HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-11-032 - EA Strasburg Creek Ponds 65 66 and 611
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
REPORT T0: Community & Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: May 30, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Allen, P.Eng., Manager Engineering Design and
Approvals (519-741-2584)
PREPARED BY: Diana Lupsa, P.Eng., Design & Construction Project
Manager (519-741-2815)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward # 5
DATE OF REPORT: May 16, 2011
REPORT NO.: INS 11-032
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT FOR
STRASBURG CREEK (NORTH BRANCH) PONDS 65, 66 &
61
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Strasburg Creek (North Branch) Ponds 65, 66 & 61 Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment Report (Schedule B) prepared by Aquafor Beech Ltd., dated
April 5, 2011 be received; and further,
THAT the Strasburg Creek (North Branch) Ponds 65, 66 & 61 Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment Report (Schedule B) be filed with the Ministry of
Environment for the mandatory thirty (30) day review period as required by the
Environmental Assessment (EA) Act.
BACKGROUND:
In 2009, the City of Kitchener received funding to improve 12 stormwater management (SWM)
facilities from the Federal and Provincial governments as part of the Economic Action Plan
Investments in Ontario and the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund. As part of that project, the
Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit, Class EA Report (Schedule A+) was completed by
the engineering consultant Aquafor Beech Ltd. A key recommendation of the 2010 EA
(Schedule A+) report was for additional studies be undertaken to address information gaps and
other environmental concerns for ponds 65 and 61.
Upon further discussions with GRCA and the City of Kitchener, the study team concluded that in
regards to ponds 61 and 65 the Class EA Schedule should be revised from a Schedule A+ to a
Schedule B in order to appropriately evaluate and manage the existing environmental conditions
and future considerations. To allow for a broader, more holistic approach for the improvement of
the North Branch of Strasburg Creek to take place, Pond 66 was added to the study in addition
to the respective connecting channels. Hence, the 2010 Class EA (Schedule A+) was expanded
to fulfill the requirements of a Class EA (Schedule B) for the North Branch of Strasburg Creek
from McBrine Drive to downstream of the intersection of Strasburg Road and Battler Drive.
16-1
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
Pond 65, 66 and 61 are existing on-line facilities built around 1980 - 1990. They have been
designed and functioned as flood control facilities without any provisions for water quality
treatment. The ponds have been identified in the 2001 City of Kitchener Stormwater
Management (SWM) Policy as having the potential for retrofit by incorporating the water quality
features.
REPORT:
The Strasburg Creek (North Branch) Ponds 65, 66 and 61 Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Report (Schedule B), was completed in accordance with Municipal Engineers
Association document, October 2000, as amended in 2007. As part of the Schedule "B" Class
EA, the following phases have been completed and documented in the report:
Consultation with affected parties;
Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives;
• Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the
environment;
Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, to
determine their net environmental effects;
• Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to
allow "traceability" of decision-making with respect to the project.
The overall objective of this Class EA is to select a preferred design alternative for each of the
three existing stormwater management facilities (pond 65, 66 and 61) and the respective
connecting channels (Reaches 1 to 4) with the goal of improving water quality within the North
Branch of Strasburg Creek. Additional objectives include the improvement and restoration of
local aquatic and terrestrial habitat, the removal of fish barriers, improvement of baseflow and
in-stream temperature regimes, the improvement of future operations and maintenance
activities and the retrofit of existing concrete channels so as to represent a more natural stream
channel design.
Five (5) areas of concern were identified:
1. Poor Water Quality - due to no water quality control within the study area, on-line ponds,
concrete lined connecting channels, erosion issues and lack of riparian buffers and
shading;
2. Loss of baseflow -due to high impervious levels of surrounding lands as well as
concrete bed and bank treatments within connecting channels;
3. The lack of fish habitat features -lack of diverse channels features, loss of continuity of
flow and the presence offish barriers;
4. Degradation of terrestrial vegetation features - as a result of ongoing beaver activities,
development pressures and infrastructure failures; and
5. Erosion -Ongoing erosion in the upstream channel of Pond 61, resulting in potential
risks to the adjacent private property and sediment accumulation in the ponds.
16-2
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
The details of alternatives suggested for each stormwater management pond are provided
below. The alternatives range from a Do Nothing approach, which involves no action to a Full
Retrofit option that includes a variety of retrofit works:
Alternatives for Pond 65
• Alternative No 1. - Do Nothing
• Alternative No 2. -Selective Works outside Significant Vegetation
• Alternative No 3. -Full Retrofit (Wet Pond)
• Alternative No 4.- Selective Works with Channel Bypass (Off-line Facility) -preferred
alternative
Alternatives for Pond 66
• Alternative No 1. - Do Nothing
• Alternative No 2. -Partial Retrofit (Cell 1): Wet Pond
• Alternative No 3. -Wetland Restoration (Cell 1) -preferred alternative
• Alternative No 4. -Full Retrofit: Wet Pond (Cell 1) and Dredging (Cell 2)
• Alternative No 5. -Wetland Restoration (Cell 1) and Dredging (Cell 2)
Alternatives for Pond 61
• Alternative No 1. - Do Nothing
• Alternative No 2. -Retrofit Inlet and Outlet
• Alternative No 3. -Retrofit Inlet and Outlet and Dredge
• Alternative No 4. -Full Retrofit: remains on-line
• Alternative No 5. -Full Retrofit: Channel Bypass (Off-line Facility) -preferred
alternative
Alternatives for the Connecting Channels (Reach 1, 2, 3 and 4)
• Alternative No 1. - Do Nothing
• Alternative No 2. -Selective Works (works completed at selected locations)
• Alternative No 3. -Geomorphic Referenced River Engineering (GRRE) (creation of a
relatively static channel based on principles of geomorphology) -preferred alternative
reach 4
• Alternative No 4. -Natural Channel Design (NCD) (creation of a dynamically stable
channel) -preferred alternative reach 1, 2 and 3
The evaluation of the alternatives was based on the study objectives, the established technical
considerations and criterion under the general categories of Physical/ Natural Environment,
Social/ Cultural, Economic criteria and TechnicallEngineering criteria.
Upon application of the established criteria, the preferred alternatives for the three existing
SWM facilities and the four (4) reaches of the North Branch of Strasburg Creek include:
• Pond 65 -Bypass Channel & Selective Works (Off-line Facility)
The preferred alternative for pond 65 will include the design of a wet pond outside the
identified significant vegetation area, the design of a sediment forebay at the inlet, a
microwetland with a cooling facility at the outlet and the inclusion of a bypass channel
which bisects the significant vegetation area.
16-3
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
• Pond 66 -Wetland Restoration (Cell 1)
This alternative involves the restoration of the existing historical wetland within Cell 1
(north cell). The wetland component is designed to remove suspended sediment,
provide extended detention and allow for enhanced biological removal for low flows
(frequent rainfall events). The wetland alternative would provide improved water quality,
improved terrestrial habitat potential, additional thermal mitigation (sustaining cool water
habitat downstream) and would integrate well with existing infrastructure, environment,
site conditions and the adjacent land-use.
• Pond 61 -Channel Bypass (Off-line Facility)
This alternative includes the design of a sediment forebay, a wet pond, the re-design of
the damaged inlet off of Battler Dr. and the reconstruction of the poorly performing
facility outlet. The wet pond will be constructed with a forebay designed to remove
suspended sediment and a permanent pool to provide extended detention and continued
pollutant removal. This alternative would also include the incorporation of a bypass
channel. By constructing a bypass channels, the facility would become an off-line facility.
• Reach 1 -Natural Channel Design (NCD)
The preferred alternative for Reach 1 is naturalizing the existing channel within the
existing corridor by modifying the trapezoidal channel cross-section configuration and
creating fish habitat within the channel through developing riffle-pool sequences.
Replacement or modification of the concrete banks would be undertaken to enable
establishment of vegetation. Given the proximity of private property to the channel
corridor, maintenance of bank toe protection should be considered.
• Reach 2 -Natural Channel Design (NCD)
The preferred alternative for Reach 2 is to naturalize the existing channel corridor for the
purpose of creating fish habitat. This can be accomplished by creating slow-flow
channel that has a diversity of depth and width through developing pool-riffle
morphology. Given the potential risk to public and private lands, protection of the
channel corridor slope must be maintained.
• Reach 3 -Natural Channel Design (NCD)
The preferred alternative for Reach 3 is to naturalize the existing channel corridor for the
purpose of creating fish habitat. This can be accomplished by creating slow-flow
channel that has a diversity of depth and width through developing pool-riffle
morphology. Given the potential risk to public and private lands, protection of the
channel corridor slope must be maintained.
• Reach 4 -Geomorphic Referenced River Engineering (GRRE)
The preferred alternative for Reach 4 is primarily to protect private property from erosion
and to enhance existing channel form and function particularly as it relates to fish
habitat. Given that the channel is situated within a well vegetated (wooded) floodplain,
extensive channel realignment may not be warranted. Instead, in addition to providing
bank protection at erosion sites and completing any associated in-channel works,
restoration should consider reconnecting the channel to its floodplain and
augmenting/developing in-channel features to improve fish habitat locally.
16-4
1
Staff Re ort
p
Krr~.~-~~,i~iER ~nfrastru~ture Servrces Department www.kitthenerta
Central to the decision to expand the previous 2010 EA and undertake a Schedule B Class EA
for the North Branch of Strasburg Creek was to allow for a broader, more holistic approach for
the improvement of the North Branch of Strasburg Creek to be undertaken and to ensure that
the overall preferred solution provides for the greatest degree of net environmental benefit.
The net environmental benefits of the proposed preferred solution include, but are not limited to
the following:
• The retrofit of two (2) existing water quantity SWM facilities (Pond 65 and 61) to include
water quality control, and the restoration of the historic wetland at Pond 66.
Water quality control for 79 ha of high impervious land-use (previously no WQ control);
• Removal of the downstream fish barrier at Pond 61;
Creation of 1.3 km of continuous stream channel using natural channel design
principles;
• Removal of 430m of concrete lined channel resulting in the improvement of baseflow
conditions within the surface drainage system;
• Restoration of approximately 700m of riparian area;
• Naturalized landscape of approximately 20,OOOm2 of land. Configuration and species
incorporated into planting to achieve wildlife management objectives (i.e. Canada Geese
and Beaver populations) and to promote to the extent possible habitat conditions for
other species;
• Restoration of flood control capabilities and permanent pool volumes at ponds 61, 66
and 65, including the removal of more than 6500m3 of accumulated sediments;
• Removal of invasive vegetation (Phragmites australis) and opportunity for improvement
future management; and
• Restoration of riparian buffer communities and the naturalized landscape plantings are
anticipated to result in the improvement in the overall North Branch temperature regime.
COMMUNICATIONS:
As part of the Class EA project two (2) Public Information Centre (PIC) were conducted on
January 26, 2010 (2010 EA -Schedule A+) and March 9, 2011 (2011 Expanded EA -Schedule
B). In March 24, 2011 the project was presented to the City of Kitchener Environmental
Committee.
The public, agencies, stakeholders, interested and affected parties were provided with an
opportunity to review and comment on the study findings including preferred alternative, along
with the other alternatives considered. The direct mail-outs, along with the newspaper
advertisement advising the public and property owners of the project and the Public Information
Centres, provided a project overview, as well as contact names and information for those
interested. Furthermore there were many project meetings with Grand River Conservation
Authority (GRCA) to co-operatively select the preferred alternatives.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The anticipated overall cost of the preferred alternatives for the retrofit of the three ponds is
$3.4M (2011 dollars). The approximate overall cost of the remediation/enhancement of the
respective interconnecting reaches is $1.3M (2011 dollars). Table 1 provides details of the
estimated costs for each preferred solution.
16-5
1
KITCx~i~~R
Staff Report
~nfrastrurture Services Department
~w.k~t`~~~r~erca
Table 1: Overall Preferred Solution -Capital Cost Estimate
Preferred Solution Capital Cost Estimate
Pond 65 -Bypass Channel & Selective Works (Off-line Facility) $ 1,688,000
Pond 66 -Wetland Restoration (Cell 1) $ 484,000
Pond 61 -Channel Bypass (Off-line Facility) $ 1,197,000
Reach 1 -Natural Channel Design (NCD) $ 215,000
Reach 2 -Natural Channel Design (NCD) $ 375,000
Reach 3 -Natural Channel Design (NCD) $ 345,000
Reach 4 -Geomorphic Referenced River Engineering (GRRE) $ 330,000
TOTAL $ 4,634,000
The timeline for implementing these projects is based on the City's capital budget. As it currently
stands, the earliest City of Kitchener could move to address these projects would be around
2014.
CONCLUSION:
The North Branch of Strasburg Creek within the Huron Business Park has experienced
significant alterations to both form and function of the system as a result of development
pressures, historic works and wildlife management issues, and as a result is not achieving the
management objectives as outlined in previous works by the City of Kitchener, the GRCA and
others. It is in this regard that the Class EA for Strasburg Creek (Schedule B) proposes what is
considered to be the greatest net environmental benefit possible for the system given the
technical considerations and criterion established through amulti-disciplinary and collaborative
approach.
Therefore Staff recommend that the Strasburg Creek (North Branch) Ponds 65, 66 and 61
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Report (Schedule B) be filed with the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment for the mandatory thirty (30) day review period as required by the
Environmental Assessment Act.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO
Infrastructure Services Department
16-6
1
KITCx~i~~R
Staff Report
~nfrastrurture Services Department
~w.k~~~~~r~erca
,~r~p _ -- - - = 3= Iii'
iii
N
~, i
~~`~ ~°4'~ ~~
r age ,~'e
~~ ~ '~
~~5 ~
~~ ~ ~
'~ d ~*
41 ~,; r ,r
~. e:
«,~
-~ ~ ~ti~ a ~~~~ _
~,~ ~j ~ , A
Reach 1 ~
tii~ ~J ~"~
n _ Pond 65 r ~
~~ 4 ~ ~~ ~-r ~ r~r
~ +~ w ~ ~ ~,
Reach 2
_ ~ ~ ~-
u
~~ 1~4~~'S",~~ ~ ~~~:~aL1F~~ ~~~~ Reach 4 do -
~" ~'r~-r~l~~each 3 ~- -- .
_ ~~~,~~
~~
~~ ~ ~.r~.-,. ~ it
,~ ~ ~ ~ Pond 66 ~ ~~~J ~. p ~~
~~~~~~ti~~ '~} ~ Pond 61
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ '~.~
f ~ ~~ ~ .
~~
~~
~ ~~ Finn
~~'
~~~~
Overview of study area and location of reaches along Strasburg Creek
16-7