e
n
t
?
)
1
2
5
5
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
S
y
s
t
e
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
(H
o
w
m
u
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
i
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
?
)
1
2
5
5
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
-
Bi
g
O
t
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
,
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
B
e
a
c
h
(d
o
e
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
)
5
5
3
3
So
c
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
(
H
o
w
d
o
e
s
i
t
af
f
e
c
t
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
t
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
)
2
3
4
5
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
(W
h
a
t
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
5
4
2
1
1=
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
,
3
=
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
,
5
=
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
14
1
6
1
9
19
Do
e
s
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
h
a
v
e
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
vi
l
l
a
g
e
?
No
.
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
r
e
a
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
a
s
i
t
i
s
w
e
l
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
r
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
,
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
r
a
v
in
e
a
n
d
st
o
r
m
i
n
l
e
t
s
.
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
en
d
e
d
;
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
o
u
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
f
l
u
s
h
i
n
g
p
i
p
e
s
.
Sm
a
l
l
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
is
a
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
,
c
a
n
i
t
b
e
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
?
Ye
s
.
By
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
f
l
o
w
s
n
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
s
.
Ra
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
m
a
i
n
o
v
e
r
l
a
nd
t
o
a
“
b
i
o
-
s
w
a
l
e
”
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
a
n
d
th
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
,
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
,
an
d
t
h
e
n
i
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
.
L
a
r
g
e
st
o
r
m
ev
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
f
l
o
w
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
b
i
o
-
s
w
a
l
e
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
th
i
s
sy
s
t
e
m
a
s
a
n
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
s
p
r
o
po
s
e
d
.
Ar
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
s
a
n
y
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
t
h
a
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
?
Ye
s
.
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
w
o
r
k
o
n
t
h
ei
r
ro
a
d
s
.
Co
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
m
a
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
i
m
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
h
a
s
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
r
o
a
d
s
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
d
o
n
e
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
f
o
r
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
G
r
an
t
s
.
Wh
a
t
i
f
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
’
t
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
th
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
?
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
b
e
d
o
n
e
in
20
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
f
u
t
ure
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
o
p
e
s
.
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
i
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
nually
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
p
r
o
jects
wi
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
.
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
w
a
s
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
ly
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
k
n
o
w
n
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
Ho
w
w
i
l
l
t
h
i
s
a
f
f
e
c
t
l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
?
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
,
i
n
s
t
a
l
lation
of
n
e
w
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
,
c
a
t
c
h
b
a
s
i
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
w
i
l
l
be
do
n
e
b
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
.
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
m
a
y
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
ya
r
d
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
prior to
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
c
a
n
b
e
m
i
n
i
mized,
by
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
n
i
g
h
t
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
a
n
d
c
u
r
b
-
side
ga
r
b
a
g
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
d
o
n
e
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
.
Wh
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
?
In
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
a
s
t
o
r
m
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
i
z
e
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
l
a
r
g
e
r storm
ev
e
n
t
s
t
o
d
r
a
i
n
o
u
t
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
.
T
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
r
e
a
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
m
o
r
e
w
a
t
e
r
b
e
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
t
hrough
th
e
p
i
p
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
u
t
l
e
t
,
a
n
d
p
o
n
d
a
r
e
a
.
I
t is not a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
Ne
w
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
,
wi
t
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
a
5
-
y
e
a
r
st
o
r
m
,
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
v
e
y
a
2
-
ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
.
Se
w
e
r
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
St
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
m
u
s
e
u
m
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
(
t
o
B
i
g
Ot
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
)
Ro
a
d
s
i
d
e
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
m
a
y
co
n
v
e
y
f
l
o
w
s
u
p
t
o
t
h
e
5
-
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
h
e
n
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
e
w
e
r
s
Ou
t
l
e
t
s
L
a
k
e
E
r
i
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
i
z
e
t
o
co
n
v
e
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
f
l
o
w
s
Ou
t
l
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
i
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
,
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
a
b
i
o
-
s
w
a
l
e
an
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
f
r
o
m
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
a
r
e
a
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
to
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
u
t
o
v
e
r
n
e
x
t
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
Re
v
i
e
w
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
Co
n
f
i
r
m
t
h
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
p
u
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
t
o
m
e
e
t
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
a
l
t
e
rnative
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
t
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
th with
fi
n
a
l
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Th
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
w
i
l
l
a
c
c
e
p
t
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
nd use it to
gu
i
d
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
l
l
a
g
e
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
To
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
Am
a
n
d
a
F
r
o
e
s
e
,
P
.
E
n
g
.
P
a
u
l
S
h
i
p
w
a
y
,
C
A
O
Me
r
i
t
e
c
h
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
13
1
5
B
i
s
h
o
p
S
t
.
N
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
2
9
3
4
4
P
l
a
n
k
R
o
a
d
Ca
m
b
r
i
d
g
e
O
N
,
N
1
S
4
S
2
S
t
r
a
f
f
o
r
d
v
i
l
l
e
,
O
N
N
0
J
1
Y
0
(5
1
9
)
6
2
3
-
1
1
4
0
(
5
1
9
)
5
6
6
-
5
5
2
1
am
a
n
d
a
f
@
m
e
r
i
t
e
c
h
.
c
a
p
s
h
i
p
w
a
y
@
b
a
y
h
a
m
.
o
n
.
c
a
REPORT
CAO
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;
AN D THAT staff be directed to elevate and seed Part 'A' within the current
confines of the drainage outlet;
AN D 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
architects - engineers
SPRIET ASSOCIATES
MAY 31 2016
PLAN
PROPOSED CONCEPT PLANS
PORT BURWELL EAST BEACH
SCALE: 1 : 250
JOB 216117
KEY PLAN
SCALE: NTS
PORT BURWELL BEACH IMPROVEMENTS
Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport
Heritage Program Unit
Programs and Services Branch
401 Bay Street, Suite 1700
Toronto ON M7A 0A7
Tel: 416 314 7145
Fax: 416 212 1802
Ministère du Tourisme,
de la Culture et du Sport
Unité des programmes patrimoine
Direction des programmes et des services
401, rue Bay, Bureau 1700
Toronto ON M7A 0A7
Tél: 416 314 7145
Téléc: 416 212 1802
April 5, 2016 (EMAIL ONLY)
Amanda Froese, P.Eng
Meritech Engineering
1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202
Cambridge, ON N1R 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 wit h
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 Evaluating Archaeological Potential to determine if an archaeological assessment is needed.
MTCS archaeological sites data are available at archaeology@ontario.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
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.
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
1
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 N0J 1Y0
Office: (519) 866-5521
pshipway@bayham.on.ca
From: John Seldon [mailto:jdseldon@hotmail.com]
Sent: June-15-16 7:57 AM
To: Paul Shipway <PShipway@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 18th; 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
1
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 N0J 1Y0
Office: (519) 866-5521
pshipway@bayham.on.ca
From: John Seldon [mailto:jdseldon@hotmail.com]
Sent: June-15-16 8:03 AM
To: Paul Shipway <PShipway@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
John Seldon Storm Water Flooding, Port Burwell 21 Erieus St.
1
June 15, 2016
Mr. Paul Shipway, CAO
Municipality of Bayham
9344 Plank Road
Straffordville, ON N0J 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 16th, 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 Burwell/Vienna):
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 1 to 10 with the 10 representing the
most critical location of the network (the outlet).
b. Area Serviced: Assigned value is 1 in a range of 1 to 10, with 1 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.
John Seldon Storm Water Flooding, Port Burwell 21 Erieus St.
2
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.
John Seldon Storm Water Flooding, Port Burwell 21 Erieus St.
3
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
John Seldon
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Bu rwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix B: Existing Documents
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Bu rwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix C: Storm Drainage Area
Plans and Sewer Design Sheets
Page 1 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
77
79
1
2.
3
5
0.
6
5
1.
5
2
8
1.
5
2
8
10
.
0
0
10
.
5
7
10
1
.
3
9
4
43
0
.
2
1
9
58
.
0
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 0.57 90%1.926
77
79
1.
5
2
8
10
.
5
7
79
4
2
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
1
9
9
1.
7
2
6
10
.
5
7
11
.
6
8
98
.
7
7
6
47
3
.
6
8
8
12
0
.
3
67
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
65
1
.
1
1
7
1.820 1.10 73%2.001
1
2
3
1.
1
0
0.
5
5
0.
6
0
4
0.
6
0
4
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
8
10
1
.
3
9
4
17
0
.
0
8
8
10
3
.
8
45
0
PV
C
1.
2
0
%
31
2
.
3
1
8
1.964 0.88 54%2.003
2
3
4
0.
7
2
0.
6
0
0.
4
3
3
1.
0
3
7
10
.
8
8
11
.
3
4
97
.
4
4
2
28
0
.
7
1
5
55
.
0
52
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
43
0
.
0
6
2
1.987 0.46 65%2.126
3
4
5
0.
8
3
0.
4
0
0.
3
3
0
1.
3
6
8
11
.
3
4
12
.
2
4
95
.
5
0
7
36
2
.
7
9
4
90
.
3
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 0.89 76%1.867
79
4
1.
7
2
6
11
.
6
8
4
5
6
0.
2
2
0.
4
0
0.
0
8
7
3.
1
8
1
12
.
2
4
12
.
5
5
91
.
9
8
9
81
2
.
9
2
5
48
.
5
67
5
PV
C
1.
2
0
%
92
0
.
8
1
8
2.573 0.31 88%2.933
93
6
7
0.
7
1
0.
4
0
0.
2
8
6
0.
2
8
6
10
.
0
0
11
.
3
2
10
1
.
3
9
4
80
.
4
5
0
11
2
.
2
37
5
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
15
6
.
8
2
0
1.420 1.32 51%1.420
94
80
8
0.
8
4
0.
4
0
0.
3
3
5
0.
3
3
5
10
.
0
0
11
.
2
6
10
1
.
3
9
4
94
.
2
4
0
10
7
.
1
37
5
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
15
6
.
8
2
0
1.420 1.26 60%1.491
4
5
3.
1
8
1
12
.
5
5
5
6
9
0.
1
8
0.
4
0
0.
0
7
0
3.
2
5
2
12
.
5
5
12
.
7
9
90
.
8
2
2
82
0
.
3
5
9
53
.
8
67
5
PV
C
2.
6
0
%
13
5
5
.
4
0
8
3.788 0.24 61%3.977
93
6
0.
2
8
6
11
.
3
2
6
80
10
0.
3
5
0.
4
0
0.
1
4
2
3.
6
7
9
12
.
7
9
13
.
4
8
89
.
9
6
4
91
9
.
3
9
6
10
0
.
2
82
5
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
12
8
3
.
8
9
3
2.402 0.70 72%2.618
94
80
0.
3
3
5
11
.
2
6
80
81
4.
0
1
4
13
.
4
8
13
.
5
9
87
.
5
4
6
97
6
.
0
5
0
14
.
7
82
5
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
12
8
3
.
8
9
3
2.402 0.10 76%2.666
81
82
11
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
1
5
6
0.
1
5
6
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
2
10
1
.
3
9
4
44
.
0
5
0
90
.
8
30
0
PV
C
1.
8
0
%
12
9
.
7
3
8
1.835 0.82 34%1.624
82
83
0.
1
5
6
10
.
8
2
11
.
0
8
97
.
6
8
5
42
.
4
3
9
16
.
0
30
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
74
.
9
0
4
1.060 0.25 57%1.091
82
83
0.
1
5
6
11
.
0
8
83
31
34
1.
0
7
0.
4
0
0.
4
2
7
0.
5
8
3
11
.
0
8
12
.
4
4
96
.
6
1
3
15
6
.
4
8
1
11
3
.
3
45
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
22
0
.
8
4
2
1.389 1.36 71%1.514
Sh
a
k
e
s
p
e
a
r
e
S
t
(
N
o
f
N
e
w
t
o
n
)
Ne
w
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
No
r
t
h
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
t
o
O
u
t
l
e
t
1
Ma
p
l
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
N
e
w
t
o
n
)
Mi
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
N
e
w
t
o
n
)
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
St
r
a
c
h
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
Page 2 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
83
84
12
0.
7
0
0.
4
0
0.
2
7
9
0.
2
7
9
10
.
0
0
10
.
9
3
10
1
.
3
9
4
78
.
6
4
8
68
.
8
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 0.93 58%1.267
84
85
13
0.
2
5
0.
4
0
0.
1
0
2
0.
3
8
1
10
.
9
3
11
.
4
4
97
.
2
2
2
10
2
.
8
5
0
37
.
8
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 0.51 76%1.359
85
22
0.
3
8
1
11
.
4
4
11
.
6
9
95
.
0
8
9
10
0
.
5
9
3
17
.
9
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 0.24 74%1.359
4.
0
1
4
13
.
5
9
81
29
32
0.
9
0
0.
4
0
0.
3
5
8
4.
3
7
2
13
.
5
9
14
.
2
6
87
.
2
0
3
10
5
8
.
9
7
8
89
.
7
90
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
14
0
2
.
2
6
1
2.204 0.68 76%2.436
94
95
14
0.
7
4
0.
4
0
0.
2
9
5
0.
2
9
5
10
.
0
0
11
.
0
3
10
1
.
3
9
4
82
.
9
6
3
84
.
5
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 1.03 86%1.546
95
20
0.
2
9
5
11
.
0
3
11
.
1
5
96
.
8
1
0
79
.
2
1
2
9.
2
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 0.12 58%1.279
86
87
15
0.
5
5
0.
4
0
0.
2
2
0
0.
2
2
0
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
1
10
1
.
3
9
4
62
.
0
7
5
66
.
7
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.81 64%1.464
87
24
0.
2
2
0
10
.
8
1
10
.
9
2
97
.
7
3
7
59
.
8
3
7
6.
6
30
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
74
.
9
0
4
1.060 0.10 80%1.182
17
18
16
0.
4
8
0.
7
0
0.
3
3
4
0.
3
3
4
10
.
0
0
10
.
4
8
10
1
.
3
9
4
94
.
0
4
3
67
.
6
30
0
PV
C
3.
0
0
%
16
7
.
4
9
1
2.370 0.48 56%2.441
18
19
17
0.
9
9
0.
4
0
0.
3
9
5
0.
7
2
9
10
.
4
8
10
.
8
4
99
.
2
1
7
20
0
.
8
3
2
60
.
8
37
5
PV
C
3.
0
0
%
30
3
.
6
8
1
2.750 0.37 66%2.956
19
20
18
0.
2
8
0.
4
0
0.
1
1
1
0.
8
4
0
10
.
8
4
11
.
2
1
97
.
6
0
1
22
7
.
6
7
6
48
.
4
45
0
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
34
9
.
1
8
2
2.196 0.37 65%2.349
95
20
0.
2
9
5
11
.
1
5
20
21
19
0.
4
7
0.
4
0
0.
1
8
7
1.
3
2
2
11
.
2
1
11
.
8
7
96
.
0
4
7
35
2
.
5
7
4
85
.
6
60
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
61
4
.
0
1
2
2.172 0.66 57%2.237
21
22
20
0.
6
2
0.
4
0
0.
2
4
7
1.
5
6
9
11
.
8
7
12
.
4
4
93
.
4
0
3
40
7
.
0
0
4
74
.
5
60
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
61
4
.
0
1
2
2.172 0.57 66%2.334
85
22
0.
3
8
1
11
.
6
9
22
23
21
0.
5
9
0.
4
0
0.
2
3
5
2.
1
8
4
12
.
4
4
13
.
1
0
91
.
2
3
1
55
3
.
4
8
2
72
.
0
67
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
65
1
.
1
1
7
1.820 0.66 85%2.056
23
24
22
0.
4
8
0.
4
0
0.
1
9
2
2.
3
7
6
13
.
1
0
13
.
7
6
88
.
8
6
1
58
6
.
5
6
9
71
.
9
67
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
65
1
.
1
1
7
1.820 0.66 90%2.083
87
24
0.
2
2
0
10
.
9
2
24
25
23
0.
2
4
0.
4
0
0.
0
9
4
2.
6
9
1
13
.
7
6
14
.
1
7
86
.
6
2
9
64
7
.
5
4
5
48
.
5
75
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
86
2
.
3
4
1
1.952 0.41 75%2.157
25
26
24
0.
2
1
0.
4
0
0.
0
8
3
2.
7
7
4
14
.
1
7
14
.
5
5
85
.
2
8
8
65
7
.
2
7
3
44
.
7
75
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
86
2
.
3
4
1
1.952 0.38 76%2.167
26
27
25
0.
1
7
0.
4
0
0.
0
6
8
2.
8
4
3
14
.
5
5
14
.
8
8
84
.
0
9
3
66
4
.
0
1
2
37
.
9
75
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
86
2
.
3
4
1
1.952 0.32 77%2.167
88
89
26
0.
9
2
0.
4
0
0.
3
7
0
0.
3
7
0
10
.
0
0
10
.
5
6
10
1
.
3
9
4
10
4
.
1
4
3
53
.
1
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 0.56 59%1.651
88
89
0.
3
7
0
10
.
5
6
89
90
27
0.
6
2
0.
4
0
0.
2
4
6
0.
6
1
6
10
.
5
6
11
.
2
4
98
.
8
5
3
16
9
.
1
9
2
57
.
2
45
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
22
0
.
8
4
2
1.389 0.69 77%1.541
90
91
28
1.
2
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
8
2
1.
0
9
8
11
.
2
4
11
.
8
3
95
.
9
1
2
29
2
.
5
6
4
54
.
3
52
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
33
3
.
1
2
5
1.539 0.59 88%1.747
Er
i
e
u
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
)
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
o
f
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
)
Ma
c
N
e
i
l
C
o
u
r
t
El
i
z
a
b
e
t
h
S
t
(
N
o
f
H
a
n
n
a
h
)
Sh
a
k
e
s
p
e
a
r
e
S
t
(
N
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
Sh
a
k
e
s
p
e
a
r
e
S
t
(
S
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
)
St
r
a
c
h
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
)
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
Page 3 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
90
91
1.
0
9
8
11
.
8
3
91
92
29
0.
5
1
0.
4
0
0.
2
0
2
1.
3
0
0
11
.
8
3
13
.
0
2
93
.
5
4
5
33
7
.
8
4
2
12
0
.
0
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 1.19 71%1.834
5
92
30
0.
8
0
0.
4
0
0.
3
2
1
0.
3
2
1
10
.
0
0
11
.
0
7
10
1
.
3
9
4
90
.
3
4
2
10
1
.
8
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 1.07 52%1.587
91
92
1.
3
0
0
13
.
0
2
92
7
1.
6
2
1
13
.
0
2
13
.
0
9
89
.
1
3
6
40
1
.
3
4
2
9.
5
60
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
61
4
.
0
1
2
2.172 0.07 65%2.324
97
28
31
0.
6
8
0.
4
0
0.
2
7
4
0.
2
7
4
10
.
0
0
11
.
2
0
10
1
.
3
9
4
77
.
0
5
9
87
.
8
30
0
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
86
.
4
9
2
1.224 1.20 89%1.395
99
29
33
0.
4
7
0.
4
0
0.
1
8
9
0.
1
8
9
10
.
0
0
10
.
9
6
10
1
.
3
9
4
53
.
1
1
9
78
.
4
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.96 55%1.395
10
1
31
60
0.
5
0
0.
4
0
0.
2
0
0
0.
2
0
0
10
.
0
0
10
.
9
2
10
1
.
3
9
4
56
.
2
7
3
75
.
7
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.92 58%1.423
86
33
35
0.
5
2
0.
4
0
0.
2
1
0
0.
2
1
0
10
.
0
0
10
.
7
9
10
1
.
3
9
4
59
.
0
5
6
64
.
7
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.79 61%1.436
10
2
33
82
0.
5
2
0.
7
0
0.
3
6
1
0.
3
6
1
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
0
10
1
.
3
9
4
10
1
.
5
9
4
76
.
5
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 0.80 58%1.635
92
7
1.
6
2
1
13
.
0
9
7
28
36
0.
1
7
0.
4
0
0.
0
6
9
1.
6
9
0
13
.
0
9
13
.
5
0
88
.
8
8
1
41
7
.
2
7
7
52
.
9
60
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
61
4
.
0
1
2
2.172 0.41 68%2.334
97
28
0.
2
7
4
11
.
2
0
28
29
37
0.
3
8
0.
4
0
0.
1
5
3
2.
1
1
7
13
.
5
0
14
.
3
7
87
.
4
8
9
51
4
.
5
3
3
11
3
.
7
60
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
61
4
.
0
1
2
2.172 0.87 84%2.443
81
29
4.
3
7
2
14
.
2
6
99
29
0.
1
8
9
10
.
9
6
29
30
38
0.
5
3
0.
4
0
0.
2
1
3
6.
8
9
1
14
.
3
7
14
.
9
0
84
.
6
5
6
16
2
0
.
4
0
1
78
.
9
97
5
PV
C
0.
7
0
%
18
7
5
.
0
0
0
2.511 0.52 86%2.850
30
31
6.
8
9
1
14
.
9
0
15
.
1
2
83
.
0
5
3
15
8
9
.
7
0
9
33
.
7
97
5
PV
C
0.
7
0
%
18
7
5
.
0
0
0
2.511 0.22 85%2.838
83
31
0.
5
8
3
12
.
4
4
10
1
31
0.
2
0
0
10
.
9
2
31
32
39
0.
6
1
0.
4
0
0.
2
4
6
7.
9
1
9
15
.
1
2
15
.
8
1
82
.
3
8
8
18
1
2
.
4
1
4
10
1
.
2
10
5
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
21
1
5
.
2
1
1
2.443 0.69 86%2.760
32
33
7.
9
1
9
15
.
8
1
15
.
9
8
80
.
4
1
1
17
6
8
.
9
0
3
24
.
6
10
5
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
21
1
5
.
2
1
1
2.443 0.17 84%2.748
86
33
0.
2
1
0
10
.
7
9
10
2
33
0.
3
6
1
10
.
8
0
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
H
a
n
n
a
h
)
Mi
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
Ha
n
n
a
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Wa
t
e
r
l
o
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
St
r
a
c
h
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
Er
i
e
u
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
Sh
a
k
e
s
p
e
a
r
e
S
t
(
S
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
Er
i
e
u
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
l
o
o
)
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
Page 4 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
33
34
40
0.
4
5
0.
5
5
0.
2
4
7
8.
7
3
7
15
.
9
8
16
.
5
6
79
.
9
4
6
19
4
0
.
2
1
0
92
.
6
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.58 64%2.857
34
35
8.
7
3
7
16
.
5
6
16
.
6
3
78
.
3
9
0
19
0
2
.
4
5
6
11
.
5
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.07 63%2.830
13
10
3
41
0.
4
4
0.
7
5
0.
3
2
7
0.
3
2
7
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
1
10
1
.
3
9
4
92
.
1
6
3
77
.
1
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 0.81 53%1.603
10
3
10
4
42
0.
2
8
0.
6
5
0.
1
7
9
0.
5
0
6
10
.
8
1
11
.
1
7
97
.
7
5
0
13
7
.
3
8
6
54
.
5
37
5
PV
C
2.
5
0
%
27
7
.
2
2
1
2.510 0.36 50%2.485
10
4
35
0.
5
0
6
11
.
1
7
11
.
3
5
96
.
2
1
4
13
5
.
2
2
8
15
.
1
45
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
22
0
.
8
4
2
1.389 0.18 61%1.458
34
35
8.
7
3
7
16
.
6
3
35
27
43
0.
2
8
0.
4
0
0.
1
1
1
9.
3
5
4
16
.
6
3
16
.
8
8
78
.
2
0
2
20
3
1
.
8
9
7
39
.
8
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.25 67%2.870
26
27
2.
8
4
3
14
.
8
8
35
27
9.
3
5
4
16
.
8
8
27
Ou
t
l
e
t
To
t
a
l
a
r
e
a
:
26
.
7
3
12
.
1
9
6
16
.
8
8
16
.
8
8
77
.
5
5
7
26
2
7
.
5
5
4
60
.
4
67
5
Co
n
c
3.
0
0
%
14
5
5
.
9
4
1
4.069
T
w
o
p
i
p
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
o
u
t
l
e
t
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
60
.
4
67
5
Co
n
c
3.
0
0
%
14
5
5
.
9
4
1
4.069
To
t
a
l
29
1
1
.
8
8
3
90%
10
5
10
6
50
1.
0
7
0.
5
0
0.
5
3
5
0.
5
3
5
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
9
10
1
.
3
9
4
15
0
.
5
7
0
10
3
.
6
37
5
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
21
4
.
7
3
5
1.944 0.89 70%2.119
10
7
10
8
51
0.
7
2
0.
4
0
0.
2
8
9
0.
2
8
9
10
.
0
0
11
.
1
1
10
1
.
3
9
4
81
.
5
2
1
94
.
3
37
5
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
15
6
.
8
2
0
1.420 1.11 52%1.420
10
8
10
9
52
0.
7
5
0.
4
0
0.
3
0
0
0.
5
9
0
11
.
1
1
12
.
0
7
96
.
4
8
4
15
8
.
0
4
0
80
.
5
45
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
22
0
.
8
4
2
1.389 0.97 72%1.514
10
9
10
6
53
1.
7
8
0.
5
0
0.
8
9
1
1.
4
8
1
12
.
0
7
12
.
8
6
92
.
6
1
2
38
0
.
9
2
0
79
.
3
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 0.79 80%1.884
11
0
8
54
0.
9
3
0.
4
0
0.
3
7
3
0.
3
7
3
10
.
0
0
11
.
0
3
10
1
.
3
9
4
10
5
.
1
0
0
98
.
1
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 1.03 60%1.651
11
1
11
2
55
0.
8
4
0.
4
0
0.
3
3
6
0.
3
3
6
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
5
10
1
.
3
9
4
94
.
5
1
0
85
.
2
30
0
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
11
8
.
4
3
4
1.675 0.85 80%1.868
11
2
11
3
56
0.
5
6
0.
4
0
0.
2
2
3
0.
5
5
8
10
.
8
5
11
.
3
7
97
.
5
8
6
15
1
.
3
3
4
61
.
2
37
5
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
21
4
.
7
3
5
1.944 0.52 70%2.119
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
Ou
t
l
e
t
1
@
t
h
e
B
r
i
d
g
e
So
u
t
h
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
t
o
O
u
t
l
e
t
3
El
i
z
a
b
e
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
El
i
z
a
b
e
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
Page 5 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
11
3
8
57
0.
4
9
0.
4
0
0.
1
9
5
0.
7
5
3
11
.
3
7
12
.
2
0
95
.
3
8
5
19
9
.
5
6
7
69
.
2
45
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
22
0
.
8
4
2
1.389 0.83 90%1.590
11
4
9
58
0.
6
3
0.
4
5
0.
2
8
2
0.
2
8
2
10
.
0
0
11
.
1
2
10
1
.
3
9
4
79
.
4
5
5
91
.
7
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 1.12 82%1.539
99
10
59
0.
2
5
0.
4
0
0.
0
9
8
0.
0
9
8
10
.
0
0
10
.
6
6
10
1
.
3
9
4
27
.
6
7
8
54
.
1
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.66 29%1.163
10
1
11
61
0.
2
5
0.
4
0
0.
0
9
8
0.
0
9
8
10
.
0
0
10
.
7
1
10
1
.
3
9
4
27
.
6
0
2
58
.
6
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.71 29%1.163
11
5
11
62
1.
0
2
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
9
0.
4
0
9
10
.
0
0
11
.
1
9
10
1
.
3
9
4
11
5
.
2
5
1
11
3
.
1
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 1.19 66%1.699
13
12
73
0.
6
9
0.
7
5
0.
5
1
4
0.
5
1
4
10
.
0
0
11
.
2
8
10
1
.
3
9
4
14
4
.
7
6
1
12
2
.
8
45
0
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
25
5
.
0
0
7
1.603 1.28 57%1.651
10
6
a
10
6
74
a
1.
2
7
0.
4
0
0.
5
0
8
0.
8
3
1
10
.
0
0
10
.
9
2
10
1
.
3
9
4
23
4
.
1
0
7
99
.
3
45
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
28
5
.
1
0
6
1.793 0.92 82%2.017
10
5
10
6
0.
5
3
5
10
.
8
9
10
9
10
6
1.
4
8
1
12
.
8
6
10
6
a
10
6
0.
8
3
1
10
.
9
2
10
6
8
74
0.
5
3
0.
6
5
0.
3
4
6
3.
1
9
3
12
.
8
6
13
.
8
3
89
.
7
1
1
79
5
.
6
7
1
13
2
.
0
75
0
PV
C
0.
8
0
%
99
5
.
7
4
5
2.254 0.98 80%2.513
11
0
8
0.
3
7
3
11
.
0
3
11
3
8
0.
7
5
3
12
.
2
0
8
9
75
0.
2
3
0.
5
5
0.
1
2
6
4.
4
4
5
13
.
8
3
14
.
2
8
86
.
3
7
7
10
6
6
.
5
4
1
59
.
1
90
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
14
0
2
.
2
6
1
2.204 0.45 76%2.447
11
4
9
0.
2
8
2
11
.
1
2
9
10
76
1.
1
6
0.
5
0
0.
5
8
2
5.
3
0
9
14
.
2
8
15
.
1
0
84
.
9
4
2
12
5
2
.
6
5
0
10
8
.
4
90
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
14
0
2
.
2
6
1
2.204 0.82 89%2.513
99
10
0.
0
9
8
10
.
6
6
10
11
77
0.
6
6
0.
4
0
0.
2
6
5
5.
6
7
3
15
.
1
0
15
.
7
1
82
.
4
4
3
12
9
9
.
0
8
6
10
9
.
7
90
0
PV
C
1.
1
0
%
18
9
8
.
6
7
0
2.985 0.61 68%3.238
10
1
11
0.
0
9
8
10
.
7
1
11
5
11
0.
4
0
9
11
.
1
9
11
12
78
0.
8
1
0.
4
0
0.
3
2
3
6.
5
0
3
15
.
7
1
16
.
5
5
80
.
6
8
0
14
5
7
.
4
1
2
12
2
.
3
10
5
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
21
1
5
.
2
1
1
2.443 0.83 69%2.650
We
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
o
f
E
r
i
e
u
s
)
We
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
o
f
E
r
i
e
u
s
)
Mi
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
Sh
a
k
e
s
p
e
a
r
e
S
t
(
N
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
St
r
a
c
h
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
St
r
a
c
h
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
r
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
We
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
o
f
E
l
i
z
a
b
e
t
h
)
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
Page 6 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
13
14
63
0.
6
2
0.
7
5
0.
4
6
9
0.
4
6
9
10
.
0
0
11
.
1
2
10
1
.
3
9
4
13
1
.
9
6
0
10
6
.
7
37
5
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
17
5
.
3
3
0
1.587 1.12 75%1.754
12
5
12
9
64
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
1
6
0
0.
1
6
0
10
.
0
0
10
.
8
7
10
1
.
3
9
4
45
.
1
9
9
71
.
2
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.87 47%1.300
12
9
15
65
0.
6
2
0.
5
0
0.
3
1
0
0.
3
1
0
10
.
0
0
11
.
1
9
10
1
.
3
9
4
87
.
2
9
7
94
.
6
37
5
PV
C
0.
7
0
%
14
6
.
6
9
2
1.328 1.19 60%1.300
15
14
66
0.
0
6
0.
7
5
0.
0
4
5
0.
3
5
5
11
.
1
9
11
.
5
6
96
.
1
4
9
94
.
9
2
0
27
.
7
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 0.38 70%1.300
11
6
11
7
67
0.
5
6
0.
4
0
0.
2
2
3
0.
2
2
3
10
.
0
0
10
.
7
4
10
1
.
3
9
4
62
.
8
6
4
74
.
7
30
0
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
11
8
.
4
3
4
1.675 0.74 53%1.692
11
7
11
8
68
2.
0
3
0.
4
0
0.
8
1
4
1.
0
3
7
10
.
7
4
11
.
4
3
98
.
0
3
8
28
2
.
3
6
0
89
.
9
45
0
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
34
9
.
1
8
2
2.196 0.68 81%2.459
11
8
11
9
69
0.
5
0
0.
4
0
0.
2
0
0
1.
2
3
7
11
.
4
3
12
.
0
1
95
.
1
6
7
32
6
.
9
3
2
84
.
6
52
5
PV
C
1.
5
0
%
52
6
.
7
1
7
2.433 0.58 62%2.579
11
9
11
5
70
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
1
5
6
1.
3
9
3
12
.
0
1
12
.
7
1
92
.
8
7
4
35
9
.
4
0
0
70
.
7
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 0.70 76%1.859
11
5
12
0
71
0.
6
7
0.
4
0
0.
2
6
9
1.
6
6
2
12
.
7
1
13
.
8
7
90
.
2
6
1
41
6
.
7
8
4
11
7
.
6
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 1.17 88%1.909
13
14
0.
4
6
9
11
.
1
2
15
14
0.
3
5
5
11
.
5
6
14
12
0
72
0.
6
6
0.
7
0
0.
4
6
2
1.
2
8
6
11
.
5
6
12
.
7
8
94
.
6
1
4
33
8
.
0
7
2
12
3
.
1
60
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
47
5
.
6
1
1
1.682 1.22 71%1.300
12
7
12
8
79
0.
6
8
0.
4
0
0.
2
7
3
0.
2
7
3
10
.
0
0
10
.
9
0
10
1
.
3
9
4
76
.
7
6
6
74
.
2
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.90 79%1.525
10
2
12
83
0.
2
7
0.
7
5
0.
2
0
3
0.
2
0
3
10
.
8
0
11
.
5
1
97
.
7
7
7
55
.
2
0
3
58
.
1
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.71 57%1.409
11
12
6.
5
0
3
16
.
5
5
13
12
0.
5
1
4
11
.
2
8
12
12
0
84
0.
8
8
0.
6
5
0.
5
7
2
7.
7
9
2
16
.
5
5
17
.
3
0
78
.
4
1
0
16
9
7
.
1
7
2
10
9
.
8
10
5
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
21
1
5
.
2
1
1
2.443 0.75 80%2.736
11
5
12
0
1.
6
6
2
13
.
8
7
14
12
0
1.
2
8
6
12
.
7
8
12
0
12
1
85
0.
7
9
0.
4
0
0.
3
1
8
11
.
0
5
8
17
.
3
0
18
.
0
7
76
.
4
9
1
23
4
9
.
6
3
6
12
3
.
2
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.77 78%2.964
12
2
12
1
86
0.
2
2
0.
4
0
0.
0
8
9
0.
0
8
9
10
.
9
6
11
.
4
4
97
.
1
2
5
23
.
9
5
8
40
.
0
30
0
PV
C
1.
0
0
%
96
.
7
0
1
1.368 0.49 25%1.094
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
Er
i
e
u
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
B
r
o
c
k
)
Ro
b
i
n
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
P
i
t
t
)
Pi
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
o
f
E
r
i
e
u
s
)
Pi
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
o
f
E
r
i
e
u
s
)
St
r
a
c
h
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
P
i
t
t
)
Er
i
e
u
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
f
B
r
o
c
k
)
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
Page 7 of 7
Pi
p
e
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
:
0.6 m/s min.6.0
m
/
s
m
a
x
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Po
r
t
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
I=
A
/
(
T
c
+
B
)
^
C
Fi
l
e
:
4
4
2
3
A=
1
0
0
7
.
0
5
n
=
0
.
0
2
4
C
S
P
Ca
l
c
'
d
b
y
:
JE
L
Re
f
#
MO
E
R
e
f
N
u
m
B=
7.
3
8
2
n=0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE
Da
t
e
:
C=
0.
8
0
4
C
h
k
'
d
b
y
:
CH
T
Da
t
e
:
5 Y
e
a
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
o
r
m
Q
=
C
I
A
/
0
.
3
6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
:
t
c
=
t
i
+
t
f
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
Wh
e
r
e
:
Q
:
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
(
L
/
s
)
Wh
e
r
e
:
ti
:
i
n
l
e
t
t
i
m
e
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
Qc
a
p
.
=
(
D
/
1
0
0
0
)
^
2
.
6
6
7
*
(
S
/
1
0
0
)
^
0
.
5
/
(
3
.
2
1
1
*
n
)
*
1
0
0
0
(
L
/
s)
C
:
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tf
:
t
i
m
e
o
f
f
l
o
w
i
n
p
i
p
e
(
m
i
n
u
t
e
)
D:
p
i
p
e
s
i
z
e
(
m
m
)
I
:
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
tf
=
L
/
6
0
V
S:
s
l
o
p
e
(
g
r
a
d
e
)
o
f
p
i
p
e
(
%
)
A
:
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
Mi
n
.
t
i
=
10
n:
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
e
c
i
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
u
m
.
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
Le
n
g
t
h
N.
D
.
Pi
p
e
Sl
o
p
e
Qc
a
p
.
V Actual
Fr
o
m
To
Ar
e
a
A
"C
"
"A
C
"
"A
C
"
ti
tc
"I
"
Q
L
D
Ma
t
'
l
S
(f
u
l
l
)
(full)tf Q/Qcap.Velocity
ID
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(h
a
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(M
i
n
.
)
(m
m
/
h
r
)
(L
/
s
)
(m
)
(m
m
)
(%
)
(L
/
s
)
(m/s)(Min.)(m/s)
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ru
n
o
f
f
St
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
h
e
e
t
fo
r
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
y
h
a
m
16
-
J
u
n
-
1
6
8-
A
u
g
-
1
6
Pi
p
e
12
5
12
9
0.
1
6
0
10
.
8
7
12
9
12
1
81
0.
5
8
0.
4
0
0.
2
3
3
0.
3
9
3
10
.
8
7
12
.
5
3
97
.
5
0
0
10
6
.
5
0
3
12
2
.
8
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 1.66 78%1.371
0.
2
7
3
10
.
9
0
12
8
13
0
0.
2
7
3
10
.
9
0
11
.
1
8
97
.
3
4
4
73
.
7
0
0
20
.
5
37
5
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
13
5
.
8
1
0
1.230 0.28 54%1.254
12
9
12
1
0.
3
9
3
12
.
5
3
12
0
12
1
11
.
0
5
8
18
.
0
7
12
2
12
1
0.
0
8
9
11
.
4
4
12
1
13
0
80
0.
4
6
0.
4
0
0.
1
8
4
11
.
7
2
4
18
.
0
7
18
.
6
7
74
.
6
2
7
24
3
0
.
4
5
1
96
.
5
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.60 80%2.991
12
8
13
0
0.
2
7
3
11
.
1
8
12
1
13
0
11
.
7
2
4
18
.
6
7
13
0
13
1
11
.
9
9
7
18
.
6
7
18
.
7
3
73
.
2
3
7
24
4
0
.
6
1
6
9.
4
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.06 81%2.991
13
1
13
3
11
.
9
9
7
18
.
7
3
18
.
9
2
73
.
1
0
4
24
3
6
.
2
0
5
31
.
3
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.20 81%2.991
13
3
13
4
87
0.
2
9
0.
2
0
0.
0
5
8
12
.
0
5
5
18
.
9
2
19
.
1
1
72
.
6
6
8
24
3
3
.
4
4
4
30
.
3
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.19 81%2.991
13
4
13
5
88
0.
4
0
0.
2
0
0.
0
8
1
12
.
1
3
6
19
.
1
1
19
.
3
6
72
.
2
5
0
24
3
5
.
7
0
8
40
.
1
12
0
0
PV
C
0.
6
0
%
30
1
9
.
9
4
3
2.670 0.25 81%2.991
13
5
12
3
To
t
a
l
a
r
e
a
:
25
.
7
4
12
.
1
3
6
19
.
3
6
19
.
5
3
71
.
7
0
6
24
1
7
.
3
6
4
52
.
7
90
0
PV
C
3.
4
0
%
33
3
8
.
0
4
9
5.247 0.17 72%5.772
Br
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
o
f
E
r
i
e
u
s
)
Br
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
o
f
E
r
i
e
u
s
)
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
-
O
u
t
l
e
t
3
@
t
h
e
L
a
k
e
ME
V
2
0
1
4
F:
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
a
t
a
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
4
4
2
3
\
6
0
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
4
2
3
.
S
t
m
-
s
i
ze.dsn
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Bu rwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix D: Priority Ranking Tables
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Bu rwell Drainage Study.docx
Street From To Category Ex. Condition Total
Score
Rank Priority
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 Bu rwell 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 Bu rwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix E: Proposed Stages and
Rough Cost Estimate Tables
Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suit e 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.6 23.7334
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 $ 170,000
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 $ 220,000
Table E.1: Stage and Cost Estimates by Section (North System)
Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suit e 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.6 23.7334
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 Suit e 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.6 23.7334