Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-12-005 - Schneider Creek Remediation - Hayward Ave to ManitouStaff Re~p~r~ ~ITCH~14?E~ 1lI~CQStrllfi?'UC~ Se!'VICES fl~p~Cfl?1~11~ www.kitthenerca REPORT TO: Community & Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: March 19, 2012 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 # 3 DATE OF REPORT: March 7, 2012 REPORT NO.: INS 12-005 SUBJECT: SCHNEIDER CREEK REMEDIATION -CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM (HAYWARD AV. TO MANITOU DR.) RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Schneider Creek Remediation -Class Environmental Assessment Addendum Report prepared by AECOM, dated March 2012 be received; and further, THAT a Notice of Filing of an Addendum for Review be issued and the Schneider Creek Remediation Class Environmental Assessment Addendum report be placed on the public record for 30 calendar days, in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. BACKGROUND: In 1995, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) through their consultant, Paragon Engineering, in consultation with the City of Kitchener, undertook a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the portion of Schneider Creek between Hayward Avenue and Manitou Drive. The goal of the EA was to recommend remedial flood control measures to mitigate flooding concerns in the creek as well as to mitigate erosion concerns in three reaches of the creek (see Figure 1- Study area and location of reaches): • Reach 1 -Hayward Avenue to Budd Spurline • Reach 2 -There are three sets of culverts under the Budd Spurline owned by Canadian National Railway (CN). • Reach 3 -Spurline to Manitou Drive. As part of the EA completed by Paragon Engineering in 1995, remediation alternatives were identified and a preferred alternative was selected for each reach. However, the preferred 13- 1 Staff Re~p~r~ ~ITCH~14?E~ 1lI~CQStrllfi?'UC~ Se!'VICES fl~p~Cfl?1~11~ www.kitthenerca alternatives of the EA were not implemented. Due to ongoing erosion concerns and historic flooding and resulting damage to a railway in this area the study was reinitiated. In accordance with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario Class EA for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (1993), an Addendum to an EA is required whenever the time between the original EA completion and the proposed implementation of the preferred alternative exceeds three years. REPORT: The objective of the Addendum is to re-characterize the existing conditions, evaluate the original remediation alternatives for each reach in the context of the new existing conditions, and then to either confirm the original preferred alternatives or recommend a new preferred alternative that best reflects the existing conditions. The Addendum has two proponents: the City of Kitchener and the GRCA, and it was undertaken in accordance with the Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment process in order to maintain continuity with the 1995 EA. The remediation alternatives for each reach were evaluated with a consistent methodology. The four evaluation criteria (technical, economic, environmental and social) have been used to allow an alternative-to-alternative comparison. A discussion of the original remediation alternatives from the 1995 EA and the updated preferred alternatives are being provided for each reach as follows: A. REACH 1 Reach 1 is exhibiting bank erosion, elevated peak flows as a result of development of the upstream watershed and increased velocity as a result of channelization of the stream. Remediation alternatives aim to repair existing erosion areas, prevent further erosion, and to restore the creek gradient. Original Remediation Alternatives (1995): • Alternative 1 - Do Nothing • Alternative 2 -Channel Armouring • Alternative 3 -Natural Channel Design (Preferred 1995) In the 1995 EA the remediation of erosion issues in Reach 1 was recommended to be accomplished through natural channel design principles (Alternative 3). 13-2 Staff Re~p~r~ ~ITCH~14?E~ 1lI~CQStrllfi?'UC~ Se!'VICES fl~p~Cfl?1~11~ www.kitthenerca Preferred Alternative The evaluation of alternatives under this study also identified natural channel design principles to be the preferred approach to address erosion issues in Reach 1. Alternative 3 remains the preferred approach. Although the development of the Peter Hallman Ball Yard has restricted the available area for meanders, a Natural Channel Design approach is still possible by incorporating in-stream shoals to mitigate energy for lower flows. Shoals are lateral bars that would be spaced similarly to riffle sections and alternate between left and right banks. In addition, the riparian zone can be enhanced with vegetation to provide improved shading for aquatic habitat. Stabilization of the banks with bioengineering will contribute to the provision of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and will help to mitigate erosion issues. Rock protection can be employed in critical areas to add further erosion mitigation. There is also the potential for bank terracing to be employed to provide access to the floodplain for more frequent flows, contributing to the mitigation of erosion impacts in this reach of Schneider Creek. An additional component of the Reach 1 concept design includes the potential retrofit of a stormwater wetland facility at the outlet of the storm system of St. Mary's High School, first identified in the Schneider Creek -Reach 1 Rehabilitation Study, Stantec 2003. The proposed retrofit would provide additional flood storage and water quality benefit to Schneider Creek, mitigating erosion and flooding issues and enhancing aquatic habitat potential. B. REACH 2 Reach 2 is experiencing flood and erosion impacts associated with several hydraulic constraints: the three culverts under the Budd Spurline, and the Balzer Road Bridge. Remediation alternatives aim to alleviate the flood risk to the Spurline and adjacent properties, as well as to mitigate erosion due to flood flows (e.g., rail track washouts). Original Remediation Alternatives (1995) • Alternative 1 -Improve Culvert No. 1 only. • Alternative 2 -Construct southwest bypass channel (flows from upstream culvert 1 diverted downstream culvert 2) and improve Culvert No. 3. • Alternative 3 -Construct northeast bypass channel (to convey design flows to the north side of Spurline) and improve Culvert No. 1 and 3. (Preferred 1995) • Alternative 4 -Improve Culverts No. 1, 2 and 3 to convey the 25-year design storm, construct a berm and gabion matting for additional flood protection, regrade the industrial site between Culverts No. 1 and 2 and remove the Balzer Road Bridge. • Alternative 5 -Split flow by constructing bypass northeast and southeast channels and improving Culvert No. 1 and 3. • Alternative 6 -Convey Schneider Creek and Balzer to Culvert No. 3 and divert Montgomery Creek through northeast bypass channel. 13-3 Staff Re~p~r~ ~ITCH~14?E~ 1lI~CQStrllfi?'UC~ Se!'VICES fl~p~Cfl?1~11~ www.kitthenerca • Alternative 7 -Relocate the Budd Spurline and remove the existing embankment from Culvert No. 1 to Culvert 3. The conditions in the area of Reach 2 have changed since the 1995 EA in several ways that impact the evaluation of the preferred remediation alternative: • Use of the Budd Spurline has decreased significantly since the closing of the Budd Automotive manufacturing plant. • Triple M Metals has increased their operations; a significant portion of their business infrastructure (buildings) was constructed close to the property line adjacent to the Budd Spurline. The increase in use of the property suggests that construction of the northeast bypass channel may no longer be appropriate, since it would require purchase of a portion of the Triple M Metals property where their infrastructure is concentrated. • The proposed plan for a portion of the Trans-Canada Trail to follow Schneider Creek through the study area may limit the feasibility of a northeast bypass channel, as the path will occupy the limited space between the Budd Spurline and the Triple M Metals property. • Amore refined hydraulic study indicated that during the 100-year flow, the railway tracks upstream of Reach 2 become flooded, making the tracks along Reach 2 inaccessible. Even if 100-year flood protection were provided in Reach 2, the use of the tracks would still be negatively impacted given the upstream flooding. The provision of flood protection for the 100-year flow is not efficient considering these hydraulic conditions and given the decreased use of the Budd Spurline. Therefore, a lower design criteria (the 25-year flow capacity) was considered acceptable and was used to evaluate the Reach 2 remediation alternatives. Upon consideration of the significant impacts the proposed northeast diversion channel would have on the Triple M Metals property and interference with the placement of the proposed Trans-Canada Trail, Alternative 3C is no longer the preferred alternative. New Preferred Alternative Based on a re-evaluation of alternatives in the context of updated existing conditions, this study identifies as preferred the Alternative 4 -Improve Culverts No. 1, 2 and 3 to convey the 25-year design storm, construct a berm and gabion matting for additional flood protection, regrade the industrial site between Culverts No. 1 and 2 and remove the Balzer Road Bridge (see Figure 2- Concept plan for the preferred remediation approach in Reach 2). The Balzer Road bridge has been identified as a hydraulic constraint in Reach 2, similar to the three existing culverts under the Budd Spurline. The removal of the Balzer Road bridge will improve the hydraulic conveyance of the reach, contributing to the provision of flood protection and the reduction of erosion issues. The bridge also serves as the sole road access to the industrial property located along the Budd Spurline between Culverts No. 1 and 2. The bridge is currently approaching the end of its life cycle and will require significant repairs or replacement if maintained. If the issue related to access of the private property cannot be resolved (e.g., through alternate access from west side of creek, or purchase of property by the City), it would 13-4 Staff Re~p~r~ ~ITCH~14?E~ 1lI~CQStrllfi?'UC~ Se!'VICES fl~p~Cfl?1~11~ www.kitthenerca be recommended that when the bridge is replaced or rehabilitated that it be designed to a 25- yearflow criteria. Natural channel design principles will be applied during preliminary and detailed design to establish a channel size and shape that is expected to be stable in the long-term considering the larger hydraulic capacity along the reach. Part of the concept for Reach 2 is a potential future pedestrian bridge for the proposed Trans-Canada Trail in place of the existing Balzer Road bridge. The 25-year flow criteria is also recommended for the potential pedestrian bridge to service the Trans-Canada Trail. C. REACH 3 Reach 3 is exhibiting bank erosion, elevated peak flows as a result of development of the upstream watershed, and increased velocity as a result of channelization of the stream. Remediation alternatives aim to repair existing erosion areas, prevent further erosion, and to restore the creek to a configuration that provides energy mitigation. Original Remediation Alternatives (1995) • Alternative 1 - Do Nothing. • Alternative 2 -Channel Armouring (Preferred 1995 in the downstream part of the reach). • Alternative 3 -Natural Channel Design (Preferred 1995 in the upstream part of the reach). Preferred Alternative There have been no significant changes in the existing conditions for Reach 3 since the 1995 EA, and therefore the implementation of both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 remains the preferred approach to address erosion issues in Reach 3. Natural channel design (Alternative 3) was recommended to be implemented in the upstream portion, restoring the creek to its historical channel and using the existing channel as an auxiliary floodway, along with bank stabilization and minor channel adjustments (Alternative 2) in the downstream portion. The split implementation of alternatives would provide an increase in channel length to mitigate flow energy, and would protect the vulnerable infrastructure (well house) near the downstream end of the reach. In addition to the stream realignment and bank protection features, the implementation of the preferred concept should encourage establishment of a riparian buffer to the creek and increased hydraulic capacity through removal of the stored materials within the floodplain adjacent to the creek, wherever possible. COMMUNICATIONS: A Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on February 8, 2012. 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 13-5 Staff Re~p~r~ I~TCn~nT~~ lnfrastru~ture Services flepartmeat www.kitchenerca considered. The direct mail-outs, along with the newspaper advertisement advising the public and property owners of the project and the Public Information Centre, 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. The addendum was presented to the City of Kitchener Environmental Committee (February 16, 2012) and the Grand River Conservation Authority Committee of the Whole (March 8, 2012). The Committee of the Whole approved the following GRCA staff recommendation: "THAT a Notice of Filing of an Addendum for Review be issued and the Schneider Creek Remediation Class Environmental Assessment Addendum report be placed on the public record for 30 calendar days, in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects." FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The anticipated cost and the timeline for implementing the preferred alternatives are listed below: Reach Description Estimated Implementation Estimated Cost ($)* Reach 1 Hayward Avenue to Budd Spurline Fall of 2012 1.4M Reach 2 Three sets of culverts where Schneider Creek flows under the Spurline 2015 2.7M Reach 3 Spurline to Manitou Drive 2014 1.4M *Funding is split equally between Development Charges and the SWM Utility. CONCLUSION: The City of Kitchener and Grand River Conservation Authority commissioned this Addendum to update and re-evaluate the Schneider Creek Remediation Class Environmental Assessment (1995) to permit flood and erosion control measures to proceed to implementation. The study was reinitiated due to ongoing erosion concerns and historic flooding and resulting damage to a railway in this area. Therefore Staff recommends that Schneider Creek Remediation -Class Environmental Assessment Addendum Report be filed for the thirty (30) day public review period in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO Infrastructure Services Department 13-6 Staff Re~p~r~ I~TC~~nT~~ lnfrastru~ture Services flepartmeat www.kitchenerca t '~ . -. f - --~ ,~;e y I :r £' .~. ~ ~ ,w ~. // '. . . -- r - e 1 ~ ~~. ' ~~ 4 #; Yy 11 ~ ~ rl' ~, v E - "'777iii~s p ~f~~_ _ ~,tz ~ _ ,q r -. p ",~ /i 1 ~~ ~ ~ u r Q ~~'_ ~' v~~/ ~ -~ ~~ r ' t, ` ~ o© ~~ ~ h'~ a ~~ ~ t ~~ N 111 ~,~ ~ +Y~ `Yc~ `Y y~'~i1h ~\ R ~ " ~ a ~ i,r; ~` _ , ~ ',*, ~ W ~ ~~ w _- N 7 _ 11 f .`~., ltdl ~ ~ ~t?K~ ~,/' Figure 1- Study area and location of reaches 13-7 Staff Re~p~r~ I~TCn~nT~~ lnfrastru~ture Services flepartmeat www.kitchenerca r ~ ' ;~. . . _ ~ , ;y a~~ - 1 ' m f7 Zl ?J r~,J/ ~ D f ~ r m ? ~ -..~ ~ ~ 4 , ~~ n ~t± 4 ~ m ~ ~ S A F S X ° ° r a ~ ° ° ° ° ~' ffl ~ D ~ D . ~ p m v m p a m i~ m m `v" z Z r f ~ ~~ . v i 3 _. Y f 1 r~ r " ' ~~ R m ~ m b~ r p ~ n r n Z D a l_- ~~ r ~ ~ ~ , ~ 3 ~ a 2 C i S y G A S / ~ ~ a~ ?x~n A Z 3 A Z m m byi e ~ YE ~ Vii. ~ ~ _ - - j / ~ -' . ~~ Figure 2 -Concept plan for the preferred remediation approach in Reach 2 13-8