Castries SWM Operational Plan

GOVERNMENT OF SAINT LUCIA
East Castries Stormwater

Management Operational Plan
Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services, and Transportation
December 2018 – 15-2537

i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Regional Context ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 Study Area Description ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Why is Stormwater Management Important? ...................................................................... 3
1.3 Existing Municipal Drainage System Challenges ................................................................... 3
1.4 Choosing the Right Solution................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Document Outline ............................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Principles of Stormwater Management 5

2.1 Levels of Flooding ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Dual Drainage Systems ........................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Low Impact Developments .................................................................................................. 6
3.0 Stormwater Management Strategies 7

3.1 Structural Strategies ............................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Non-Structural Strategies .................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Recommended Capital Works and Costs 9
5.0 Operational Management 10

5.1 Asset Management............................................................................................................ 10
5.2 Enforcement ..................................................................................................................... 11
5.3 Emergency Procedure ....................................................................................................... 11
5.4 Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 12
5.4.1 Maintenance Requirements .............................................................................................. 12
5.4.2 Annual Maintenance Reporting ......................................................................................... 13
5.4.3 Maintenance Responsibility............................................................................................... 13
5.4.4 Health Concerns Associated with Maintenance. ................................................................ 14
5.5 Future Development ......................................................................................................... 14
5.5.1 Upstream Development .................................................................................................... 14
5.5.2 Sediment Control .............................................................................................................. 15
6.0 Strengthening Knowledge 16
Government of Saint Lucia

East Castries Stormwater Management Operational Plan - Ministry of
Infrastructure, Port Services, and Transportation
December 2018 – 15-2537
ii
6.1 Community Participation ................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Future Training .................................................................................................................. 17
Figures
Figure 1: Digital Terrain Model of the Castries River Watershed .......................................................... 2
Figure 2: Permeable Pavers - Grass Interlocking Concrete.................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Grass Swale........................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Life Cycle of SWM Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Culvert Filled with Trash and Debris .................................................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1: Capital Works and Unit Costs ................................................................................................ 10
Table A-1: Runoff Coefficients ........................................................................................................... A-3
Table A-2: Hydrologic Soil Groups...................................................................................................... A-4
Table A-3: SCS Curve Number............................................................................................................ A-4
Table A 4: Manning Roughness Coefficient ........................................................................................ A-5
Appendices
A Technical Training Manual
B East Castries Capital Plan Design Ra onale
References

December 2018 – 15-2537
1
1.0 Introduction
This document is intended to provide the Government of Saint Lucia (GOSL) with conceptual planning,
design and maintenance guidance, and tools to implement and maintain a func oning storm drainage
system within the communi es of East Castries. While the focus has been on the study area defined as
East Castries, the content of this document is in part transferable to other urban communi es on the
Island.
Urban development alters hydrologic characteris cs of the natural drainage systems through changes in
land use, topography, and drainage pathways. These changes result in a combina on of impacts that
tend to significantly alter the natural movements and rates of movement of storm runoff by reducing
rates of infiltra on and evapotranspira on together with yielding increased peak flows and runoff
volumes. The impacts of urbaniza on include an increased risk of flooding, stream bank erosion, and
degraded water quality.
Stormwater management (SWM) provides a comprehensive approach to the planning, design, and
implementa on of various techniques and prac ces aimed at providing prac cal and cost-effec ve
methods to mi gate the impacts of development. The objec ves of SWM solu ons include:
• Protect homes and private property from flooding;
• Improve the quality of stormwater runoff;
• Reduce the rate and volume of runoff from developed areas;
• Maintain stream channel stability for receiving watercourses; and
• Maintain an appropriate diversity of aqua c life and opportuni es for human uses.
In 2016, Dillon Consul ng Limited completed an East Castries Drainage Assessment and Feasibility
Report for the Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services, and Transport (MIPS&T) of the Government of
Saint Lucia (GOSL). This project was ini ated in response to the devasta ng floods following Hurricane
Tomas in 2010. The primary objec ves of this study are to assist the GOSL in addressing the risks of
flooding in the East Castries study area. The 2016 report prompted discussion on the current status of
the drainage in East Castries and recommenda ons to enhance the system.
This SWM Opera onal Plan has been created for the Ministry of Infrastructure, Port Services, and
Transport (MIPS&T) of the Government of Saint Lucia (GOSL) to assist with future SWM opera on and
maintenance within the East Castries study area.
1.1 Regional Context

Saint Lucia is a Windward Island of the Lesser An lles located midway along the eastern Caribbean chain
of islands with Mar nique to the north, St. Vincent and the Grenadines to the south, and Barbados to
the east. The East Castries area of the Castries River Watershed is located in the north eastern coast of

December 2018 – 15-2537
2
Saint Lucia. As of 2016, Saint Lucia Is es mated to have a popula on of approximately 186,382
(provisionally).
The island is located between the North Atlan c Ocean and the Caribbean Sea and is within the Atlan c
hurricane belt. Consequently, it can be exposed to serious storms with the poten al to cause extensive
damage when tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes impact the island.
1.1.1 Study Area Descrip on

The Castries River begins in the hills to the south east of Castries City centre and flows into the Atlan c
Ocean at the Port of Castries. The Castries River basin is approximately 4.35 km 2, the watershed
boundary is presented in Figure 1. The Castries River forms the spine of the drainage network through
the study watershed.
Figure 1: Digital Terrain Model of the Castries River Watershed
The main branch of the Castries River is approximately 2.5 kilometers long with numerous tributaries
contribu ng discharge to the river. Only a small por on of the up-gradient reach consists of natural
open channels, with the downstream reaches consis ng of a combina on of large concrete and/or
rubble walls which can be in excess of 10 m high with a bo om width in the order of 5 – 6 m (variable).
The low lying areas along the Castries River basin are densely populated and surrounded by steep
hillsides. Development con nues to push up the slopes of the surrounding hills and infill undeveloped

December 2018 – 15-2537
3
areas. This development is largely unplanned and presents many challenges to the provision of u li es
(especially storm drainage) and other services to residents.
The East Castries area is characterised by high rainfall, dominated by steep terrain and narrow valleys of
highly weathered rock and erodible soil material. The Castries River basin has had a history of flooding,
landslides, rock‐fall, and debris flow.
1.2 Why is Stormwater Management Important?

Flooding can impact a community in physical, environmental, and personal/emo onal ways, including
the following considera ons:
Physical impacts can include disrup on on transporta on, power and communica on, as well as
structural damage and loss of possession.
Environmental impacts include contamina on to potable water, air quality, and overall health of the
environment. These impacts can further lead to illness in the community.
Personal/ Emo onal impacts include financial worries which can be brought on by physical and
environmental issues. Loss or destruc on of property will cause financial issues along with possible loss
of working days. Addi onally, illness can cause financial and emo onal strain on a family.
1.3 Existing Municipal Drainage System Challenges

The MIPS&T of the GOSL commissioned Dillon Consul ng Limited to undertake a Drainage Assessment
Feasibility Study for the East Castries area of the Castries River Watershed. This project was ini ated in
response to the devasta ng floods following Hurricane Tomas in 2010. A site visit was undertaken by
Dillon staff from January 25 – 30, 2016, to conduct detailed site reconnaissance and gain a be er
understanding of exis ng drainage within the study area. The findings of the 2016 study were intended
to guide future investment in urban drainage infrastructure within East Castries. The primary objec ves
of the study were to assist the GOSL in addressing the risks of flooding in the East Castries study area.
Results of the 2016 drainage assessment and hydraulic simula on of the exis ng drainage systems in
East Castries indicated the following concerns impac ng flood vulnerability:
• Heaving in some road segments and drainage infrastructure causing some low points in
topography that are not able to adequately drain;
• Deteriora ng condi on of many drainage infrastructure components;
• Inconsistent drainage infrastructure such that some collector ditches and drains do not
adequately drain to further downstream drainage infrastructure that can direct the runoff to
Castries River or other reten on/discharge structures;

December 2018 – 15-2537
4
• Watercourse road crossings that do not appear adequately large enough for significant runoff
events;
• Channel and flow paths overgrown with vegeta on and accumulated debris;
• Undefined major flow pathways;
• Inadequate waste management servicing at the lot level that may lead to li er accumula ng in
drainage infrastructure;
• Steep slopes on many roads and drainage infrastructure which allows runoff to reach high
velocity and poten ally cause more damage; and
• Some areas of ad hoc development interrup ng natural and constructed runoff channels.
It is an cipated that in addi on to the structural upgrades outlined in the Feasibility Report prepared as
part of the 2016 assessment, proper opera on/maintenance (O&M) will play a cri cal role in limi ng
flood risk in East Castries. Effec ve O&M of exis ng drainage infrastructure is very o en the most cost
effec ve approach in limi ng flood risk vulnerability. This is par cularly true in the East Castries study
areas as many maintenance challenges were observed in the field.
1.4 Choosing the Right Solution

The drainage challenges iden fied during the 2016 drainage assessment are varied and require
appropriate and targeted mi ga on. It is important when choosing SWM prac ce that special
considera on be given to the feasibility and constructability of the solu on. It is also important the
SWM solu on follow the below criteria:
• The goal of a good SWM strategy must not create adverse stormwater effects to neighbouring
proper es. The prac ce and objec ve of reloca ng the problem(drainage and flood
vulnerability) to another downstream site and impac ng another person must not con nue;
• Solu ons should use local equipment and empower local people; and
• Must not induce other constraints on residents.
1.5 Document Outline

The objec ve of the Stormwater Management Guidelines for East Castries is to provide uniform criteria
and guidance for the planning, design, and construc on of municipal drainage infrastructure and SWM
systems. The inten on of this guideline is also for public educa on to build awareness of stormwater
management.
An outline of the document is provided below.

• Sec on 1 is an introduc on to the document;
• Sec on 2 describes principles of drainage planning, design, and opera on of drainage systems;
• Sec on 3 provides stormwater management strategies;
• Sec on 4 outlines capital works and costs;

December 2018 – 15-2537
5
• Sec on 5 presents recommended opera onal management of exis ng and future drainage
infrastructure; and
• Sec on 6 provides strengthening capaci es.
Addi onally, Appendix A provides a technical training manual.
2.0 Principles of Stormwater Management

The following sec ons describe principles of drainage planning, design, and opera on of drainage
systems.
2.1 Levels of Flooding

For consistency and as a common point of reference for flood severity, the following flood classifica ons
are proposed:
• Level 1: Includes localized flooding caused by inadequate drainage systems. This is the most
frequent type of flooding;
• Level 2: This flooding affects larger areas and can cause temporary disrup on to a city. This level
of flooding would be less frequent than Level 1 flooding; and
• Level 3: This is large scale and wide spread flooding usually associated with very large storm
events. This is the least frequent flood level.
For example, the Hurricane Tomas event would be considered Level 3 since large scale flooding and a
large por on of the popula on was affected. A lot level flooding issue that occurs frequently (e.g. due
to a blocked culvert) which only impacts a few homes/proper es would be considered Level 1.
2.2 Dual Drainage Systems

Adequate SWM required the use of dual drainage systems. This includes the use of a major (overland
flow) and minor (pipes) flow conveyance.
Minor Drainage System

The minor (piped or man-made channel) storm drainage system shall be designed to convey stormwater
runoff generated by lower flow, more frequent rainfall events. The design criteria for these systems is
commonly between the 5 and 10 year return period rainfall events. The minor storm drainage system
frequently consists of buried storm sewers, conduits, and road side channels.
Major Drainage System

The major storm drainage system consists of: ditches, drainage channels, swales, curbed roadways,
deten on ponds, culverts, and watercourses. These facili es would typically convey stormwater only

December 2018 – 15-2537
6
during higher intensity events (such as greater than the 5 or 10-year return period rainfall event). The
design objec ve of the major system is to prevent flooding of private residences and property by guiding
the excess storm runoff that exceeds the smaller roadside ditches and channels. Most o en this can see
the roadways ac ng as the major flow routes where it is required to contain the flows between the
roadway edges through curbs and raised sidewalks or through grading prac ces designed to keep
waters away from fron ng buildings and homes.
It is noteworthy that in some instances where major system conveyance is not feasible, sewers or other
minor system components may be designed to meet a high level of service. An example of this is the
large rectangular buried channel draining storm runoff from the Marchand Road area towards the
Castries River adjacent to the sports stadium.
2.3 Best Management Practices

Best management prac ces (BMPs) are used to promote the natural movement of water and reduce
pollutants from entering the water collec on system. The goal is to treat the stormwater ‘where it falls’.
BMPs are designed to control water quality and water quan ty through evapotranspira on, infiltra on,
deten on, and filtra on or biological and chemical ac ons. Water quan ty control includes reducing or
delaying the volume of stormwater entering the system along with reducing the peak flow (flow rate) of
water into and in the system. Water quality control is improving the quality of the water before it
reaches the SWM system. This includes reduc on of pathogens, sediments, debris, etc.
2.4 Low Impact Developments

Low impact development (LID) is a stormwater management strategy that mi gates the impacts of
increased runoff and stormwater pollu on by managing runoff at the source. Low impact developments
are designed to avoid disturbance of exis ng vegeta on and reduce the amount of impervious cover to
manage runoff.
LID methods include, but are not limited to:

• Non-structural LIDs;
• Infiltra on prac ces;
• Rainwater harves ng;
• Runoff storage;
• Runoff conveyance; and
• Landscaping.
LIDs are difficult to retro-fit into fully built out areas and may not be suitable for correc ve purposes;
however, LIDs should be considered for future development to assist in SWM drainage.

December 2018 – 15-2537
7
3.0 Stormwater Management Strategies

There are two main types of strategies that should be considered when designing a SWM system. These
include structural and non-structural SWM strategies.
3.1 Structural Strategies

Structural SWM strategies include physical interven on and engineered infrastructure to improve
drainage. Some examples of structural SWM strategies include culverts, bridges, and ditches along with
the following BMP structural SWM strategies:
• Bio Reten on;
- Vegetated pond like structures.
• Permeable Pavers;
- Interlocking concrete blocks made with vegeta on between blocks to increase
infiltra on and lower the imperviousness of the city (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Permeable Pavers - Grass Interlocking Concrete

• Rainfall Collec on;
- In a sanitary facility, collect rainfall to be used as potable water or agricultural purposes.
This will decrease runoff and also be an addi onal source of potable water.
• Green Space;
- Create designated parks that have no development allowed. This will be a fun area for
the community but also add a large area for infiltra on.
- It is important there is no squa er se lement in these areas so they are kept clean and
open for stormwater to infiltrate. This may be achieved by making the designated green
areas for a specific use such as a football pitch.
• Grass Swale;
- This would be designed similar to a paved ditch (Figure 3); however, it is constructed
with vegetated ma er to increase infiltra on and lower the imperviousness of the city.

December 2018 – 15-2537
8
Figure 3: Grass Swale
The above approaches may be integrated with tradi onal stormwater infrastructure (ditch/culvert, etc.)
to limit the amount of runoff generated from developed areas.
It is important to note that the islands of the Lesser An lles, including Saint Lucia, are made up
predominately of volcanic rock overlain by a rela vely thin layer of soil and organic material. Soils
within the Castries River watershed are es mated to have a hydrologic soil group C classifica on (see
Table A-2). These soils have a moderately high runoff poten al when they are saturated and an
infiltra on rate in the order of 0.50 cm/hour. Ideally, site specific infiltra on tes ng would be
completed to confirm this range as it can vary from one site to the next within the same watershed.
Infiltra on rate should be considered when choosing the appropriate SWM strategy.
3.2 Non-Structural Strategies

Non-Structural SWM strategies focus on preventa ve ac on. In most tropical climates where flooding is
inevitable and li le resources and infrastructure are available, these are highly cost-effec ve op ons to
implement. Non-structural SWM rely heavily on behavioural changes within the community. When
crea ng a plan for non-structural SWM strategies the goal is to assist with the following impacts:
Management of Exis ng Flood Risk Vulnerability

Flooding can be detrimental to the wellbeing of a community. The following op ons are available to
limit this risk:
• Avoid: aim to prevent flooding;
- Home reloca on: Homes that are built in a flood zone or flood pathway may be
relocated. This should be a last resort method if flooding con nues and no solu on is
found. Plans should be designed and implemented with the input of the groups that are

December 2018 – 15-2537
9
being relocated. In order to guarantee a smooth transi on, the MIPS&T must supply
appropriate infrastructure and opportuni es to support the livelihood of the residents
being relocated.
• Mi gate: immediate response to flood warnings and take ac on during flood;
- Having an emergency procedure (Sec on 5.5).
• Recovery: take ac on a er a flood to enable communi es to recover;
- Evalua on of damages;
- Rehabilita on of damaged property; and
- Flood assistance from the MIPS&T, to flood vic ms.
Community Level Prac ces

The following summarizes some of the behaviours and prac ces that can be adopted at a community
level to limit flood risk:
• Solid Waste Management: avoid blockages, do not throw trash/debris in drains;
• Pollu on Mi ga on: reduce discharge of pollutants into water;
• Sweep sidewalks and driveways instead of hosing them off. Washing these areas can results in
sediment and other pollutants running off into streams, rivers and lakes;
• Prac ce landscaping to reduce surface run-off from your yard. A few examples include;
elimina ng bare surfaces; preserving exis ng trees, and plan ng trees and shrubs to help
prevent erosion and promote infiltra on of water into the soil; installing gravel trenches along
driveways or pa os to collect water allowing it to filter into the ground; avoiding cu ng the
grass within 3-7 meters from the edge of a stream or river which will create a buffer zone that
will help minimize erosion and naturally filter stormwater runoff that may contain sediment;
• Wash your car at a commercial car wash or on a surface that absorbs water, such as grass or
gravel;
• Join environmental groups that protect the environment; and
• Promote environmental educa on. Help educate people in your community that increased
erosion and sedimenta on in the Caribbean Sea may harm marine life and their habitats. Get
your community groups involved.
4.0 Recommended Capital Works and Costs

Table 1 summarizes possible drainage improvement op ons along with selec on criteria for each
op on. There is also a unit price associated with each method, it should be noted however these prices
are as of 2016 and are expected to increase over me.

December 2018 – 15-2537
10
Table 1: Capital Works and Unit Costs

Drainage
Budgetary Cost
Improvement Criteria
Es mate ($EC)1
Op on
In areas there is a paved road surface and water is flooding the road and/
Curb and Gu er $250/ meter
or flooding from the road onto neighbouring proper es.
Rubble Wall In areas damaged due to erosion. $500-1000/ meter
Rock should be placed on bends of streams, outlets of culverts, pipe
Rock (Riprap) outlets, etc. to reduce erosion. It is also recommended rock be replaced at $50-60/ cu meter
areas that have been damaged due to erosion.
Pipe (450-750mm Where a water crossing is trying to pass by a road causing flooding in the
$1500/ meter
Culvert) roadway.
Where there is surface flooding during smaller storm events and a minor
Pipe (450-750mm system needs to be built to pass water from small events underground.
$1500/ meter
Underground) Inlet drains should be built at low points in the road to collect the most
amount of water.
Varies depending
Bridges Where a road must cross a large water course. on site
condi ons
1
Based on 2016 estimates. Prices may change in the future.
For current (as of 2016) design recommenda ons, please refer to the East Castries Drainage Assessment
and Feasibility Report complete for the Government of Saint Lucia – Ministry of Ports and Infrastructure
complete by Dillon Consul ng Limited (Dillon 2016). Suppor ng ra onale and design goals for the
recommended capital works are found in Appendix B
5.0 Operational Management

A preventa ve approach to SWM is typically easier and more cost effec ve than a correc ve approach.
The following sec ons describe opera onal management and maintenance approaches to SWM. The
objec ve of these measures is to maintain exis ng drainage works so they are able to safely handle
intense rainfall events when they eventually occur.
5.1 Asset Management

The first step in effec ve SWM opera onal planning is to have an inventory of exis ng assets.
A list and/or map of current assets SWM (i.e. culvers, ditches, bridges, etc.) should be prepared as a first
step. This report is o en referred to as a ‘State of Infrastructure’ and consists of informa on including
what infrastructure is present, what condi on it is in, and where it is located. This report can be

December 2018 – 15-2537
11
completed in an Excel spread sheet. When broken infrastructure is fixed, the condi on should be noted
in the State of Infrastructure report with comments on dates and what was done. Also, in future
development, when new infrastructure is complete, any SWM constructed shall be added to the list.
Having this report will assist in priori zing maintenance and emergency asset stability. It is important to
remember a State of Structure spread sheet is meant to be a working document and should be looked at
and edited on a regular basis.
There are many guidelines and resources available to guide asset management planning including the
Interna onal Organiza on for Standardiza on (ISO) 5500 document. Many of the comment themes of
these guidelines include the following principles:
1. Asset management is ongoing and not a one off project, and must con nually be updated;
2. Asset management is holis c and integrated (e.g. requires input from various groups); and
3. Asset management is about genera ng value and suppor ng capital investment planning.
5.2 Enforcement
A large issue with current infrastructure is unregulated development. In order to assess and control
stormwater management, there needs to be SWM requirements applied to future development. Prior to
commencement of future development, approval must be given by the MIPS&T to proceed pending
appropriate SWM planning. MIPS&T review and approval will regulate development in the area, and
also allow for the MIPS&T to be aware of urbaniza on changes and update asset management
inventories when required.
A common policy used by municipal or other governments to control site runoff is to apply a “net-zero”
approach to runoff management. This would require that property developers demonstrate a net-zero
impact on pre-development peak runoff from the proposed development site. In other words, that
post-development site runoff peak flow is no greater than under pre-development condi ons and
increasing storm runoff poten al beyond the undeveloped condi on is to be avoided.
5.3 Emergency Procedure

The safety of the community is the top priority in stormwater management. It is important that an
efficient emergency procedure is established. This emergency procedure should consist of an evacua on
plan and an asset stability plan.
Evacua on Plan: An effec ve no fica on system should be established as well as evacua on

routes.
Asset Stability Plan: Before a large storm event there should be a commi ee that is responsible for
a quick response emergency unblocking of blocked inlets and drains.

December 2018 – 15-2537
12
In order to know when this emergency procedure should be ini ated, storms must be tracked and the
MIPS&T should be aware when there is a large rainfall event coming.
5.4 Maintenance
Maintenance is a necessary and important aspect of SWM design. Poten al failures and/or poor
performance in stormwater conveyance is a lack of maintenance. The life cycle of SWM infrastructure is
shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Life Cycle of SWM Infrastructure
5.4.1 Maintenance Requirements

Maintenance should be completed regularly. It is recommended that large SWM infrastructure be
inspected seasonally, meaning every 3 months minimum. Smaller infrastructure should also be
inspected every 3 months. Where deficiencies are found in the SWM system, ac on should be taken
immediately. It would be appropriate to undertake drainage system inspec ons following significant
rainfall events to iden fy the need and take ac on to remedy drainage constraints. Taking mely and
rou ne ac on can serve GOSL well by both reducing the risk of future drainage issues and by distribu ng
the costs and effort over me rather than only taking ac on under the duress of an emergency situa on.
Trash and debris should be removed from drainage systems as o en as possible but no less than every 3
months. This includes monitoring and inspec ng, and when appropriate take ac on by de-sil ng and
flushing out the system to ensure adequate passage of flow and clean water. Figure 5 shows a large
watercourse with accumulated urban and natural debris and garbage at a large culvert crossing as
observed during the 2016 site visit.

December 2018 – 15-2537
13
Figure 5: Culvert Filled with Trash and Debris
Addi onally, a er large events the SWM system should undergo a thorough inspec on to ensure no
infrastructure has been damaged.
5.4.2 Annual Maintenance Repor ng

In order to facilitate maintenance, it is recommended a maintenance report be prepared annually. The
report should provide the following informa on annually:
• Observa ons resul ng from inspec on:
- condi on of vegeta on in and around facility;
- occurrence of obstruc ons at the inlet and outlet;
- evidence of spills and oil/grease contamina on; and
- frequency of trash/debris accumula on.
• Maintenance and opera on ac vi es; and
• Recommenda ons for inspec on and maintenance program for the coming year.
The value of maintaining complete and meaningful records would serve GOSL well in view of iden fying
the priority areas of immediate capital and opera onal requirements, areas of needed community
engagement, and assist in developing future annual capital and opera onal budgets.
5.4.3 Maintenance Responsibility

The MIPS&T
The MIPS&T is responsible to ensure all SWM systems are maintained and fully func oning. This may
require contrac ng local ci zens to be part of a SWM Maintenance team. This team will be in charge of
rou nely inspec ng the city for deficiencies and fixing any problems that arise. To sponsor this SWM
Maintenance team a small cleaning fee could be implemented.

December 2018 – 15-2537
14
The Public
It is important that there is public educa on to build awareness of maintaining drainage infrastructure.
If the residents do not maintain and value the SWM infrastructure, there will con nue to be flooding. It
is recommended a system be in place for the public to contact the MIPS&T if they no ce any
malfunc ons, blockages, etc. with the drainage network. These concerns should be addressed
immediately.
Addi onally, as a cost effec ve solu on, the residence may be responsible to maintain and inspect
infrastructure. To ensure this is complete, there may be a drainage commi ee in each neighbourhood,
or ‘drainage’ can be added to the list of responsibili es of exis ng commi ees and/or community
groups. It is recommended that MIPS&T facilitate this and ensure adequacy of the process.
5.4.4 Health Concerns Associated with Maintenance.

Maintaining the SWM system is important to protect the city from flooding; however, there are many
health benefits of keeping SWM infrastructure maintained. Garbage and debris in stormwater can cause
the following.
Water Pollu on
• Objects restric ng water can also cause water to be stagnant. Stagnant water can become a
breading place for disease and parasites;
• Pollu on to surface water may cause wide spread diseases. If surface water is polluted and then
gets into the water table where potable water is sourced from, people could become ill from
toxic water;
• Surface water may also be used for agricultural purposes. Using polluted water may cause crops
to go bad and/or make civilians ill when eaten; and
• Children o en play in the streets or brooks. Polluted surface water could pose a huge issue with
adolescent health.
Air Pollu on
• Similar to with water pollu on, stagnant water is a breeding place for disease and parasites. On
hot day, evapora on will cause this polluted water to become airborne; and
• Stagnant and dirty water may also a ract mosquitos and other insects.
5.5 Future Development

5.5.1 Upstream Development
Special a en on should be given to construc on that is upstream of other proper es and of drainage
infrastructure. Appropriate considera on should be given to not nega vely affect downstream
dwellings. As men oned previously, enforcement of a net-zero approach to runoff of management is an
effec ve way to management upstream development.

December 2018 – 15-2537
15
Cos ng for implemented upstream drainage improvements on a lot level can vary depending on the
current drainage condi ons implemented on the exis ng lots. As it is readily apparent from inspec on
of the East Castries drainage network most lots direct their respec ve drainage immediately downslope
regardless of the downstream land uses. It is recommended that drainage routes be established on a
neighborhood scale where local lot level runoff is directed to either a) the street drainage system (where
a minor major drainage concept is in place) or b) to any adjacent water course that safely leads drainage
away from neighboring proper es and is directed to a major watercourse such as the Castries River.
It would be expected that GOSL would take on the responsibility of ensuring that each lot has an
adequate drainage outlet and therefore would be responsible for assessing and upgrading the minor –
major flow pathways leading to safe outlets such as the Castries River and its tributaries.
Lot level drainage works would be the responsibility of the property owner, and enforcement of their
obliga on to connect to the approved drainage outlet provided by GOSL would be required. It is
understood that there may be some inability of lot owners to bear the costs of their own drainage
improvements. GOSL should examine the possibility of assuming or assis ng in the finance of such
improvements.
GOSL could inves gate methods of funding local drainage improvements whether it be by funding
agencies such as the CDB or others. Alterna vely, crea ve capital mechanisms such as the
implementa on of a Drainage Development Cost Charge (DDCC) program where new land development
projects pay an addi onal levy upon development approval could ul mately help offset the capital cost
for drainage improvements in the future.
5.5.2 Sediment Control

During construc on ac vi es, site layout and construc on sequencing should limit surface water flows
across the construc on site and disturbed soils when possible. Surface water flows over disturbed areas
can result in the mobiliza on of sediments which may be deposited in downstream infrastructure. The
deposited sediments can limit the hydraulic capacity of downstream infrastructure and require
maintenance and/or flushing.
Methods of controlling sediment from impacted areas may include the following:
· Intercep on and diversion ditches to direct clear water around the construc on site;
· Diversion berms;
· Sediment traps;
· Covering or seeding of topsoil or other soil stockpiles;
· Isolated stripping of land being developed;
· Vegeta on screens or buffers (hay bales, or similar);
· Filter bags in catch basins; and
· Se ling ponds.

December 2018 – 15-2537
16
O en, for smaller construc on works, the use of sedimenta on fences can provide effec ve control of
erosion and sediment. The following should be considered when using sedimenta on fencing:
· Using a material that will stop sediment and debris passage, set up a perimeter around the
construc on site to trap any sediment and debris trying to leave the site. When construc on is
complete, carefully remove the fence and properly dispose of any trapped debris or sediments;
and
· To be more cost effec ve, the sediment fence may be reused on mul ple construc on sites.
The above approaches to control sediment/erosion control are intended for temporary construc on
works. However, more permanent erosion/sedimenta on control measures will also assist in
preven ng the mobiliza on of fine sediments. For example, rock armouring of piped ou alls, natural
filtra ons (see LIDs), and minimizing the impact along watercourses will assist to mi gate long-term
sedimenta on and erosion.
Photographs and typical sketches of sediment and erosion control techniques are provided in
Appendix A.
6.0 Strengthening Knowledge

6.1 Community Participation
Adequate SWM cannot be designed without help from the community. It is important the community be
aware of the requirements in SWM and consequences of inadequate SWM.
Community engagement can improve the community by iden fying local ideas, concerns, and
opportuni es. A passive approach on community engagement involves informing the community about
plans and asking ques ons; this approach does not bring the community into the decision making
process. A proac ve approach to community engagement however, encourages the public to par cipate
in the development of SWM plans to meet their needs. With a proac ve approach, community members
will feel empowered. The engagement process creates vision, achieves results, and creates movement
and change. No ma er the scale of the project, community engagement will improve and strengthen a
community.
Collabora on with a wide range of groups is important to draw ideas and concerns from all stakeholders
in the community. It is beneficial to have a broad range of people par cipa ng to focus on social
inclusion. Such collabora on can create dynamic and crea ve communi es and foster networks and
new rela onships.

December 2018 – 15-2537
17
Informa on sessions by the MIPS&T should be held in the city and more rural communi es annually.
6.2 Future Training

It is recommended that municipal engineers receive proper training in stormwater management
including hydraulic and hydrologic methods. A technical training manual can be found in Appendix A.
This manual explains hydrology and hydraulics along with methods that are used to calculate SWM
methods.
It is also recommended computer programs such as HEC-RAS, HEC-HMS and HY-8 be adopted into SWM
design.

December 2018 – 15-2537
A-1
Appendix A
A Technical Training Manual

East Castries Stormwater Management Operational
Plan
December 2018 – 15-2537
A-2
There are mul ple analy cal techniques and methodologies for carrying out hydrologic and hydraulic
calcula ons, which are outlined below.
1. Hydrology
Hydrology is the scien fic study of the proper es, distribu on, and circula on of the Earths water.
Applied hydrology uses scien fic knowledge to predict the rate and the amount of runoff and other
applica ons necessary to the management of stormwater. Below is a figure represen ng the complete
water cycle.
a) The Intensity-Dura on-Frequency Rela onship
Intensity-Dura on-Frequency (IDF) curves can be created for any loca on based on rainfall data.
These curves indicate the rela onship between the intensity (i) and dura on (d) of a rainfall
event with a given return period (T).
Return periods can be considered like an exceedance probability (p), where p=1/T. This would
mean a 25 year storm has a 4% change of occurring (P=1/25x100 = 4%).

December 2018 – 15-2537
A-3
b) Ra onal Method
The Ra onal Method is an empirical equa on for calcula ng the peak instantaneous flow for
small watershed areas (i.e., < 20 ha). The peak flow is assumed to occur at a rainfall dura on
equal to the me of concentra on for the subject watershed area.
Q = 0.00278CIA where Q = peak flow (m3/s)

C = runoff coefficient
I = rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
A = drainage area (m2)
Table A-1: Runoff Coefficients

Land Use Runoff Coefficient1
Parking Lots & Roofs 0.85-0.95
Parks & Open Spaces 0.15-0.35
Forest & Woodlands 0.20-0.40

Lawns
• Sandy Soil, Flat (<2% Slope) 0.10-0.20
• Sandy Soil, Steep (>7% Slope) 0.15-0.25
• Clay Soil, Flat (<2% Slope) 0.25-0.35
• Clay Soil, Steep (>7% Slope) 0.35-0.45
Crop Lands
• Sandy Soil 0.25-0.35
• Loam Soil 0.35-0.45
• Clay Soil 0.45-0.55
Residen al
• Single Family Home 0.30-0.50
• Apartment 0.60-0.80
Industrial 0.50-0.90
Commercial 0.75-0.95
Source: Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices (Ponce 1989)
1
Runoff coefficient values assume a 5 and 10 year design frequency
c) Hydrologic Soil Group
Soils are classified into hydraulic soil groups (HSGs) based on the rate of infiltra on and the
corresponding runoff poten al. A summary of the soil texture and runoff characteris cs for each
HSG is provided in Table A-2.

December 2018 – 15-2537
A-4
Table A-2: Hydrologic Soil Groups

Hydrologic
Soil Texture Descrip on
Soil Group
A Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam High infiltra on, low runoff poten al
B Silt loam or loam Moderate infiltra on/ runoff poten al
C Sandy clay loam Low infiltra on, moderate runoff poten al

D Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy/silty clay, clay Very low infiltra on, high runoff poten al
d) SCS Curve Number Method
The Soil Conserva on Service (SCS) Curve Number Method is a widely accepted technique for
determining peak flows and runoff volumes for rural and suburban watersheds. The SCS method
is a rainfall-runoff rela onship that separates total rainfall into direct runoff, ini al abstrac on,
and soil reten on. Hydrologic soil groups and SCS Curve Numbers are summarized in Table A-2
and Table A-3, respec vely.
Table A-3: SCS Curve Number

Hydrologic Soil Group
Land Use Cover Type
A B C D
Impervious Paved Parking Lots, Roofs, Driveways, etc. 98 98 98 98
Paved (Curb & Storm Sewer) 98 98 98 98
Paved (Open Ditch) 83 89 92 93

Streets & Roads
Gravel 76 85 89 91
Dirt 72 82 97 89
1/8 acre lots or less 77 85 90 90
1/4 acre 61 75 83 87
1/3 acre 57 72 81 86
Residen al
1/2 acre 54 70 80 85
1 acre 51 68 79 84
2 acres 46 65 77 82
Poor Condi on (Grass Cover < 50%) 68 79 86 89
Open Space Fair Condi on (Grass Cover 50-70%) 49 69 79 84
Good Condi on (Grass Cover >75%) 39 61 74 80
Poor Condi on 45 66 77 83
Woods Fair Condi on 36 60 73 79
Good Condi on 30 55 70 77
Source: Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices (Ponce 1989)

December 2018 – 15-2537
A-5
2 Hydraulics
Hydraulics is a branch of engineering that applies fluid mechanics principles to problems dealing with
the collec on, storage, control, transport, regula on, measurement, and use of water.
a) Manning Formula
The Manning Formula is an empirical rela onship used to calculate open channel flow, including
pipe systems (i.e., culverts, storm sewers, etc.) and open channels. The Manning Equa on is
provided below.
Q = AR(2/3)S(1/2)/n where A = cross-sec onal area of pipe/channel (m 2)

R = hydraulic radius (m)
S = slope (m/m)
n = Manning roughness coefficient (refer to Table A-4)
Table A-4: Manning Roughness Coefficient
Flow Type Surface Descrip on n
Concrete 0.011
Grass
• Short Grass 0.15
• Dense Grass 0.24
Sheet Flow • Bermuda Grass 0.41
Woods
• Light 0.4
• Dense 0.8
Range (natural) 0.13
Smooth Steel & Metals 0.012
Concrete 0.013
Asphalt 0.015
Corrugated Metal 0.024
Channel Flow
Earth Excava on 0.022-0.035
Natural Channel 0.025-0.080
Riprap-Lined Channel 0.035-0.045
Mountain Streams 0.030-0.070
Brass 0.009-0.013
Cast Iron 0.011-0.015
Concrete 0.011-0.013
Corrugated Metal 0.020-0.024
Pipe Flow
Glass 0.009-0.013
Steel 0.010-0.012
Steel (Riveted) 0.017-0.020
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 0.009-0.011

December 2018 – 15-2537
A-6
b) Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis
The hydraulic grade line (HGL) analysis is a method for calcula ng water levels within a storm
sewer system flowing under pressure. A graphical representa on of the HGL within a storm
sewer is shown on the figure below. The methodology and design parameters are outlined in
the HEC-22 Urban Drainage Design Manual (US DOT, 2001).
Source: HEC-22 Urban Drainage Design Manual (US DOT, 2001).
c) HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS is a 1-dimensional hydraulic modeling so ware developed by the US Army Corps of

Engineers. This program shall be used for the hydraulic analysis of open drainage systems,
culverts, and bridges, in addi on to the prepara on of floodplain mapping.
3 Sediment and Erosion Control

The following sec on provides photographs and conceptual sketches for several approaches to control
sediment and erosion control. This informa on is provided in the Toronto Regional Conserva on
Authority (TRCA) Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construc on (TRCA 2006).

December 2018 – 15-2537
EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS, MATS, NETS
DEFINITION & PURPOSE
Erosion control blankets, mats or nets, are prefabricated layers of material, generally
biodegradable, which are laid on a soil surface to prevent erosion and promote seed growth.
Nets consist of degradable material tightly woven into a photodegradable mesh. Blankets are
simply fibres woven within a photodegradable netting to form a thick fibre blanket. Mats may
consist of hardy materials such as coconut husk fibres, wood shavings or synthetic fibres that
form a stronger/heavier material layer or “mat”.
APPLICATION
Erosion control blankets, mats or nets should be applied to un-vegetated conveyance systems
including swales and ditches as these systems receive concentrated flows. They should also be
applied to all exposed slopes with greater than 2H:1V and are subject to rainfall and runoff.
Erosion control blankets, nets and mats may be applied within a watercourse, however, the
local Conservation Authority must be contacted for approval of these measures.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The many different site conditions will dictate whether a net, blanket or mat is required. For
example, a temporary diversion swale required for watercourse realignment would require a
mat due the long duration for the temporary swale to be in place (6 to 12 months) and the
potential for higher flows. It is recommended that the manufacturer and the local CA be
consulted prior to installation.
NETS
• Woven structure forms a high-tensile strength net.
• Highly erodible slopes may require application of a sub layer of straw mulch overlain
with netting, which is stapled through to enhance ground contact.
• Typically composed of jute, straw or Coir (coconut fibres) material.
BLANKETS
• Simply woven structure reduces tensile strength, but enhances contact with the ground.
• Typically composed of Coir, straw or wood fibre material.
MATS
• Material strength provides turf reinforcement, and reduces the energy of run-off to
provide lasting erosion protection.
• Matting can be placed directly on seeded slope or with a sub-layer of mulch to enhance
ground contact.
• Typically composed of 100% coconut husk fibres or synthetic polypropylene fibres.
ALL
• Retains moisture from precipitation thereby significantly reducing runoff from bare
slopes and in turn promoting the early germination of seeds.
• Straw and/or combination straw and Coir blankets should be applied to steep slopes.
C-8
• Synthetic materials used in netting typically deteriorate in three to four months but
some types may not biodegrade as quickly and manufacturers should be consulted
regarding the specific application.
• Follow specific manufacturer's specifications regarding maximum allowable slopes and
flow velocities.
INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
To be installed on a seeded slope (with or without mulch).
• A firm, continuous contact between the blanket and soil is critical. Careful rolling after
installation and stapling may be required to obtain firm contact.
• Care must be taken during installation to remove all foreign debris (i.e. rocks, branches,
plastics) to prevent blanket, mats or nets from tenting due to lack of firm contact with
the soil surface. Tenting creates a drip zone which causes erosion under the blanket (i.e.
distance between blanket and soil surface).
• Specific manufacturer's instructions must be followed (re: blanket type/application,
anchoring, and staple pattern).
• Orientation of the nets/blankets/mats within the :
⇒ Conveyance System Side Slopes - Orient nets/blankets/mats vertically
down the slope (i.e. with the direction of runoff).
⇒ Channels - Orient nets/blankets/mats with the direction of flow. Erosion
control blankets, nets, and mats may be applied within the channel of a
watercourse; however, the governing Conservation Authority will need to be
contacted for approval.
• Blankets should overlap at edges and at end – Refer to manufacturer’s instructions for
the exact details of installation.
• Metal staples or wooden stakes are used to anchor nets/blankets/mats to the ground.
Refer to manufacturer’s instructions for the exact details of staple/stake spacing.
• Top and bottom ends may need to be secured in an anchor trench.
• Inspect periodically until vegetative cover is established, particularly after each rainfall
event for any damage to the blanket. Repair all damaged areas immediately.
C-9
Figures illustrating the installation of erosion control mats, blankets, and nets from Keeping
Soil on Construction Sties (HRCA &HCA, 1994).
C-10
SURFACE ROUGHENING (SCARIFICATION)
This measure is also referred to as scarification and provides for a rough soil surface with the
horizontal depressions created by operating suitable equipment on the contour, or by leaving
slopes in a roughened condition without fine grading. This measure aids in seed bed preparation
and establishment of vegetative cover, reduces runoff velocity and quantity, increases
infiltration and provides some sediment trapping.
APPLICATION
Can be applied to any disturbed surface that is to be left temporarily exposed (i.e. less than 30
days).
• Useful where vegetation cannot be immediately established due to the season.
• Should be performed after final grading.
• Should be used in conjunction with other measures such as mulch
• Has limited impact on very sandy or rocky soil.
• Roughening should follow parallel to the site contours.
INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATION
• Surface is considered roughened if depressions are created which, are at least 50 mm to
100 mm deep and about 100 mm to 150mm apart.
• A chisel or ripping instrument can be used in most soil conditions.
• On slopes steeper than 2:1, the tracks left by a bulldozer working perpendicular to the
contour can leave acceptable horizontal depressions.
• Vehicles and equipment should not be driven over areas that have been roughened as
these results in the creation of tracks which channel water down slopes and encourage
runoff and erosion.
Figure illustrating surface roughening from Water Related Best Management Practices in the
Landscape (NRCS/USDA, 1999) and University of Virgin Island Cooperative Extensions
Service (2003).
Slopes with grades < 2:1 - roughening
should follow parallel to site contours
C-16
Slopes with grades > 2:1 - tracking with machinery
working perpendicular to the contour
Roughening slope surfaces provides

depressions and grooves that catch seed
mulch and moisture and reduce runoff
velocity.
C-17
SEDIMENT/SILT CONTROL FENCE
This measure consists of a non-woven synthetic fabric material (geotextile) stretched across and
attached to supporting post and wire fence. The non-woven geotextile must be entrenched. This
measure does NOT filter runoff, but acts as a linear barrier creating upstream ponding which
allows soil particles to settle out thereby reducing the amount of soil leaving a disturbed area.
The sediment control fence also decreases the velocity of sheet flow and low to moderate level
concentrated flows.
The use of snow fence as structural support for the sediment fence should be discussed with the
local Conservation Authority, and plans revised accordingly.
APPLICATION
Sediment control fencing should be implemented along the perimeter and on the up-gradient
side of sensitive areas, stream and river corridors, and at the base of moderate slopes. Silt fence
is intended to treat moderate sheet flow, and is not suitable to treat concentrated flows, or
substantial amounts of overland flow.
A separate fence (not necessarily a silt fence) may be utilized at a high point of a site and at
areas to delineate between work areas and sensitive areas.
• Geotextile material should be woven with a weave density of 270R or equivalent;
• Sediment/silt control fences should NOT be used in creeks or other areas of highly
concentrated flows as it will not be able to allow for ponding of water for sediment
removal and will fail structurally under high flows;
• Structural fencing must be used to back the sediment fence. A reinforced sediment
fence also doubles as a limit of work fence;
• Prefabricated sediment control fence products with wooden stakes already attached to
geotextile are not preferred since they are not structurally stable and are incapable of
deep water ponding;
• Maximum allowable slope lengths and grades:
Grade Length
2:1 15 metres
3:1 25 metres
4:1 40 metres;
• Maximizing the pond volume increases the amount of sediment to be trapped, therefore
fences must be located and installed:
⇒ along the contour and not on up and down slopes;
⇒ with end sections constructed up the slope to stop runoff from flowing
around the ends of the fence (e.g. flanking); and,
⇒ on the flat area away from the toe of a slope.
• Vegetative buffer strips to be provided down gradient of sediment fencing according to
the following criteria:
⇒ > 3 m for perimeter fencing;
C-24
⇒ > 15 m for fencing adjacent to a warm water watercourse (as identified by
local Conservation Authority or MNR staff); and,
⇒ > 30 m for fencing adjacent to a coldwater watercourse supplemented with a
second row of fencing 2 metres beyond the initial row (as identified by local
Conservation Authority or MNR staff).
• Refer to OPSD 219.13 for the Heavy Duty Silt Fence Barrier and illustrated on the
following page.
• The proper installation of a sediment control fence is critical to its functionality. See
the figures below for an example of a properly installed sediment fence;
• The geotextile material must be stretched tight when installing the material and the
bottom edge buried a minimum of 150 mm with compaction of the excavated backfill.
Diagonal bracing of the posts is recommended where deep ponding is experienced or
anticipated;
• Clear granular stone placement can be used in frozen as well as un-frozen conditions to
assist in filtering sediment laden waters;
• Any failure must be repaired immediately;
• Sediment control fence must be inspected regularly, and after every rainfall, to identify
failed sections. If wet conditions persist, repairs must be undertaken to restore the
integrity of the fencing;
• When sediment accumulates to half the height of the geotextile it should be removed
and disposed of in a controlled area; and,
• A supply of sediment control fence should be kept on site to provide for quick repairs
or the installation of an additional fence as required.
C-25
C-26
INTERCEPTOR/DIVERSION SWALES AND DYKES
Interceptor swales and dykes involve the use of temporary grading of conveyance systems to
collect and convey runoff away from unprotected/disturbed slopes, as well as convey runoff
from disturbed slopes to a downstream sediment trap or basin/pond. Diversion swales/dykes
reduce sheet and rill erosion on slopes to allow re-vegetation to proceed and slopes to stabilize.
APPLICATION
Can be applied to intercept surface water runoff from undisturbed or disturbed slopes and
convey flows to the appropriate discharge or treatment location. Diversion dykes and swales are
intended to convey small flows along low-gradient channels. Should be considered along all toe
of slopes and adjacent to valley and stream corridors.
• Temporary diversion dykes and swales should be constructed on the top of long or
steep slopes or whenever the up-gradient tributary drainage area exceeds two (2)
hectares. (See figure below).
• Flow diversions should be considered when:
S2*L>0.75 where,
- S = slope of the upslope tributary area (metres/metre); and,
- L = length of the upstream slope (metres)
• Diversions should be considered at the top of all slopes in excess of 3:1;
• Dykes should be compacted and constructed with maximum 2:1 side slopes. Swale
channel slopes should not be greater than 2:1;
• Concentrated flows from diversions should not be allowed to flow down unprotected
slopes, and should be directed to an appropriate sediment control device such as a
sediment trap or pond/basin;
• Velocities within a swale should be controlled with rock check dams to prevent channel
erosion. (e.g. velocities greater than 1.2 m/s will erode the invert of grassed diversions);
and,
• Swales/Ditches should be vegetated if possible. Riprap stabilization may be required at
the inlet/outlet to prevent erosion.
• The grading of interceptor swales/dykes can be undertaken at any time during
construction, provided that the runoff water is directed to an appropriate sediment
control device; and,
• If the diversion is anticipated to exist for more than 30 days, it should be seeded. In
some cases sod or rip-rap may be required to protect the invert from down cutting.
C-27
Example of Interceptor Swale/Dyke. Figures from Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix D
(King County Department of Natural Resources, 1995); Water Related Best Management
Practices in the Landscape (NRCS/USDA, 1999).
C-28
SEDIMENT TRAPS
A sediment trap is a depression area allowing runoff to pond. The depression area is formed by
constructing an earth embankment across a drainage ditch, or by excavating a depression below
original grade. The sediment trap consists of a stable spillway outlet. The purpose of the trap is
to detain runoff from disturbed areas for a long enough period of time to allow for a majority of
the coarser suspended soil particles in the runoff to settle out.
APPLICATION
To be implemented on sites with disturbed drainage areas up to two (2) hectares in size.
• Provide a minimum of 125 cubic metres of storage volume per hectare of contributing
drainage area;
• A stable open channel spillway must be designed by a qualified professional. If the trap
is to remain in place for more than one season it should be sized to safely pass the 1 in
100 year storm;
• The lining of the channel can consist of rock or other suitably stable material underlain
with filter fabric (270R geotextile or approved equivalent) or self filtering stone.
Erosion protection will be required immediately downstream of the spillway;
• Sediment trap may be formed by constructing a berm or by excavating a basin
completely or partially;
• The trap should be a minimum of 1.0 metres deep to avoid re-suspension of previously
settled out sediment. Trap depths of greater than 2.0 metres should be avoided due to
safety concerns. If the maximum 2.0 m depth is unavoidable, the municipality may
require a fence around the trap to prevent access to it;
• The basin outlet should be directed with the flow in the downstream direction; and,
• Sediment trap and overflow configurations are illustrated in the figures below.
• Refer to OPSD 219.220 for the Excavated Sediment Trap. A copy of OPSD 219.220 is
located on the following page.
• Proper compaction control must be used when constructing the embankment to ensure
its stability;
• The spillway installation is critical to prevent failure of the structure during high flows
and all specifications provided by the designer must be implemented;
• Sediment traps should be inspected on a weekly basis and after all rainfall and
significant snowmelt events. Any damages to the sediment trap(s) should be repaired in
24 hours of the discovery of the damage.; and,
• When sediment accumulates to half the height of the sediment trap it should be
removed and disposed of in a controlled area and stabilized. Caution must be used to
avoid damaging the embankment or spillway during this maintenance operation.
C-40
C-41
ROCK CHECK DAMS
A rock check dam consists of granular material placed temporarily across a ditch, minor stream
or drainage way. Its purpose is to reduce the velocity of runoff to reduce the erosion of ditch
and drainage way inverts. Rock check dams allow for little ponding and is therefore not very
effective in settling out sediment, particularly fine soil particles.
APPLICATION
Rock check dams are applied across intermittent and low flow swales, ditches, and diversion
channels. Additional sediment control measures should also be incorporated with rock check
dams.
• Rock is to be placed with a layer of smaller stone under a layer of larger stone. The
layers of different stone sizes are to be separated by a non-woven geotextile.
⇒ Bottom layer: should consist of 50 millimetre diameter stones and stacked to
0.45 meters high;
⇒ Middle layer/material: non-woven geotextile; and,
⇒ Top layer: should consist of 150 millimetre diameter stones that extend from
the conveyance system invert (i.e. swale invert) to the top of the bottom
layer. The top layer should be a minimum 100 millimetres thick and should
form a low center spillway. The spillway should be a minimum of 0.3 meters
below the top of the channel to prevent erosion flanking.
• The geotextile should be extended along the bottom of the swale/channel on the
downstream side and anchored with the second layer of stone to form an underlying
“spill apron”.
• The rock is to be piled with a maximum upstream slope of 2:1 and a maximum
downstream slope of 4:1.
• Centre height of dam should not exceed 1.0 m. The centres of the dam should be
notched to concentrate flow towards the centre (approximately 0.15 m). The outer sides
of the dam that transition into the ditch slopes should be at 0.5 m higher than the centre
of the dam to avoid any potential for the side slopes of the dam to be undermined.
• A series of check dams should be used for swales/ditches with a significant gradient or
slope length.
• Height of subsequent check dams must be equal to the elevation of the base of the
previous dam.
• Refer to OPSD 219.210 for the Temporary Rock Flow Check with V-Ditch and OPSD
219.211 for the Temporary Rock Flow Check. A copy of OPSD 219.210 and 219.211
are located on the following pages.
• Sediment monitoring and removal required from the base of the structure when
accumulation becomes visible.
C-42
• Inspection should take place weekly and after every rainfall and significant snowmelt
events to identify any problem areas.
• Repair of the sediment trap should take place within 24 hours of determining the
deficiency.
NOTES
• Rock check dams do not serve as in-stream sediment traps.
• Rock check dams should only be used in channels or swales that are designed for
drainage areas not exceeding 3 ha. These are not appropriate for natural watercourses
and should not be used for lined or vegetated channels.
C-43
C-44
C-45
STRAW BALES
Permeable barriers consist of a line of organic material, implemented along the contours of
mild slopes (< 5 %) to assist in reducing flow and increase the interception of suspended
sediments.
Straw bales can be oriented end to end and in multiple layers to form a consistent and
continuous permeable barrier to flow.
APPLICATION
Straw bales can be applied across constructed conveyance systems and along the contours of
mild to gentle slopes. Straw bales should not be used alone, but should be used in combination
with other controls for effective performance.
The local Conservation Authority must be contacted to confirm the use of straw bales
within it’s jurisdiction for sediment control.
• Straw bales should be firmly butted together and staked with wooden stakes or T-bars.
In ditches or swales, a second row of bales should be placed behind the first row,
overlapping at the joints.
• To prevent flanking, bales should extend up the channel slopes a minimum of 1 metre
above the high flow depth.
• Straw bales can be applied at the base of the slope, as well as the top of the slope for
added protection.
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
• Following their replacement/removal, straw bales can be broken apart and spread as
mulch to promote vegetation establishment.
NOTES
• Straw bales must be applied in combination with other controls (e.g. vegetated buffer
strip, silt fence, silt soxx, filter fabric or approved equivalents).
Figures illustrating straw bales.
C-55
SEDIMENT CONTROL PONDS/BASINS
A sediment control pond/basin is a runoff storage area formed by constructing a compacted
earth embankment or by excavating a depression across or at the end of a drainage path. The
sediment control pond/basin consists of an outlet structure to control the stormwater release
rate. Its purpose is to detain runoff long enough to allow the majority of soil particles to settle
out of suspension. Sediment ponds/basins typically serve as an “end of pipe” control, which
receive flows from other ESC controls and overland flow during extensive grading operations.
(See following figures).
Incorporating the sediment control pond at the location of the ultimate stormwater
management pond must be discussed and approved by the local Conservation Authority.
APPLICATION
To be implemented on sites with disturbed drainage areas exceeding two (2) hectares in size.
Sediment basins are typically capable of removing sediment as small as 4 microns. Location of
the pond should be based on topography, the low point of runoff concentration that allows the
maximum control of runoff from the disturbed areas.
• Basin specifications and configurations are detailed in the figures below.
• Sediment ponds should have two components:
1. Active Storage Volume:
Should be designed with a minimum of 125 m3/hectare contributing drainage
area with a minimum 48 hour drawdown time (minimum 75mm diameter
orifice), and a minimum 4:1 L:W ratio of the pond; and,
2. Permanent Pool Volume:
i. Minimum 125 m3 storage volume/hectare drainage; or,
ii. Minimum 185 m3 storage volume/hectare drainage area if L:W ratio is
less than 4:1 or the drawdown time for active storage is less than 48
hours.
• The local Conservation Authority must be contacted to confirm the appropriate
permanent pool volume.
• A forebay should be provided for the sediment control pond and designed in
accordance with the MOE SWM Planning and Design Manual, 2003.
• In addition to the initial sediment forebay, another forebay or silt/turbidity curtain
should be constructed within the stormwater management pond and in series to the first
forebay. The distance of the second forebay berm or curtain should be approximately
half the distance between the initial forebay berm and the pond outlet structure.
• Velocity calculations must be submitted to ensure that settling velocities are achieved.
• A Hickenbottom riser outlet or approved equivalent must be used to release detained
flows. The riser pipe must be covered with a layer of smaller clear stone (25 mm -
50mm) over a layer of larger size (150 mm - 200 mm) clear stones (See figure below).
A minimum 75 mm diameter orifice is required as part of this outlet structure.
C-56
• The basin length to width ratio should be a minimum 4:1. A baffle may be required to
increase the flow length to prevent potential short circuiting.
• Maximum 4:1 interior side slopes and maximum 2:1 exterior slopes.
• The basin should be a minimum of 1.0 metre deep to avoid re-suspension of previously
settled out sediment and a mean depth of 1.0m to 2.0m and maximum depth of 3.0m.
• An emergency spillway must be designed by a qualified professional and it should be
sized to safely pass the 1:100 Year storm event. Supporting calculations, reports and
drawings must be provided. The lining of the spillway can consist of riprap or other
suitably stable material underlain with filter fabric. Erosion protection will be required
immediately downstream of the spillway.
• Sediment basins have a high trapping efficiency, fewer maintenance requirements and
can function through more phases of construction. However, on-site and conveyance
erosion and sediment control measures must be implemented with a proposed sediment
control pond.
• Sediment ponds/basins must be constructed prior to any construction activities except
for topsoil stripping and grading operations associated with the construction of the
temporary ESC pond.
• Proper compaction control must be used when constructing the embankment to ensure
its stability.
• Pond banks must be stabilized with vegetation once the excavation of the pond is
complete.
• The emergency spillway installation is critical to preventing failure of the structure
during high flows and all specifications provided by the designer must be followed.
• Sediment accumulation in the ponds must be measured a minimum of once every six
(6) months. The pond will require cleaning when sediment accumulation reaches
50% of the forebay design capacity.
• Sediment pond embankments, outlet, and spillway should be inspected weekly and
after each rainfall and significant snowmelt events.
• In the case where the temporary sediment pond is in the location of the ultimate pond,
and the construction of the subdivision is complete, the accumulated sediment within
the pond must be removed and the permanent pool storage must be restored to the
design level.
NOTES
• At-source and conveyance ESC measures must be used in addition to sediment ponds
to minimize the amount of sediment entering the sediment pond. Vegetative filter strips
(minimum of 10 m length) are recommended at the outlet of the pond.
C-57
Plan View of Sediment Control Pond
Notes:
1. Pond side slopes to be stablized immediately;
2. Minimum 48 Hour drawdown time with minimum 75mm diameter orifice;
3. Active Storage Volume:
Should be designed with a minimum of 125 m3/hectare contributing drainage area with a minimum 48 hour drawdown time (minimum
75mm diameter orifice) and minimum 4:1 L:W pond ratio; and,
4. Permanent Pool Volume:
i. Minimum 125 m3/hectare drainage area; or
ii. Minimum 185 m3/hectare drainage area if L:W ratio is less than 4:1 or the drawdown time for the active storage is less than 48
hours.
C-58
SECTION A-A
C-59
STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PROTECTION
Storm drain outfall protection consists of structurally lined aprons or other acceptable energy
dissipating devices placed at the base of pipe or channel outlets. The outfall protection prevents
scour at these outlets and minimizes the potential for downstream erosion by reducing the
velocity of concentrated flows. (See figure below)
APPLICATION
Outfall protection should be applied at the base of any stormwater outfall structure including,
drainage tiles, stormwater facility outlets, and piped or channel conveyance systems. Storm drain
outfalls are applied to areas with concentrated flows.
• Outfall designs are encouraged to blend in with the environment by using natural
materials such as native vegetation, and armour stone where possible. These should be
placed in as natural a configuration as possible while still retaining their function;
• Most outfalls require some minimal amount of riprap stone to prevent scour of the
receiving channel. Riprap stone must be underlain with a geotextile (or graded aggregate
filter), covered with a stone base, and be sized to resist the tractive forces of the flow
from the outfall as well as the lateral flow of the receiving channel. Typically the
minimum diameter of riprap stone should be 300 mm;
• Outfall pipes and structures must be aligned so that lateral flows in the receiving channel
do not erode in the vicinity of the exposed structure;
• Velocities greater than 3.0 m/s may require structural stilling basins, chute blocks or
other structural measures to reduce velocities and erosion/scour impacts; and,
• In many cases the receiving channel is a grass lined ditch. The typical threshold velocity
before a well-grassed channel begins to erode is 1.2 m/s. Any storm drain outfall
protection in this situation must limit velocities to this threshold maximum.
• Installation of outfall structures must follow specifications regarding riprap stone size,
geotextile etc., in order to prevent failure of the measure; and,
• Outfall protection must be in place prior to any conveyance of runoff through the outfall
structure.
C-60
Figures illustrating a storm drain outfall protection from Sediment & Erosion Control on
Construction Sites – Field Guide (University of Virgin Islands, 2003)
C-61
B-1
Appendix B
B East Castries Capital Plan Design Rationale

East Castries Stormwater Management Operational
Plan
December 2018 – 15-2537
East Castries Recommended Drainage Works Rationale
Potential Downstream
Project Area Drawing Description Flooding Impacts Attributed
Sheets to the Improved Project Area
Drainage
Marchand Road - 2A, 2B, The Western sections of Marchand Road (West of the stadium) are As flood waters currently utilize
West Drainage 3A, 3B located along a stretch of low relief terrain positioned upstream of the the road right away through a
confluence of the Castries and West Castries Rivers. Storm runoff combination of culvert flow and
accumulates along the roadway and results in street flooding and street flow, the recommended
inundation of the adjacent properties. The existing drainage pathways measures are not expected to
draining the roadway consist of surface flow along the roadway, and result in an appreciable change
discharge within existing concrete drainage culverts located on the west in flow contributions to the
side of the road. There are 3 formal outlets to the two rivers that rivers. The proposed drainage
evacuate waters from this road segment .The Level of service within the improvements have been
drainage network is limited to less than a 10 year recurrence interval. developed to redistribute, store
and maintain flows to the 3
Improved drainage is achieved by increasing the size of the existing outlets while more
drainage culvert, the addition of a parallel drainage culvert on the east appropriately maintaining the
side of the road, and improving the drainage outlets to the River for flows within the larger and
targeted 100 year level of service where the reduced flood water extent additional culverts plus to a
will protect adjacent properties lesser degree within the street.
Marchand Road – 4 Currently uncontrolled runoff drains north along Marchand Road toward No appreciable impact on flows
Central Drains and the lower elevation areas near the Stadium entering into the Castries River
Inlets Much of the rapidly moving drainage makes its way to the lowlands via a is anticipated by the
undersized roadside ditch on the south side and as sheet flow along the recommended works as they are
roadway. The level of service is less than a 20 year recurrence interval developed to strike a balance of
and threats to structures due to erosion and flooding threaten a number total flow by exchanging
of dwellings and service of the roadway. overland flows to culvert flows.
A minor reduction in flood
The recommended improvements include upgrading of the south side storage on the roadway may be
ditch to a concrete box culvert and the upsizing of the roadway culvert occur but this is not anticipated
crossing to connect to the Stadium drainage system. to aggravate flows in the
downstream reaches of the
Castries River
1|P age
Marchand Road – 5 Currently the stadium drainage system operates as a surge pond As these proposed works are
Stadium Drainage comprised of flood storage on the stadium fields and a grated concrete geared increasing available
box culvert. These two components were designed to jointly convey and storage to augment the
attenuate flows to the Castries. It was noted that the main culvert was available storage on the field, no
able to surcharge to the surface and spill in the margin areas within the appreciable negative impacts on
Stadium grounds during events in the range of 20 yr to 50 yr recurrence flows downstream are
intervals. anticipated.
Increasing the size of the culvert as recommended would provide and

increase in available in the culvert storage and reduce flood vulnerability
to the surrounding areas
Marchand Road – 6 Currently an unmaintained drainage culvert drain to the River passes No negative impact on flows are
East Cross beneath an dwelling found on north-east side of the Marchand- Entrepot anticipated
Connection intersection. As the system is estimated to only have a 20 year level of
service, it is appropriate to relocate and upgrade this drainage outlet.
The recommendation is to relocate the drainage outlet to the north

shoulder of Entrepot Road and outlet at the nearby bridge crossing.
Independence Road 7 Drainage from the upslope areas of the Independence City area moves No negative impact on flows are
- West Upgrades downslope and crosses through culverts beneath the roadway. Modeling anticipated
identified that the drainage outlet of one crossing was undersized and the
adjacent culvert was undersized with a level of service in the order of a 20
year recurrence interval resulting in uncontrolled flooding during less
frequent events leading to erosion and property threats.
Independence Road 8, 9, 10 The eastern sections of Independence Road are located a toe of a steep No negative impact on flows
- East Upgrades and urbanized slope, where uncontrolled drainage cascades through private are anticipated
East Drainage properties through ravines and ditches and along roadway and informal
drainage pathways. Ultimately all storm runoff moves across
Independence Road through a network of undersized culverts and ditches
enroute to the Castries River. The drainage system has be found to have
a very low level of service (approx. 2 year recurrence interval)
Drainage solutions recommended include the upsizing of the south

perimeter roadway drainage culverts and ditches and the replacement of
cross culverts and drainage pathways to the three existing drainage
outlets to the Castries River.
2|P age
Cedars/Waterworks 11 Storm runoff from the urbanized upslope areas east of the Cedars No negative impact on flows are
Roads - West of Roadway, rapidly move downslope the Cedars Road and follow a pathway anticipated
River Outlet to the Castries River by way of 2 outlets. Those being a) along
Waterworks Road to the Castries Tributary bridge crossing by way of the
east roadside shoulder and b) following a pathway west to Morne Girard
Road at its intersection with Cedars Road. The present level of service is
less than a 10 year recurrence interval and currently during more extreme
events flood waters inundate the lower lying roadway portions.
The recommended solution is to concentrate the rapid moving flood

flows in an upsized culvert leading to an improved outlet to the tributary.
Cedars Road - 12, 13, 14 Similar to the Western sectors of Cedars Road, the upslope urbanized No impact on flows are
East of River Outlet drainage areas contribute runoff downslope were it is intercepted by the anticipated
and East Cross Cedar Road drainage network located along the north road shoulder. The
Culvert Upgrade Currently level of service varies along the network and varies between 2
and 20 years recurrence interval. During extreme events flood flows are
eligible to spill onto the roadway and cascade downward through private
properties and to Waterworks Road found adjacent to the Castries River.
The recommended solution is to increase the capacity of the existing

north drainage pathway and upsize at least 2 cross culverts to ensure
flood flows follow their intended pathway to the river.
Morne Girard 15, 16 Morne Girard is a very flat graded roadway that possesses poor drainage Minor impact on flows are
Upgrades capacity (less than a 10 year level of service). Owing to the poor defined anticipated
road profile, significant drainage area contribution and very confined
(narrow) road travelling surface the flood waters impact a large number
of residents. The challenge at this site is that flood waters are limited to
small number of drainage outlets.
The solution proposed for these segments is to provide grated culverts on

much of the north and south roadway shoulders and improve and
increase the number of formal outlets o the river.
3|P age
Waterworks Road – 17,18 Stormwater from Cedars Road and the intervening properties to the No impact on flows are
Central and East north located upslope contribute to flow arriving at the north shoulder of anticipated
Upgrades Waterworks Road in these areas Levels of service at sites of proposed
works generally is less than a 10 year recurrence interval. During more
extreme events flood waters spill the banks of ditches onto the road
surface and potentially inundate properties on the south side of the
roadway.
Recommendations are to upsize the north shoulder drainage pathway

and provided improvements to sections of the south drainage ditches and
the upsizing of the culvert crossing in the eastern sector of the work area.
Lastic Hill Road – 19, 20 This area of East Castries is very steep and runoff rapidly drains No impact on flows are
Upgrades downslope to Cedars and Waterworks Roads primarily as sheet flow anticipated
along the roads and overland flow through neighboring properties. Once
runoff reaches the lower level intersections it is intended that it access
localized drainage structures and drain to the Castries River. However
owing to undersized ditches and maintenance considerations, often
storm runoff bypasses drainage inlets and is inundates the roadways or is
redirected to alternative drainage outlets such as the pathway leading to
the Morne Girard Roadway.
The recommended solution is to collect storm runoff from the upsloped

areas through adequately sized culverts and ditch and ensure storm
runoff is directed into the upgraded drainage networks on Cedars and
Waterworks Roads.
Tou Rouge 21 Storm runoff has been reported inundate properties in the Tou Rouge No impact on flows are
area. The drainage issues are associated to debris accumulations and anticipated
uncontrolled runoff and undersized drainage infrastructure
The recommendation is to concentrate storm runoff in the upslope areas

and collect and guide it to transition into a formalized road side ditch
ultimately draining to the West Tributary of the Castries River. A single
culvert beneath the Tou Rouge roadway is in need of maintenance and
upsizing and is proposed to be replaced.
4|P age
Black Mallet 22 The Black Mallet Site is a location impacted by debris and the improper No impact on flows are
installation of service utilities (Water). anticipated
Complaints were centered on flood waters spill from the existing drainage
and the problems associated to vehicle access impacting the
unsupported utilities
The recommendations are to improve maintenance of debris at the inlet

of the drainage ditch and the construction of a utility conduit to secure
and protect the water services
Ravine Toutrelle 23 Homes and property constructed on the banks of the two rivers are No impact on flows are
threated from erosion of footings, supports and floodwalls attributed to anticipated
erosive forces.
The solutions at these sites is to construct a rubble-masonry wall to resist
the erosive forces and deterioration of the earthen channel walls
Rock Hall 24 Two drainage related challenges have been identified at this site . No impact on flows are
1) flood waters spilling the banks of the culvert inlet underneath Rock anticipated
Hall Road, and 2) channel bank erosion in the downstream reaches.
Recommended solution include an improved maintenance schedule and

frequency to ensure the structure is free to convey flood flows and the
application of rip rap (or sloped rubble masonry wall) to resist erosive
forces.
St Lucy’s Home 25 The St Lucy’s Home Culvert crossing was found to be both in need of No impact on flows are
Culvert maintenance (debris and clogging issue) and undersized to adequately anticipated
convey flood flows. (currently 20 year level of service when inlet free of
debris.
An improved maintenance schedule and frequency combined with the
upgrading of the circular pipe culvert to a large box culvert.
Baston Rene Ave 26 Reported flooding conditions within private properties on Baston Rene No impact on flows are
Ave and upper Independence City Roadway are presumably attributed to anticipated
1) local ground water seepage flows from neighboring properties. 2)
undersized roadway culvert crossings.
Recommended solutions include: Property owner upgrade and improve
the collection of roof drainage and ground water seepage flows to more
efficiently drain their property and the upsizing of the two roadway
culvert crossings to ensure flood waters to not surcharge that crossings
and inundate neighboring properties
5|P age
References
Dillon, 2017. East Castries Drainage Management and Enhancement Feasibility Study Report
Ponce, V.M., 1989. Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices.
HEC-22 Urban Drainage Design Manual (US DOT, 2001)
Toronto Regional Conserva on Authority, 2006. Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban
Construc on.

December 2018 – 15-2537

Castries SWM Operational Plan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Castries SWM Operational Plan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GOVERNMENT OF SAINT LUCIA

East Castries Stormwater

December 2018 – 15-2537

2.0 Principles of Stormwater Management 5

3.0 Stormwater Management Strategies 7

4.0 Recommended Capital Works and Costs 9

5.0 Operational Management 10

6.0 Strengthening Knowledge 16

Government of Saint Lucia

6.1 Community Participation ................................................................................................... 16

Government of Saint Lucia

1.1 Regional Context

Government of Saint Lucia

1.1.1 Study Area Descrip on

Figure 1: Digital Terrain Model of the Castries River Watershed

Government of Saint Lucia

1.2 Why is Stormwater Management Important?

1.3 Existing Municipal Drainage System Challenges

Government of Saint Lucia

1.4 Choosing the Right Solution

1.5 Document Outline

An outline of the document is provided below.

Government of Saint Lucia

Addi onally, Appendix A provides a technical training manual.

2.0 Principles of Stormwater Management

2.1 Levels of Flooding

2.2 Dual Drainage Systems

Minor Drainage System

Major Drainage System

Government of Saint Lucia

2.3 Best Management Practices

2.4 Low Impact Developments

LID methods include, but are not limited to:

Government of Saint Lucia

3.0 Stormwater Management Strategies

3.1 Structural Strategies

Figure 2: Permeable Pavers - Grass Interlocking Concrete

Government of Saint Lucia

Figure 3: Grass Swale

3.2 Non-Structural Strategies

Management of Exis ng Flood Risk Vulnerability

Government of Saint Lucia

Community Level Prac ces

4.0 Recommended Capital Works and Costs

Government of Saint Lucia

Table 1: Capital Works and Unit Costs

5.0 Operational Management

5.1 Asset Management

Government of Saint Lucia

5.3 Emergency Procedure

Evacua on Plan: An eﬀec ve no ﬁca on system should be established as well as evacua on

Government of Saint Lucia

Figure 4: Life Cycle of SWM Infrastructure

5.4.1 Maintenance Requirements

Government of Saint Lucia

Figure 5: Culvert Filled with Trash and Debris

5.4.2 Annual Maintenance Repor ng

5.4.3 Maintenance Responsibility

Government of Saint Lucia

5.4.4 Health Concerns Associated with Maintenance.

5.5 Future Development

Government of Saint Lucia

5.5.2 Sediment Control

Government of Saint Lucia