HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 15, 2016 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, September 15, 2016
7:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m. – Public Meeting – Planning/Zoning – Official Plan and Zoning By-Law
Amendment 31 Elizabeth Street
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. DELEGATIONS
A. 7:00 p.m. – Jessica Lang, Health Promoter, Elgin St. Thomas Public Health and Dan
McNeil, Councillor for Central Elgin and Chair of the Healthy Communities Partnership re
Get Active Elgin Strategy
B. 7:10 p.m. - Amanda Froese, Project Manager, Meritech Engineering re Port Burwell Master
Drainage Study 2016 EA Report
6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Meeting of Council held September 1, 2016
B. Public Meeting held September 1, 2016 re Gregory Underhill Farms Limited
7. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
8. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
8.1 Correspondence
8.1.1 Receive for Information
8.1.2 Requiring Action
8.2 Reports to Council
9. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
9.1 Correspondence
9.1.1 Receive for Information
9.1.2 Requiring Action
9.2 Reports to Council
2016 Council Agenda September 15, 2016
10. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Public Meeting re Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment 31 Elizabeth
Street
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-36/16 by Bill Knifton re Petition for Drainage from Road Authority
B. Report DS-38/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Rezoning
Application – Gregory Underhill Farms Limited
C. Report DS-39/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Site Plan
Agreement – Max Underhill’s Farm Supply SPA-05/16
11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2016 Mid Year Review
B. Multi-Service Centre September 2016 E-Letter
C. Elgin Economic Development August 2016 Newsletter
D. Ontario Good Roads Association re OGRA Conference
E. Ministry of Energy re Energy Consumer Protection Act
11.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Township of Malahide re Terrace Lodge – Fundraising Committee
B. Port Burwell Historical Society re Ship’s Wheelhouse Project
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report CAO-55/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Municipal Alcohol Policy
B. Report CAO-56/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re 2017 Council Schedule
2016 Council Agenda September 15, 2016
12. BY-LAWS
A. By-Law Z652-2016 Being a By-law to further amend By-law Z456-2003 (Gregory
Underhill Farms
B. By-Law 2016-080 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a site plan agreement
between Max Underhill’s Farm Supply and The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
C. By-Law 2016-081 Being a By-law to appoint staff to perform duties under the Ontario
Building Code Act
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding parking at the Municipal lot (Marine Museum) in Port Burwell
14.1 In Camera
14.1 Out of Camera
15. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-Law 2016-082 Being a By-law to confirm all actions of Council
16 ADJOURNMENT
YOUR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP
We have an opportunity to expand on a new funding source that will provide considerable benefit
to the citizens of every Municipality in Elgin St Thomas. To achieve success we will be asking for
your continued participation and support in the Partnership including your staff contribution at a
half-day consultation on Wednesday October 5th at the Malahide Community Place in Springfield.
In 2009, www.activeelgin.ca was
created with funds received from
the Ontario Trillium Foundation. This
website helps residents find rec-
reational and leisure opportunities
available across Elgin St. Thomas.
In 2011 Active Transportation was
identified as a key priority based on
community input and local data. As
a result, the Healthy Communities
Partnership developed the Elgin St.
Thomas Active Transportation Ini-
tiative to increase rates of walking,
cycling and hiking in our community.
In 2013, Elgin St. Thomas became
a Share the Road community by
ensuring residents were educated
through road signage and commu-
nity campaigns. In addition, a lo-
cal Citizens 4 Active Transportation
group was formed to promote and
advocate for safe and accessible
ways to walk, hike, run and bike in
Elgin St. Thomas. Among other ad-
vocacy activities, this group contin-
ues to have a presence at commu-
nity events such as the Downtown
Bicycle Festival and the Seniors
Picnic.
In 2014, all municipalities adopt-
ed the Elgin St. Thomas Cycling
Master Plan and implementation
began. The Active Transporta-
tion Technical Committee, largely
municipal staff, was instrumental
to the production of the plan. In
St. Thomas, several signed bicy-
cle routes have now been installed
while all of the municipalities have
Get Active Elgin... An agency of the Government of Ontario
Un organisme du gouvernement de l’Ontario
elginhealth.on.ca
BUILDING THE CASE FOR TRILLIUM FUNDING519-631-9900
www.elginhealth.on.ca
In 2011, the Healthy Communities Partnership
was convened with representation from both
elected officials and key staff from each munici-
pality within Elgin St. Thomas to take advantage
of funding provided by the Ministry of Health and
Long Term Care. As can be seen from the exam-
ples below, the work of the Partnership has been
useful and productive. The funding has ended.
The Partnership has proven that having munici-
palities working together is the best way to build
better and healthier communities, regardless
of funding. However, the Ontario Trillium Foun-
dation became aware of this success and their
regional staff believe our Partnership is a good
example of how they may choose to role out a
new funding formula under “Collective Impact”.
Collective impact occurs when organizations from
different sectors agree to solve a specific social
problem using a common agenda, aligning their
efforts, and using common measures of success.
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
Key Community Improvements Through Local Partnerships to Date
Continued on next page...
committed to adding new paved
shoulders to their roadways. The
County of Elgin has added paved
shoulders on Highway 73 and Sun-
set Road has been designated a
bike route. Other municipalities are
adding more signage.
In 2015, Elgin St. Thomas Public
Health, the City of St. Thomas and
three local developers collective-
ly received almost one million dol-
lars from the Public Health Agency
of Canada. With matching dollars
from the local developers, a new
Creating Connections Project was
launched. This project aims to im-
prove the built environment to
support increased rates of physical
activity while engaging families,
community members and municipal
officials to improve the walkability
within the City of St. Thomas over
5 years. This is also being mirrored
with many other new developments
in Elgin County.
elginhealth.on.ca
According to the 2009-2010 Canadian Community
Health Survey, the Elgin St Thomas region ranked the
worst of 36 regions across the Province when it came
to self reported rates of physical activity during their
leisure time. Building on its accomplishments since
2011, the Healthy Communities Partnership successfully
applied for and received $20,000 from the Ontario
Trillium Foundation to build the case for “Get Active
Elgin”. The next step is to show how we are going to
work towards the goal: “Elgin St Thomas will be the
most active community in the Province within 5 years”.
In 2017, with anticipated support from all
municipalities, the Partnership hopes to secure
$500,000/year for up to five years to implement a
coordinated long-term strategy for Get Active Elgin.
Under Trillium rules this funding can be used for
capital/infrastructure projects. Our approach to Trillium
is to use a collective impact model to facilitate working
together to leverage projects that are probably already
in each Municipalities budgets as well as in our five year
planning cycle. This regional approach will enable all of
our residents to have more opportunities and incentives
to be more active.
We need to recruit municipal staff from parks and
recreation, planning, community services and others
from across the County to participate in a municipal
consultation on Wednesday October 5th. This half-day
consultation will be held at the Malahide Community
Place in Springfield with lunch after. Feedback from
the field will help to inform a long-term strategy with
the anticipated goal of positively impacting the health
status and physical activity rates of Elgin St. Thomas
residents.
The Healthy Communities Partnership requests that
each municipal council in Elgin St. Thomas adopt a
resolution to work together on a City and County wide
collective strategy for “Get Active Elgin”, with the aim
to secure Trillium funding.
The “Get Active Elgin” Trillium Funding Initiative
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
r
w
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
r ec
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
i nc
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
s ew
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
r
w
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
f un
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 ep
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
.
No
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
Ou
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
c ro
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
r
w
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 im
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 ay
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 ow
e
s
t
c
o
s
t
.
Hi
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
r eq
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
n ot
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 Burwell 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
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
in
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
nd
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
a
m
,
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
xi
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
he
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
an
d
a
F
r
o
e
s
e
,
P
.
E
n
g
.
Pa
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
Mu
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
93
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
St
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
ps
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
r
e
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
r
k
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
e
s
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
i
n
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
l
i
t
y
i
n
f
u
t
u
r
e
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
B
u
r
w
e
l
l
.
I
t
w
i
l
l
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
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
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
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
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
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
c o nd
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
i n 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
s a me
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
rr
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
se
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
bi
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
ee
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
ea
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
c o nv
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
th
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
nv
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
re
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
r e -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
re
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
c o nv
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
nv
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
re
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
S t re
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
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
ll
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
i
n
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
e
n
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
n
d
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
s
t
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
t
h
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
p
o
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
?
Y e 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
e
i
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
C ou
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
a
n
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
t h 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
i
n
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
u
r
e
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
n
u
a
l
l
y
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
j
e
c
t
s
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
l
y
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
l
a
tion
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
b
e
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
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
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
m
i
z
e
d
,
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
-
s
i
d
e
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
h
r
o
u
g
h
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
i
s
n
o
t
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
,
w i th
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
te
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
nv
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
nv
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
re
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
S t re
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
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;
AND THAT staff be directed to elevate and seed Part 'A' within the current
confines of the drainage outlet;
AND THAT staff be directed to bring back detailed design considerations and
East Beach plan with public consultation plan for Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
As per the direction of Council landscape improvements were conducted in the month of April 2016,
with the assistance of the Harbourfront Committee and a local soil donor. Staff worked with the
Municipal Engineer, Spriets, to develop the East Beach Design Considerations, attached hereto as
Appendix ‘A’.
The parameters utilized by staff and the Municipal Engineer when compiling the proposed detailed
design drew upon previous community submitted considerations and the Port Burwell Waterfront
Master Plan. A plan which determined that to create a vibrant and attractive waterfront, the
following key principles should be followed during the design process, including: environmental
preservation and conservation; safety and security; continuity and connectivity. These principles
were balanced against financial realities, land ownership and integration of any design
considerations into complementing project schedules.
The Waterfront Master Planning project was an initiative undertaken by the
Municipality of Bayham with the primary objective to identify strategic future
public investments in services, facilities, access and parking that will contribute to
the waterfront as a tourist and recreational area for local residents and visitors.
Any works to be completed following consultation would be subject to a final survey of the lands,
specifically the west side of the Robinson St. turnaround, and LPRCA approvals.
PARKING:
As noted within the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan the Municipally-owned parking lot on the
east side of the Robinson St. turnaround provides parking for approximately 50-60 cars. The
informal parking lot on the west side of the Robinson St. turnaround provides an additional 50-60
spots.
It is the goal of the municipality to provide for approximately 150-200 parking spaces adjacent to the
public beach in the future. The design proposes 150 spots (86 and 64 respectively) with room for 4
trailer parking spots. The design also proposes extension of the exterior parking post and rope
system and parking islands to give structure to the parking area. The design also contemplates a
fresh topping of gravel, with only the accessible parking spots being paved.
ACCESSIBILITY & CONNECTIVITY
The Municipality currently has a Capital Item for consideration to rebuild a larger accessible viewing
platform. The design considerations attached hereto propose a larger accessible platform, with
room for picnic tables and seating, along with a boardwalk connecting the East Pier to the parking
lot and washrooms. The connectivity would greatly improve the accessibility of the Port Burwell
East Beach.
ENVIRONMENTAL & SUSTAINABILITY
Building on the work of the Otter Valley Naturalists the design proposes to remove a number of
trees, many of which have been vandalized and killed. The ability to integrate trees into the exterior
parking delineation and parking islands would eventually provide shade in the future. Additionally
once the area is established, partnerships with LPRCA and the Otter Valley Naturalists can be
strengthened to provide environmental and sustainable education and information signage. As
noted from the Waterfront Master Plan:
In addition to the diversity of land types, one of the defining characteristics of the
Port Burwell Waterfront is the vast amount of mown turf. While this provides
important areas for recreation, there seems to be a greater amount than what is
needed and the resulting consequence to sustainability and maintenance is
considerable. The most successful wildlife habitats should include a range of
ecosystems with extended transition zones. These "edge" conditions frequently
house the richest diversity of species. Additionally, maintaining a continuous
band or "greenway" is a good method of establishing healthy species diversity
and stable populations. In many communities, municipalities have taken the
innovative step of replacing some large areas of turf with wildflower meadows, as
well as planting trees and establishing diverse shorelines.
These measures may be more successful if they become part of a longer-term
strategy of interconnected habitat that spans the length of the shoreline. This
approach would also create a diversity of experience for beach visitors, tourist
and local users. In consultation with the Otter Valley Naturalists, the community
group has undertaken a number of these naturalization efforts including Tree
Planting in Memorial Park and naturalization planting in the drainage swale within
the beach.
ROBINSON ST TURNAROUND
A focal point of the community submissions to date has been the reconstruction of the Robinson St.
turnaround. As the turnaround currently plays an important role in the Port Burwell Storm Sewer
System staff respectfully recommend leaving the turnaround and integrating its reconstruction to
current standards at the conclusion of the Port Burwell Storm Sewer Environmental Assessment.
Possibly ready for grant application in 2017 and construction in 2018 if funding is approved.
FUTURE INITIATIVES
The proposed design considerations would also be a starting point for future initiatives including
better connectivity to Memorial Park, downtown and the Otter Valley Utility Corridor Trail.
CONSULTATION
To obtain community input on the proposed design and possible alternatives and options staff
would respectfully recommend Council to post an East Beach Consultation on the municipal
website including Report CAO 41/16 and the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan. Notice of
Consultation would be posted online, at the municipal office and libraries. Consultation would run
June 17, 2016 - July 15, 2016 at noon (28 days – 19 business days), following which comments
could be incorporated into a staff report to be presented at the July 21, 2016 meeting of Council.
Following Council direction on July 21, 2016 staff could incorporate direction into the 2017 Budgets
for Council consideration during budget deliberation.
COSTING-FUNDING
The costing of the project attached hereto is greater than the entire 2016 Capital Levy. To move
forward with East Beach Improvements, once directed and approved by council, staff would
propose the following options:
1)Conduct smaller line items (rope/posts, bury hydro service) towards year end if budget
savings exist and with public works staff where possible.
2)Budget for components of the project in the 2017 and beyond budgets.
3)Make application to the Enabling Accessibility Fund for the Boardwalk/Accessible Viewing
Platform component of the project – max. contribution $50,000.
a.The Community Accessibility Stream is currently open and accepting applications
until July 26, 2016. To be considered eligible for funding, projects must be directly
related to removing barriers and increasing accessibility for people with disabilities in
Canadian communities.
i.Should Council support this specific component of the design staff would
respectfully recommend Council direction to commence completing the
application for the Boardwalk/Accessible Viewing Platform.
4)Make application to the Ontario Trillium Fund or its successor Capital Grant Program when
available.
a.Due to Ontario Trillium Fund (OTF) budget changes and the upcoming launch of a
new $25 million community capital program that OTF will administer on behalf of the
government of Ontario, OTF are suspending the investment stream for capital
grants. OTF will release a new deadline at a later date when details of the new
community capital program are finalized.
RECOMMENDATION
1.THAT Report CAO-41/16 re East Beach Design Considerations be received for information;
2.AND THAT Council direct staff to post an East Beach Consultation as contemplated within
Report CAO 41/16 and report back to Council July 21, 2016;
3.AND THAT Council direct staff to make application to the Enabling Accessibility Fund for the
Boardwalk/Accessible Viewing Platform as contemplated within Report CAO 41/16.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Paul Shipway
CAO
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 Burwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix B: Existing Documents
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell 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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
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
Co
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
)
Ma
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
z
e
.
d
s
n
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix D: Priority Ranking Tables
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx
Street From To Category Ex. Condition Total
Score
Rank Priority
Score Score
North system
Elizabeth N. of William William Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
William Elizabeth Victoria Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Victoria Robinson Newton Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Milton N. of Newton Newton Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Shakespeare N. of Newton Newton Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Newton Victoria Shakespeare Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High
Newton Shakespeare Strachan Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Strachan Newton Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Strachan Newton Robinson Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Shakespeare Newton Waterloo Collector 2 Good 2 4 24 High
Shakespeare N. of Newton Robinson Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Erieus N. of Waterloo Robinson Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Robinson Victoria Shakespeare Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Robinson Shakespeare Strachan Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium
Robinson Strachan Erieus Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium
Robinson Erieus Bridge Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium
MacNeil Ct - - Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Elizabeth MacNeil Hannah Local 1 Great 1 2 55 Lowest
Hannah Elizabeth Victoria Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Victoria Newton Waterloo Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Milton Newton Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Shakespeare S. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Strachan S. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Erieus N. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Erieus S. of Waterloo Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Waterloo Victoria Shakespeare Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium
Waterloo Shakespeare Robinson Trunk 3 Fair 3 6 3 High
Robinson Wellington Waterloo Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Robinson Waterloo Bridge/outlet Trunk 3 Fair 3 6 3 High
Table D.1: Storm Sewer Network in Port Burwell (North System)
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx
Street From To Category Ex. Condition Total Score Rank Priority
Score Score
South system
Elizabeth N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Elizabeth S. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Victoria Waterloo Wellington Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Victoria Pitt Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Milton Waterloo Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Shakespeare N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Strachan N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Strachan S. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Wellington Robinson Erieus Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Lake Shore E of Elizabeth Elizabeth Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Wellington Elizabeth Victoria Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium
Wellington Victoria Strachan Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 Medium
Wellington Strachan Erieus Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High
Robinson Wellington Pitt Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Robinson S. of Brook Brook Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Robinson Pitt Brook Local 1 Good 2 3 41 Lowest
Pitt Victoria Strachan Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Pitt Strachan Erieus Local 1 Failed 4 5 9 Medium
Pitt Robinson Erieus Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High
Strachan Pitt Brook @ Park Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Erieus N. of Wellington Wellington Local 1 Fair 3 4 24 Low
Erieus Wellington Pitt Collector 2 Fair 3 5 9 High
Erieus Pitt Brook Trunk 3 Failed 4 7 1 High
Brook Robinson Erieus Collector 2 Failed 4 6 3 High
Brook Erieus Strachan Trunk 3 Failed 4 7 1 High
Park block Brook Outlet Trunk 3 Good 2 5 9 High
Table D.2: Storm Sewer Network in Port Burwell (South System)
F:\Company Data\Projects\4423\60-Design\CEA\Port Burwell Drainage Study.docx
Appendix E: Proposed Stages and
Rough Cost Estimate Tables
Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334
Street From To Priority Stage Approx. Length Budget
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 Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334
Street From To Priority Stage Approx. Length Budget
South system
Elizabeth N. of Wellington Wellington Lowest 2 104 $ 170,000
Elizabeth S. of Wellington Wellington Low 2 254 $ 410,000
Victoria Waterloo Wellington Medium 2 98 $ 160,000
Victoria Pitt Wellington Low 2 216 $ 350,000
Milton Waterloo Wellington Low 2 92 $ 150,000
Shakespeare N. of Wellington Wellington Lowest 2 54 $ 90,000
Strachan N. of Wellington Wellington Lowest 1 59 $ 90,000
Strachan S. of Wellington Wellington Low 2 113 $ 180,000
Wellington Robinson Erieus Medium 3 123 $ 200,000
Lake Shore E of Elizabeth Elizabeth Low 3 99 $ 160,000
Wellington Elizabeth Victoria Medium 2 132 $ 250,000
Wellington Victoria Strachan Medium 2 277 $ 530,000
Wellington Strachan Erieus High 1 122 $ 230,000
Robinson Wellington Pitt Medium 3 107 $ 170,000
Robinson S. of Brook Brook Lowest 1 71 $ 110,000
Robinson Pitt Brook Lowest 1 122 $ 200,000
Pitt Victoria Strachan Low 2 320 $ 510,000
Pitt Strachan Erieus Medium 1 118 $ 190,000
Pitt Robinson Erieus High 1 123 $ 230,000
Strachan Pitt Brook @ Park Low 1 95 $ 150,000
Erieus N. of Wellington Wellington Low 1 58 $ 90,000
Erieus Wellington Pitt High 1 110 $ 210,000
Erieus Pitt Brook High 1 123 $ 270,000
Brook Robinson Erieus High 1 123 $ 230,000
Brook Erieus Strachan High 1 97 $ 210,000
Park block Brook Outlet High 1 164 $ 250,000
Table E.2: Stage and Cost Estimates by Section (South Section)
Meritech Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334
Public Information Centre #2, Presentation to Council
September 15, 2016
Purpose for the study
Municipal Class EA Process
Review of Alternatives
Evaluation of Alternatives
Preferred Alternatives
Conclusions and Recommendations
Study was initiated out of the results of the previous study to identify, document and assess the condition of the storm sewers in the Village of Port Burwell.
The goal of this current work is to propose an appropriate drainage system for the Village as a whole that will satisfy the needs of the community and the Municipality of Bayham.
Through the study alternatives were prepared to address drainage within the system and the study document provides guidance to the Municipality for future storm water works.
We are
Here
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.
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
Alternative #4: Replace the Storm Sewer Networks, using New Outlet Locations
Size a storm sewer network for the future needs of the municipality.
Increase pipe sizes throughout the village would be required to convey a 5 -year storm event.
Remove storm sewers from private property and relocate 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.
Increase the outlet sizes to Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie to convey the design flows, but would be in the same location.
Remove the outlet to the south of the HMCS Ojibwa and the small outlet into the slope along Pitt Street and the outlet to the beach at the end of Robinson Street.
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
Drainage Study provides design criteria to be used for storm sewer design
Consideration of flooding on private property should be included in the design
Priority of work is proposed based on importance of the pipe segment
The Municipality should work with the County to stage and implement works on County roads
Council should consider the report and accept it for information and implementation
Municipality of Bayham
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
OFFICIAL PLAN and ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a completed application for a
proposed Official Plan Amendment and a completed application for a proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold
a public meeting on Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council
Chambers in Straffordville to consider a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment
under Section 17 and 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of the official plan amendment is to change the land use designation on
approximately 2023m² (0.5 acres) of land from the “Institutional” designation to the “Industrial”
designation in the Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham; and the purpose of the zoning by-
law amendment is to change the zoning on the same lands from the Institutional (I) Zone to the
Urban Industrial (M4) in the Zoning By-law Z456-2003 of the Municipality of Bayham. The
subject lands are located on the west side of Elizabeth Street and north of Wellington Street and
known municipally as 31 Elizabeth Street, in the Village of Port Burwell.
THE EFFECT of the amendments is to permit the repair of boats in the existing building;
outdoor storage of boats\recreational vehicles; and the placement of shipping containers for the
rental of storage space in accordance with the ‘Village – Industrial’ policies of the Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Section 23 Urban Industrial (M4) Zone Regulations.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in
support of or in opposition to the proposed amendments.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham before the proposed
official plan amendment is adopted or by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled
to appeal the decision of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Municipal
Board.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham before the proposed
official plan amendment is adopted or by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be
added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the
opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendments, or the refusal of a
request to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law you must make a written request to the
undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about this application is now available in the Municipal office.
For more information about this matter contact the Municipality at the address, email or website
shown below. O. Reg. 175/16, s.1 (13).
DATED at the Municipality of Bayham this 24th day of August 2016.
Village of Port Burwell
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
P.O. Box 160, 9344 Plank Rd.
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
Mid-Year Review2016
www.lprca.on.ca
2 3Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016 Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016
CONTRIBUTING TO
HEALTHY WATERSHEDS
PROTECTING LIFE
AND PROPERTY
The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA)
is your local, community-based environmental agency
dedicated to protecting, restoring and managing the natural
resources in our watershed.
As one of the 36 conservation authorities legislated by
the Ontario Conservation Authorities Act of 1946, we
are governed by a board of directors appointed by our 8
member municipalities.
The LPRCA’s board of directors set a dynamic and forward-
looking course for the Authority through the development
of the 2014 - 2018 Strategic Plan. The Plan focuses on five
key goals:
n Protect life and property from natural hazards
n Maintain and enhance watershed health
n Connect people to the watershed through recreation
and education
n Maintain an organization committed to teamwork,
positive change and excellence
n Deliver value and innovation to watershed stakeholders
Long Point Region Conservation Authority delivers services
and programs that protect and manage water and other
natural resources. These efforts are done in partnership
with municipal, provincial and federal governments, local
landowners and other organizations – all at a shared cost
well below what they would pay on their own.
This factsheet is a snapshot of what has taken place
within the watershed during the first six months of 2016.
In addition to the highlights provided, staff worked on
ongoing projects and responded to numerous public and
agency inquiries.
As part of its mandate, the LPRCA reviews development proposals submitted to municipalities within or
adjacent to hazard lands and natural areas. We also regulate development in and around environmentally
sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands, shorelines, watercourses and steep slopes that are susceptible to
flooding and erosion.
Planning and Regulatory Services staff works with our watershed constituents and municipal partners to
ensure that development proceeds in such a way that minimizes risks to life and property, while ensuring
that the natural features of the watershed are protected. This provides the opportunity for LPRCA to work
with our watershed constituents to foster safe and responsible development.
Our Vision:
To Build a Healthy
and Resilient Water
s
h
e
d
Our Mission
:
Providing services i
n
partnership to prot
e
c
t
,
enhance and resto
r
e
a
healthy watershed
Municipality Permits
Issued
Stormwater
Plans Reviewed
Zoning By-Law
Amendments
Municipal
Planning Reviews
Bayham 3
Brant 7 1
Haldimand 23 1 3
Malahide 1
Norfolk 60 2 1 22
Norwich 2 2
South West Oxford 1
Tillsonburg 3
TOTALS
(to June 30th, 2016)100 3 1 28
Mid-Year Highlights:
n Provided input on 32 municipally circulated Planning Act applications
n Issued 100 permits for work under the Development, Interference with Wetlands and
Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation
n Working with municipal staff and conservation authority partners to update memorandum
of understanding for municipal plan review services in Haldimand, Norfolk and Oxford
n Increased permit and planning fees in an effort to meet 60% cost recovery goal
n Provided new hazard line mapping for input into Haldimand County Official Plan update
50% increase in planning applications over 2015
2016 PLANNING SERVICES NUMBERS
2016 LPRCA Board of Directors
Chair - Michael Columbus Norfolk County
Vice Chair - Dave Beres Town of Tillsonburg
Leroy Bartlett Haldimand County
Doug Brunton Norfolk County
Robert Chambers Brant County
Roger Geysens Norfolk County
Craig Grice Haldimand County
Noel Haydt Norfolk County
David Hayes Township of South West Oxford
John Scholten Township of Norwich
Tom Southwick Municipality of Bayham &
Township of Malahide
4 5Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016 Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016
Long Point Region Conservation Authority provides a comprehensive Flood Forecasting and Warning
System to alert residents in a timely manner of high water and flood events. Effective flood forecasting
services help to minimize damage and public safety risks during flood events.
The system is supported by data collected at 10 stream flow gauges and 3 precipitation gauges as well as
data collected at 5 snow survey sites. Snowpack measurements, along with information on stream levels and
weather forecasts, provide detailed information on the flood potential in the watershed. LPRCA monitored
runoff events as they progressed through the watershed this spring.
The data collected from the watercourse and precipitation gauges also support the Low Water Response
Program for the Long Point Region watershed. LPRCA is responsible for monitoring water levels and issuing
low water warnings when needed. Watershed conditions in the first half of 2016 were such that no low water
declarations were issued.
LPRCA has decades of experience enhancing and restoring natural areas and leading successful stewardship
projects. This leads to direct changes on the landscape for cleaner water, healthier habitats and more resilient
watersheds. A number of cost-sharing and technical assistance programs are available to landowners in the
Long Point Region watershed.
2 IN TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH
11 IN NORFOLK COUNTY
MAINTAIN 13 WATER
CONTROL STRUCTURES
COMPLETED FOUR
CLEAN WATER
PROGRAM PROJECTS
Leveraged $63,396 of grant funding to
support projects that improve water quality
and restore habitat 1 Haldimand
3 Elgin
Mid-Year Highlights:
n Issued 2 watershed condition statements to local emergency management coordinators,
municipalities and media
n Provided support to municipal emergency management planning
n Measured snowpack at 5 survey sites three times between January and April 2016
n Working on critical maintenance and safety issues at dams
n Completed safety assessment for Teeterville dam
n Installed safety signs at 6 water control structures
On the ground highlights:
n Worked with 10 local landowners to create 11 new areas of wetland habitat that will help to reduce
sediment runoff to streams and Lake Erie and increase biodiversity
n More than 65,000 trees were planted for and by landowners
n Supported expansion of ALUS across Elgin County
n Received ALUS funding to undertake 1 project in Elgin and 3 projects in Norfolk
n Provide technical advice and tree planting support to ALUS Norfolk and Elgin
n Great Lakes Guardian Community Funding secured in support of Lake Lisgar in Tillsonburg and
dune restoration on property in Norfolk County
n Secured funding through Environment Canada’s National Wetland Conservation Fund to support
creation of 6 wetlands and the spraying of 60 acres of Phragmites in the second half of 2016
n Worked with Norfolk Environmental Stewardship Team to enhance watershed habitat
n Supported local efforts in regards to implementing Drinking Water Source Protection Plans
n Assisted Bayham, Brant and Norfolk to delineate drinking water threats and update databases
Wetlands
Created11 Bayham 1
Haldimand 2
Norfolk 8
PROTECTING LIFE
AND PROPERTY
ENHANCING
WATERSHED HEALTH
6 7Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016 Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016
MONITORING
WATERSHED HEALTH
Clean water is essential for healthy families and communities. We rely on clean water for drinking,
farming, fishing and recreational activities. Good water quality promotes a diverse and healthy aquatic
ecosystem. Healthy water bodies support local tourism, business activities and municipal economies.
LPRCA’S Healthy Watershed Services team collects, monitors and analyses watershed information.
Groundwater and surface water monitoring information supports decision-making on Permit-to-Take-Water
applications, low water response and drinking water source protection. Understanding our watershed helps
us to better manage and protect our resources.
Watershed Monitoring Highlights
n Installed 28 temperature data loggers on area watercourses to monitor summer temperatures:
Bayham - 1, Haldimand - 1, Norfolk - 22, Norwich - 4
n Collected surface water quality samples twice as part of Lynn River Monitoring project
for Norfolk County
n Sampled surface water quality three times for the Big Creek Monitoring project on behalf
of Norfolk County
n Collected 2 of seven scheduled water samples at a site in Norfolk as part of an on-going provincial
pesticide monitoring project
n Conducted benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling at 18 sites
n Inspected 4 lamprey barriers on behalf of the federal government: Bayham-1; Norfolk- 3
n Monitored water quality throughout the watershed as part of the Provincial Groundwater
Monitoring Network and Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network
Surface water quality
monitoring sites9 Groundwater
monitoring sites11
Forests are important parts of a healthy watershed because of their role in the hydrological cycle. Trees make
subwatersheds more resilient to climate change’s heavy rainfall, irregular storms and unseasonal precipitation.
Forests also provide habitat for many plants and animals. They also clean the air and reduce erosion along
riparian areas.
Each year, Long Pont Region Conservation Authority, landowners, and municipalities plant tens of
thousands of trees to improve forest conditions in this watershed. Planting trees in our communities has
many economic, environmental and social benefits. LPRCA works with many partners to offer tree planting
subsidies for property owners through its Private Landowners Tree Planting Program.
2016 Reforestation Highlights:
n Planted 65,023 trees across the watershed – creating 81 acres of future forests
n 48 rural landowners participated in spring tree planting program
n Worked with Norfolk Environmental Stewardship Team to plant selected sites
n Planted 75 trees for Township of South West Oxford’s Trees for Roads Program
n Coordinated planting plans and tree planting for 2 community planting events in Tillsonburg and
one in Norfolk County
n Participating on the Reforest Oxford Committee
PROMOTING &
ENHANCING
FOREST COVER
8 Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
manages a large forest resource in a sustainable
manner to ensure long-term health of these areas
while providing environmental, economic and
social benefits in the watershed.
LPRCA has a number of partnerships with
universities and government agencies to increase
our knowledge of what plant and animal species
use the forest and how they use it.
Municipality Number of Trees Planted
Bayham 22,091
Brant 650
Haldimand 3,420
Malahide 0
Norfolk 31,381
Norwich 4,685
South West Oxford 1,825
Tillsonburg 971
TOTAL 65,023
2016 Forestry Program Highlights:
n Own and manage more than 2,778 hectares (6,864 acres) of working forests
n 100 acres in Brant County were marked for future harvesting
n Surveyed ground cover on slightly less than 2720 acres to establish species composition – prism
cruised 80 acres in Brant; 41 acres in Haldimand; 2480 acres in Norfolk; 118 acres in Norwich
n Ensured that sensitive species are not impacted when forest management activities are carried out by
having an ecologist survey one forest tract in Norfolk and another in Haldimand
n Maintained 30 year agreement with Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC)
research project to monitor long-term effects of environmental stresses on the health of Ontario’s
hardwood forests
n Continued support of research projects in South Walsingham Sand Ridges that monitor
landscape responses to climate change and other environmental stresses
n Issued permit to MOECC to sample pollinators on LPRCA property
n Continued support to Natural Resources Canada’s research study on effects of larval endoparasitoid
on Emerald Ash Borer
n Provided forest management services to the Town of Tillsonburg
CONNECTING
PEOPLE
TO THE
WATERSHED
2016 SPRING TREE PLANTING
10 11Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016 Long Point Region Conservation Authority | Watershed Snapshot | Mid-Year Review 2016
Lands owned by Long Point Region Conservation Authority are an important part of the land available for
recreation in the watershed. A wide range of recreational activities are available on these lands including
swimming, canoeing, hiking, bird watching, camping, fishing and hunting.
LPRCA owns over 11,000 acres (4,450 ha) of land that includes five developed conservation areas that
provide local communities with affordable recreation, education and tourism opportunities.
CONNECTING PEOPLE
TO THE WATERSHED
Over the first half of 2016, LPRCA has connected directly
with thousands of people:
n 2,811 students in 98 classes took part in conservation and heritage education programs at Backus
n Reached approximately 2,400 students at Children’s Water Festivals in Brant and Haldimand
n Hosted 4 outdoor public programs at Backus drawing 250 people
n Partnered on a new “Earth Day” fundraising event for Camp Trillium
n Maintained partnership agreement with Norfolk County Community Services Department for
use of Waterford North CA
n Honoured artist Vic Gibbons in April for his support of outdoor education
n Met with Minister of Natural Resources and Forests during Conservation Ontario’s Queen’s Park Day
n Briefed provincial and municipal representatives at ROMA
n Member of the Province’s Conservation Authorities Act Review Advisory Team
With 689 campsites and 368 seasonal campers, LPRCA’s five campgrounds provide a significant contribution
to the local economies while providing employment opportunities for over 40 contract and seasonal staff.
Students will gain work experience this summer with the Conservation Authority’s corporate services,
community relations, field services and healthy watershed departments.
Conservation Lands Activities:
n 5 revenue-producing conservation areas opened for 2016 season in May
n Completed campground water system upgrades at Backus Heritage CA
n Made several improvements at Haldimand CA, including renovating the gatehouse, upgrading
campsite hydro service and removing hazardous trees
n Upgraded water intake system at Norfolk CA
n Removed ash trees in campground at Norfolk CA and Memorial Forest in response to
Emerald Ash Borer
n Hired 8 summer students through federally-funded programs
n Received provincial special employment funding to hire 2 summer students
HALDIMAND COUNTY
COUNTY OF BRANT
OXFORD COUNTY
Malahide: 0 acres
Bayham: 75 acres
ELGIN COUNTY
NORFOLK COUNTY
Norfolk: 8,069 acres
Haldimand: 177 acres
Norwich: 750 acres
Tillsonburg: 22 acres
SW Oxford: 410 acres
Brant: 1,501 acres
LPRCA’S LAND HOLDINGS
4 Elm St, Tillsonburg, ON N4G 0C4
519-842-4242 | Fax 519-842-7123 | conservation@lprca.on.ca | www.lprca.on.ca
@longpointca
LongPointConservation
In September of 1916, women in Canada had just started
to get the right to vote. A woman wearing a swim suit
that did not cover arms, legs and feet provoked protest,
and sometimes charges of ‘public nudity’, although this
was beginning to change. School attendance to the age of
16 did not become mandatory in Ontario until 1954.* A
workplace incident in Toronto in March 1960, where five
individuals were buried alive under the Don River, led to
many occupational health & safety reforms. Caregiving
was assumed to be ‘women’s work.’ The pace of change is sometimes slow – it was 1940
before all Canadian women had the right to vote. So, as we enter September, the month where
we celebrate Labour Day, as well as the 50th anniversary of International Literacy Day this
year, let’s raise a glass to all of those who have helped society move forward in a positive way
– making for “Healthier Communities” (another thing we celebrate in September). (Picture: a
campaign pennant from Manitoba, circa 1916).
What’s Happening - keep checking the MSC website for details & updates
• Sept. 8: 50th Anniversary of International Literacy Day
• Sept. 22: Celebrate Tillsonburg. Tillsonburg Town Centre.
http://www.multiservicecentre.com/images/uploads/flyer-Celebrate%20Tillsonburg16.pdf
• Nov. 17: Business After 5 (Chamber of Commerce). In The Livingston Centre.
• Ongoing: MSC Employment Services offer regular sessions.
Program/Agency News & Info:
Adult Literacy & Essential Skills (ALES) – Since 1987 - ext. 266
• Why literacy matters: https://issuu.com/decodaliteracy/docs/decoda_literacy_manifesto
• *Data quoted above from: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2005251.pdf
Employment Services (ES) – Since 1985 - ext. 291
• From Workforce Planning and Development Board:
42% of the Canadian labour force is at a high risk of being affected by automation in the next
decade or two
• http://oxfordroboticschallenge.com/index.html
• http://www.worktrends.ca/sites/default/files/u82/HardToFillPositionsReport_2016EmployerOneSurvey.pdf
Home Support (HS) – Since 1978 - ext. 205
• Thx to Darwin Kent for his kind comments about the MOWs program (check out MSC’s FB page!)
MSC Administration/Operations
• Staying On PACE: Thx to Denise & Geoff for the recent review of Emergency Planning
procedures – never know when you will need this info!
Stonebridge (MSC’s not-for-profit fee-for-service sister corporation)
• Visit: www.stonebridgecs.com. Also see MSC’s What’s Happening page for more info.
Giving
• MSC will be hosting a new fundraiser soon – stay tuned!
Volunteering
• Did you know Millennials are volunteering in record numbers? Good news for the future:
http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/2016/08/24/volunteer-edmonton-this-generation-takes-action
Our Team likes this:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwwPmNWQfIY
MSC has been accredited through Accreditation Canada since 2003
96 Tillson Ave., Tillsonburg ON N4G 3A1 (in The Livingston Centre)
“Someone You Know May Need Us” R: 30/8/16 mcv
MSC E-Letter September 2016
Serving the Community since 1978
519-842-9000
www.multiservicecentre.com
Join us on Facebook & Twitter
Click on the icons on MSC home page
Subject: Elgin Economic Development Newsletter Aug. 2016
News Flash
Business
Profile
Shawarma in
Port Stanley >>
Business
Resource
Enterprise
Elgin>>
Business
Profile
Empower Fore
Life>>
Business
Profile
Wildflowers
Farm>>
Local Event
Culture Days >>
Contact
Information
Alan Smith
General
Manager
Business Profile
New Shawarma Restaurant Opens in Port Stanley
Shebaz's Shawarma & Falafel has officially opened for business at 175 William Street, Port Stanley, ON. The
restaurant owned by Doris and Gabriel Chordeker serves up Mediterranean style street cuisine that includes
Shawarma, Falafel, and Samosas. The couple used to run the Max Milk Convenience Store in Port Stanley and
during this time realized that an opportunity existed to offer a different style of cuisine in the village.
To learn more about Shebaz's Shawarma click here.
back to top
Business Resource
Save The Date for Enterprise Elgin
Economic
Development
(519) 631-1460
ext 133
Kate Burns
Gallagher
Economic
Development
Coordinator
(519) 631-1460
ext 137
Katherine
Thompson
Marketing &
Communications
Coordinator
(519) 631-1460
ext 180
Lindsey
Duncan
Tourism
Services
Coordinator
(519) 631-1460
ext 164
The 2nd Annual Enterprise Elgin Business Development Competition is currently accepting
submissions. Entrepreneurs or existing businesses are encouraged to create a business
development plan regarding a new business venture, a new product, or an expansion. This
business development plan will then be entered into a competition to win thousands of dollars
and in-kind prizes to help the business grow.
To learn more about the Enterpise Elgin Business Development Competition click here.
back to top
Business Profile
Empower Fore Life - Confidence and Resilience Through Fitness and Sport
Growing up, Sarah Westaway was passionate about fitness. She was involved in many sports
in high school and attended Ball State University on a golf scholarship. She graduated with a
Bachelor of Science degree from the School of Health and Physiology with a minor in
Community Health and has now returned to Elgin County to pursue a career as a teacher with
the Thames Valley District School Board.
In May of 2016, Sarah founded the Empower Fore Life Golf and Fitness Leadership Series as
a way to build self-confidence and self-resilience in young women through fitness and golf.
To learn more about Empower Fore Life click here.
back to top
Business Profile
Wildflowers Farm - Growing and Evolving Naturally
Nestled among fragrant fields of flowers, just minutes from Lake Erie’s north shore,
sits Wildflowers Farm the homestead of Jane and Chuck Magri and their three young
children. The Magris moved to the farm on Fruit Ridge Line in 2007, and soon after they
launched Wildflowers Tea. The pair opened a store on the farm in 2013 as a place to sell
Wildflowers Honey, Wildflowers Tea blends, and herb-infused bath products.
To learn more about Wildflowers Farm click here.
Local Event
Culture Days
Elgin County will be celebrating Culture Days September 30 - October 2.
To Learn more about Culture Days in Elgin County click here.
back to top
Click here if you are having problems viewing or downloading the images for the PDF version of the newsletter.
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO
DATE: September 15, 2016
REPORT: CAO-55/16
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
BACKGROUND
In October 1998 Council passed a resolution that a Committee be struck to prepare a Municipal Alcohol
Policy for the Municipality of Bayham. The Municipality has generally annually reviewed the Municipal
Alcohol Policy through the Community Centre Committee or via staff. In 2016 to prepare for the
reopening of the Straffordville Community Centre the Municipal Alcohol Policy was thoroughly reviewed
by the Elgin St. Thomas Public Health Unit and Municipal Staff. The revised Municipality of Bayham –
Municipal Alcohol Policy is attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’.
DISCUSSION
The Elgin St. Thomas Public Health Unit review and comment is attached hereto as Appendix ‘B’.
Staff incorporated all Health Unit recommendations:
Additionally staff removed a few items and clarified language for liability purposes:
1)Removed Bayham history
2)Removed Fire Halls and the Edison Museum as an eligible location
a.These locations may still be approved by an application to Council
3)Minor changes to remove liability from ‘Municipal Representative’
Staff removed the sample signage as once approved three sets of permanent signage will be
produced. One set for the SCC, VCC and an extra set for outdoor and other location events.
Drawings will also be inserted defining permitted areas within each of the SCC and the VCC.
RECOMMENDATION
1.THAT Report CAO-55/16 re Municipal Alcohol Policy be received for information;
2.AND THAT staff be directed to post the revised Municipality of Bayham Municipal Alcohol
Policy for review on the Municipal Website;
3.AND THAT at the conclusion of the fourteen (14) day review period staff be directed to bring
forward a by-law for Council consideration to adopt the same.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Paul Shipway
CAO
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE
ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT POLICY……………………………………………….....3
2.POLICY REGULATIONS
REGULATION #1: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ELIGIBLE
FOR SPECIAL OCCASION PERMIT EVENTS………….…..4
REGULATION #2: MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES, FACILITIES AND EVENTS
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL OCCASION
PERMIT EVENTS………………………………………….……4
REGULATION #3: SIGNS……….…………..……………………………………….5
REGULATION #4: SAFE TRANSPORTATION…………………………………… 7
REGULATION #5: YOUTH ADMISSION TO ADULT EVENTS…………………. 8
REGULATION #6: ALCOHOL SERVICE…………………………………………...9
REGULATION #7: CONTROLS PRIOR TO EVENT………………….………….10
REGULATION #8: EVENT WORKERS/SERVER TRAINING
PROGRAM RECOGNIZED BY THE
LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO……….……….12
REGULATION #9: CONTROLS DURING EVENT………………………............13
REGULATION #10: INSURANCE ………………………………………………...…14
REGULATION #11:POLICY MONITORING AND REVISIONS………………….15
REGULATION #12:POLICY SUPPORT AND IMPLENTATION…………………15
3.CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURE TO APPLY………………….……………........16
APPENDIX “A” CHECKLIST FOR RENTERS…………………..…….18
APPENDIX “B” APPLICATIONS TO COUNCIL
OUTDOOR SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS………20
MISSION STATEMENT
To provide the Municipality of Bayham with a range of measures designed to prevent alcohol
related problems and manage the consumption of alcohol within their facilities and parks in
accordance with appropriate liquor laws, thereby decreasing municipal liability as well as
increasing the enjoyment of those using municipal facilities.
GOALS
The Municipality of Bayham wants residents and visitors to enjoy the various facilities and
parks available. Through the efforts of the people, the Municipality offers a variety of
recreational experiences for people of all ages. In order for the Municipality to ensure the
health and safety of its participants and the protection of municipal facilities, a policy for the
orderly use of alcohol during events and functions has been developed. The following
document outlines these regulations.
OBJECTIVES
1.To ensure proper operation and supervision of Special Occasion Permit events by
providing education in prevention and intervention techniques and in effective
management procedures. This will lower the risk of liability to event organizers,
participants, volunteers, the Municipality and its staff.
2.To reinforce responsible drinking practices for consumers through appropriate
operational procedures, controls, training and education.
3.To honour the decision of abstainers not to drink alcohol and to encourage their
participation by providing alternative, non-alcoholic beverages.
4.To provide a balanced use of alcohol through Special Occasion Permits so that
alcohol becomes a responsible part of a social function, rather than the reason for it.
5.To provide a balance of licensed and non-licensed programs to ensure that
consumers, abstainers, adults, youth and families will be adequately serviced and
protected.
Please note:
Throughout this document “Smart Serve” trained program will be used to identify the Server
Training programs recognized by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and may include
Server Training Program (S.T.P.) or Server Intervention Program (S.I.P.)
3
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 1: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR
SPECIAL OCCASION PERMIT EVENTS
A. Straffordville Community Centre
D. Vienna Community Centre
REGULATION # 2: MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES, FACILITIES AND
EVENTS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL
OCCASION PERMIT EVENTS
A. All Municipal properties not listed in Regulation # 1
B. Exceptions
Any person wishing to hold a Special Occasion Permit event in a location not listed
in this policy, must apply to the Council of the Municipality of Bayham for approval,
subject to meeting requirements as deemed appropriate.
C. Requirements
The applicant is responsible for obtaining/meeting any applicable Municipal,
Provincial, and/or Federal requirements, including police, fire, health and building
regulations. See Checklist for Applicants to Council for use of Facilities Appendix
“B”.
A. All Youth Focused Events (i.e. minor sports events and banquets, family day and
family focused events etc.)
Rationale:
Minor sports events and family events are intended for young people and families. If
adults don’t drink at these events, it sets an example for youth. As adults are
responsible for the transportation of young people, it also decreases the risk of
parents drinking and driving and sets another positive example.
4
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 3: SIGNS
A. Statement of Intoxication
This sign will be provided by the Municipality and will be a minimum of 8 1 /2’ X 11”,
to be placed in the bar area.
"It is against the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario for licensed establishments to serve
customers to intoxication. For this reason, servers in our facilities are required to
obey the law and not serve anyone to intoxication. We are also pleased to offer non-
alcohol beverages."
B. Accountability
Signage will be supplied by the Municipality and shall be a minimum of 8 1 / 2” x
11". These signs will be posted at the bar and/or main entrance of all S.O.P.
functions.
(a) Telephone Area (Main entrance) One sign will inform patrons where to
direct concerns regarding the manner in which the function has been
operated and should include the name, address and telephone number of
the facility, the name, address and phone numbers of the Municipal
Representative for the facility, Police Department and The Alcohol and
Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) at 1-800-522-2876.
(b) Bar Area In addition, a changeable sign providing the name, address and
telephone number of the sponsor of the event is to be supplied and posted.
Rationale:
Having these signs visible to participants eliminates any confusion on who to contact
for information or to lodge complaints regarding an event.
5
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
C. No Last Call
There will be no "Last Call Will Not Be Announced" signage. Sponsor and Disc
Jockey are to be advised that this is not to be announced.
D. Ticket Sales and Unused Tickets
Signs stating "All Ticket Sales End at 12:30 a.m.” and “Unused Tickets Can Be
Redeemed” will be provided by the Municipality and will be placed in the bar area at
a minimum size of 8 1/2" x 11". Ticket sales for alcohol shall be limited to four tickets
at one time per person.
E. Bar Closing
A sign stating "Bar closes at 1:00 a.m., Tables cleared by 1:30 a.m.” will be provided
by the Municipality and will be placed in the bar area at a minimum size of 8 1/2" x
11".
F. Acceptable ID
A sign stating “Acceptable ID is required as per AGCO” and a sign stating "No Minors
Served” will be provided by the Municipality and will be placed in the bar area at a
minimum size of 8 1/2" x 11".
G. No Drinks Beyond This Point
A sign stating “No drinks beyond this point” will be placed appropriately at the
discretion of the Municipal Representative.
H. Sandy’s Law
A “Sandy’s Law” poster will be displayed in the bar area.
J. Safe Transportation
Signage promoting safe transportation and providing a telephone number(s) for taxi
service, encouraging designated drivers is to be placed near the main entrance by
the telephone. Advise the public that RIDE programs are in the community.
6
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 4: SAFE TRANSPORTATION
Only individuals, groups or organizations implementing a safe transportation strategy will be
permitted rental/use privileges of facilities for Special Occasion Permit functions.
The sponsor is to decide which option(s) of Safe Transportation will be provided during their
event.
Possible Strategies:
a)Designated Drivers Program - to be advertised at the event so that all patrons
are aware this program is available.
The designated driver should be provided with non-alcoholic beverages
during the function.
b)Impaired individuals will be driven home by a sober friend, and/or call a
relative, or taxi.
c)Inform patrons through advertising of the Taxi service available.
d)Promote O.P.P. RIDE Program
Rationale:
The risk of liability is high when an impaired driver leaves an event where alcohol is
served. Event organizers must assume responsibility for promoting safe
transportation for all patrons consuming alcohol.
7
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 5: YOUTH ADMISSION TO ADULT EVENTS
Each rental group will be responsible to select a strategy on allowing youth to their event.
In all cases the following guidelines must be adhered to:
1.I.D. with picture and date of birth must be checked before anyone is allowed into
the event/facility:
Acceptable forms of photo identification as per AGCO include:
•Ontario Driver’s Licence with a photo of the person to whom the licence is
issued
•A Canadian Passport
•Canadian Citizenship Card with a photo of the person to whom the card is
issued
•Canadian Armed Forces Identification Card
•A photo card issued by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), entitled
Bring Your ID (BYID)
•A Secure Indian Status Card issued by the Government of Canada
•A Permanent Resident Card issued by the Government of Canada
•A photo card issued under the Photo Card Act, 2008
2.Two (2) extra floor monitors will be required if persons under the age of majority are
allowed to enter the event.
3.Individuals under the age of majority will not be allowed to consume alcohol
beverages. Any one serving individuals under the age of majority will be required to
leave the event.
4.All participants over the age of majority will be identified by a stamp on the back of
the right hand, or by the placing of a wrist or arm band, before entering the event.
Rationale:
To ensure that persons under the age of majority do not consume alcohol.
8
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 6: ALCOHOL SERVICE
A. Low Alcohol Drinks
In order to be eligible for a facility rental involving a Special Occasion Permit, the
renter must provide low and non-alcohol beverages. The minimum amount of low
alcohol content beverages available is to be 30% of the designated total. There can
be no extra strength beer (over 5%) served. Free non-alcohol beverages will be at
the discretion of the permit holder.
Rationale:
Low alcohol content significantly contributes to less intoxication. Not having higher
alcohol content beer is a great prevention strategy.
B. Control of Alcohol Service
1)All drinks may be served in disposable cups and all bottles and/or cans
retained in the bar area.
2)Sponsor(s) and disc jockey will be advised by that “Last Call” is not to be
announced."
3)Renters will not use marketing practises such as: availability of oversized
drinks, double shots, pitchers of beer, drinking contests, volume discounts or
tickets including a free bar, as these practises encourage increased alcohol
consumption.
4)Tickets for alcohol must be purchased from designated ticket sellers, with a
maximum of 4 tickets per purchase. Unused tickets can be redeemed.
5)Ticket sales must end at 12:30 a.m. and the bar close at 1:00 a.m. Tables
are to be cleared by 1:30 a.m. and the facility vacated by 2:00 a.m.
6)Adequate food must be provided throughout the event. Food refers to
sandwiches, cheeses, vegetable and dip, etc. Chips and snack foods are not
sufficient.
9
7)There will be no self-serve events, even "Wine and Cheese" functions require
a bartender.
Rationale:
By following the above practices we will reduce the risk that sponsors automatically
assume when running an event. These practices are designed to encourage alcohol
use in accordance with Canada’s Low Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines.
C. Advertising Events:
Renters must follow the Liquor Licence application regulations regarding
alcohol advertising which states that groups cannot advertise the brands or
the cost of the alcohol to be served unless application is made to the Liquor
Control Board of Ontario.
Rationale:
Alcohol advertising is designed to encourage and promote the consumption of
alcohol. Since it is illegal for people under the age of 19 to consume these products,
alcohol advertising is not permitted. It is also the desire of the Municipality to provide
a positive example to under-age patrons.
10
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 7: CONTROLS PRIOR TO EVENTS
RENTERS OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND THE
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY PRIOR TO RENTING.
1.A copy of the Municipal Alcohol Policy will be available from the Municipal
Representative at the time of booking. If any questions or concerns arise from
this policy contact the Municipal Representative for clarification.
2.A "Checklist For Renters" form will be provided by the Municipality at the
time of booking. This form is to be completed by the Renter and returned to
the Municipal Representative at least two (2) weeks prior to the event.
Signatures from both the Renter and the Municipal Representative are
required on this form. Please see "Appendix A".
3.The signatory of the S.O.P. must attend the event, and be responsible for
decisions regarding the actual operation of the event. This person and all
event workers must not drink alcohol before or during the event.
Rationale:
The above is to ensure that there are no misunderstandings of the regulations
contained in the Policy.
11
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 8: EVENTWORKERS/SERVER TRAINING
THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED REGARDING THE RATIO OF
SERVER TRAINED PERSONS TO UNTRAINED SERVER PERSONS.
Public Event
# of
Participants
Bartenders Floor
Supervisors /
Monitors
Door
Supervisors
Ticket Sellers
Under 50
people
1 Trained No monitor
required
1 Trained N/A
50 – 100
people
1 or 100%
Trained
No Monitor
required
2Trained 1 Trained
100 – 250
people
2 or 100%
Trained
1 Trained
2* Trained
2 Trained 2 or 100%
Trained
250 – 400
people
2 Trained 2 Trained
2* Trained
2 Trained 2 Trained
*2 extra floor monitors are required for events allowing participants under the age of
majority (19).
Note: Worker numbers for events may increase or decrease and adequate volunteer or
paid security personnel may be requested at the discretion of the Municipal
Representative.
Private Event
# of
Participants
Bartenders Floor
Supervisors /
Monitors
Door
Supervisors
Ticket Sellers
Under 50
people
1 Trained No Monitor
required
N/A N/A
50 – 100
people
2 Trained 1 trained N/A N/A
Over 100
people
2 or 100%
Trained
2 Trained N/A N/A
12
REGULATION # 9 CONTROLS DURING EVENT
ALL CONTROLS AND SERVICE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE LIQUOR LICENCE ACT OF ONTARIO AND ITS REGULATIONS.
1.The entrances and exits to the event must be monitored by at least one responsible
person meeting the age of majority requirements for public functions with under 100
persons in attendance, two responsible persons meeting the age of majority
requirements for public functions with 100 or more persons in attendance.
These persons shall further observe for individuals that may be attempting to enter
the premises and that appear to be impaired.
2.Only identification bearing a photograph, and issued by the Province of Ontario, the
Government of Canada or photographic identification issued by another Province,
State or Country shall be accepted as bona-fide proof of age.
Acceptable forms of photo identification as per AGCO include:
•Ontario Driver’s Licence with a photo of the person to whom the licence
is issued
•A Canadian Passport
•Canadian Citizenship Card with a photo of the person to whom the card
is issued
•Canadian Armed Forces Identification Card
•A photo card issued by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO),
entitled Bring Your ID (BYID)
•A Secure Indian Status Card issued by the Government of Canada
•A Permanent Resident Card issued by the Government of Canada
•A photo card issued under the Photo Card Act, 2008
Refer to “AGO Responsible Service – checking ID”
3.The holder of the Special Occasion Permit shall be the person renting the facility and
is responsible to ensure that the event is properly supervised and will provide enough
staff to fulfil this obligation, at his/her cost.
4.In the event of a masquerade party taking place in any premise owned by the
Municipality of Bayham, the permit holder is responsible to check all patrons I.D. to
ensure they are of legal drinking age. Any person under the age of majority will not
be allowed into a masquerade event.
13
5.Event staff must be clearly identifiable and identification must be clearly stated on the
“Checklist For Renters" form. (Example Stick-on I.D. labels or other distinguishing
I.D.).
6.The bar area within the premises shall be closed promptly at 1:00 a.m. and No
Service of alcoholic beverages will be allowed after this time.
7.All entertainment with the facility shall cease no later than 1:00 a.m.
8.All signs of the consumption and service of alcohol including empty glasses shall be
removed from sight within 30 minutes of the expiry of the Special Occasion Permit or
by 1:30 a.m., whichever time is earliest.
9.To assist staff and ensure that no incidents occur within the premises, and the facility
must be vacated by 2:00 a.m.
The only exception to the 1:00 a.m. closing time would be during a New Year’s Eve
event when the Special Occasion Permit indicates the expiry time of 2:00 a.m.
Relative deadlines would be extended by one (1) hour as appropriate.
Rationale:
To ensure the safety of all persons and to promote orderly conduct during events.
REGULATION # 10: INSURANCE
The sponsor(s) of a special occasion permit event being held in a municipally owned facility
is required to provide a certificate of insurance, naming the Municipality of Bayham as an
additional insured, in the minimum amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000), at least
fourteen (14) days prior to the event.
Rationale:
i)Special Occasion Permit holders, hall owners, club executives and volunteers
could all be named in a law suit, with Municipalities also being held jointly
liable, and end up paying the predominant share of an award to a plaintiff
should the sponsor be uninsured.
14
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
REGULATION # 11: POLICY MONITORING AND REVISIONS
The alcohol management policy for the Municipality of Bayham, as approved by Council,
will be reviewed annually by the Municipality of Bayham, which will discuss any potential
changes and recommend to Council for consideration and approval.
Rationale:
i)Monitoring and review of the Policy on a yearly basis will ensure that the policy
remains up to date and effective.
ii)Solicitation of public comments will allow the public to remain involved in the
process of review and update of the existing policy.
REGULATION # 12: POLICY SUPPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Municipality shall provide a copy of the Municipal Alcohol Policy to all facility users for
events with alcohol to promote the policy and its requirements. The same will be posted on
the Municipal Website.
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
Although the Police will be called if a situation deems it necessary to do
so, it is the responsibility of the Special Occasion Permit Holder to
ensure the proper management of an event.
Individuals and/or groups who fail to comply with the Municipal Alcohol Policy shall be
subject to the following consequences:
1.Special Occasion Permit holder / event workers / volunteers will report any infraction
of this policy to legal authorities whenever they believe such action is required.
Where a minor infraction occurs they will notify the sponsor of the event.
2.Should a situation arise where the Municipal Representative deems it necessary to
notify the sponsor of an infraction, and upon so doing the sponsor fails to comply, an
event may be immediately shut down.
3.Failure to comply with the above could prevent the Licence Holder or Organization
from further renting any Municipal facility and where appropriate, the Police will be
advised and charges could be laid.
4.Any infraction of the Municipal Alcohol Policy will be reported by the Municipal
Representative. Should the Municipal Representative choose to do so, an
appropriate letter may be sent describing the problem to the sponsor. The Municipal
Representative may refuse future rental privileges to the sponsor, giving notice of
same by sending an appropriate letter.
5.Where persons under the age of majority are found to have consumed or to be
consuming alcohol at Special Occasion Permit or non-Special Occasion Permit
events, the authorities may be called and/or the following procedure will be followed
by the Municipal Representative:
First Infraction: The individual(s) will be turned over to a parent or
guardian. If a parent or guardian is not available, the
police will be called. A registered letter will be sent by
the Municipal Representative to the parents/guardians.
Second Infraction: The individual(s) will be banned from attending any
function held in any municipal facility for a period of 3
months. A registered letter will be sent by the
Municipal Representative to the parents/guardians.
16
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
Third Infraction: A registered letter will be sent by the Municipal
Representative notifying the individual(s) that they are
banned indefinitely from the facility. The individual(s)
may appeal to the Municipal Representative for written
reinstatement.
6. Where adults and/or youth engage in disruptive behaviour at social events,
authorities may be called and/or the following procedure will be followed by the
Municipal Representative:
First Infraction: A verbal warning will be given to the individual(s) by staff
in charge or head of the function. If individual(s) do not
adhere to this warning the Authorities will be called. A
registered letter will be sent to the individual(s).
Second Infraction: Individual(s) will be banned from attending all functions
held in any municipal facility for a minimum period of 3
months. A registered letter will be sent to the individual(s)
advising of same.
Third Infraction: A registered letter will be sent notifying the individual(s)
that they are banned indefinitely from the facility. The
individual(s) must appeal to the Municipal
Representative for written reinstatement.
NOTE: Enforcement procedures and penalties apply to groups or
organizations as well as individuals.
Once a sponsor has received verbal notice of any infraction of this
policy, the sponsor may be required to pay for the supply of police
servicing.
17
Appendix "A" MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
"CHECKLIST FOR RENTERS"
Date of Event(s):
1.Location of Event: ___________________________________
2.Number in Attendance: _______________
3.Will persons under 19 years of age be attending this event?
Yes No
Note: *2 extra floor monitors are required for events with attendance over 100 people and
allowing participants under the age of majority, and adequate volunteer or paid
security personnel may be required.
4.Name of person and/or group sponsoring this event:
_______________________________________________________
5.Type of Identification for event workers ____________
6.Has proof of a Special Occasion Permit been provided?
YES NO
7.Has proof of Insurance been provided? YES NO
8.The safe transportation strategy(s) that will be used at this function are:
a)__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
b)__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
c)__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
(2)
18
"CHECKLIST FOR RENTERS"
9. The names and certification numbers of Smart Serve trained program event workers
are:
1) Name Certification # ____________
2) Name Certification # ____________
3) Name Certification # ____________
4) Name Certification # ____________
5) Name Certification # ____________
6) Name Certification # ___________
10. I have reviewed the Municipal Alcohol Policy with a municipal representative.
_____Yes No
11. I understand all the policy regulations.
Yes No
12. I and/or my group will observe and obey all policy regulations during the event.
Yes No
If No, explain: ____________________________________________
Signature of Special Occasion Permit holder ______________________
Address __________________________________________________________
Telephone Number ______________________________
Signature of Municipal Representative_____________________________
Date: _____________________
19
Appendix "B" MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
OUTDOOR SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS
APPLICATION TO MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL
Date of Event(s): _______________________________________________
Type of Event: __________________________________________________
1.Location of Event: _______________________________________
2.Number in Attendance: _______________________________
3.Will persons under 19 years of age be attending this event?
Yes No
4.Name of person and/or group sponsoring this event:
_____________________________________________________________
5.Will there be extra staffing above the guidelines set out by the Municipal Alcohol
Policy? ___________
Describe i.e. #, Adequate volunteer or paid security personnel, security company,
volunteers (trained or untrained):
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
6.Government Approvals that are necessary:
OPP Health Unit Fire Building Other
7.Transportation Strategies that will be used at this function are:
a)___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
b)___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
20
OUTDOOR SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS
APPLICATION TO MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL
8.Drawing of service area showing entrances, service area, seating area, fencing etc.
Please attach.
9.Type of Fencing (i.e. Single or double fencing, snow fence etc.)
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
10. Disposable Glasses to be used?
_____________________________________________________________
11.Parking arrangements:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
12.Type of identification for event workers:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
13.100 Percent of event workers must be Smart Serve trained:
_____________________________________________________________
14.The Municipal Alcohol Policy has been reviewed with a municipal representative.
Yes No
Signature of Applicant ________________________________________
___________________________________________ ____________________
Address Telephone Number
___________________________________________
Date:________________________
1230 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, ON N5P 1G9
p: 1.800.922.0096 | f: 519.633.0468
elginhealth.on.ca
July 5, 2016
Dear Mr. Shipway,
RE: Municipal Alcohol Policy (MAP), Municipality of Bayham
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Municipality of Bayham with feedback on the
current Municipal Alcohol Policy (MAP).
The MAP was screened using the Blue Ribbon Screening Tool from the Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health (CAMH).
Current MAP Score: 71%
Of note, a MAP score of greater than 70 has shown to reduce problems more quickly than those
MAPs with lower scores.
Components of your current MAP that contributed to a positive score:
Designated Properties and Events: the municipality has clearly listed eligible and
ineligible municipal properties for Special Occasions Permits.
Management Practices: good practices are indicated in required areas such as
minimum insurance coverage, limits for number of drinks sold at one time, no last call,
workers not to consume alcohol, identification of workers, and identification needed to
purchase alcohol.
Prevention Strategies: the municipality engages in prevention strategies such as safe
transportation, the use of plastic cups, availability of non- alcoholic beverages, and no
alcohol advertising at facilities frequented by youth.
Actions to Enforce: the municipality has met recommendations in this area for handling
infractions for short term penalties and for long term penalties.
Signs: the majority of the signage requirements are complete with the statement of
intoxication, accountability, ticket sale limit, and restricted areas signs being noted.
Policy support: ongoing policy monitoring and review is clearly outlined.
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 2 of 9
Please find below suggestions where the current MAP could be strengthened further under
each of the six key components.
Designation of Properties and Events
Strengthen policy for full points by including those events NOT eligible for SOP events
(i.e., youth minor sports events, family focused events, etc.)
Management Practices
Server-trained Event Staff: increase to the recommended minimum of 60% of staff. I
would encourage to go all the way over the next year with a target of 100 % by the end
of 2017.
Entrance Monitoring: ensure there is no discrepancy within the document. Page 18
currently states you need to have one door monitor for fewer than 100 people and two
monitors for over 100. Page 15 indicates that if you have fewer than 50 people no door
staff is required. Recommend consistency in both areas.
Special Security Arrangements: for events with attendees over a certain number/
currently, policy notes worker numbers may increase or decrease and adequate
volunteer of paid security personnel may be requested at the discretion of the municipal
representative. Policy changes would indicate when and where these changes are
required so there are fewer areas for discussion (i.e., if you have an event with 1000
people, additional security in the form of x is required).
Restricted Youth Admittance To Adult Events: while private events such as weddings or
anniversary parties are exempted, consider restricting youth admittance to adult events.
Prevention Strategies
Low Alcohol Content: designate that a minimum of 30% of all the alcohol available is of
low alcohol content.
No extra strength beer available (no beer over 5%).
Redemption of unused tickets (people are less likely to heavily consume alcohol at the
end of an event when they can simply return the unused tickets).
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 3 of 9
Enforcement Procedures and Penalties
You have met all the requirements, but could consider ensuring that groups or
organizations are also noted in the first infraction/second infraction/third infraction area,
not just individuals
Signage
Safe Transportation: you have this covered in the prevention strategy, going to the next
step and putting up a sign clearly indicating such would bump up your points in the
signage area.
Acceptable ID: the municipality has listed this component under management practices,
but it could also provide a clear sign indicating the acceptable ID required as per AGCO.
This addition would and then you would have met all of the requirements under the
signage section of the review.
Though it is not required, I would recommend a Sandy’s Law poster at all bar areas. This
poster states that drinking alcohol during pregnancy can harm your unborn baby.
Policy Support
Indicate a plan for how staff will be oriented to the updated policy, or how the public will
be made aware of the revisions so there are no surprises for people. An effective
implementation plan could include a pamphlet, staff orientation etc.
I have also included additional detailed comments on the entire MAP as listed below.
Cover Page
I think your statement of “Working Together For a Safer Community” is a great stand
alone statement here. I do not think the statement, “Prevention is our goal and if we can
achieve that we will not need a “cure”” is necessary on this page.
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 4 of 9
Page 1
Table of Contents: Bullet 3: Policy Regulations
Regulation #3: Signs
D is listed as “unused tickets” pg. 8. However, there is no reference to unused tickets on
page 8, only a reference to ticket sales (which is great!) I could not find information on
unused tickets anywhere.
For revisions, consider changing the title of D to Ticket Sales, and then one could
include the time that ticket sales end, maximum # of tickets to be sold, and redemption
of unused tickets. This would be a great addition to that section.
I would also add safe transportation under signage (you already have it covered under
Prevention Strategies which is great).
Page 5
Mission Statement
I would suggest a more detailed statement here such as “To provide the Municipality of
Bayham with a with a range of measures designed to prevent alcohol related problems
and manage the consumption of alcohol within their facilities and parks in accordance
with appropriate liquor laws, thereby decreasing municipal liability as well as increasing
the enjoyment of those using municipal facilities.”
Page 6
Regulation # 2:
Add Events NOT eligible for SOP. This would include events such as youth sporting
events, family day events, minor sports banquets, etc.
Rationale for this change: minor sports events and family events are intended for young
people and families. If adults don’t drink at these events, it sets an example for youth. As
adults are responsible for the transportation of young people, it also decreases the risk
of parents drinking and driving and sets another positive example.
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 5 of 9
Page 8
Regulation # 3 Signs
Expand this to include Safe Transportation Signage and then you can include all
information for safe transportation such as the taxi #, encouraging designated drivers,
letting the public know that RIDE programs are in the community, etc.
Page 10
Regulation # 5: Youth Admission to Adult Events
Provide the acceptable identification list from AGCO as to what ID may be accepted for
youth.
Page 11
Regulation # 6 Alcohol Service
Low-Alcohol Drinks: stipulate the minimum amount of low alcohol content beverages
available is to be 30% of the designated total.
Indicate that there can be no extra strength beer (over 5%) served.
Rationale for this measure: Low alcohol content significantly contributes to less
intoxication. Not having higher alcohol content beer is a great prevention strategy.
Page 12
Regulation # 6 Alcohol Service
B. Control of Alcohol Service
2) Consider strengthening the language from “renters will agree not to use marketing”
….. to “Renter will not use marketing practices”….)
4) Consider changing the maximum number of tickets per purchase from 8 to 4 to fit with
Low Risk Drinking Guidelines.
6) Again, strengthen the language from “Consumption of food should be encouraged” to
“Adequate food must be provided throughout the event.” Indicate that food refers to
sandwiches, cheeses, vegetable and dip, etc.; also indicate that chips and snack foods
are not sufficient.
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 6 of 9
Rationale for this measure: Changing the word “guidelines” to “practices” strengthens
expectations. Consider changing message to a positive instead of a negative for the last
sentence so we are telling people what we want them to do, instead of what we don’t
want them to do. Instead of “These practices are designed to discourage heavy alcohol
consumption,” change the wording to, “These practices are designed to encourage
alcohol use in accordance with Canada’s Low Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines.”
Page 13
Alcohol Service
C. Advertising Events
Strengthen the language so you are not asking people to comply, you are letting them
know what is not allowed. Instead of “it is preferred…,” change to “alcohol advertising is
not permitted.”
Page 14
Regulation # 7 Controls Prior to Events
4. Strengthen the language to say “…This person and all workers must not drink alcohol
before or during the event” instead of “refrain from consumption during…”
Page 15
Regulation # 8 Event workers/server training
Consider placing these requirements in an easy-to-read table such as the one below:
Public Event
# of Participants Bartenders Floor Supervisors
/ Monitors
Door
Supervisors
Ticket Sellers
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 7 of 9
Private Event
# of Participants Bartenders Floor Supervisors
/ Monitors
Door
Supervisors
Ticket Sellers
Consider tightening up the numbers for events to include specific numbers of people
(i.e., under 25, 25- 50, 51-100, 101-200, 201-300, 301-400, 401-500, 501-750, 750-1300
and so on).
Specify according to each number what is expected for event workers.
I strongly encourage increasing the number of Smart Serve Trained staff to the
recommended minimum of 60%. W ith this percentage as the minimum, it would be a
useful baseline to start with, with the ultimate goal of increasing to Smart Serve traingted
staff to 100% in a given time frame. ESTPH could support the implementation of
additional Smart Serve training in the area to meet this requirement.
It is difficult to expect someone to be responsible for monitoring for intoxication in any
area if they have not had any training on the early signs, what to monitor for, and how to
prevent intoxication.
Page 18 Regulation # 9
Controls during the Event
Look at including exits as well as entrances for areas being monitored. There is a
discrepancy between the statement for staffing requirements on pg. 18 regulation #9 and
those listed on pg. 15.
Consider utilizing Identification as per “AGCO Responsible Service- checking ID” as
acceptable proof of age.
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 8 of 9
5. Strengthen statement to say “Event staff must be clearly identifiable” and identification
must be clearly stated on the “check list for renters” form.
Page 20
Regulation # 10
Insurance.
You may want to consider increasing the minimum amount to 5 million dollars. I would
recommend consultation with the municipality’s lawyer and insurance provider as I do
not believe 1 million is adequate any longer.
Page 22
Consequences for Failure to Comply
Consider moving bullet 1. to the top of the page as a statement since it is not a
consequence for failure to comply, but rather an outline of the responsibility and
expectations.
Page 27
The application to Municipality of Bayham Council.
5. If you clearly lay out the staffing requirements for events then you can change this to
read “Will there be staffing at the guidelines set out by the Municipal Alcohol Policy”?
If Bayham implemented the above suggestions the MAP would increase to a score of 100%.
Given that change can be difficult at times, it may be reasonable to implement some of the
easier items first, with a goal of further changes during the annual review of the MAP. This
would also allow for feedback and collection of information from the end users of the facilities as
well as staff.
July 4, 2016
Municipality of Bayham
Paul Shipway
Page 9 of 9
I hope that you will find this feedback useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions or comments about the score or would like any further support in Bayham’s MAP
review.
Kindest Regards,
Jacky Allan RN BScN
Public Health Nurse
519-631-9900
jallan@elginhealth.on.ca
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO
DATE: September 15, 2016
REPORT: CAO-56/16
SUBJECT: 2017 COUNCIL SCHEDULE
BACKGROUND:
The proposed 2017 Council Schedule is attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’.
Please note that this schedule is subject to change due to additions of public planning meetings,
special council meetings or any other additions/deletions that may occur. Meetings during the
summer recess are set for July 20th and August 17th 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
1.THAT Report CAO-56/16 be received for information;
2.AND THAT Council approve the 2017 Meeting schedule attached hereto as Appendix
‘A’.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Paul Shipway
CAO
2017 Council Schedule
Date Meeting Time Public Agenda Items Due – 9:00 AM
January 5 Council 7:00 p.m. December 20, 2016
January 19 Council 7:00 p.m. January 10, 2017
February 2 Council 7:00 p.m. January 24, 2017
February 16 Council 7:00 p.m. February 7, 2017
March 2 Council 7:00 p.m. February 21, 2017
March 16 Council 7:00 p.m. March 7, 2017
April 6 Council 7:00 p.m. March 28, 2017
April 20 Council 7:00 p.m. April 11, 2017
May 4 Council 7:00 p.m. April 25, 2017
May 18 Council 7:00 p.m. May 9, 2017
June 1 Council 7:00 p.m. May 23, 2017
June 15 Council 7:00 p.m. June 6, 2017
July 20 Council 7:00 p.m. July 11, 2017
August 17 Council 7:00 p.m. August 8, 2017
September 7 Council 7:00 p.m. August 29, 2017
September 21 Council 7:00 p.m. September 12, 2017
October 5 Council 7:00 p.m. September 26, 2017
October 19 Council 7:00 p.m. October 10, 2017
November 2 Council 7:00 p.m. October 24, 2017
November 16 Council 7:00 p.m. November 7, 2017
December 7 Council 7:00 p.m. November 28, 2017
December 21 Council 7:00 p.m. December 12, 2017
NOTE: Public Agenda Items and Delegations, pursuant to Section 6.8 and 8 of the Procedural By-law are due to staff in the specified format by
Tuesday at 9:00 AM the week preceding the meeting.
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW 2016-081
A BY-LAW TO APPOINT STAFF TO PERFORM DUTIES
UNDER THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE ACT
WHEREAS Section 3(2) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c.23, as amended, provides
that the council of each municipality shall appoint a chief building official and such
inspectors as are necessary for the enforcement of this Act in the areas in which the
municipality has jurisdiction.
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it
necessary and expedient to appoint staff to perform the duties of Chief Building Official and
Inspectors under the Building Code Act.
NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT Mr. William Knifton be and is hereby appointed the Chief Building Official
for the Municipality of Bayham, to perform duties under the Building Code Act
and Regulations thereunder, commencing September 15, 2016, and until such
appointment is repealed.
2. THAT Mr. Eugenio DiMeo be and is hereby appointed the Acting Chief Building
Official for the Municipality of Bayham, to perform duties under the Building Code
Act and Regulations thereunder in the absence of the Chief Building Official,
commencing September 15, 2016, and until such appointment is repealed.
3. THAT appointments of staff to perform duties under the Building Code Act as
approved by By-law No. 2006-067, be the same are hereby repealed effective
September 15 2016.
4. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 15th DAY
OF SEPTEMBER 2016.
____________________________ _________________________
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2016–082
A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of
a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be
exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it
advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law.
THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in
respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other
action by the Council at the regular meeting held September 15, 2016 is hereby adopted
and confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.
2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby
authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the
Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and finally passed this 15th day of September,
2016.
____________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK