Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Env - 2016-02-18 - Item 2-1 - 2015 Stormwater Management Audit - Report
City of Kitchener 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Water City of Kitchener 2015 Stormwater Management Audit AuditAudit Prepared by: AECOM 50 Sportsworld Crossing Road, Suite 290 519.650.5313 tel Suite Suite 50 Sportsworld Crossing Road, 50 Sportsworld Crossing Road, 290290519.650.5313519.650.5313 Kitchener, ON, Canada N2P 0A4 519.650.3424 fax Kitchener, ON, Canada N2P 0A4Kitchener, ON, Canada N2P 0A4 519.650.3424519.650.3424 www.aecom.com Project Number: Project Number: 60342423 60342423 60342423 Date: Date: Date: January 2016 January 2016January 2016 City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications for the preparation for the preparation for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the , environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the , environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completenessof information that was provided to it and has no of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsuoccurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical rface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information haConsultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information ha prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economicknowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its direcconditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its direc employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules,implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. opinions do so at their own risk.opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required byExcept (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. upon only by Client. upon only by Client. Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upothe Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upo decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Info decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Infodecisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Info parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injuryparties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. or damages arising for damages arising from improper use of the Report rom improper use of the Report This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM: 2012-01-06 © 2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx AECOM 50 Sportsworld Crossing Road, Suite 290519.650.5313tel Kitchener, ON, Canada N2P 0A4 519.650.3424 fax www.aecom.com January 15, 2016 Matt Wilson Design and Construction Project Manager, Stormwater Utility Engineering Services Division City of Kitchener th 200 King Street West, 9 Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Wilson: Project No: 60342423 Regarding: 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Stormwater Management Audit Stormwater Management AECOM is pleased to submit an electronic version of the 2015 Stormwater Management Audit for this version of the 2015version of the 2015Stormwater MStormwater M AECOM is pleased to submit an electronic AECOM is pleased to submit an electronic anagement Audit for this study. If you have any questions or request additional information regarding this submittal, please contact If you have any questions or request additional information regarding this submittal,If you have any questions or request additional information regarding this submittal, Pippy Warburton at 519.650.8629 or pippy.warburton@aecom.com. Thank you for considering at 519.650.86298629pippy.warburton@aecom.compippy.warburton@aecom.com. Thank you for considering . Thank you for considering at 519.650. or AECOM for this very worthwhile project. AECOM for this very worthwhile project. AECOM for this very worthwhile project. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Canada Ltd.Canada Ltd. Pippy Warburton, P.Eng Pippy WarburtonPippy Warburton, P.Eng, P.Eng Senior Project Manager Water Resources, Water Senior Project Manager ior Project Manager Water Resources, WaterWater Resources, Water pippy.warburton@aecom.com pippy.warburton@aecom.compippy.warburton@aecom.com RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Distribution List # of Hard PDF Required Association / Company Name Copies 0 1 City of Kitchener Revision Log Issue / Revision Description Revision Revised By Date Issue / Revision DescriptionIssue / Revision Description # 0 2016-01-20 Draft Report AECOM Signatures Report Prepared By: Andrew Minielly, B. Es. (Hons), GIS Devon Fowler, B.Sc. (Hons), EPt. B. Es. (Hons)B. Es. (Hons) Andrew MiniellyniellyGIS GIS ,,, Specialist 1 Ecologist, Environment Specialist 1Specialist 1 Water Resources Water ResourcesWater Resources Report Reviewed Report Report Reviewed Reviewed By: By:By: Zahra Parhizgari, M.Sc., P.Eng. Zahra Parhizgari, M.Sc., P.Eng.Zahra Parhizgari, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Water Quality Specialist Senior Water Quality SpecialistSenior Water Quality Specialist RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Executive Summary The City of Kitchener completed the Kitchener Stormwater Policy Development program in 2001 which culminated in a report detailing the existing stormwater management (SWM) infrastructure. This program outlined new policies to manage, monitor and improve stormwater management within the City. As part of the Annual Audit, a stream monitoring program, including both biological and chemical monitoring components was initiated in 2002. The 2015 monitoring program was developed from the recommendations contained within the 2014 SWM Audit The 2015 monitoring program was developed from the recommendations contained within the 2014 SWM Audit The 2015 monitoring program was developed from the recommendations contained within the 2014 SWM Audit (AECOM, 2014) and was built upon monitoring data collected from 2002 through 2014, continuing to gather data (AECOM, 2014) and was built upon monitoring data collected from 2002 through 2014, continuing(AECOM, 2014) and was built upon monitoring data collected from 2002 through 2014, continuingto gather data from core stations monitored in the previous years. The 2015 sampling program included grab sampling and/or auto from core stations monitored in the previous years. The 2015 sampling program included grab sampling and/or auto from core stations monitored in the previous years. The 2015 sampling program included grab sampling and/or auto sampling for chemistry and bacteriology, benthic and fish sampling, continuous depth and temperature monitoring. sampling for chemistry and bacteriology, benthic and fish sampling, continuous depth and temperature monitoringsampling for chemistry and bacteriology, benthic and fish sampling, continuous depth and temperature monitoring Physical and Chemical Analysis Grab sampling included one (1) spring melt, five (5) wet and five (5) dry sampling events at eight locations including Grab sampling included one (1) spring melt, five (5) wet and five (5) dry sampling events at eight locations including Grab sampling included one (1) spring melt, five (5) wet and five (5) dry sampling events at eight locations including Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB13a), Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Shoemaker Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB13a), Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Shoemaker Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB13a), Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1), and Idlewood Creek (IW1). ISCO automated sampling devices were installed at Strasburg Creek ISCO automated sampling devices were installed at Strasburg Creek ISCO automated sampling devices were installed at Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Henry Strum Creek (HS1). Continuous stage and temperature measurements collected using a HOBO (SB2) and Henry Strum Creek (HS1). Continuous stage and temperature measurements collected using a HOBO (SB2) and Henry Strum Creek (HS1). Continuous stage and temperature measurements collected using a HOBO U20 pressure transducer at 15 minutes intervals. Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM Audit monitoring. Annual average and maximum values of summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM Audit monitoring. Annual average and maximum values of summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM Audit monitoring. Annual average and maximum values of parameters are shown at each station. Exceedances of average and/or value from respective guidelines have been parameters are shown at each station. Exceedances of average and/or value from respective guidelines have been parameters are shown at each station. Exceedances of average and/or value from respective guidelines have been identified as bold fonts and colored cells, respectively. Average concentrations of chloride have exceeded the pectively. Average concentrations of chloride have exceeded the pectively. Average concentrations of chloride have exceeded the chronic guideline at all streams except Strasburg and Blair Creek stations. Total phosphorus average chronic guideline at all streams except Strasburg and Blair Creek stations. Total phosphorus average chronic guideline at all streams except Strasburg and Blair Creek stations. Total phosphorus average concentrations also exceed the guideline at most streams except Montgomery and Kolb Creek (where maximum concentrations also exceed the guideline at most streams except Montgomery and Kolb Creekconcentrations also exceed the guideline at most streams except Montgomery and Kolb Creek concentration exceed the guideline). Maximum dissolved phosphorus concentrations exceed the guideline for total concentration exceed the guideline). Maximum dissolved phosphorus concentrations exceed the guideline for total concentration exceed the guideline). Maximum dissolved phosphorus concentrations exceed the guideline for total phosphorus in many stations, too. Total suspended solids and to some extent metals (lead, copper and zinc) exceed Total suspended solids and to some extent metals (lead, copper and zinc) exceed Total suspended solids and to some extent metals (lead, copper and zinc) exceed their respective guidelines in Blazer, Hidden Valley, Idlewood, Strasburg (SB2), Shoemaker and Sandrock. their respective guidelines in Blazer, Hidden Valley, Idlewood, Strasburg (SB2), Shoemaker and Sandrock. their respective guidelines in Blazer, Hidden Valley, Idlewood, Strasburg (SB2), Shoemaker and Sandrock. Table ES-1: Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results : Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results: Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results Stream (Station) Chloride TSS Total P Dissolved P Lead Copper Zinc TSSTotal P Dissolved P Chloride 241 (535) 109 (565) 0.13 (0.73) 0.04 (0.09) 0.01 (0.02) 0.03 (0.11) Balzer (BZ1) 0.004 (0.02) 241 (535)0.13 (0.73)0.04 (0.09) 184 (384) 58 (171) 0.09 (0.31) Hidden Valley (HV1) 0.02 (0.03) 0.003 (0.005) 0.002 (0.005) 0.01 (0.03) 0.09 (0.31) 184 (384) 0.02 (0.03) 139 (348) 25 (107) 0.06 (0.14) Idlewood (IW1) 0.03 (0.07) 0.002 (0.004) 0.003 (0.009) 0.01 (0.03) 25 (107)0.06 (0.14) 139 (348) 0.03 (0.07) 21 (42) 0.04 (0.07) Strasburg (SB2) 72 (78) 0.01 (0.06) - - - 21 (42)0.04 (0.07) 72 (78)0.01 (0.06) 238 (504) 87 (519) 0.15 (0.76) 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.03 (0.14) Shoemaker (SM1) 0.07 (0.36) 87 (519)0.15 (0.76) Shoemaker (SM1) 284 (706) 35 (150) 0.1 (0.33) 0.01 (0.02) Sandrock (SR2) 0.06 (0.15) 0 (0.01) 0.02 (0.06) 284 (706)35 (150) Sandrock (SR2) Sandrock (SR2) 338 (380) 0.04 (0.07) Strasburg (SB13A) 5.3 (6.5) 0.02 (0.03) 0.0001 (0.0001) 0.001 (0.001) 0.005 (0.006) 338 (380) 5.3 (6.5)5.3 (6.5) Strasburg (SB13A)Strasburg (SB13A) 257 (260) Kolb (KD1) 5.6 (11.9) 0.03 (0.04) 0.02 (0.03) 0.0003 (0.0004) 0.002 (0.002) 0.006 (0.008) 257 (260) 5.6 (11.9)5.6 (11.9) Kolb (KD1)Kolb (KD1) 560 (600) Montgomery (MG1) 5.5 (8.5) 0.015 (0.023) 0.007 (0.008) 0.001 (0.001) 0.004 (0.005) 0.013 (0.016) 560 (600) Montgomery (MG1)Montgomery (MG1)5.5 (8.5)5.5 (8.5)0.015 (0.023) 152 (196) 0.033 (0.04) 0.05 (0.126) Schneider (SC1) - 0.004 (0.004) 0.003 (0.003) 0.012 (0.014) 152 (196) Schneider (SC1)Schneider (SC1) - 120 (293) 0.17 (0.45) Henry Strum (HS1) 155 (371) 0.02 (0.05) 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.001 (0.001) 0.004 (0.006) Strum (HS1)Strum (HS1)155 (371)155 (371) 0.038 (0.11) Blair Creek (BC4068) 39.6 (42) 8.6 (23) 0.014 (0.025) 0.001 (0.001) 0.002 (0.002) 0.011 (0.026) 39.6 (42) Blair Creek (BC4068)Blair Creek (BC4068)8.6 (23)8.6 (23) Guideline 120 25 0.03 0.03 0.005 0.005 0.02 Notes: All values are in mg/L All values are in mg/LAll values are in mg/L Concentrations are shown as: Average (Maximum) values Concentrations are shown as: Average (Maximum) valuesConcentrations are shown as: Average (Maximum) values Exceedance of average concentration is shown through bold fonts Exceedance of average concentration is shown through bold fontsExceedance of average concentration is shown through bold fonts Exceedance of maximum concentration is shown through highlighted cells. Temperature monitoring resulted in the classification of Henry Strum and Strasburg Creeks as cool-warm water and cool water, respectively. RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Flow Measurement Discrete flow measurements and corresponding flow depths were recorded during water quality sampling, on five (5) occasions for HS1 and SB2. The continuous water level data collected at station Kolb HS1 and SB2 was translated from water levels to flow rates by utilizing the relative flow versus depth relationship. Continuous flow monitoring data was normalized using barometric pressure. Trends Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were compared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. These stations included Strasburg 2 (SB2), Henry compared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. These stations included Strasburgcompared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. These stations included Strasburg2 (SB2), Henry Strum 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery (MG1) and Sandrock (SR2). Time series are provided for TSS and Time series are provided for TSS and Time series are provided for TSS and chloride. Metals and nutrients are generally correlated with TSS and follow the same patterns. A summary of the chloride. Metals and nutrients are generally correlated with TSS and follow the same patterns. A summary of the chloride. Metals and nutrients are generally correlated with TSS and follow the same patterns. A summary of the analysis result is as follows: SB2: no long-term trend is observed in this station for TSS and chloride with concentrations being generally below term trend is observed in this station for TSS and chloride with concentrations being generally below term trend is observed in this station for TSS and chloride with concentrations being generally below respective guidelines. HS1: wet weather measurements of TSS have been high since 2008, at which point it reached a concentration of HS1: wet weather measurements of TSS have been high since 2008, at which point it reached a concentraHS1: wet weather measurements of TSS have been high since 2008, at which point it reached a concentration of tion of 2100 mg/L. since. Dry weather concentrations of chloride started to increase from around 120 mg/L to a few hundred 2100 mg/L. since. Dry weather concentrations of chloride started to increase from around 120 mg/L to a few hundred 2100 mg/L. since. Dry weather concentrations of chloride started to increase from around 120 mg/L to a few hundred in 2008. KD1: wet weather measurements of TSS have climbed to vales above 100 mg/L since 2009. Both dry and wet to vales above 100 mg/L since 2009. to vales above 100 mg/L since 2009. Both dry and wet weather concentrations of chloride have been above the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L since 2009. the CCME guideline of 120 mg/the CCME guideline of 120 mg/ L since 2009. ns of chloride have been above MG1: wet weather measurements of TSS have climbed to vales about 140 mg/L since 2009. Chloride ededto vales about 140 mg/L since 2009. Chloride to vales about 140 mg/L since 2009. Chloride climbclimb of TSS have concentrations during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mg/L with some wet years concentrations during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mgconcentrations during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mg falling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. falling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicityfalling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity . SR2: wet weather measurements of TSS increased from earlier lower values to about 300 mg/L in 2012 and 150 of TSS increased from earlier lower values toof TSS increased from earlier lower values to mg/L in 2015. Dry weather concentrations of chloride have general been between CCME guidelines of 120 and 640 of chloride of chloride mg/L in 2015. Dry weather concentrations mg/L in 2015. Dry weather concentrations havehavegeneral been between CCME guidelines of 120 and 640 general been between CCME guidelines of 120 and 640 mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific trend is observed for TSS or chloride. trend is observed for TSS or chloride.trend is observed for TSS or chloride. Biological Sampling Biological Sampling Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling was conducted at the eight stations listed above. Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling was conducted at the eight stations listed above.and fish sampling was conducted at the eight stations listed above. Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric that should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Samples that should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples wethat should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples we collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note any changes in the benthic data over time. any changes in the benthic data over time. any changes in the benthic data over time. Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program yielded similar Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the results to the previous years. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), results to the previous years. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), results to the previous years. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), and second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker and second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suand second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results su Greenway (SR2) has the highest overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Greenway (SR2) has the highest overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Greenway (SR2) has the highest overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations as well. Kolb Creek (KD1) had the lowest overall water quality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the ek (KD1) had the lowest overall water quality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the ek (KD1) had the lowest overall water quality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the Shannon Diversity Index). Shannon Diversity Index).Shannon Diversity Index). Over the past three years, the overall quality of Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased for all indices measured. Overall water quality in Strasburg Creek (SB2) plummeted in 2014 from its 2013 conditions, but results revealed a marked improvement in 2015. Values increased dramatically in Strasburg Creek (SB2) for almost all water quality indices from 2014 to 2015, and this watercourse is once again considered to have one of the healthiest biological communities of the eight sites examined for the purpose of this study. While water quality has RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit generally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this is not the case for Sandrock Greenway (SR2). The 2015 fish sampling revealed a fish community similar to that of past monitoring years. Strasburg 2 (SB2) scored highest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout, a highly sensitive species to pollution. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1), with a variety of tolerant and intermediately tolerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) for the second consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. The majority of the species captured at consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. The majority of the species captured at consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. The majority of the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout and Mottled Sculpin ( Cottus bairdii) Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout and Mottled Sculpin (Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout and Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) Cottus bairdii) which are coldwater species. The fish community in Montgomery Creek (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse ater species. The fish community in Montgomery Creek (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse ater species. The fish community in Montgomery Creek (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species to a community dominated by only a few tolerant species. In assemblage containing many different fish species to a community dominated by only a few tolerant species. In assemblage containing many different fish species to a community dominated by only a few tolerant species. In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) than Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) than Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has remained more or less consistent since 2013. Biological Monitoring tasks were undertaken as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental Assessment as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental Assessment as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental Assessment species diversity. Sediment Volume In order to estimate the sediment volumes, an existing surface survey was constructed using a combination a of total ting surface survey was constructed using a combination a of total ting surface survey was constructed using a combination a of total station survey and sonar technology. The results were compared to the design bottom surface of the stormwater station survey and sonar technology. The results were compared to the design bottom surface of the stormwater station survey and sonar technology. The results were compared to the design bottom surface of the stormwater management pond, which were either as-constructed information (design drawings provided by the City), or the constructed information (design drawings constructed information (design drawings provided by the City), or the bottom surface surveyed in 2008. The volume comparison showed that the volume above the full volume is greater bottom surface surveyed in 2008. The volume comparison showed that the volume above the full volume is greater bottom surface surveyed in 2008. The volume comparison showed that the volume above the full volume is greater 3 than 200 m in six ponds (excluding wetlands and dry ponds), including Ponds 41, 53, 57, 80, 100 and 101. These in six ponds (excluding wetlands and dry ponds)in six ponds (excluding wetlands and dry ponds), including Ponds , including Ponds 41, 53, 57, 80, 100 and 10141, 53, 57, 80, 100 and 101 ponds are identified as having priority for cleaning. nds are identified as having priority for cleaning. Non-Point Source Pollution and Best Management Practices Point Source Pollution and Best Management PracticesPoint Source Pollution and Best Management Practices A discussion of non-point sources of pollution and Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been provided for point sources of pollution and Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been provided for point sources of pollution and Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been provided for urban non-point sources to the Grand River. Existing BMP databases were reviewed to provide recommendations point sources to the Grand point sources to the Grand River. Existing BMP databases were reviewed to provide recommendations River. Existing BMP databases were reviewed to provide recommendations for best opportunities for improving water quality in the City of Kitchener. for best opportunities for improving water quality in the City of Kitchener.for best opportunities for improving water quality in the City of Kitchener. In 2014, AECOM prepared a Best Practices Guide for Reducing Urban Non-Point Source Pollution in the Grand and In 2014, AECOM prepared a Best Practices Guide for Reducing Urban NonIn 2014, AECOM prepared a Best Practices Guide for Reducing Urban Non Speed Rivers for the GRCA, through which, a literature review was completed indicating that the water quality of the Speed Rivers for the GRCA, through which, a literature review was completed indicating that the water quality of the Speed Rivers for the GRCA, through which, a literature review was completed indicating that the water quality of the water courses in the study area is reflective of the regional geology, land use, land management practices, and water courses in the study area is reflective of the regional geology, land use, land management practices, and water courses in the study area is reflective of the regional geology, land use, land management practices, and seasonal weather conditions. It also identified a wide variety of operations and maintenance (O&M), infrastructure, seasonal weather conditiseasonal weather conditions. It also identified a wide variety of operations and maintenance (O&M), infrastructure, ons. It also identified a wide variety of operations and maintenance (O&M), infrastructure, and planning enhancements of stormwater management headed by the area municipalities. These stormwater and planning enhancements of stormwater management headed by the area municipalities. These stormwater and planning enhancements of stormwater management headed by the area municipalities. These stormwater tormwater infrastructure Geographic Information System (GIS) availability, transportation corridor maintenance (i.e., street sweeping, leaf collection, catch basin System (GIS) availability, transportation corridor maintenance (i.e., street sweeping, leaf collection, catch basin System (GIS) availability, transportation corridor maintenance (i.e., street sweeping, leaf collection, catch basin cleanouts, and road salting operations), SWM infrastructure inventory and maintenance practices, and monitoring cleanouts, and road salting operations), SWM infrastructure inventory and maintenance practicleanouts, and road salting operations), SWM infrastructure inventory and maintenance practi programs. The guideline identified three key objectives (themes) and 13 recommendations for reducing urban NPS programs. The guideline identified three key objectives (themes) and 13 recommendations for reducing urban NPS programs. The guideline identified three key objectives (themes) and 13 recommendations for reducing urban NPS pollution; a summary of which is provided in this report. pollution; a summary of which is provided in this report.pollution; a summary of which is provided in this report. roviding more specific recommendations requires a detailed knowledge of urban non-point sources (which may be roviding more specific recommendations requires a detailed knowledroviding more specific recommendations requires a detailed knowled obtained from the proposed GRCA/City/Region study) and analysis of pollution loads (estimated using EMC data). obtained from the proposed GRCA/City/Region study) and analysis of pollution loads (estimated using EMC data). obtained from the proposed GRCA/City/Region study) and analysis of pollution loads (estimated using EMC data). Recommendations The recommendations for the 2016 SMW Audit were developed based on the recommendations for 2015-2019 contained within the 2014 SWM audit by AECOM, the results of the 2015 SWM Audit Program, as well as discussion with the Steering Committee members. These include: Establishment of the two existing flow proportionate sites at Stations SR2 (Sandrock) and SM1 (Shoemaker); Autosamplers are also recommended at Balzer Creek and Idlewood Creek to monitor RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit changes associated with construction activities, to be completed under the project umbrella (outside of the scope of the 2016 SW Audit); Monitoring stations for collection of grab samples at locations where EMCs have already been established i.e. Henry Sturm 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek 1 (KD1), Montgomery 1 (MG1), Strasburg 2 (SB2), and Strasburg 13a (SB13a); Review of the long-term monitorin Management Plan (ISWMP; to be released in 2016). Landuse and future and/or active projects and Management Plan (ISWMP; to be released in 2016). Landuse and future and/or active projects and Management Plan (ISWMP; to be released in 2016). Landuse and future and/or active projects and programs should be considered in the determination of monitoring needs.Specific recommendations programs should be considered in the determination of monitoring needs.Specific recommendatioprograms should be considered in the determination of monitoring needs.Specific recommendatio include: i. To place autosamplers strategically, and aim at producing long-term continuous data (rather than at term continuous data (rather than at term continuous data (rather than at 5-year cycles) at a limited number of stations. Generally speaking at least 10 consecutive years of year cycles) at a limited number of stations. Generally speaking at least 10 consecutive years of year cycles) at a limited number of stations. Generally speaking at least 10 consecutive years of data is required for establishment of trends. As more autosamplers become available, the program s. As more autosamplers become available, the program s. As more autosamplers become available, the program can be extended to other stations; ii. In order to interpret the monitoring results correctly, it is important to identify site-specific receiving In order to interpret the monitoring results correctly, it is important to identify siteIn order to interpret the monitoring results correctly, it is important to identify sitespecific receiving specific receiving -- water targets (when applicable), and a reference station (to establish baseline conditions). It is to establish baseline conditions). It is to establish baseline conditions). It is understood that these are being identified under the ISWMP, and therefore the Plan needs to be understood that these are being identified under the ISWMP, and therefore the Plan needs to be understood that these are being identified under the ISWMP, and therefore the Plan needs to be consulted when interpreting the monitoring results; and consulted when interpreting the monitoring results; and consulted when interpreting the monitoring results; and iii. The GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo, are The GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of WaterlThe GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo, are oo and Region of Waterloo, are initiating a study in 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, initiating a study in 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, initiating a study in 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, using existing water monitoring data. It is recommended that the consultant responsible for the 2016 using existing water monitoring data. It is recommended that the consultant responsible for the 2016 using existing water monitoring data. It is recommended that the consultant responsible for the 2016 Audit be informed of that process in order to apply the insight gained in revising the long term hat process in order to apply the insight gained in revising the long term hat process in order to apply the insight gained in revising the long term program. Biological monitoring, including fish and benthic invertebrate surveys, are recommended for all stations Biological monitoring, including fish and benthic invertebrate surveys, are recommended for all stations Biological monitoring, including fish and benthic invertebrate surveys, are recommended for all stations monitored for water quality. The purpose of this component is to document changes in habitat quality monitored for water quality. The purpose of this component is to dmonitored for water quality. The purpose of this component is to d ocument changes in habitat quality ocument changes in habitat quality over time which may indicate changes in water quality and watershed conditions. Such changes may over time which may indicate changes in water quality and watershed conditions. Such changes may over time which may indicate changes in water quality and watershed conditions. Such changes may trigger the need for additional monitoring or recommendations to update the established EMC for a trigger the need for additional monitoring or recommendations to update the established EMC for a trigger the need for additional monitoring or recommendations to update the established EMC for a specific station demonstrating evidence of change ting evidence of changeting evidence of change RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List Executive Summary page 1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10 ................................................................ 2.Background ................................................................................................................................ 10 ................................................................................................................................ 3.SWM Audit Monitoring Program Updates ................................................................................ 10 ................................................................................ 4.Kitchener SWM Audit Monitoring Methodologies .................................................................... 11 11 .................................................................................................................................... 4.1Site Selection ..................................................................................................................................... 11 11 ..................................................................... ................................................................ 4.2Water Quality Constituent Sampling Methodologies ......................................................................... 13 13 ................................................................ ......................................................................... ......... 4.2.1Grab Sampling Methodology ................................................................................................ 13 ................................................................ ................................................................................................................................ 4.2.2Event Mean Concentration Sampling Methodology ............................................................. 14 Event Mean Concentration Sampling MethodologyEvent Mean Concentration Sampling Methodology ................................................................ ............................. 4.3Biological Sampling Methodologies ................................................................................................... 15 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ 4.4Invertebrate Sampling and Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 16 Invertebrate Sampling and Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................ 4.5Fish Sampling and Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................... 16 Fish Sampling and Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................................ Fish Sampling and Analysis Methodology 4.6Physical Sampling Methodology ........................................................................................................ 17 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ 5.Water Quality Constituent Results Grab Sampling .............................................................. 17 Water Quality Constituent Results Grab SamplingGrab Sampling ................................................................ 5.1Chloride.............................................................................................................................................. 17 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ 5.2Nitrate ................................................................................................................................................ 18 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ 5.3Phosphorus ........................................................................................................................................ 19 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ 5.4Metals ................................................................................................................................................ 20 ................................................................................................................................................................ 5.5Total Suspended Solid....................................................................................................................... 22 d Solidd Solid Total SuspendeTotal Suspende ................................................................................................................................ 5.6Dissolved Oxygen .............................................................................................................................. 23 Dissolved OxygenDissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................................................ 5.7pH ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 ................................................................ ................................................................................................................................ 5.8Conductivity ....................................................................................................................................... 24 ConductivityConductivity ................................................................ ................................................................ 6.Water Quality Constituent Results EMC Results Henry Strum ......................................... 26 Water Quality Constituent Results lity Constituent Results EMC Results EMC Results Water Qua 6.1Chloride.............................................................................................................................................. 27 ChlorideChloride 6.1 6.1 ................................................................ ................................ 6.2Nitrate ................................................................................................................................................ 28 6.26.2 Nitrate ................................................................ ................................ 6.3Phosphorus ........................................................................................................................................ 29 6.36.3PhosphorusPhosphorus ................................................................ 6.4Metals ................................................................................................................................................ 30 6.4Metals 6.4 ................................................................ 6.5Total Suspended Solids (TSS) .......................................................................................................... 32 6.56.5Total Suspended Solids (TSS)Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 7.Water Quality Constituent Results EMC Results Strasburg Creek ................................... 33 Water Quality Constituent Results Water Quality Constituent Results 7.1Chloride.............................................................................................................................................. 33 ChlorideChloride ................................................................ 7.2Nitrate ................................................................................................................................................ 34 NitrateNitrate ................................................................ 7.3Phosphorus ........................................................................................................................................ 35 PhosphorusPhosphorus 7.4Metals ................................................................................................................................................ 36 MetalsMetals 7.5Total Suspended Solids (TSS) .......................................................................................................... 38 8.Historical Trends ........................................................................................................................ 39 8.1Strasburg (Station SB2) ..................................................................................................................... 39 8.2Henry Strum 1 (HS1) ......................................................................................................................... 40 8.3Kolb Creek (KD1) ............................................................................................................................... 41 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 8.4Montgomery (MG1) ............................................................................................................................ 42 8.5Sandrock (SR2) ................................................................................................................................. 43 9.Physical Monitoring Results ..................................................................................................... 44 9.1Temperature Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 44 9.2Flow Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 46 10.Biological Sampling Results ..................................................................................................... 50 ................................................................ 10.1Benthic Invertebrate Community 2015 .............................................................................................. 50 ............................................................................................................................ 10.2Comparison of 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Results with Trends from 2013 & 2014 .......................... 52 Comparison of 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Results with Trends from 2013 & 2014Comparison of 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Results with Trends from 2013 & 2014 .......................... 10.3Fish Community: 2015 ....................................................................................................................... 53 ....................................................................................... 10.4Comparison of 2015 Fish Community Results with Trends from 2013 & 2014 ................................. 54 Comparison of 2015 Fish Community Results with Trends from 2013 & 2014Comparison of 2015 Fish Community Results with Trends from 2013 & 2014 ................................................................ 10.5Biological Monitoring Summary ......................................................................................................... 55 ......................................................................... ................................................................ 10.6Biological Sampling Results: Blair Creek .......................................................................................... 56 56 .................................................................................................................... ................................................................ 10.6.1Benthic Invertebrate Community .......................................................................................... 56 56 .................................................................................................................................................... 10.6.2Fish Community Survey ....................................................................................................... 57 ................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................... ....... 11.Pond Sediment Volumes ........................................................................................................... 59 ................................................................ ........................................................................... 12.Overall Summary ....................................................................................................................... 60 ................................................................ ....................................................................................... 12.1Results of 2015 Monitoring Program ................................................................................................. 60 ................................................................................................................................ 12.2Trends ................................................................................................................................................ 60 ................................................................................................................................................................ 12.3Biological Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 61 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12.4Monitoring History at Locations with Autosampler Data .................................................................... 62 Monitoring History at Locations with Autosampler DataMonitoring History at Locations with Autosampler Data ................................................................ 13.Non-Point Source Pollution and Best Management Practices ................................................ 63 Point Source Pollution and Best Management PracticesPoint Source Pollution and Best Management Practices ................................ ................................ 14.Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 67 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ List of Figures Figure 4-1: Kitchener SWM Audit Monitoring Location for 2015 ................................................................................. 12 1: Kitchener SWM Audit Monitoring Location for 20151: Kitchener SWM Audit Monitoring Location for 2015 ................................................................ Figure 5-1: 2015 SWM Audit Chloride Concentration (mg/L) Results ......................................................................... 18 1: 2015 SWM Audit 1: 2015 SWM Audit Chloride Concentration (mg/L) ResultsChloride Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure 5-2: 2015 SWM Audit Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) Results ............................................................................ 18 2: 2015 SWM Audit Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) Results2: 2015 SWM Audit Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure 5-3: 2015 SWM Audit Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results .......................................................... 19 3: 2015 SWM Audit Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results3: 2015 SWM Audit Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure 5-4: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results .................................................. 20 4: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results4: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure 5Figure 5 Figure 5-5: 2015 SWM Audit Zinc Concentration (mg/L) Results ............................................................................... 21 Figure 5Figure 55: 2015 SWM Audit Zinc Concentration (mg/L) Results5: 2015 SWM Audit Zinc Concentration (mg/L) Results -- Figure 5-6: 2015 SWM Audit Copper Concentration (mg/L) Results .......................................................................... 21 6: 2015 SWM Audit 6: 2015 SWM Audit Figure 5Figure 5Copper Concentration (mg/L) ResultsCopper Concentration (mg/L) Results - Figure 5-7: 2015 SWM Audit Lead Concentration (mg/L) Results .............................................................................. 22 7: 2015 SWM Audit Lead Concentration (mg/L) Results7: 2015 SWM Audit Lead Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure 5Figure 5 -- Figure 5-8: 2015 SWM Audit Total Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/L) Results ................................................ 23 8: 2015 SWM Audit Total Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/L) Results8: 2015 SWM Audit Total Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure 5Figure 5 -- Figure 5-9: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L) Results ......................................................... 23 9: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L) 9: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L) Figure 5-10: 2015 SWM Audit pH Results ................................................................................................................... 24 10: 2015 SWM Audit pH Results10: 2015 SWM Audit pH Results Figure 5-11: 2015 SWM Audit Conductivity (µS/cm) Results ...................................................................................... 25 11: 2015 SWM Audit Conductivity (µS/cm) Results11: 2015 SWM Audit Conductivity (µS/cm) Results Figure 6-1: Henry Strum - 2015 Chloride Event Mean Concentration......................................................................... 27 1: Henry Strum 1: Henry Strum Figure 6-2: Henry Strum - 2015 Nitrate Event Mean Concentration ........................................................................... 28 2: Henry Strum 2: Henry Strum Figure 6-3: Henry Strum - 2015 Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration .......................................................... 29 Figure 6-4: Henry Strum - 2015 Dissolved Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration .................................................. 29 Figure 6-5: Henry Strum- 2015 Total Copper Event Mean Concentration .................................................................. 30 Figure 6-6: Henry Strum - 2015 Lead Event Mean Concentration .............................................................................. 30 Figure 6-7: Henry Strum - 2015 Zinc Event Mean Concentration ............................................................................... 31 Figure 6-8: Henry Strum - 2015 TSS Event Mean Concentration ............................................................................... 32 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 7-1: Strasburg - 2015 Chloride Event Mean Concentration ............................................................................. 33 Figure 7-2: Strasburg - 2015 Nitrate Event Mean Concentration ................................................................................ 34 Figure 7-3: Strasburg 2015 Total Dissolved Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration ............................................. 35 Figure 7-4: Strasburg - 2015 Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration .............................................................. 35 Figure 7-5: Strasburg - 2015 Copper Event Mean Concentration ............................................................................... 36 Figure 7-6: Strasburg - 2015 Lead Event Mean Concentration ................................................................................... 36 Figure 7-7: Strasburg - 2015 Zinc Event Mean Concentration .................................................................................... 37 ................................................................ Figure 7-8: Strasburg - 2015 TSS Event Mean Concentration .................................................................................... 38 .................................................................................... Figure 8-1: 2002 2015 Trends in Strasburg 2 for TSS and Chloride ........................................................................ 39 ................................................................ Figure 8-2: 2002 2015 Trends in Henry Strum 1 for TSS and Chloride ................................................................... 40 ................................................................................................................................ Figure 8-3: 2002 2015 Trends in Kolb Creek 1 for TSS and Chloride...................................................................... 41 ................................................................ ...................................................................... Figure 8-4: 2002 2015 Trends in Montgomery 1 for TSS and Chloride ................................................................... 42 ................................................................... ................................................................ Figure 8-5: 2002 2015 Trends in Sandrock 2 for TSS and Chloride ........................................................................ 43 43 ........................................................................................................................................ Figure 9-1: 2015 Autosampler Station Temperature Monitoring (HS1 and SB2) ........................................................ 44 1: 2015 Autosampler Station Temperature Monitoring (HS1 and SB2)1: 2015 Autosampler Station Temperature Monitoring (HS1 and SB2) 44 ................................................................................ Figure 9-2: 2015 HS1 Thermal Stability Classification ................................................................................................ 45 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Figure 9-3: 2015 SB2 Thermal Stability Classification ................................................................................................ 46 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Figure 9-4: Henry Strum Creek (HS1) Rating Curve ................................................................................................... 46 ................................................................ ................................................................................................ Figure 9-5: Strasburg Creek (SB2) Rating Curve ........................................................................................................ 47 ................................................................ ................................................................ Figure 9-6: Henry Strum Creek (HS1) Flow and Precipitation .................................................................................... 48 6: Henry Strum Creek (HS1) Flow and Precipitation ................................................................................................ Figure 9-7: Strasburg Creek (SB2) Flow and Precipitation ......................................................................................... 49 Creek (SB2) Flow and PrecipitationCreek (SB2) Flow and Precipitation ................................................................................................................................ List of Tables Table 4-1: Water Quality Parameters Sampling and Sampling Procedure ................................................................. 13 1: Water Quality Parameters Sampling and Sa1: Water Quality Parameters Sampling and Sampling Procedurempling Procedure ................................................................ Table 4-2: Dates and Conditions of Grab Sampling Events ........................................................................................ 14 2: Dates and Conditions of Grab Sampling Events2: Dates and Conditions of Grab Sampling Events ................................................................ ................................................................ Table 4-3: Dates and Conditions of Sampling Events for Kolb 1 (KD1) and Montgomery 1 (MG1) ........................... 15 3: Dates and Conditions of Sampling Events for Kolb 1 (KD1) and Montgomery 1 (MG1)3: Dates and Conditions of Sampling Events for Kolb 1 (KD1) and Montgomery 1 (MG1) Table 6-1: Rainfall data at City Hall ............................................................................................................................. 26 1: Rainfall data at City Hall1: Rainfall data at City Hall ................................................................................................................................ Table 9-1: Summary of Thermal Regimes ................................................................................................................... 45 1: Summary of Thermal Regimes1: Summary of Thermal Regimes ................................................................ ................................................................ Table 10-1: 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics ............................................................................................................ 51 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics ................................................................ Table 10-2: 2013-2015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results ........................................................................................ 52 2015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results2015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results ................................................................ Table 10-3: 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results and Analysis ............................................................................ 54 3: 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results and3: 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results and AnalysisAnalysis Table 10-4: 2013-2015 Fish Community Sampling Results ........................................................................................ 55 4: 20132015 Fish Community Sampling Results2015 Fish Community Sampling Results 4: 2013 -- Table 10-5: 2015 Biological Indicators as Compared to the First Five Years Study and the Second 5 Years 5: 2015 Biological Indicators as Compared to the First Five Years Study and the Second 5 Years 5: 2015 Biological Indicators as Compared to the First Five Years Study and the Second 5 Years Study ........................................................................................................................................................ 56 StudyStudy ................................................................ ................................................................ Table 10-6: 2014 and 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics from Blair Creek ................................................................ 57 Table 10Table 106: 2014 and 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics from Blair Creek6: 2014 and 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics from Blair Creek - Table 10-7: 2014 and 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results for Blair Creek ......................................................... 58 ble 10ble 107: 2014 and 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results for Blair Creek7: 2014 and 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results for Blair Creek - Table 11-1: Priority List for Pond Cleaning ................................................................................................................. 59 Table 11Table 111: Priority List for Pond Cleaning1: Priority List for Pond Cleaning -- Table 12-1: Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results ................................................................................... 60 Table 12Table 121: Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results1: Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results -- Table 12-2: Monitoring at Locations with Autosampler Data ....................................................................................... 62 2: Monitoring at Locations with Autosampler Data2: Monitoring at Locations with Autosampler Data Appendices Appendix A. Laboratory Results Laboratory ResLaboratory Res Appendix B-1 Biological Monitoring Methodologies Appendix B-2 Benthic Taxa List and OBBN Field Sheets and Fish Species List and OSAP Field Sheets Appendix B-3 OMNRF Authorization to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes Appendix B-4 Detailed summary of 2014 Benthic Survey Appendix C Pond Sediment Volumes RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 1. Introduction The City of Kitchener completed the Kitchener Stormwater Policy Development program in 2001 which culminated in a report detailing the existing stormwater management (SWM) infrastructure including Stormwater Management Ponds (wet ponds, wetlands and dry ponds), Oil-Grit Separators (OGS) and streams. This program outlined new policies to manage, monitor and improve stormwater management within the City. Aspart of the Annual Audit, a stream monitoring program, including both biological and chemical monitoring part of the Annual Audit, a stream monitoring program, including both biological and chemical monitorpart of the Annual Audit, a stream monitoring program, including both biological and chemical monitor components was initiated in 2002. The intent of this program was to establish comparable baseline data that would components was initiated in 2002. The intent of this program was to establish comparable baseline data that would components was initiated in 2002. The intent of this program was to establish comparable baseline data that would overall provide: Characterization of water quality and ecosystem health within the City; Identification of SWM issues; and Performance evaluation of the overall SWM system. As part of this program, an annual stormwater audit was mandated to monitor the performance of SWM works within As part of this program, an annual stormwater audit was mandated to monitor the performance of SWM works within As part of this program, an annual stormwater audit was mandated to monitor the performance of SWM works within Kitchener. This report includes a review of monitoring activities undertaken in 2015 covering water quality results as ng activities undertaken in 2015ng activities undertaken in 2015covering water quality results as covering water quality results as well as sediment volume estimated for SWM ponds. urban non-point sources to the Grand river in review of the collected EMC data to establish the best opportunities for point sources to the Grand river in review of the collected EMC data to establish the best opportunipoint sources to the Grand river in review of the collected EMC data to establish the best opportuni improving water quality in the City of Kitchener. 2. Background A city-wide monitoring plan was developed and initiated in 2002 as part of the SWM plan to provide a process for wide monitoring plan was developed and initiated in 2002 as part of the SWM plan to provide a process for wide monitoring plan was developed and initiated in 2002 as part of the SWM plan to provide a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the SWM approach. This monitoring program focuses on surface water quality evaluating the effectiveness of the SWM approach. This monitoring prograevaluating the effectiveness of the SWM approach. This monitoring program focuses on surface water quality m focuses on surface water quality (chemical and bacteriological) and invertebrate and fish community sampling (biological) to identify and monitor the (chemical and bacteriological) and invertebrate and fish community sampling (biological) to identify and monitor the (chemical and bacteriological) and invertebrate and fish community sampling (biological) to identify and monitor the impact of the SWM on stream water quality. However, the monitoring program also includes continuous temperature impact of the SWM on stream water quality. However, the monitoring program also includes continuous tempimpact of the SWM on stream water quality. However, the monitoring program also includes continuous temp and flow monitoring components to provide greater context for the chemical and biological monitoring data. and flow monitoring components to provide greater context for the chemical and biological monitoring data. and flow monitoring components to provide greater context for the chemical and biological monitoring data. The 2015 monitoring program was developed from the recommendations contained within the 2014 SWM Audit monitoring program was developed from the recommendmonitoring program was developed from the recommendations contained within the 2014 (AECOM, 2014) and was built upon monitoring data collected from 2002 through 2014, continuing to gather data builbuilitoring data itoring data collected from 2002 through 2014collected from 2002 through 2014 t t was was upon mon upon mon ) and from core stations monitored in the previous years. The 2015 sampling program included grab sampling and/or auto from core stations monitored in the previous years. from core stations monitored in the previous years. The 2015The 2015 sampling program included grab sampling sampling program included grab sampling sampling for chemistry and bacteriology, benthic and fish sampling, continuous depth and temperature monitoring. for chemistry and bacteriology, benthic and fish sampling, cofor chemistry and bacteriology, benthic and fish sampling, co 3. SWM Audit Monitoring Program Updates SWM Audit Monitoring Program UpdatesSWM Audit Monitoring Program Updates The 2015 SWM audit has been part of a continuous improvement process to ensure that best management 2015 SWM2015 SWMaudit has been part of a continuous improvement process to ensure that best management audit has been part of a continuous improvement process to ensure that best management TheThe practices for monitoring are utilized. The audit is governed by a Steering Committee comprised of the selected practices for monitoring are utilized. The audit is governed by a Steeripractices for monitoring are utilized. The audit is governed by a Steeri Consultant, City staff, GRCA staff and Region of Waterloo staff. The 2014 monitoring program remained consistent Consultant, City staff, GRCA staff and RegioConsultant, City staff, GRCA staff and Regio with the monitoring structure of the SWM Audit program but introduced an enhanced approach to water quality with the monitoring structure of the SWM Audit program but introduced an enhanced approach to water qualwith the monitoring structure of the SWM Audit program but introduced an enhanced approach to water qual sampling methodologies consistent with a continual improvement process. This provides for more accurate sampling methodologies consistent with a continual improvement process. This provides for more accurate sampling methodologies consistent with a continual improvement process. This provides for more accurate measurement of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management practices. The recommended approach measurement of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management practices. The recommended approach measurement of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management practices. The recommended approach for gauging the performance of implemented SWM measures was to introduce Event Means Concentration (EMC) for gauging the performance of implementedfor gauging the performance of implemented monitoring to the program. monitoring to the program. monitoring to the program. The recommendations of the 2014 SWM Audit (AECOM) states that, at selected stations, water quality monitoring would be revised from manual sampling to automated flow proportionate sampling in order to produce EMCs for selected constituents and therefore calculate pollutant mass loadings into receiving watercourses. Mass loadings are the true measure of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management measures and have been utilized to gauge the performance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented within municipalities across the province of Ontario. 10 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit As a result, the 2014 SWM Audit recommended the following modifications to the yearly monitoring program. These modifications were made to the 2015 SWM Audit monitoring program: 1. Two flow proportionate sites (Henry Strum 1 (HS1) and Strasburg 2 (SB2)) were established in 2015 for development of EMCs. 2. For non-flow proportionate stations, 2015 water quality monitoring would remain consistent with 2014 and past audits. 3. One (1) spring melt, five (5) wet and five (5) dry sampling events were conducted at each sampling location dry sampling events were conducted at each sampling locationdry sampling events were conducted at each sampling location (except SC1, SB13A, KD1 and MG1). Two (2) wet sampling events were conducted at Schneider 1 (SC1) Two (2) wet sampling events were conducted at SchneiTwo (2) wet sampling events were conducted at Schneider 1 (S and three (3) dry sampling events were conducted at Strasburg 13A (SB13A), Kolb 1 (KD1) and Kolb 1 (KD1) and Kolb 1 (KD1) and Montgomery 1 (MG1). 4. Sampling of E.coli was removed for the 2015 monitoring program. All other sampling parameters remained Sampling of E.coli was removed for the 2015 monitoring program. All other sSampling of E.coli was removed for the 2015 monitoring program. All other sampling parameters ampling parameters remained unchanged from the 2014 and past audits. 5. 2015 audit utilized privatized laboratory versus the Region of Waterloo laboratory. Laboratory sampling audit utilized privatized laboratory versus the Region of Waterloo laboratory. Laboratory sampling audit utilized privatized laboratory versus the Region of Waterloo laboratory. Laboratory sampling methodologies and detection limits were equivalent to the Region of Waterloo lab to ensure consistency methodologies and detection limits were equivalent to the Region of Waterloo lab to ensure consistency methodologies and detection limits were equivalent to the Region of Waterloo lab to ensure consistency amongst past datasets. 6. Biological monitoring remained unchanged and was undertaken at all water quality monitoring stations l monitoring remained unchanged and was undertaken at all water quality ml monitoring remained unchanged and was undertaken at all water quality monitoring stations onitoring stations except for HV1. 4. Kitchener SWM Audit Monitoring Methodologies Kitchener SWM Audit Monitoring MethodologiesKitchener SWM Audit Monitoring Methodologies 4.1 Site Selection The sites monitored as part of the 2015 SWM Audit program were selected based upon the recommendations made SWM Audit program were selected baSWM Audit program were selected ba sed upon the sed upon the in the 2014 Audit report Additional sites monitored include Schneider Creek 1 (SC1), which is monitored currently by Additional sites monitored include Schneider Creek 1 (SC1), which Additional sites monitored include Schneider Creek 1 (SC1), which Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) for Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN), and Blair Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) for Provincial Water QualiGrand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) for Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN), and Blty Monitoring Network (PWQMN), and Bl Creek sites, which were monitored by GRCA as part of the Blair Creek Subwatershed Study. The Blair Creek GRCA as parGRCA as parof the Blair Creek Subwatershed Study.of the Blair Creek Subwatershed Study. monitored bymonitored byt monitoring program included bacteriological grab sampling and temperature monitoring. Figure 4-1 shows the included bacteriological grab samplingincluded bacteriological grab samplingandandtemperature monitoring. AECOM Monitoring Locations for 2015. OM Monitoring Locations for 2015OM Monitoring Locations for 2015 . 11 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx Laurel Creek Kolb Creek po KD1 Westmount Montgomery Drain Creek p o p o IW1 HS1 Idlewood Creek C p o SM1 p o SR2 p o MG1 Voisin Greenway Sandrock Greenway po p o BZ1 HV1 1 Z Z 1 pp BordenBalzer BBBll aaazzeeeerrr B Be z l Ba r a Greenway Greenway GGG rreeeenwaaayyy Gn r e Schneider Shid cneer S Creek CCk rrrreeee e e e k p o SB13A SB1A A N. Strasburg NStbb 3 b 1 trrr raasssuurrgg b r ppp p u b .b b p p Creek CCkk C ee rrreee r r C oo k k Middle Strasburg MMiiddddldSb t etrrasurrg ld Creek po C k SB2 ree Cr Doon South Strasburg Creek Creek Blair Creek m Kitchener Monitoring Locations 2015 Legend po AECOM Monitoring Stations 2015 AECOM 2015 Monitoring Locations Roads N January Datum: NAD 83 Zone 17 Watercourses 1:42,000 Source: City of Kitchener 2016 Surface Water P#:V#: Figure 4-1 07001,4002,800 Meters This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 4.2 Water Quality Constituent Sampling Methodologies The sampling program included the collection of grab and flow proportionate (EMC) sampling during both wet and dry weather conditions for both chemical and bacteriological analysis. Per the recommendations of the 2014 SWM Audit (AECOM, 2014), the following list of constituents (Table 4-1) were analyzed. In addition, in-situ temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were conducted at the time of situ temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were conducted at the time of situ temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were conducted at the time of sampling. Table 4-1: Water Quality Parameters Sampling and Sampling Procedure ater Quality Parameters Sampling and Sampling Procedureater Quality Parameters Sampling and Sampling Procedure Parameters Sampling Procedure/Type Sampling Procedure/TypeSampling Procedure/Type Chloride Grab / Automated / Automated E.coli Grab / Automated / Automated/ Automated Nitrate Grab / Automated / Automated Grab Copper Grab / Automated / Automated/ Automated GrabGrab Lead Grab / Automated Grab / Automated Zinc Grab / Automated GrabGrab/ Automated/ Automated Total and Dissolved Phosphorus Grab / Automated Grab/ Automated Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Grab / Automated GrabGrab/ Automated/ Automated Hardness (as CaCO) Grab / Automated Grab/ Automated 3 Additional Water Quality Parameters Sampled Additional Water Quality Parameters SampledAdditional Water Quality Parameters Sampled pH Field Measurement at grab samples Field Measurementat grab samples Temperature Field Measurement at grab samples Field MeasurementField Measurementat grab samplesat grab samples Dissolved Oxygen Field Measurement at grab samples Field Measurementat grab samples Conductivity Field Measurement at grab samples ConductivityField MeasurementField Measurementat grab samplesat grab samples All water quality samples collected in 2015 were submitted to ALS laboratories for analysis. For original laboratory were submitted to ALS laboratories for analysis. For original laboratory were submitted to ALS laboratories for analysis. For original laboratory All water quality samples collected in 201All water quality samples collected in 20155 reports and chain of custodies refer to Appendix A. reports and chain of custodies refer to reports and chain of custodies refer to Appendix Appendix A . 4.2.1 Grab Sampling Methodology Grab Sampling MethodologyGrab Sampling Methodology The dates and conditions during the wet and dry sampling events are given in Table 4-2. The 2015 monitoring The dates and conditions during the wet and dry sampling events are given in The dates and conditions during the wet and dry sampling events are given in program included one (1) melt, five (5) wet and five (5) dry weather grab sampling events. The timing of rainfall one (1) melt,one (1) melt,five (5) wet andfive (5) wet andfive (5)five (5) cludeddry dry weather weather events during the 2015 sampling seasons typically occurred in the morning/afternoon and at favourable magnitudes events during the 2015events during the 2015 sampling seasons typically occurrsampling seasons typically occurr typically greater than 10mm. This provided the sampling crew ample time to collect samples during the rising limb of typically greater than 10typically greater than 10mm. This provided the sampling crew ample time to collect samples during the rising limb of mm. This provided the sampling crew ample time to collect samples during the rising limb of the hydrograph. the hydrograph. the hydrograph. 13 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 4-2: Dates and Conditions of Grab Sampling Events Sample Type Date Daily Average Air Amount of Rain in 24 hours (Wet) Temperature (°C) or Last Rain (Dry) Wet Grab March 25, 2015* 0.0 0.4 (Spring melt sample) June 8, 2015 19.3 29.2 July 7, 2015 20.2 13.8 August 10, 2015 16.0 30.8 September 8, 2015 25.3 8 8 October 28, 2015 11.3 19.6 19.619.6 Dry Grab May 25, 2015 21.3 13 days 13 days June 22, 2015 20.0 3 days 3 days September 15, 2015 18.1 3 days October 12, 2015 17.1 3 days 3 days 3 days October 19, 2015 13.2 3 days 3 days November 18, 2015 11.5 3 days 11.53 days (HS1 and SB2 only) * Measurement taken from Roseville weather station due to missing data oseville weather station due to missingoseville weather station due to missingdatadata 4.2.2 Event Mean Concentration Sampling Methodology Event Mean Concentration Sampling MethodologyEvent Mean Concentration Sampling Methodology ISCO automated sampling devices were installed at Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Henry Strum Creek (HS1). g devices were installed at Strasburgg devices were installed at StrasburgCreek (SB2) and Henry StrumCreek (SB2) and Henry Strum Continuous stage and temperature measurements collected using a HOBO U20 pressure transducer at 15 minutes Continuous stage and temperature measurements collected using a HOBO U20 pressure transducer Continuous stage and temperature measurements collected using a HOBO U20 pressure transducer intervals. The continuous stage data form HOBO U20 pressure transducer and discrete flow measurements were intervals. The continuous stage data form HOBO U20 pressure transducer and discrete flow measurements were intervals. The continuous stage data form HOBO U20 pressure transducer and discrete flow measurements were used to develop the existing relationship between channel flow and depth (i.e. rating curves). The rating curves used to develop the existing relationship used to develop the existing relationship between channel flow and depth (i.e. rating curves). The rating curves between channel flow and depth (i.e. rating curves). The rating curves equation was then input into the ISCO 6712 sampler. The device utilizes the rating curve equation to estimate flow. equation was then input into the ISCO 6712 sampler. Theequation was then input into the ISCO 6712 sampler. Thedevice utilizes device utilizes the rating curve equation Sampling was triggered once specified water level and flow rate conditions were met. Once triggered, samples were Sampling was triggered once specified water level and flow rate condiSampling was triggered once specified water level and flow rate conditions were met. Once triggered, samples were collected throughout the rainfall event at a constant volume/flowrate. Following the event, a composite sample collected throughout the rainfall event at a constantcollected throughout the rainfall event at a constantvolume/flowratevolume/flowrate created using all the collected flow proportionate samples was submitted for analysis. created using all the collected flow proportionate samples was submitted for analysis.created using all the collected flow proportionate samples was submitted for analysis. The device recorded depth and flow data in 15 minute intervals. Table 4-3 below lists the dates and conditions of depth anddepth andflow data in 15 minute intervals. flow data in 15 minute intervals. ecorded sampling events for SB2 and HS1. SB2 and HS1SB2 and HS1 sampling events for sampling events for . . 14 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 4-3: Dates and Conditions of Sampling Events for Kolb 1 (KD1) and Montgomery 1 (MG1) Type Date Station Daily Average Air Amount of Rainfall Temperature (°C) prior (24hr) and during sampling* June 27, 2015 13.7 26.2 SB2 July 7, 2015 20.1 13.8 August 2, 2015 20.0 16.8 August 10, 2015 19.1 30.8 30.8 HS1 Auto Sampler August 19, 2015 15.3 11.4 Wet Events September 19, 2015 12.8 3.8 3.8 12.812.8 SB2 September 29, 2015 11.6 11.8 11.611.8 October 8, 2015 9.3 10.6 9.39.310.610.6 October 24, 2015 10.3 9.4 9.4 * Rainfall data collected from the Kitchener City hall rain gauge. 4.3 Biological Sampling Methodologies As part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program, both benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling As part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program, both benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling As part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program, both benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling was conducted in eight (8) watercourses that flow into Stormwater Management Ponds within Kitchener, Ontario. was conducted in eight (8) watercourses that flow into Stormwater Management Ponds within Kitchener, Ontario. was conducted in eight (8) watercourses that flow into Stormwater Management Ponds within Kitchener, Ontario. The sampling sites are as follows: Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2, SB13a), sites are as follows: Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2, SB13a), sites are as follows: Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2, SB13a), Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1), Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) and Idlewood Creek (IW1). Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1), Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) and Idlewood Creek (IW1). Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1), Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) and Idlewood Creek (IW1). Three of these sites were sampled from 2012 to 2015 (MG1, SB2, and SR2), while two of these were added in 2014 Three of these sites were sampled from 2012 to 2015 (MG1, SB2Three of these sites were sampled from 2012 to 2015 (MG1, SB2, and SR2), while two of these were added in 2014 , and SR2), while two of these were added in 2014 (KD1 and SM1) and two were added in 2015 (HS1 and IW1). Strasburg Creek (SB13a) was sampled in the past, but (KD1 and SM1) and two were added in 2015 (HS1 and IW1). Strasburg Creek (SB13a) was sampled in the past, but (KD1 and SM1) and two were added in 2015 (HS1 and IW1). Strasburg Creek (SB13a) was sampled in the past, but was not sampled on a consistent annual basis since 2012. Sampling dates and thermal regimes are summarized in was not sampled on a consistent annual basis since 2012. Sampling dates and thermal regimes are swas not sampled on a consistent annual basis since 2012. Sampling dates and thermal regimes are s Table 4-4 Management Plan (GRCA, 2005) for Strasburg Creek (SB2 & SB13a), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) and Idlewood Management Plan (GRCA, 2005) for Strasburg Creek (SB2 & SB13a), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) and Idlewood Management Plan (GRCA, 2005) for Strasburg Creek (SB2 & SB13a), Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) and Idlewood Creek (IW1). Kolb Creek (KD1) has been identified as potential coldwater habitat by the Ministry of Natural Creek (IW1). Kolb Creek (KD1) has beeCreek (IW1). Kolb Creek (KD1) has been identified as potential coldwater habitat by the Ministry of Natural n identified as potential coldwater habitat by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as per the Five-Year Stormwater Report Card 2010 Technical Report (AECOM, Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as per the FiveResources and Forestry (MNRF) as per the FiveYear Stormwater Report Card 2010 Technical Report (AECOM, Year Stormwater Report Card 2010 Technical Report (AECOM, - 2011). Montgomery Creek (MG1), Sandrock Greenway (SR2) and Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) are not listed in the 2011). Montgomery Creek (MG1), Sandrock Greenway (SR2) and Henry Sturm Creek (HS12011). Montgomery Creek (MG1), Sandrock Greenway (SR2) and Henry Sturm Creek (HS1 Fisheries Management Plan, and therefore the thermal preference of fish species identified in 2011- 2015 was used Fisheries Management Plan, and therefore the thermal preference of fish species identified in 2011Fisheries Management Plan, and therefore the thermal preference of fish species identified in 2011 to estimate the thermal regimes of these three watercourses. to estimate the thermal regimes of these three watercourses.to estimate the thermal regimes of these three watercourses. Table 4-4: Dates of Sampling and Thermal Regime of Biological Stations 44 Table Table : Dates of Sampling and Thermal Regime of : Dates of Sampling and Thermal Regime of 4 - Station Thermal Regime Invertebrate Sampling Fish Sampling Date StationStation Thermal RegimeThermal Regime Date HS1 Warmwater July 30, 2015 July 30, 2015 IW1 Coolwater July 30, 2015 July 31, 2015 IW1Coolwater KD1 Coldwater July 29, 2015 July 29, 2015 MG1 Coldwater July 30, 2015 July 30, 2015 MG1 MG1 SB2 Coldwater July 29, 2015 July 29, 2015 SB2 SB13a Coldwater July 29, 2015 July 31, 2015 SB13aSB13a SM1 Warmwater July 29, 2015 July 29, 2015 SM1 SR2 Warmwater July 30, 2015 July 30, 2015 Similar to past monitoring years, the station boundaries were established using the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), Version 9, 2013 (Stanfield, 2013). OSAP provides a series of standardized methodologies, including site identification practices, and the procedures for evaluating benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in wadeable streams. OSAP modules are designed to be conducted individually or in combination, providing standardized methodologies that ensure data repeatability which is essential for longterm monitoring. 15 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Station boundaries at all eight (8) sites were set up as per OSAP Section 1: Modules 1 and 2 (Defining Site Boundaries and Key Identifiers; Screening Level Site Documentation). OSAP sites are based on riffle-pool sequences, and site locations were documented so that the upstream and downstream boundaries could be found during subsequent sampling years. 4.4 Invertebrate Sampling and Analysis Methodology Samples were collected using the travelling kick and sweep method, following the Ontario Benthos owing the Ontario Benthosowing the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol (OBBN) (Jones, 2007) which is identical to the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol Biomonitoring Network Protocol (OBBN) (Jones, 2007) which is identical to the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol Biomonitoring Network Protocol (OBBN) (Jones, 2007) which is identical to the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) Transect Travelling Kick and Sweep Survey (Stanfield, 2013). This method is detailed in Appendix B-1. A (OSAP) Transect Travelling Kick and Sweep Survey (Stanfield, 2013). This method is detailed in (OSAP) Transect Travelling Kick and Sweep Survey (Stanfield, 2013). This method is detailed in Appendix B complete 2015 taxa list and all OSAP field sheets are located in Appendix B-2. Metrics were calculated to better understand the composition and changes in the invertebrate communities over Metrics were calculated to better understand the composition and changes in the invertebrate communities over Metrics were calculated to better understand the composition and changes in the invertebrate communities over time. In addition to richness (e.g., total number of taxa) and composition metrics (e.g., % Diptera), macroinvertebrate on metrics (e.g., % Diptera), macroinvertebrate on metrics (e.g., % Diptera), macroinvertebrate can also be classified according to: functional feeding groups (e.g., % CollectorFilterers, % Scrapers, % Shredders); and, Filterers, % Scrapers, % Shredders); and,Filterers, % Scrapers, % Shredders); and, habit/behavioural characteristics (e.g., % Clingers). Functional feeding groups provide an indication of food web relationships. Habitat and behavioural characteristics ovide an indication of food web relationships. Habitat and behavioural characteristics ovide an indication of food web relationships. Habitat and behavioural characteristics are associated with the functionality of the organism (e.g., the way it moves or searches for food) (Barbour et al., are associated with the functionality of the organism (e.g., the way it moves or searches for food) (Barbour et al., are associated with the functionality of the organism (e.g., the way it moves or searches for food) (Barbour et al., 1999). The samples were analyzed using a multi-metric approach to summarize the condition of the watercourse c approach to summarize the condition of the watercourse c approach to summarize the condition of the watercourse metrimetri -- 1999). The samples were analyzed using a multi using the following indices (details of these indices can be found in Appendix B-1): using the following indices (details of these indices can using the following indices (details of these indices can be found in Appendix Bbe found in Appendix B1):1): -- Taxa Richness; % EPT; # EPT Taxa; % Oligochaeta; % Diptera; % Chironomidae; % Dominants; % Predators; % Predators; % CollectorFilterer; % CollectorFilterer;Filterer; % CollectorGatherer; Gatherer;Gatherer; % Collector % Collector % Scraper; % Scraper;% Scraper; % Shredder; % Shredder;% Shredder; % Clinger; % Clinger;% Clinger; 4.5 Fish Sampling and Analysis Methodology Fish Sampling and Analysis Methodology Fish Sampling and Analysis Methodology A Single Pass Backpack Electrofishing Survey was conducted at each station following the protocols outlined in A Single Pass Backpack Electrofishing Survey was conducted at each station following the protocols outlined in A Single Pass Backpack Electrofishing Survey was conducted at each station following the protocols outlined in OSAP Section 3: Module 1. This approach is used to characterize the fish community within a site, and to provide a OSAP Section 3: Module 1. This approach is used to characterize the fish community within a site, and to provide a OSAP Section 3: Module 1. This approach is used to characterize the fish community within a site, and to provide a qualitative assessment of species abundance (Stanfield, 2013). Species identification and number of fish qualitative assessment of specqualitative assessment of spec enumerated were recorded. Field sheets, data summaries and OMNRF Authorization to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes are located in Appendix B-3. Further details regarding the methodologies utilized while conducting the 2015 fish surveys are available in Appendix B-1. 16 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 4.6 Physical Sampling Methodology Physical measurements for 2015 included continuous depth and temperature recording as well as discrete flow measurements to develop rating curve at automated sampler stations. HOBO U20 depth / temperature loggers were set to collect data every 15 minutes from May 2015 to December 2015 module to measure depth and velocity. d a 750 Area Velocity Flow module to measure depth and thththth module to measure depth and module to measure depth and thth velocity. Discrete flow measurements were taken on April 30, June 8, August 10, September 9, and October , September 9, September 9 , and October , and October thth 28. 10 2014 for Henry Strum 1 (HS1) and Strasburg 2 (SB2) using a Flow Tracker 6500 Acoustic Doppler Acoustic Doppler Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meter. The ISCO 6712 at Henry Strum 1 (HS1) was removed from the site in December 2015. The ISCO 6712 sampler at The ISCO 6712 sampler at The ISCO 6712 sampler at in December 2015in December 2015 . . Strasburg 2 (SB2) was removed in November 2015 due to an issue with the samplers lock box. Strasburg 2 (SB2) was removed in November 2015 due to an issue with the samplers lock box.Strasburg 2 (SB2) was removed in November 2015 due to an issue with the samplers lock box. 5. Water Quality Constituent Results Grab Sampling Grab Sampling Grab Sampling The following section summarizes the monitoring results for the water quality constituents sampled during the grab The following section summarizes the monitoring results for the water quality constituents sampled during the grab The following section summarizes the monitoring results for the water quality constituents sampled during the grab sampling events in the 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Program. Results are summarized in Figure 5-1to Figure 5-11. SWM Audit Monitoring Program. Results are summarized in SWM Audit Monitoring Program. Results are summarized in Figure 51 toFigure - Sampling results provided by the GRCA for Blair creek station BC4068 (upstream of Reichert Dr.) have been for Blair creek station BC4068 (upstream of Reichert Dr.) for Blair creek station BC4068 (upstream of Reichert Dr.) have been included in the water quality figures. Results for each of the following constituents have been compared to applicable guidelines including the Provincial Results for each of the following constituents have been compared to applicable guidelines including thResults for each of the following constituents have been compared to applicable guidelines including th Water Quality Objectives (PWQO), Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (CDWQG), and Canadian Council Water Quality Objectives (PWQO), Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (CWater Quality Objectives (PWQO), Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (CDWQG), and Canadian Council D of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Life guidelines. These Quality Quality WaterGuidelines for Protection of Aquatic Life Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Life guideline comparisons have been made since the onset of the monitoring program. set of the monitoring program. set of the monitoring program. ve been made since the on 5.1 Chloride The measured chloride concentrations were greater during the dry sampling events compared to the wet events. The measured chloride concentrations were greater during the dry sampling events compared to the wet events. The measured chloride concentrations were greater during the dry sampling events compared to the wet events. Annual averages for all sites ranged from 39.6 mg/L to 399.0 mg/L. The sites with annual averages which exceeded ges for all sites ranged from 39ges for all sites ranged from 3966mg/L to 399.0mg/L to 399.0mg/L. The sitemg/L. The site .. the CCME Guidelines - Chronic of 120 mg/L were Balzer 1 (BZ1), Hidden Valley 1(HV1), Idlewood 1(IW1), ChronicChronicof 120mg/L mg/L Balzer 1 (Balzer 1 (BZ1BZ1) Hidden Valley werewere ) , Shoemaker 1 (SM1), Sandrock 2 (SR2), Strasburg 13a (SB13A), Kolb 1 (KD1), Henry Strum 1 (HS1), Strasburg 2 SandrockSandrock2(SR2), Strasburg 13a (SB13A)(SR2), Strasburg 13a (SB13A) Shoemaker 1 (SM1) , (SB2), SchMontgomery (MG1). No station exceeded the CCME Acute limit Montgomery (MG1). Montgomery (MG1). No stationNo station of 640 mg/L. No wet and dry samples collected at BL4068 exceeded the CCME guidelines. For all stations, highest BL4068 BL4068 No wet and dry samples collected at No wet and dry samples collected at chloride concentrations were recorded during the dry or melt event sampling. High chloride concentrations in urban chloride concentrations were recorded during tchloride concentrations were recorded during the dryor melt streams recorded after the wet/melt event are a result of road salts applied during de-icing operations. As a general streams recorded after the wet/melt eventstreams recorded after the wet/melt eventare a result observation, stations with more heavily developed catchment areas (MG1, SR2, BZ1, HS1, SM1) demonstrated observation, stationobservation, stationwith more heavily developed catchment areas (MGwith more heavily developed catchment areas (MG s higher average chloride concentrations. higher average chloride concentrations. higher average chloride concentrations. 17 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 5-1: 2015 SWM Audit Chloride Concentration (mg/L) Results SWM Audit Chloride Concentration (mg/L) Results 5.2 Nitrate Generally, nitrate concentrations collected during dry weather events were higher compared to wet weather events Generally, nitrate concentrations collected during dry weather events were higher compared to wet weather eventsdry weather events were higher compared to wet weather events Figure 5-2. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines were applied which uses a (CCME) (CCME) he Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment he Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment guidelines were applied which uses a guidelines were applied which uses a water quality guideline for nitrate of 3 mg/L (for protection of freshwater aquatic life). Annual averages for all sites mg/L (for protection of freshwater aquatic lmg/L (for protection of freshwater aquatic life). Annual averagife). Annual averag ranged from 0.26 mg/L to 3.76 mg/L. Stations MG1, KD1 and HS1exceeded the CCME guidelines for nitrate during MG1, KD1 and HS1MG1, KD1 and HS1 Stationsexceeded the CCME guidelinesexceeded the CCME guidelines tations mg/L. the dry monitoring events and station BL4068 exceeded CCME guidelines during both dry and wet monitoring dry monitoring events and station BL4068 exceeded CCME guidelines during both dry and wet monitoring dry monitoring events and station BL4068 exceeded CCME guidelines during both dry and wet monitoring events in 2015. Figure 5-2: 2015 SWM Audit Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) Results 18 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 5.3 Phosphorus Total Phosphorus Monitoring results for total phosphorus demonstrated that wet weather concentration were generally higher than dry weather concentrations Figure 5-3. Annual averages for all sites ranged from 0.01 mg/L to 0.14 mg/L. According to the PWQO, excessive plant growth in rivers and streams is likely to be eliminated at a total phosphorus liminated at a total phosphorus liminated at a total phosphorus concentration below 0.03 mg/L and this level was selected as the target for the watercourses. All stations fluctuated . All stations fluctuated . All stations fluctuated above and below the PWQO limit with the exception of MG1, SB2, and HS1 which did not exceed the PWQO which did not exceedwhich did not exceedthe the PWQO guideline for any of the collected grab samples. The highest annual average concentration was recorded for SM1 ation was recorded for ation was recorded for (0.14 mg/L) and lowest total phosphorus concentration was recorded for MG1, KD1 and SB2 (0.01 mg/L). MG1, KD1 and SB2MG1, KD1 and SB2(0.01(0.01mg/L). Figure 5-3: 2015 SWM Audit Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Results 3: 2015SWM Audit 5Total Phosphorus - Dissolved Phosphorus PhosphorusPhosphorus Similar to total phosphorus monitoring results, dissolved phosphorus demonstrated that wet weather concentration Similar to total phosphorus monitoring results, dissolved phosphorus demonstrated that wet weather concentration Similar to total phosphorus monitoring results, dissolved phosphorus demonstrated that wet weather concentration were generally higher than dry weather concentrations except for SR2 Figure 5-4. Annual averages for all sites were generally higher than dry weather concentrations were generally higher than dry weather concentrations ranged from 0.001 mg/L to 0.06 mg/L. Average dissolved phosphorus concentrations for all stations were below the 01mg/L to 0.mg/L to 0.0066g/L. ranged from 0.0ranged from 0.0Average dissolved phosphorus concentrations for all stations were Average dissolved phosphorus concentrations for all stations were mm PWQO (Total Phosphorus - 0.03 mg/L) with the exception of SM1, SR2, BZ1, IW1 and SC1. SR2 demonstrated the PWQO (PWQO (Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus 0.03 mg/L) with the exception of0.03 mg/L) with the exception of - highest average annual dissolved phosphorus concentrations (0.06 mg/L) while BC4068 demonstrated the lowest highest average annual dissolved phosphorus concentrations (0.06 mg/highest average annual dissolved phosphorus concentrations (0.06 mg/ annual average (0.001 mg/L). 01 mg/L). 1 mg/L). annual average (0.0annual average (0.0 19 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 5-4: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Resul : 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Resul: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Resul 5.4 Metals Zinc In 2015 monitoring results, zinc concentrations were higher for wet sampling event than dry sampling events for all monitoring results, zinc concentrations were higher for wet sampling event than dry sampling events for all monitoring results, zinc concentrations were higher for wet sampling event than dry sampling events for all the stations as shown in Figure 5-5. Annual average for zinc concentration ranged from 0.005 mg/L to 0.033 mg/L. Figure 5Figure 555Annual average for zinc concentration ranged from 0.Annual average for zinc concentration ranged from 0. -- . One dry sample at station BZ1 exceeded the interim PWQO limit of 0.02 mg/L, whereas stations SR2, SM1, BZ1, One dry sample at station BZ1 exceOne dry sample at station BZ1 exceeded the the interim interim PWQO limit of 0.0PWQO limit of 0.0 HV1, IW1, BC4068 all exceeded PWQO limit for at least one wet event. Station SM1 recorded the highest annual PWQO limitPWQO limitfor for exceededexceededat least one at least one wet eventwet event all average for grab samples (0.033 mg/L) while SB2 and SB13A recorded the lowest (0.005 mg/L) average for grab samples (0.033 mg/L) while SB2 and SB13A recorded the average for grab samples (0.033 mg/L) while SB2 and SB13A recorded the 20 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 5-5: 2015 SWM Audit Zinc Concentration (mg/L) Results : 2015 SWM Audit Zinc Concentration (mg/L) Results Copper Copper concentrations measured at all the stations were higher for wet samples (Figure 5-6). The annual average higher for wet sampleshigher for wet samples( measured at all the stations wereions wereFigure 5Figure 5 for Cooper concentrations ranged from 0.001 mg/L to 0.0068 mg/L. As hardness in the stream is in the order of 100- mg/L to 0.0068 mg/Lmg/L to 0.0068 mg/L oncentrations ranged from 0.001As hardness in the stream is in the order of 100As hardness in the stream is in the order of 100 .. 200 mg/L the interim PWQO standard of 0.005 mg/L was used for comparison. All copper concentrations for dry 200 mg/L the interim PWQO standard of 0.005 mg/L was used for comparison. 200 mg/L the interim PWQO standard of 0.005 mg/L was used for comparison. All copper concentrations for dry All copper concentrations for dry samples were under PWQO standards with the exception of station SR2. Stations SR2 and SM1 demonstrated the under PWQO standards with the exception of station SR2under PWQO standards with the exception of station SR2Stations SR2 and SM1 demonstrated the . highest annual average (0.0068 mg/L) while station BC4068 demonstrated the lowest annual average (0.001 mg/L). (0.0068 mg/L) while station BC4068(0.0068 mg/L) while station BC4068 demonstrated tdemonstrated t Figure 5-6: 2015 SWM Audit Copper Concentration (mg/L) Results Lead 21 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit PWQO guidelines for lead concentrations range from 0.001 mg/L to 0.005 mg/L for various hardness levels. The upper limit of 0.005 mg/L, which is relevant for hardness of above 80 mg/L applies here. Lead concentrations measured at all the stations were higher for wet samples (Figure 5-7). The annual average for Cooper concentrations ranged from 0.00011 mg/L to 0.0049 mg/L. All Lead concentrations for dry samples were under PWQO standards interim limit. Samples at stations SR2, SM1 and BZ1 exceeded the PWQO Interim limit (0.005 mg/L). Stations SM1 demonstrated the highest annual average (0.0049 mg/L) while station SB2 demonstrated the lowest annual average (0.00011 mg/L). Figure 5-7: 2015 SWM Audit Lead Concentration (mg/L) Results Figure5: 2015 SWM Audit Lead Concentration (mg/L) Results 5.5 Total Suspended Solid Total Suspended Solid Total Suspended Solid In general, wet weather Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations were higher than dry weather concentrations Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) In general, wet weather In general, wet weather as shown in Figure 5-8. Annual average wet event concentrations ranged from 6.17 mg/L to 158.03 mg/L whereas Figure 5Figure 588Annual Annual average wet event concentrations ranged from average wet event concentrations ranged from as shown inas shown in - . average dry event concentrations ranged from 2.13 mg/L to 7.86 mg/L. The CCME allows for maximum increases of dry eventdry eventconcentrations ranged from 2.13 mg/L to 7.86concentrations ranged from 2.13 mg/L to 7.86 average average 25 mg/L (24-hr period) and 5 mg/L (24-hr 30-days period) from background levels. The guideline on the figure shows mg/Lmg/L(24hr period) and 5hr period) and 5mg/Lmg/L(24 hr 30hr 30daysdays 25 25 -- the absolute value of 25 mg/L, but it could be higher depending on an established background level. The station the absolute value of 25 mg/L, but it could be higher depending on an established background level. the absolute value of 25 mg/L, but it could be higher depending on an established background level. with the highest annual average concentration was BZ1 which demonstrated an average concentration of 82.95 with the highest with the highest annual average concentration was BZ1annual average concentration was BZ1 mg/L. 22 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 5-8: 2015 SWM Audit Total Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/L) Res : 2015 SWM Audit Total Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/L) Res 5.6 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen guidelines are designed to protect cold water biota and warm water biota and dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen guidelines are designed to protect cold water biota and warm water biota and dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen guidelines are designed to protect cold water biota and warm water biota and dissolved oxygen concentrations should not fall below the limit specified in the PWQO guidelines for cold and ward water biota. The concentrations should not fall below the limit specified in the PWQO guidelines for cold and ward water biota. The concentrations should not fall below the limit specified in the PWQO guidelines for cold and ward water biota. The minimum acceptable concentrations of dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life, specified by the PWQO are 4 mg/L ons of dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life, specified by the PWQO are 4 mg/L ons of dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life, specified by the PWQO are 4 mg/L and 5 mg/L for Warm Water and Cold Water, respectively. Figure 5-9 shows the dissolved oxygen levels and and 5 mg/L for Warm Water and Cold Water, and 5 mg/L for Warm Water and Cold Water, respectively. respectively. Figure 5Figure 59 shows the dissolved oxygen levels and - minimum PWQO requirement for all the monitored stations for 2015 SWM Audit. As shown, all samples collected minimum PWQO requirement for all the monitored stations for 2015 SWM minimum PWQO requirement for all the monitored stations for 2015 SWM Audit. As shown, all samples collected demonstrated dissolved oxygen levels above PWQO guidelines. demonstrated dissolved oxygen levels above PWQO guidelines. demonstrated dissolved oxygen levels above PWQO guidelines. Figure 5-9: 2015 SWM Audit Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L) Results 23 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 5.7 pH The results collected for pH values at all the stations for 2015 monitoring program is shown in Figure 5 13. The lower and upper limit pH specified by the PWQO are 6.5 and 8.5, respectively. The pH observed at stations HS1 exceeded the upper limit with a recorded value of 8.66. All other pH measurements conducted were within the PWQO guideline limits. Average annual pH values ranged from 7.3 at station HV1 to 8.07 at station SC1. Figure 5-10: 2015 SWM Audit pH Results : 2015 SWM Audit pH Results Figure 5 - 10 5.8 Conductivity Figure 5-11 demonstrates the conductivity results for the 2015 monitoring program. Conductivity generally follows onductivity results for the 2015onductivity results for the 2015 demonstrates the cdemonstrates the cmonitoring program. monitoring program. the chloride levels. The conductivity measurements collected during dry sampling events were generally higher than The conductivity mThe conductivity measurements collected during dry sampling eventeasurements collected during dry sampling event the wet sampling event. Average annual conductivity ranged from 643 µS/cm to 2467 µS/cm for dry events, 635 sampling eventAverageAverageannual conductivity ranged from 643annual conductivity ranged from 643 . µS/cm to 1251 µS/cm for wet events. S/cm for wet events. events. µ S/cm to 1251 S/cm for wet µ 24 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 5-11: 2015 SWM Audit Conductivity (µS/cm) Results : 2015 SWM Audit Conductivity (µS/cm) Results 25 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 6. Water Quality Constituent Results EMC Results Henry Strum Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for selected constituents are used to calculate pollutant mass loadings into receiving waters. Mass loadings are the true measure of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management receiving waters. Mass loadings are the true measure of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management receiving waters. Mass loadings are the true measure of the effectiveness of implemented stormwater management measures and have been utilized to gauge the performance Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented gauge the performance Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented gauge the performance Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented within municipalities across the province of Ontario. Historical EMC studies have demonstrated that there can be considerable variation of constituent loading within have demonstrated that there can be considerable variation of constituent loading within have demonstrated that there can be considerable variation of constituent loading within various months and season. Many studies have demonstrated that the majority of annual loading (>50%) occurs ason. Many studies have demonstrated that the majority of annual loading (>50%) occurs ason. Many studies have demonstrated that the majority of annual loading (>50%) occurs between the months of March and May of a given year. However, most water quality studies are undertaken March and May of a given year. However, most water quality studies are undertaken March and May of a given year. However, most water quality studies are undertaken between the months of April October. The Table 6-1 lists the precipitation at City Hall on the dates where water samples were collected through EMCs. lists the precipitation at City Hall on the dates where water samples were collected through EMCs. lists the precipitation at City Hall on the dates where water samples were collected through EMCs. The constituents EMCs are demonstrated in Figure 6-1 to Figure 6-8 for the Henry Strum 1 (HS1) station. for the Henry Strumfor the Henry Strum1 (HS1) stationstation 8.. 8 Table 6-1: Rainfall data at City Hall : Rainfall data at City Hall: Rainfall data at City Hall Date Precipitation at City Hall (mm) at City Hall (mm)at City Hall (mm) Precipitation 27-Jun-15 26.2 7-Jul-15 13.8 13.8 13.8 2-Aug-15 16.8 16.8 10-Aug-15 30.8 15 Aug 30.830.8 - - 10 19-Aug-15 11.4 19Aug 11.4 -- 15 19-Sep-15 3.8 SepSep 19191515 3.8 --- 29-Sep-15 11.8 15 8-Oct-15 Oct 10.6 81515 10.6 --- Oct 24-Oct-15 Oct15 9.4 24 -- 26 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 6.1 Chloride The average EMC for chloride is 111 mg/L. The average EMC calculated is below the acute CCME (620 mg/l) but above chronic CCME (120 mg/l). Two EMC sampling events recorded levels above the chronic CCME level and all results were below the CCME acute level. Sample results ranged from 47 mg/L to 293 mg/L. Figure 6-1: Henry Strum - 2015 Chloride Event Mean Concentration : Henry Strum Chloride Event Mean Concentration 27 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 6.2 Nitrate The average EMC for nitrate (NO-N) is 0.43 mg/L. All results were below the nitrate guideline set by the CCME. The 3 average EMC for nitrate (NO-N) (0.43 mg/L) is below the CCME guideline (3.0 mg/L). Nitrate (NO-N) levels ranged 33 from 0.30 mg/L to 0.73 mg/L. The HS1 nitrate concentration (3.81 mg/l) for dry weather is higher compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 6-2: Henry Strum - 2015 Nitrate Event Mean Concentration : Henry Strum Nitrate Event Mean Concentration 28 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 6.3 Phosphorus Total Phosphorus: The average interim EMC for Total Phosphorus is 0.21 mg/L. All results were above the selected PWQO guideline (0.03mg/L). Accordingly, the average EMC for Total phosphorus was higher than the selected PWQO objective. Total phosphorus levels ranged from 0.068 mg/L to 0.451 mg/L. The average total phosphorus concentration (0.011 mg/l) for dry weather is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 6-3: Henry Strum - 2015 Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration : Henry Strum Total Phosphorus Event Mean Con -2015 Dissolved Phosphorus: The average interim EMC for Dissolved Phosphorus is 0.02 mg/L. Some of the samples The average interim EMC fThe average interim EMC f or Dissolved Phosphorus is 0.02or Dissolved Phosphorus is 0.02 analyzed were below the lab detection limit. Only one sampling event result was above the PWQO total phosphorus Only one sampling event result was above the PWQO Only one sampling event result was above the PWQO analyzed were below the lab detection limitanalyzed were below the lab detection limit . level (0.03 mg/L). The average EMC for dissolved phosphorus is below the PWQO objective. Dissolved phosphorus average EMC for dissolved phosphorus is below the PWQO objective.average EMC for dissolved phosphorus is below the PWQO objective. levels ranged from 0.01 mg/L to 0.045 mg/L. The dissolved phosphorus concentration (0.0067 mg/l) for dry weather levels ranged from 0.01mg/L to 0.045mg/L to 0.045mg/L. mg/L. The dissolveThe dissolved phosphorus concentration (0.0067d phosphorus concentration (0.0067 is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. compared to the average EMC concentration. compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 6-4: Henry Strum - 2015 Dissolved Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration 29 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 6.4 Metals Copper: The average interim EMC for copper is 0.0173 mg/L. The copper PWQO is 0.005 mg/L; all results except one were above the PWQO. The average EMC for total copper is above the PWQO objective. Copper levels ranged from 0.0019 mg/L to 0.0458 mg/L. The copper concentration (0.0018 mg/l) for dry sampling event is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 6-5: Henry Strum- 2015 Total Copper Event Mean Concentration 2015Total Copper Event Mean Concentration : Henry Strum Lead: The average interim EMC for Lead is 0.0032 mg/L. All samples with the exception of two were below the e interim EMC for Lead is 0.0032e interim EMC for Lead is 0.0032mg/L. All samples with the exception of two were below the mg/L. All samples with the exception of two were below the PWQO objective. The average EMC for lead is below the provincial water quality objective. Lead levels ranged from PWQO objective. The average EMC for lead is below the provincial water quality objective.PWQO objective. The average EMC for lead is below the provincial water quality objective. 0.0005mg/L to 0.00617 mg/L. The average lead concentration (0.00018 mg/l) for dry sampling events was lower lead concentration (0lead concentration (0 TheThe.00018 0.0005mg/L to 0.00617 mg/L0.0005mg/L to 0.00617 mg/L average . . compared to the average EMC concentration. compared to the average EMC concentration. compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 6-6: Henry Strum - 2015 Lead Event Mean Concentration 30 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Zinc: The average interim EMC for Zinc is 0.0419 mg/L. Seven of the eight samples were above the PWQO objective. The average EMC for zinc was above below the PWQO. The sample concentration of zinc ranged from 0.0037 mg/L 0.0768 mg/L. The average zinc concentration (0.0074 mg/l) for dry sampling events was lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 6-7: Henry Strum - 2015 Zinc Event Mean Concentration 2015Zinc Event Mean Concentration 31 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 6.5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The average interim EMC for Total suspended solids is 135 mg/L. The CCME allows for maximum increases of 25 mg/L (24-hr period) and 5 mg/L (24-hr 30-days period) from background levels. The guideline on the figure shows the absolute value of 25 mg/L, but it could be higher depending on an established background level. All samples except for one recorded TSS levels above 25 mg/L for TSS. TSS levels ranged from 2 mg/L to 371 mg/L. The mg/L to 371 mg/mg/L to 371 mg/ average TSS concentration (2.40 mg/l) for dry sampling events was lower compared to the average EMC lower compared to the average EMC lower compared to the average EMC concentration and was below the CCME guideline. Figure 6-8: Henry Strum - 2015 TSS Event Mean Concentration 32 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 7. Water Quality Constituent Results EMC Results Strasburg Creek The constituents EMCs are demonstrated in Figure 7-1 to Figure 7-8 for the Strasburg (SB2) station. 7.1 Chloride The average interim EMC for chloride is 71 mg/L at Strasburg Creek. All sample chloride levels were below the All sample chloride levels were All sample chloride levels were below the chronic Canadian Water quality guideline (120 mg/L). The average calculated EMC is below the CCME guideline. below the CCME guidelinebelow the CCME guideline calculated EMC iscalculated EMC is Chloride levels for SB2 ranged from 65 mg/L to 78 mg/L. The average chloride concentration (276 mg/l) for dry 78 mg/L. The average chloride concentration (276 mg/l) for dry 78 mg/L. The average chloride concentration (276 mg/l) for dry sampling events was higher compared to the average EMC concentration and was above the CCME guideline. entration and was above the CCME guidelineentration and was above the CCME guideline . Figure 7-1: Strasburg - 2015 Chloride Event Mean Concentration Figure : Strasburg 33 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 7.2 Nitrate The average interim EMC for Nitrate (NO-N) is 1.455 mg/L. All results were below the Nitrate guideline set by the 3 CCME. The average EMC for Nitrate is below the CCME guideline. Nitrate concentration levels ranged from 1.01 mg/L to 1.93 mg/L. The SB2 nitrate concentration (1.34 mg/l) for dry weather samples was lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-2: Strasburg - 2015 Nitrate Event Mean Concentration Nitrate Event Mean Concentration Strasburg 34 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 7.3 Phosphorus Dissolved Phosphorus: The average interim EMC for Dissolved Phosphorus is 0.017 mg/L. Only one sampling event result was above the PWQO Total phosphorus level (0.03 mg/L). The average EMC for dissolved phosphorus is below the PWQO objective for Total Phosphorus. Dissolved phosphorus levels ranged from 0.0048 mg/L to 0.063 mg/L. The dissolved phosphorus concentration (0.0075 mg/l) for dry weather is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-3: Strasburg 2015 Total Dissolved Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration 2015 Total Dissolved Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration : Strasburg Total Phosphorus: The average interim EMC for Total Phosphorus is 0.0406 mg/L. Five sampling event results were MC for Total Phosphorus MC for Total Phosphorus The average interim EThe average interim Eis 0.0406 above the PWQO total phosphorus level (0.03 mg/L). The average EMC for total phosphorus is above the PWQO above the PWQO total phosphorus level (0.03 mg/L). The average EMC for total phosphorus is above the PWQO above the PWQO total phosphorus level (0.03 mg/L). The average EMC for total phosphorus is above the PWQO objective. Total phosphorus levels ranged from 0.009 mg/L to 0.075 mg/L. The total phosphorus concentration objective. Total phosphorus levels ranged from 0.009 mg/L to 0.075 mg/L. The total phosphorus concenobjective. Total phosphorus levels ranged from 0.009 mg/L to 0.075 mg/L. The total phosphorus concen (0.0133 mg/l) for dry weather is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. (0.0133 mg/l) for dry weather is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. (0.0133 mg/l) for dry weather is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-4: Strasburg - 2015 Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentration 35 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 7.4 Metals Copper: The average interim EMC for copper is 0.0058 mg/L. The copper PWQO is 0.005 mg/L; two results exceed the PWQO level. The average EMC for copper is above the PWQO objective. EMC copper concentrations for SB2 ranged from 0.001 mg/L to 0.02 mg/L. The average copper concentration (0.0012 mg/l) for dry sampling events was lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-5: Strasburg - 2015 Copper Event Mean Concentration Copper Event Mean Concentration Strasburg Lead: The average interim EMC for Lead is 0.0006 mg/L. All sample results were below the PWQO total phosphorus e interim EMC for Lead is 0.0006e interim EMC for Lead is 0.0006mg/L. All sample results were below the PWQO total phosphorus mg/L. All sample results were below the PWQO total phosphorus level (0.005 mg/L). The average EMC for lead is below the PWQO objective. Lead levels for SB2 ranged from level (0.005 mg/L). The average EMC for lead is below the PWQO objective. Lead levels for SB2 ranged from level (0.005 mg/L). The average EMC for lead is below the PWQO objective. Lead levels for SB2 ranged from 0.00012 mg/L to 0.00151 mg/L. The total phosphorus concentration (0.00012 mg/l) for dry weather is lower 0.00012 mg/L to 0.00151 mg/L. The total phosphorus concentration (0.00012 mg/l) for dr0.00012 mg/L to 0.00151 mg/L. The total phosphorus concentration (0.00012 mg/l) for dr compared to the average EMC concentration. compared to the average EMC concentration. compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-6: Strasburg - 2015 Lead Event Mean Concentration 36 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Zinc: The average interim EMC for Zinc is 0.0082 mg/L. All samples were found to be below the PWQO objective (0.02 mg/L). The average EMC for Zinc is below the PWQO. Zinc concentrations for SB2 ranged from 0.003 mg/L to 0.0142 mg/L. The zinc concentration (0.00475 mg/l) for dry sampling event is lower compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-7: Strasburg - 2015 Zinc Event Mean Concentration 2015Zinc Event Mean Concentration 37 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 7.5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The average interim EMC for Total Suspended Solids is 21 mg/L. The CCME allows for maximum increases of 25 mg/L (24-hr period) and 5 mg/L (24-hr 30-days period) from background levels. The guideline on the figure shows the absolute value of 25 mg/L, but it could be higher depending on an established background level. Three samples were above 25 mg/L, but the average EMC for TSS is below this value. TSS concentrations for SB2 TSS concenTSS concen ranged from 2 mg/L to 41.9 mg/L. The average TSS concentration (4.25 mg/l) for dry sampling events was lower mg/l) for dry sampling eventmg/l) for dry sampling event s was compared to the average EMC concentration. Figure 7-8: Strasburg - 2015 TSS Event Mean Concentration Strasburg 2015 Figure TSS Event Mean Concentration - 7 38 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 8. Historical Trends Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were compared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. Stations with eight (8) or more years of data included Strasburg 2 (SB2), Henry Strum 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery (MG1) and Sandrock (SR2). 2015 EMC data was included in the 2015 average for stations HS1 and SB2. Averages for all parameters represent the data was included in the 2015 average for stations HS1 and SB2. Averages for all parameters represent the data was included in the 2015 average for stations HS1 and SB2. Averages for all parameters represent the arithmetic mean. Moving averages of the values are also shown on the plots. Trends are shown here for TSS and chloride. Nutrients and metals would generally follow the same trend as TSS. Trends are shown here for TSS and chloride. Nutrients and metals would generally follow the same trend as TSS. Trends are shown here for TSS and chloride. Nutrients and metals would generally follow the same trend as TSS. 8.1 Strasburg (Station SB2) Figure 8-1 provides the historic measurements of TSS and chloride at SB2 for wet and dry events and also recent for wet and dry events and also recent for wet and dry events and also recent EMC data collected at this station. Over the years, dry weather concentrations of TSS have been below 25 mg/L of TSSof TSShave been below 25 mg/Lhave been below 25 mg/L dry weather concentrationsdry weather concentrations with wet weather measurements reaching about 1800 mg/L in 2007 and 200 mg/L in 2013. The 2015 EMC data in 2007 and 200 mg/L in 2013. The 2015 EMC data in 2007 and 200 mg/L in 2013. The 2015 EMC data reach a maximum of 42 mg/L. No long-term trend is observed in this station for TSS and chloride. The 2013 high term trend is observed in this station for TSS and chlorideterm trend is observed in this station for TSS and chloride . The 2013 high . The 2013 high values may be attributed to heavy precipitation, while the 2007 value may only be a sampling error. values may be attributed to heavy precipitation, while the 2007 value may only be a sampling evalues may be attributed to heavy precipitation, while the 2007 value may only be a sampling e rror. Chloride concentrations during wet weather events and EMC sampling have always been below the CCME guideline Chloride concentrations during wet weather events and EMC sampling have always been below the CCME guideline Chloride concentrations during wet weather events and EMC sampling have always been below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. Dry weather concentrations reached 350 mg/L in 2005 decreasing in the following of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. Dry weather concentrations reached 350 mg/L in 2005of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. Dry weather concentrations reached 350 mg/L in 2005decreasing in the following years, with all values still below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity. till below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity.till below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity. Figure 8-1: 2002 2015 Trends in Strasburg 2 for TSS and Chloride 39 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 8.2 Henry Strum 1 (HS1) Figure 8-2 provides the historic measurements of TSS and chloride at HS1 for wet and dry events and also recent EMC data collected at this station. Over the years, dry weather concentrations of TSS have been below 25 mg/L with wet weather measurements reaching about 2100 mg/L in 2008 being generally high ever since, although data are missing for 2011-2014 at this station. The 2015 EMC data reach a maximum of 370 mg/L. Chloride concentrations during wet weather events and EMC sampling have generally been below the CCME been below the CCME been below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. Dry weather concentrations started to increase from around 120 mg/L to a started to increase from aroundstarted to increase from around few hundred in 2008, with all values still below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity. still below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity.still below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity. Figure 8-2: 2002 2015 Trends in Henry Strum 1 for TSS and Chloride 8822: 2002 : 2002 Figure 2015 Trends in Henry Strum 1 for TSS and Chloride -- 40 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 8.3 Kolb Creek (KD1) Figure 8-3 provides the historic measurements of TSS and chloride at KD1 for wet and dry events. Over the years, dry weather concentrations of TSS have been below 25 mg/L with wet weather measurements climbing to vales above 100 mg/L since 2009. Chloride concentrations during wet weather events have been close to the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity in the early years, and have had an increasing trend to values above the guideline. Dry weather . Dry weather . Dry weather concentrations have generally been above 120, reaching 440 mg/L in 2012, with all values still below the CCME , with all values still below the CCME , with all values still below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity. Figure 8-3: 2002 2015 Trends in Kolb Creek 1 for TSS and Chloride Figure 8833: 2002 : 2002 2015 Trends in Kolb Creek 1 for TSS and Chloride2015 Trends in Kolb Creek 1 for TSS and Chloride -- 41 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 8.4 Montgomery (MG1) Figure 8-4 provides the historic measurements of TSS and chloride at MG1. Over the years, dry weather concentrations of TSS have been below 25 mg/L with wet weather measurements climbing to vales about 140 mg/L since 2009. Chloride concentrations during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mg/L with some during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mg/L with some during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mg/L with some wet years falling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. All values, except for one dry event, are wet years falling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. All values, except for one dry event, are wet years falling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. All values, except for one dry event, are below the CCME guideline of 640 mg/L for acute toxicity. The highest value (cut from the figure was 2300 mg/L The highest value (cut from the figure was 2300 mg/L The highest value (cut from the figure was 2300 mg/L measured on January 23, 2012. Figure 8-4: 2002 2015 Trends in Montgomery 1 for TSS and Chloride Figure Figure 8844: 2002 : 2002 2015 Trends in Montgomery 1 for TSS and Chloride2015 Trends in Montgomery 1 for TSS and Chloride -- 42 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 8.5 Sandrock (SR2) Figure 8-5 provides the historic measurements of TSS and chloride at SR2 for wet and dry events. Over the years, dry weather concentrations of TSS have generally been below 25 mg/L with wet weather measurements reaching about 300 mg/L in 2012 and 150 mg/L in 2015. Chloride concentrations during wet weather events have been below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic Chloride concentrations during wet weather events have been below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic Chloride concentrations during wet weather events have been below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity, with an exception of two samples in 2008 and one in March 2015 at 646 mg/L. Dry weather concentrations . Dry weather concentrations . Dry weather concentrations have general been between CCME guidelines of 120 and 640 mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with acute toxicityacute toxicity, respectively, with , respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific trend is observed for TSS or chloride. No specific trend is observed for TSS or chloride. No specific trend is observed for TSS or chloride. Figure 8-5: 2002 2015 Trends in Sandrock 2 for TSS and Chloride Figure Figure 8855: 2002 2015 Trends in Sandrock 2 for TSS and Chloride2015 Trends in Sandrock 2 for TSS and Chloride -- 43 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 9. Physical Monitoring Results The following sections summarize the physical monitoring conducted during the 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Program including single discrete flow measurements and continuous flow and temperature monitoring. Results for the 2015 physical sampling program are summarized below. 9.1 Temperature Monitoring Continuous temperature monitoring was completed at stations Henry Strum 1 (HS1) and Strasburg 2 (SB2) as part Henry Strum 1 (HS1) and Strasburg 2 (SB2) as part Henry Strum 1 (HS1) and Strasburg 2 (SB2) as part of the 2015 Kitchener SWM Audit. The daily average air temperature data is collected from Upper Blair Creek The daily average air temperature data is collected from Upper Blair Creek The daily average air temperature data is collected from Upper Blair Creek Weather station. Figure 9-1 demonstrates the continuous temperature monitoring for station HS1 and SB2. monitoring for station HS1 and SB2monitoring for station HS1 and SB2 . Figure 9-1: 2015 Autosampler Station Temperature Monitoring (HS1 and SB2) : 2015 Autosampler Station Stoneman and Jones (1996) revised by Chu (2009) was utilized to classify sites into coldwater, coolwater, or Stoneman and Jones (1996) revised by Chu (2009) was Stoneman and Jones (1996) revised by Chu (2009) was warmwater areas based on their maximum air and water temperatures in the summer. Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 warmwater areas based on their maximum air and water temperatures in the summerwarmwater areas based on their maximum air and water temperatures in the summer below represent the thermal stability classification for Henry Strum and Strasburg creeks. Table 9-1 below below represent the below represent the thermal stability thermal stability summarizes the results from the classification. summarizes the results from the classification.summarizes the results from the classification. 44 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 9-1: Summary of Thermal Regimes Creek Thermal Stability Classification Henry Strum Creek Cool-Warmwater Strasburg Creek Coolwater Figure 9-2: 2015 HS1 Thermal Stability Classification 9 Figure - 2 45 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 9-3: 2015 SB2 Thermal Stability Classification 93: 2015 SB2 Thermal Stability Classification Figure - 9.2 Flow Monitoring Discrete flow measurements and corresponding flow depths were recorded during water quality sampling, on five (5) iscrete flow measurements and corresponding flow depths were recorded during water qualityiscrete flow measurements and corresponding flow depths were recorded during water quality occasions for HS1 and SB2. Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5 demonstrate the rating curve developed for HS1 and occasions for HS1 and SB2occasions for HS1 and SB2Figure Figure 94and and Figure Figure 95 demonstrate the rating cdemonstrate the rating c 9 4 5 --- . . Montgomery SB2. Montgomery SB2 . Figure 9-4: Henry Strum Creek (HS1) Rating Curve 46 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 9-5: Strasburg Creek (SB2) Rating Curve : Strasburg Creek (SB2) Rating Curve The continuous water level data collected at station Kolb HS1 and SB2 was translated from water levels to flow rates ollected at station Kolb HS1 and SB2ollected at station Kolb HS1 and SB2was translated from water levels to flow rates was translated from water levels to flow rates by utilizing the relative flow versus depth relationship. Continuous flow monitoring data was normalized using by utilizing the relative flow versus depth relationship. by utilizing the relative flow versus depth relationship. Continuous flow monitoring data was normalized using Continuous flow monitoring data was normalized using barometric pressure. Figure 9-6 and Figure 9-7 demonstrates the continuous flows measured at HS1 and SB2. The demonstratedemonstratethe continuthe continuous flows measured at HS1 and SB2ous flows measured at HS1 and SB2 7 9 s - Figure secondary axis on the graphs represents the daily precipitation recorded at Kitchener City Hall. The flow was clipped the daily precipitation recorded at the daily precipitation recorded at Kitchener Kitchener represents past the highest flow measured for the rating curves. past the highest flow measured for the rating curves. 47 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 9-6: Henry Strum Creek (HS1) Flow and Precipitation 96 Figure : Henry Strum Creek (HS1) Flow and Precipitation - 48 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Figure 9-7: Strasburg Creek (SB2) Flow and Precipitation 9 Figure : Strasburg Creek (SB2) Flow and Precipitation 49 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 10. Biological Sampling Results The following sections summarize the results of the benthic invertebrate and fish community monitoring conducted during the 2015 monitoring program. The thermal classifications of each station and watercourse are provided in Table 10-1. Refer to Appendix B-2 and B-3 for a full list (including field sheets) of the fish and benthic invertebrate species sampled during the 2015 field season. 10.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community 2015 Table 10-1 presents a summary of the indices used to organize the organisms collected at the sample sites. Given presents a summary of the indices used to organize the organisms collected at the sample sites. Given presents a summary of the indices used to organize the organisms collected at the sample sites. Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric that that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric that that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric that should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Samples tream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Samples tream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Samples collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note any changes in the benthic data over time. There are known differences in the way that benthic invertebrates respond to human disturbance and habitat in the way that benthic invertebrates respond to human disturbance and habitat in the way that benthic invertebrates respond to human disturbance and habitat degradation (Jones, 2007). With regards to taxa richness, % EPT, # EPT taxa, % Scrapers, % Shredders, % degradation (Jones, 2007). With regards to taxa richness, % EPT, # EPT taxa, % Scrapers, % Shredders, % degradation (Jones, 2007). With regards to taxa richness, % EPT, # EPT taxa, % Scrapers, % Shredders, % Clingers and the Shannon Diversity Index, larger values imply a healthy biological community, and low values imply s implya healthy a healthy biological communitybiological communityand low values imply , reduced ecosystem health (Jones, 2007) (Jones, 2007) (Barbour et al., 1999). Conversely, with regards to % (Jones, 2007) (Barbour et al., 1999). Conversely, with regards to % (Jones, 2007) (Barbour et al., 1999). Conversely, with regards to % , % , % Dominants and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), a lower value implies a healthier DipteraChironomidae , % Dominants and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI, % Dominants and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), a lower value implies a health biological community (Jones, 2007, Barbour et al., 1999). (Jones, 2007, Barbour et al., 1999). (Jones, 2007, Barbour et al., 1999). been no reference sites established for the purpose of this study. The results will therefore only reveal which sites been no reference sites established for the purpose of this study. The rbeen no reference sites established for the purpose of this study. The results will therefore only reveal which sites esults will therefore only reveal which sites score higher or lower for each metric as compared to one another. The results can also be used to determine score higher or lower for each metric as compared to one another. The results can also be used to determine score higher or lower for each metric as compared to one another. The results can also be used to determine whether there are any trends and/or changes in the biological data over time. whether there are any trends and/or changes in the biological data over time. whether there are any trends and/or changes in the biological data over time. Indicator values have not been established for metrics such as % Collectorfilterer, % Collectorgatherer, % Predator not been established for metrics such as % Collectornot been established for metrics such as % Collectorfilterer, % Collector and % Oligochaeta (critical values lay at both extremes) (Jones, 2007, Barbour et al., 1999). As such, these metrics (( (critical values lay at both extremes) (critical values lay at both extremes) Jones, 2007, Barbour et al., 1999). As such, these metrics Jones, 2007, Barbour et al., 1999). As such, these metrics will not be used to compare water quality between the sites included in this study. These indices will only be included will not be used to compare water quality will not be used to compare water quality between the sites included in this study. These indices will only be included between the sites included in this study. These indices will only be included for the purpose of representing differences in habitat characteristics between the sample sites, and to provide insight for the purpose of representing differences in habitat characteristics between the sample sites, and to provide insight for the purpose of representing differences in habitat characteristics between the sample sites, and to provide insight into whether or not the community is changing over time as a result of either natural or anthropogenic impacts. a result of either natural or anthropogenic impacts. a result of either natural or anthropogenic impacts. into whether or not the community is changing over time asinto whether or not the community is changing over time as Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program yielded similar collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program invertebrate samples invertebrate samples results to the previous years, producing a species list containing a total of 76 taxa. There were 26 new taxa added in results to the previous years, producing a species list containing a total of 76 taxresults to the previous years, producing a species list containing a total of 76 tax 2015, but most have been previously recorded within the study area. Only three (3) taxa were new to the study 2015, but most have been previously recorded within the study area. Only three (3) taxa were new to the study 2015, but most have been previously recorded within the study area. Only three (3) taxa were new to the study (, , and ), but all are common to the region and are not SperchonopsisEctopria nervosaHeterotrissocladius SperchonopsisSperchonopsisEctopria nervosaEctopria nervosa, and , and Heterotrissocladius , anomalous within the study sample. Consistent with past findings, the (non-biting midges) were the Chironomidae ous within the study sample. Consistent with past findings, the ous within the study sample. Consistent with past findings, the anomalanomal most abundant and diverse group; were also common within the study samples. Much like the 2014 sample, Isopoda were also common within the study samples. Much like the 2014 sample, were also common within the study samples. Much like the 2014 sample, most abundant and diverse group; most abundant and diverse group; IsopodaIsopoda (blackflies), and (caddisflies) were found to be numerically dominant in Amphipoda, Simuliidae Hydropsychidae Amphipoda, Simuliidae Amphipoda, Simuliidae (blackflies), and(blackflies), and some samples. Samples obtained from Idlewood Creek (IW1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) yielded more than 35 taxa some samples. Samples obtained from Idlewood Creek (IW1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) yielded more than 35 taxa some samples. Samples obtained from Idlewood Creek (IW1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) yielded more than 35 taxa each, indicating a very good water quality and potentially the presence of cool groundwater inputs. each, indicating a very good water quality and potentially the presence of ceach, indicating a very good water quality and potentially the presence of c The following paragraphs provide brief summaries of the benthic community recorded at the eight Kitchener The following paragraphs provide brief summaries of the benthic community recorded at the eight Kitchener The following paragraphs provide brief summaries of the benthic community recorded at the eight Kitchener Stormwater Management Pond monitoring sites sampled in 2015. Refer to Appendix X-1 for a full list of the aquatic Stormwater Management Pond monitoring sites sampled in 2015Stormwater Management Pond monitoring sites sampled in 2015 invertebrates collected in 2015. invertebrates collected in 2015.invertebrates collected in 2015. 50 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 10-1: 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics Henry Idlewood Kolb Montgomery Shoemaker Sandrock Sturm Strasburg Creek Creek Creek Creek Greenway Greenway Index Creek HS1 IW1 KD1 MG1 SB2 SB13a SM1 SR2 Total Number of Organisms 331 285 326 310 384 315 333 308 Taxa Richness 26 36 19 29 41 23 17 25 17 % Oligochaeta* 5.44 1.4 0 1.61 0.26 0.32 0 1.95 00 % Diptera 70.39 33.68 2.15 55.16 44.53 37.78 68.17 75.97 68.1768.17 75.97 % Chironomidae 67.98 29.47 2.15 40.65 40.89 11.11 54.35 72.08 54.3554.35 11.11 % EPT 11.48 2.46 1.53 19.68 24.74 2.86 25.53 4.87 2.862.8625.534.87 EPT Taxa 4 5 3 3 12 4 4 3 4443 % Dominant 28.4 29.82 51.23 20.97 27.34 52.38 17.72 16.56 27.3427.34 16.56 % PR 43.2 10.88 3.68 23.55 20.05 11.75 31.53 19.48 20.0520.0511.7531.5319.4819.48 % CF 7.25 23.51 1.84 13.55 18.75 25.71 22.22 12.99 18.7518.7525.7122.2212.9912.99 % CG 60.73 73.68 87.42 57.1 69.01 60.95 57.06 77.27 69.0160.9560.9557.06 77.2777.27 57.1 % SC 11.78 15.44 9.51 25.81 14.06 2.22 24.32 7.47 14.062.22 7.47 14.06 % SH 10.88 6.67 1.23 28.71 30.99 4.13 16.82 11.04 30.994.134.1316.82 % CL 24.17 38.6 11.66 46.13 33.07 34.29 63.66 24.35 33.0733.0734.29 HBI 6.73 6.38 5.52 6.81 6.81 6.78 5.88 7.23 5.526.816.816.816.78 Shannon Diversity Index 2.52 2.54 1.34 2.67 2.58 1.63 2.24 2.61 1.342.672.581.631.63 Indicates best water quality Thermal Classifications: Thermal Classifications: Thermal Classifications: Indicates second best water quality (HS1 Warmwater),(IW1 Coolwater), (KD1 Coldwater),(MG1 Coldwater), (HS1 Warmwater),(IW1 Warmwater),(IW1 Coolwater), (KD1 Coolwater), (KD1 (SB2 Coldwater), (SB13a Coldwater), (SM1 Warmwater), (SR2 (SB2 Coldwater), (SB13a Coldwater), (SB13a Coldwater), (SM1 Coldwater), (SM1 Indicates worst water quality Warmwater) Warmwater)Warmwater) Indicates worst water quality *Please note that while numerous specimens of worms were recorded, it is likely that their numbers were underestimated in this study. while numerous specimens of worms were recordewhile numerous specimens of worms were recorded, it isd, it is likely that their numbers were underestimated in this study. likely that their numbers were underestimated in this study. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), and second highest in three Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), and second highest in three Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), and second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker Greenway (SR2) has the highest metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker Greenwaymetrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker Greenway overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations as well. highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations as well. highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations as well. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in % EPT and % Clingers. These indices reflect habitat quality, and Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored higShoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in % EPT and % Clingers. These indices reflect habitat quality, and allude to the presence of habitat suitable to support sensitive benthic invertebrates within the watercourse. Mayflies, allude to the presence of habitat suitable to support sensitive benthic invertebrates within the watercourse. Mayflies, allude to the presence of habitat suitable to support sensitive benthic invertebrates within the watercourse. Mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies are pollution sensitive taxa; the increased proportion of these species in Shoemaker stoneflies and caddisflies are pollution sensitive taxa; the instoneflies and caddisflies are pollution sensitive taxa; the in Greenway (SM1) therefore infers that this watercourse has relatively good water quality that has not been Greenway (SM1) therefore infers that this watercourse has relatively good water quality that has not been Greenway (SM1) therefore infers that this watercourse has relatively good water quality that has not been significantly influenced by contamination. The high percentage of clingers might provide a rationale for the good significantly influenced by contamination. The high percentage of clingers might provide a rationale significantly influenced by contamination. The high percentage of clingers might provide a rationale water quality of this system. Clingers are described as insects that have developed fixed retreats or adaptations for water quality of this system. Clingers are described as insects that have developed fixed retreats or adaptations for water quality of this system. Clingers are described as insects that have developed fixed retreats or adaptations for attachment to surfaces in high flowing water (Barbour et al., 1999). The capacity of pollutants to accumulate in high attachment to surfaces in high flowing water (Barbour et al., 1999). The capacity of pollutants to accumulate in high attachment to surfaces in high flowing water (Barbour et al., 1999). The capacity of pollutants to accumulate in high velocity waters is limited; as such, the high flow regime may serve to buffer Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) against y waters is limited; as such, the high flow regime may serve to buffer Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) against y waters is limited; as such, the high flow regime may serve to buffer Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) against natural and anthropogenic disturbance. natural and anthropogenic disturbance. natural and anthropogenic disturbance. Montgomery Creek (MG1) scored highest in % Scrapers, and the Shannon Diversity Index. Scoring relatively high in Montgomery Creek (MG1) scored highest in % Scrapers, and the Shannon Diversity Index. Scoring relatively high Montgomery Creek (MG1) scored highest in % Scrapers, and the Shannon Diversity Index. Scoring relatively high species richness and relatively low in % Dominant species, it stands to reason that Montgomery Creek (MG1) had a species richness and relatively low in % Dominant species, it species richness and relatively low in % Dominant species, it high Shannon Diversity Index score. These results indicate that the taxa recorded from within Montgomery Creek high Shannon Diversity Index score. These results indicate that the taxa recorded from within Montgomery Creek high Shannon Diversity Index score. These results indicate that the taxa recorded from within Montgomery Creek (MG1) are well distributed, and represent a variety of different families of aquatic invertebrate. The increased proportion of scrapers further emphasizes the enhanced water quality in Montgomery Creek (MG1); scrapers are specialized feeders that graze upon periphyton. Generally, watercourses with a high concentration of scrapers tend to be healthy systems with good water quality (Barbour et al., 1999). Strasburg Creek (SB2) scored highest in Taxa Richness and % Shredders. Taxa richness represents the diversity within a sample; increasing diversity is associated with increasing health of the benthic community, and suggests 51 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit that niche space, habitat, and food sources are adequate to support the survival and reproduction of a variety of species (Barbour et al., 1999). The presence of shredders within Strasburg Creek (SB2) further supports the likelihood that this watercourse supports a high quality habitat. Shredders are sensitive organisms, and are thought to be well represented in healthy streams (Barbour et al., 1999). Abundant shredders in Strasburg Creek (SB2) suggest a high concentration of leaf litter and organic debris, which supports multiple life cycle functions for numerous aquatic organisms (including fish). Kolb Creek (KD1) had the lowest overall water quality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the EPT, %EPT, % Shannon Diversity Index). With only three EPT taxa, less than 2% of the taxa collected from Kolb Creek (KD1) are Shannon Diversity Index). With only three EPT taxa, less than 2% of the taxa collected from Kolb Creek (KD1) are Shannon Diversity Index). With only three EPT taxa, less than 2% of the taxa collected from Kolb Creek (KD1) are Ephemeroptera, or . However, Kolb Creek (KD1) had the highest HBI score, as well as the PlecopteraTrichoptera owever, Kolb Creek (KD1) had the highest HBI score, as well as the owever, Kolb Creek (KD1) had the highest HBI score, as well as the lowest percentage of present. A low HBI value reflects the relative abundance of species in each Chironomidae present. A low HBI value reflects the relative abundance of species in each present. A low HBI value reflects the relative abundance of species in each taxonomic group represented in the Kolb Creek (KD1) sample, and suggests that this community is relatively tolerant his community is relatively tolerant his community is relatively tolerant to pollution. Given the low number of identified within the Kolb Creek sample, a low HBI in Chironomidae identified within the Kolb Creek sample, a low HBI in identified within the Kolb Creek sample, a low HBI in combination with a low Shannon Diversity Index score suggest that species richness and the distribution of combination with a low Shannon Diversity Index score suggest that species richness and the distribution of combination with a low Shannon Diversity Index score suggest that species richness and the distribution of individuals among these species likely favours other pollution tolerant taxa. 10.2 Comparison of 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Results with Trends from Comparison of 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Results with Trends fromComparison of 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Results with Trends from Only Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) have been consistently Only Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2) and SandrockOnly Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2) and SandrockGreenway (SR2) have been consistently Greenway (SR2) have been consistently sampled over the past three years, and therefore only these watercourses will be used to explore trends in the sampled over the past three years, and therefore only these watercourses will be used to explore trends in the sampled over the past three years, and therefore only these watercourses will be used to explore trends in the benthic invertebrate data between 2013 and 2015. There are some notable differences between the 2015 results benthic invertebrate data between 2013 and 2015. There are some notable differences between the 2015 resulbenthic invertebrate data between 2013 and 2015. There are some notable differences between the 2015 resul and the results from 2013 and 2014 (see Table 10-2). The overall quality of Montgomery Creek (MG1) and 2). Theoverall quality ofoverall quality ofMontgomery Creek (MG1) and Table 10 - Table 10 Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased for all indices measured over the past three years, with the exception of % Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased for all indices measured over the past three years, with the exception of % Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased for all indices measured over the past three years, with the exception of % Shredders. The overall proportion of shredders has decreased rather dramatically in all three watercourses since hredders has decreased rather dramatically in all three watercourses since hredders has decreased rather dramatically in all three watercourses since 2013. Several indices (Taxa Richness, % , % EPT, HBI) have increased gradually in Montgomery Chironomidae ChironomidaeChironomidae, % EPT, HBI) have increased gradually in Montgomery , % EPT, HBI) have increased gradually in Montgomery Creek (MG1) over the past three years, but mark a significant improvement to the water quality of this system since ee years, but mark a significant improvement toee years, but mark a significant improvement tothe water quality of this system since the water quality of this system since 2013. Table 10-2: 2013-2015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results Table Table 10102: 2013: 20132015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results2015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results --- Montgomery (MG1) Strasburg (SB2) Sandrock (SR2) Montgomery (MG1) Strasburg (SB2) Index 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 20142013 2015 2013 Total Number of Organisms 341.00 306.00 314.00 234.00 340.00 315.00 Total Number of OrganismsTotal Number of Organisms341.00341.00306.00306.00314.00314.00 310 384 308 310310 Taxa Richness 17.00 23.00 36.00 23.00 16.00 31.00 17.0017.0023.00 Taxa Richness 29 41 25 Taxa Richness % Oligochaeta 15.84 2.94 5.73 7.26 77.06 0.00 % Oligochaeta % Oligochaeta 15.8415.842.94 1.61 0.26 1.95 1.61 % Diptera 83.87 66.01 80.57 72.22 22.35 55.56 % Diptera % Diptera 83.8783.8766.01 55.16 44.53 75.97 % Chironomidae 83.58 59.15 79.62 70.94 21.76 52.70 % Chironomidae% Chironomidae 83.5883.5859.15 40.65 40.89 72.08 59.15 % EPT 0.00 14.38 7.96 0.00 0.29 26.98 % EPT0.00 14.3814.3819.68 24.74 4.87 EPT Taxa 0.00 3 7.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 EPT Taxa EPT Taxa 0.00 3 12 3 % CF 0.00 13.07 6.05 12.39 0.00 20.95 % CF% CF 0.0013.55 18.75 12.99 % CG 94.72 69.93 83.44 77.35 97.06 74.60 % CG% CG 57.1 69.01 77.27 % SC 0.00 11.76 6.05 0.85 0.29 6.67 25.81 14.06 7.47 % SH 74.78 33.66 52.87 6.84 18.53 36.51 28.71 30.99 11.04 % CL 74.78 18.95 64.01 14.53 18.53 43.81 46.13 33.07 24.35 HBI 7.45 6.59 6.36 8.13 6.31 6.37 6.81 6.81 7.23 1.07 2.53 2.64 2.54 0.90 2.56 Shannon Diversity Index 2.67 2.58 2.61 Indicates an increase in water quality from 2013-2 015 Thermal Classifications: (MG1 Coolwater), (SB2 Coldwater), (SR2 Warmwater) Indicates a decrease in water quality from 2013-2015 52 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Overall water quality in Strasburg Creek (SB2) plummeted in 2014 from its 2013 conditions, but results revealed a marked improvement in 2015. Values increased dramatically in Strasburg Creek (SB2) for almost all water quality indices from 2014 to 2015, and this watercourse is once again considered to have one of the healthiest biological communities of the eight sites examined for the purpose of this study. Notable improvements in indices such as Taxa Richness and % suggest that the 2014 results were likely anomalous, and may have been Chironomidae attributed to natural factors such as seasonal fluctuations and/or changes in the flow regime. While water quality has generally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this While water quality has generally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this While water quality has generally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this is not the case for Sandrock Greenway (SR2). With the exception of % Scrapers and the Shannon Diversity Index, t the case for Sandrock Greenway (SR2). With the exception of % Scrapers and the Shannon Diversity Index, t the case for Sandrock Greenway (SR2). With the exception of % Scrapers and the Shannon Diversity Index, water quality in Sandrock Greenway (SR2) has decreased for every metric since 2014. This is of particular interest water quality in Sandrock Greenway (SR2) has decreased for every metric since 2014. This is of particular interest water quality in Sandrock Greenway (SR2) has decreased for every metric since 2014. This is of particular interest given that water quality had increased in 2014 for almost all indices from the 2013 values. sed in 2014 for almost all indices from the 2013 values.sed in 2014 for almost all indices from the 2013 values. 10.3 Fish Community: 2015 The 2015 fish sampling revealed a fish community similar to that of past monitoring years (Table 10-3 and 10-4), monitoring years (monitoring years (Table 10Table 103and 10 4 -- ), with a total of 16 species identified. Five new species were captured during the 2015 sampling surveys: Bluegill tured during the 2015 sampling surveys: Bluegill tured during the 2015 sampling surveys: Bluegill (), Bluntnose Minnow (), Central Mudminnow (), Common Carp Rhinichthys obtususPimephales notatusUmbra limi ), Central Mudminnow (), Central Mudminnow (Umbra limi), Common Carp ), Common Carp () and Pumpkinseed/Bluegill Hybrid (). Strasburg 2 (SB2) Cyprinus carpioLepomis gibbosus/Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis gibbosus/Lepomis macrochirusLepomis gibbosus/Lepomis macrochirus). Strasburg 2). Strasburg 2(SB2) scored highest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout (). Brook Salvelinus fontinalis scored highest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout (scored highest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalisSalvelinus fontinalis). Brook ). Brook Trout are highly sensitive to pollution. Brook Trout have been well-known within Strasburg 2 (SB2) since 2011, and Trout are highly sensitive to pollution. Brook Trout have been wellTrout are highly sensitive to pollution. Brook Trout have been wellknown within Strasburg 2 (SB2) since 2011, and known within Strasburg 2 (SB2) since 2011, and -- the trends suggest that their abundance has been increasing yearly (despite the fact that only two individuals were gest that their abundance has been increasing yearly (despite the fact that only two individuals were gest that their abundance has been increasing yearly (despite the fact that only two individuals were captured in 2014 and in 2015). This site also scored second highest in species density (i.e. species collected per captured in 2014 and in 2015). This site also scored second highest in species density (i.e. species collected per captured in 2014 and in 2015). This site also scored second highest in species density (i.e. species collected per 2 100m). The presence of Brook Trout suggests that Strasburg Creek (SB2) has the highest quality fish habitat. gests that Strasburg Creek (SB2) has the highest quality fish habitat. gests that Strasburg Creek (SB2) has the highest quality fish habitat. Strasburg Creek (SB 13a) has the highest species richness, with eight (8) different species captured during the 2015 Strasburg Creek (SB 13a) has the highest species richness, with eight (8) different species captured during the 2015 Strasburg Creek (SB 13a) has the highest species richness, with eight (8) different species captured during the 2015 field investigations. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1), with a variety of tolerant and intermediately field investigations. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1field investigations. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1), with a variety of tolerant and intermediately ), with a variety of tolerant and intermediately tolerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) for the tolerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) for the tolerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) for the second consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. A considerable number of fish second consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. A considerasecond consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. A considera were captured at Sandrock Greenway (SR2), but 84.8% of these species are tolerant; as such, it is unlikely that were captured at Sandrock Greenway (SR2), but 84.8% of these species are tolerant; as such, it is unlikely that were captured at Sandrock Greenway (SR2), but 84.8% of these species are tolerant; as such, it is unlikely that Sandrock Greenway (SR2) provides any specialized habitat functions, and may have poor overall fish habitat. Sandrock Greenway (SR2) provides any specialized habitat functions, and may have poor overall fish habitat.Sandrock Greenway (SR2) provides any specialized habitat functions, and may have poor overall fish habitat. The majority of the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout and Mottled Sculpin (which are coldwater species. Most species captured at Strasburg Creek (SB2) Cottus bairdii) Cottus bairdii) Cottus bairdii) which are coldwater species. Most species captured at Strasburg Creek (SB2) which are coldwater species. Most species captured at Strasburg Creek (SB2) are intermediately tolerant of pollution, turbidity, and other habitat changes, with the exception of Brook Trout are intermediately tolerant of pollution, tuare intermediately tolerant of pollution, turbidity, and other habitat changes, with the exception of Brook Troutrbidity, and other habitat changes, with the exception of Brook Trout (intolerant). Common Carp, which was only captured at Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) is an introduced species that is (intolerant). Common Carp, which was only captured at Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) is an introduced species that is (intolerant). Common Carp, which was only captured at Henry Sturm Creek (HS1) is an introduced species that is extremely tolerant to turbidity, low dissolved oxygen and a wide temperature range. extremely tolerant to turbidity, low dissolved oxygen and a wide temperaturextremely tolerant to turbidity, low dissolved oxygen and a wide temperatur 53 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 10-3: 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results and Analysis Fish Species STATION NUMBER Abundance Thermal MNRF Tolerance (ON) Regime Code Scientific Name Common Name HS1 IW1 KD1 MG1 SB2 SB13a SM1 SR2 Rhinichthys obtusus Blacknose Dace Common Coolwater Intermediate 210 33 7 45 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Common Warmwater Intermediate 314 1 Pimephales notatus Bluntnose Minnow Common Warmwater Intermediate 208 11 25 Culaea inconstans Brook Stickleback Common Coolwater Intermediate 281 4 37 15 373715 Salvelinus fontinalis Brook Trout Common Coldwater Intolerant 80 2 2 Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Common Warmwater Intermediate 233 9 Central Umbra limi Mudminnow Common Coolwater Tolerant 141 1 1 Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Common Warmwater Tolerant 186 5 55 Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub Common Coolwater Tolerant 212 2 10 6 4 2 7 41 210642 2122127741 Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Common Warmwater Tolerant 209 9 209209 Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter Common Coolwater Tolerant 341 25 34125 Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace Common Coolwater Intermediate 211 47 5 21121147 IntermediateIntermediate5 Cottus bairdii Mottled Sculpin Common Coldwater Intermediate 381 26 Intermediate38138126 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Common Warmwater Intermediate 313 7 1 4 WarmwaterIntermediate31331371 Catostomus commersonii White Sucker Common Coolwater Tolerant 163 2 2 4 CoolwaterCoolwaterTolerantTolerant16322224 Suggests higher quality habitat Number of Fish Collected 36 49 124 48 95 32 0 59 Number of Fish CollectedNumber of Fish Collected 364949124 Suggests second highest quality habitat Species Richness 6 4 7 3 6 8 0 5 Species RichnessSpecies Richness 664 Suggests lowest quality habitat %Tolerant Species 25 24.5 8.9 8.3 2.1 21.9 0 84.8 %Tolerant Species%Tolerant Species Thermal Classifications: %Intolerant Species 0 0 0 2.1 0 0 0 %Intolerant Species%Intolerant Species (MG1 Coldwater), (SB2 Coldwater), Coldwater), Coldwater), (SB13a Coldwater), (KD1 Coldwater), Coldwater), Coldwater), Coldwater), (KD1 Number of fish collected/ 100m² (IW1 - Coolwater), (HS1 - Warmwater), 18 41 103 24 58 40 0 30 Coolwater), (HS1 Warmwater), Warmwater), Number of fish collected/ 100m²Number of fish collected/ 100m² - (SM1 Warmwater), (SR2 Warmwater) Warmwater)Warmwater) Warmwater), (SR2 10.4 Comparison of 2015 Fish Community Results with Trends from 2013 Comparison of 2015 Fish Community Results with Trends from 2013 Comparison of 2015 Fish Community Results with Trends from 2013 As discussed in Section 2.2, only Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasbug Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) Section 2.2Section 2.2 As discussed in As discussed in , only Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasbug Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) , only Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasbug Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) have been consistently sampled since 2013, and therefore fish community trends will only be explored using these have been consistently sampled since 2013, and therefore fish community trendshave been consistently sampled since 2013, and therefore fish community trends three watercourses. The results presented in Table 10-4 suggest that while the aquatic invertebrate community in three watercourses. The results three watercourses. The results presented in presented in Montgomery Creek (MG1) represents a marked improvement in water quality since 2013, the fish community within Montgomery Creek (Montgomery Creek (MG1) represents a marked impMG1) represents a marked imp this watercourse has not improved proportionately. Though the number of fish collected in 2015 is significantly this watercourse has not improved proportionately. Though the number of fish collected in 2015 is significantly this watercourse has not improved proportionately. Though the number of fish collected in 2015 is significantly higher than the total number recorded in 2014, both species richness and the percentage of tolerant species higher than the total number recorded in 2014, both higher than the total number recorded in 2014, both captured have increased gradually since 2013. These results suggest that the fish community in Montgomery Creek captured have increased gradually since 2013. These results suggest that the fish community in Montgomery Creek captured have increased gradually since 2013. These results suggest that the fish community in Montgomery Creek (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species to a community dominated (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species by only a few tolerant species. The overwhelming abundance of Brook Stickleback (a highly tolerant fish) in the by only a few tolerant species. The overwhelming abundance of Brook Stickleback (a highly tolerant by only a few tolerant species. The overwhelming abundance of Brook Stickleback (a highly tolerant Montgomery Creek (MG1) sample further supports this assumption. 54 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 10-4: 2013-2015 Fish Community Sampling Results MG1 SB2 SR2 Index 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 89.00 28.00 48.00 31.00 39.00 95.00 5.00 32.00 59.00 Number of Fish Collected 5.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.005.00 Species Richness 3.37 3.50 8.30 9.68 0.00 2.10 80.00 9.40 84.80 9.409.40 %Tolerant Species 80.0080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.90 5.12 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 %Intolerant Species 33.86 20.00 24.00 14.16 33.00 58.00 2.21 20.00 30.00 2.212.2120.0020.00 58.00 Number of fish collected/ 100m² Thermal Classifications: Thermal Classifications:Thermal Classifications: Indicates and increase in fish habitat quality from 2013-2015 (MG1 Coldwater), (SB2 Coldwater), (SR2 Coldwater), (SR2 Coldwater), (SB2 Coldwater), (SB2 Indicates and decrease in fish habitat quality from 2013-2015 Warmwater) Warmwater)Warmwater) In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has remained more or less consistent since 2013, which alludes to a relatively stable fish community in each of these ince 2013, which alludes to a relatively stable fish community in each of these ince 2013, which alludes to a relatively stable fish community in each of these watercourses. Biological Monitoring tasks were undertaken as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental Assessment Biological Monitoring tasks were undertaken as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental AssesBiological Monitoring tasks were undertaken as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental Asses (Ecosystem Recovery 2015). Biological monitoring identified a total of 21 different taxa within the three sampling . Biological monitoring identifi. Biological monitoring identified a total of 21 different taxa within the three sampling ed a total of 21 different taxa within the three sampling sites throughout Balzer Creek. These taxa represent 15 different families and 9 orders of benthic invertebrates. A sites throughout Balzer Creek. These taxa represent 15 different families and 9 orders of benthic invertebrates. A sites throughout Balzer Creek. These taxa represent 15 different families and 9 orders of benthic invertebrates. A number of metrics and indices were calculated in order to assess the habitat conditions and water quality within each number of metrics and indices were calculated in order to assess the habitat conditnumber of metrics and indices were calculated in order to assess the habitat conditions and water quality within each ions and water quality within each monitoring station, following the protocols and recommendations for benthic macro-invertebrate community monitoring station, following the protocols and recommendations for benthic macromonitoring station, following the protocols and recommendations for benthic macro assessment as carried out by the City of Kitchener Stormwater Management Audit. The comparison of Biotic indices assessment as carried out by the City of Kitchener Stormwater Management Audit. The comparison of Biotic indices assessment as carried out by the City of Kitchener Stormwater Management Audit. The comparison of Biotic indices be moderate degree of species diversity. The fish community assessment captured only one fish in Reach 1 (between moderate degree of species diversity. The fish community assessment captured only one fish in Reach 1moderate degree of species diversity. The fish community assessment captured only one fish in Reach 1 Homer Watson Boulevard and Old Country Drive). In Reach 2 (between Homer Watson Boulevard and Fallowfield Country DriveCountry Drive). In Reach 2. In Reach 2( Homer Watson Boulevard and OldHomer Watson Boulevard and Oldbetween Homer Watson Boulevard and Fallowfield ( Drive), however, a total of 36 fish of three species were captured. All three fish species observed within this reach , however, a total of 36 fish of three species were captured. All three fish species observed within this reach , however, a total of 36 fish of three species were captured. All three fish species observed within this reach 50 fish of four species were captured in Reach 3 (flowing through the forested vegetation community downstream of 50 fish of four species were captured in Reach 350 fish of four species were captured in Reach 3(flowing through the forested vegetation community downstream of (flowing through the forested vegetation community downstream of Fallowfield Drive to the confluence with Schneider Creek). All four fish species are Coolwater and Tolerant or Fallowfield Drive to the confluence with Schneider Creek)Fallowfield Drive to the confluence with Schneider Creek). All four fish species ar. All four fish species ar Intermediate to habitat disturbance. Intermediate to habitat disturbance.Intermediate to habitat disturbance. 10.5 Biological Monitoring Summary Biological Monitoring Summary Biological Monitoring Summary 10.5 10.5 The following section provides a summary and comparative review of the data compiled for the Five Year The following section provides a summary and comparative review of the data compiled for the Five Year The following section provides a summary and comparative review of the data compiled for the Five Year Stormwater Report Card 2010 Technical Report (AECOM, 2011) and the Stormwater Management Audit 5 Year Stormwater Report Card 2010 Technical Report (AECOM, 201Stormwater Report Card 2010 Technical Report (AECOM, 201 Report Card (Dance Environmental et al., 2008). In order to remain uniform, only historical data from the three Report Card (Dance Environmental et al., 2008). In order to remain uniform, only historical data from the three Report Card (Dance Environmental et al., 2008). In order to remain uniform, only historical data from the three replicate stations (MG1, SB2 and SR2) are examined in this summary. replicate stations (MG1, SB2 and SR2) are examined in this summary. replicate stations (MG1, SB2 and SR2) are examined in this summary. The 2015 benthic invertebrate results were similar to those from the First Five Year Study (2002 to 2006) and the The 2015 benthic invertebratThe 2015 benthic invertebrat Second Five Year Study (2007 to 2011), as presented in Table 10-5. Although the ranges of the Hilsenhoff Biotic Second Five Year Study (2007 tSecond Five Year Study (2007 t Index have remained relatively consistent over time (i.e. the categories continue to range from Poor to Fairly Poor), Index have remained relatively consistent over time (i.e. Index have remained relatively consistent over time (i.e. there have been some notable difference in the specific HBI values. The 2014 HBI values reflect an improvement over time for Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) when compared to the mean values recorded over the past years studies. Although the mean HBI value recorded in Montgomery Creek (MG1) increased during the Second Five Year Study, the 2015 results demonstrate a marginal improvement in this index. Nevertheless, HBI fluctuations have been only minimal in Montgomery Creek (MG1), with the HBI range remaining the First Five Year Study; while water quality (as a function of the Biotic Index) was rated as Poor during the First 55 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Strasburg Creek (SB2), HBI has not varied significantly since the First Five Year Study. While the HBI value in Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased marginally from the mean HBI value recorded during the Second Five Year Study, HBI has remained fairly consistent over time. Overall, water quality appears to be relatively stable in Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2). However, further annual monitoring will confirm whether or not these three watercourses are vulnerable to disturbance. Table 10-5: 2015 Biological Indicators as Compared to the First Five Years Study and the Second 5 Years Years Study and the Second Years Study and the Second Study Montgomery Creek Strasburg Creek Sandrock Greenway Station Sandrock Greenway (MG1) (SB2) (SR2) First Biological First Five Year Second Five 2015 Five Second Five First Five Second Five 2015 First Five First Five Second Five Second Five 2015 Results 2015 Results2015 Results 12212 112 Indicators Study Year Study Results Year Year Study Year Study Year Study Results StudyStudy Year Year Year Results 1 Study Fish Species 4 4.4 3 7 6 6 4 2.8 5 642.82.8 Richness Brook Trout, Brook Trout, Goldfish, Goldfish, Pumpki Brook Trout, Goldfish, Goldfish, Goldfish, Brook Trout, Brook Trout, Fish Indicator Blacknose Blacknose Blacknose Mottled Mottled Mottled Brook Pumpkin- n-seed, Mottled Mottled Mottled Brook PumpkinPumpkin Species Dace Dace Dace Sculpin -- Sculpin Sculpin Stickleback seed Bluegill SculpinSticklebackStickleback SculpinSculpinseed Sculpin HBI Value 6.2 to No 5.9 to 7.6 5.9 to 7.9 No Range 6.6 to 7.3 No Range ND N/A 6.6 to 7.36.6 to 7.3No RangeNo RangeND Range 7.3 Range HBI 5 Year 6.70 6.9 6.81 7.0 6.7 6.81 8.38 7.4 7.23 6.76.818.38 Mean 7.0 HBI Rating Fairly Fairly Fairly Fairly System (7 Fairly Poor Fairly Poor Fairly Poor Fairly Poor Fairly Poor Poor Fairly Poor Fairly PoorFairly PoorFairly PoorFairly Poor Poor Poor Poor PoorPoor categories) 1 First Five Year Study (2002 to 2006) 2 Second Five Year Study (2007 to 2011) ND No data available. Overall, species richness and the species of indicator fish captured at each site were similar to previous years, as Overall, species richness and the species of indicator fish captured at each site were similar to previous years, as Overall, species richness and the species of indicator fish captured at each site were similar to previous years, as demonstrated in Table 10-5. The number of Brook Trout collected from Strasburg Creek (SR2) was lower in 2015 of Brook Trout collected from Strasburg Creek (SR2) was lower in 2015 of Brook Trout collected from Strasburg Creek (SR2) was lower in 2015 . The number. The number than the mean number captured during the First and Second Five Year Study; however, this may be attributed to during the First and Second Five Year Study; however, this may be attributed to during the First and Second Five Year Study; however, this may be attributed to than the mean number captured than the mean number captured slight variations in the time of year that the sampling took place relative to spawning behaviours and the timing of slight variations in the time of year that the sampling took place relative to spawning behaviours and the timing of slight variations in the time of year that the sampling took place relative to spawning behaviours and the timing of other critical life stages. It is possible that differences in site length and potential electrofisher bias might have also other critical life stages. It is possible that differencesother critical life stages. It is possible that differences in site length in site length influenced survey results. Regardless, fish species captured at each sample site reflect the specific thermal regime influenced survey results. Regardless, fish species captured at each sample site reflect the specific thermal regime influenced survey results. Regardless, fish species captured at each sample site reflect the specific thermal regime of each watercourse; this particular trend alludes to the overall ecological stability of each watercourse sampled as of each watercourse; this particular trend alludes to the overall ecologicof each watercourse; this particular trend alludes to the overall ecologic part of the Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program. Continuing the annual monitoring program will provide a better part of the Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program. Continuing the annual monitoring program will provide a better part of the Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program. Continuing the annual monitoring program will provide a better understanding of the annual trends for both the benthic invertebrate and fish communities within these watercourses. understanding of the annual trends for both the benthic invertebrate and fish communities withinunderstanding of the annual trends for both the benthic invertebrate and fish communities within 10.6 Biological Sampling Results: Blair Creek 10.610.6Biological Sampling Results: Blair CreekBiological Sampling Results: Blair Creek The following sections summarize the results of the Blair Creek biological monitoring data collected by the Grand The following sections summarize the results of the Blair Creek biological monitoring data collected by the Grand The following sections summarize the results of the Blair Creek biological monitoring data collected by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) in 2015. Refer to Appendix B-4 for a full list of the benthic invertebrate River Conservation Authority (GRCA) in 2015. Refer to River Conservation Authority (GRCA) in 2015. Refer to sampling results. sampling results.sampling results. 10.6.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Benthic Invertebrate CommunityBenthic Invertebrate Community Table 10-6 presents the results of each metric used to characterize water quality in Blair Creek (BL1) using the presents tpresents t benthic invertebrate data recorded by the GRCA in 2015, and also provides the 2014 results obtained by the GRCA at the same sampling station. Refer to Section 1.1 for a synopsis of the metrics used to evaluate water quality. Blair Creek was only sampled by the GRCA at one location in 2015 (rather than at three locations in 2014), and therefore the water quality trends discussed below only reflect the benthic invertebrate community sampled at BL1 (where Blair Creek flows beneath Reichert Drive). 56 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 10-6: 2014 and 2015 Benthic Invertebrate Metrics from Blair Creek BL1 BL1 INDEX 2014 Results 2015 Results Total Number of Organisms 939 3569 Taxa Richness 44 43 % Oligochaeta 2.4 17.23 % Diptera 88.3 66.12 % Chironomidae 55.8 66.12 66.12 % EPT 5.6 0.98 0.98 EPT Taxa 7 3 3 % CF 6.0 33.23 33.2333.23 % CG 69.0 57.83 57.8357.83 % SC 0.5 1.06 1.06 % SH 10.9 0.87 % CL 1.6 17.96 HBI 2.0 16.65 Shannon Diversity Index 7.7 2.64 Indicates an Increase in Water Quality since 2014 Thermal Classification: Thermal Classification: (BL1-Coldwater-Coolwater) Indicates an Decrease in Water Quality since 2014 (BL1ColdwaterCoolwater) -Coldwater- Coldwater Despite a substantially larger number of organisms collected in 2015, results suggest that water quality in Blair Despite a substantially larger number of organisms collected in 2015, results suggest that water quality in Blair Despite a substantially larger number of organisms collected in 2015, results suggest that water quality in Blair Creek has decreased since 2014. Blair Creek (BL1) scored lower in almost all metrics (with the exception of % Creek has decreased since 2014. Blair Creek (BL1) scored lower in almost all metrics (with the exception of % Creek has decreased since 2014. Blair Creek (BL1) scored lower in almost all metrics (with the exception of % Scrapers and % Clingers). While Taxa Richness has remained almost uniform, there was a much higher percentage ichness has remained almost uniform, there was a much higher percentage ichness has remained almost uniform, there was a much higher percentage of recorded in 2015, and a much lower number (and percentage) of EPT taxa recorded. These results Chironomidae recorded in 2015, and a much lower number (and percentage) of EPT taxa recorded. These results recorded in 2015, and a much lower number (and percentage) of EPT taxa recorded. These results suggest that there is an inverse relationship between the number of and the number of EPT species Chironomidae suggest that there is an inverse relationship between the number ofsuggest that there is an inverse relationship between the number ofChironomidae Chironomidae and the number of EPT species present at BL1; in other words, while diversity among the inhabiting BL1 is increasing, the diversity Chironomidae ChironomidaeChironomidae present at BL1; in other words, while diversity among the present at BL1; in other words, while diversity among the inhabiting BL1 is increasing, the diversity inhabiting BL1 is increasing, the diversity (and number) of the sensitive EPT species is decreasing accordingly. (and number) of the sensitive EPT species is decreasing accordingly. (and number) of the sensitive EPT species is decreasing accordingly. The results of both the HBI analysis and the Shannon Diversity Index have decreased quite dramatically since 2014. I analysis and the Shannon Diversity Index have decreased quite dramatically since 2014. I analysis and the Shannon Diversity Index have decreased quite dramatically since 2014. As noted above, a high HBI score represents a high number of individuals present that are tolerant to pollution; a As noted above, a high HBI score represents a high number of individuals present that are tolerant to pollution; a As noted above, a high HBI score represents a high number of individuals present that are tolerant to pollution; a dramatic increase in the HBI value since 2014 further supports the likelihood that the number of are Chironomidae dramatic increase in the HBI value since 2014 furthedramatic increase in the HBI value since 2014 further supports the likelihood that the number of r supports the likelihood that the number of increasing in this watercourse. A low Shannon Diversity Index score suggests that the distribution of species within increasing in this watercourse. A low Shannon Diversity Index score suggests that the distribution of species within increasing in this watercourse. A low Shannon Diversity Index score suggests that the distribution of species within the sample collected is low. These results therefore suggest that there are a small number of families and/or species the sample collected is low. These results therefore suggest that there are athe sample collected is low. These results therefore suggest that there are a that represent a disproportionately high percentage of the organisms present. that represent a disproportionately high percentage of the organisms present. that represent a disproportionately high percentage of the organisms present. It is also of interest to note that while % Scrapers and % Clingers have increased since 2014, the species recorded It is also of interest to note that while % Scrapers and % Clingers have increased since 2014, the species recorded It is also of interest to note that while % Scrapers and % Clingers have increased since 2014, the species recorded with these habits and behaviours were almost exclusively from within the family. While seasonal Chironomidae nd behaviours were almost exclusively from within the nd behaviours were almost exclusively from within the with these habits a variance might be a factor accounting for the decreased water quality observed in 2015, these trends might also variance might be a factor accounting for the decreased water quality observed in 2015, these trends might also variance might be a factor accounting for the decreased water quality observed in 2015, these trends might also reflect a natural or anthropogenic disturbance that has altered the ecological health of this watercourse over the past reflect a natural or anthropogenic disturbance that hareflect a natural or anthropogenic disturbance that has altered the ecological health of this watercourse over the past year. 10.6.2 Fish Community Survey 10.6.210.6.2Fish Community SurveyFish Community Survey Table 10-7 summarizes the results of the fish community survey conducted by GRCA in Blair Creek (BBB-F6) in Table 10Table 1077summarizesthe results of the fish community survey conducted by GRCA in Blair Creek (BBBthe results of the fish community survey conducted by GRCA in Blair Creek (BBB -- summarizes 2015. As in Section 3.1, Blair Creek was only sampled by the GRCA at one location in 2015 (rather than at three Section 3.1Section 3.1 2015. As in 2015. As in , Blair Creek was only sampled, Blair Creek was only sampled locations in 2014), and therefore the fish habitat trends discussed below only reflect the fish community sampled at locations in 2014), and therefore the fish habitat trends discussed below only reflect the fish community sampled at locations in 2014), and therefore the fish habitat trends discussed below only reflect the fish community sampled at BBB-F6 (where Blair Creek flows just upstream of Highway 401). F6 (where Blair Creek flows just upstream of Highway 401).F6 (where Blair Creek flows just upstream of Highway 401). 57 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Table 10-7: 2014 and 2015 Fish Community Sampling Results for Blair Creek Abundance Thermal MNRF BBB-F6 BB-F6 Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance (ON) Regime Code 2014 2015 Brown Trout Common cold Intolerant 078 4 1 Salmo trutta Brook Trout Common cold Intolerant 080 32 13 Salvelinus fontinalis Central Mudminnow Common cool Tolerant 141 1 Umbra limi Catostomus White Sucker Common cool Tolerant 2 2 163 commersonii Creek Chub Common cool Tolerant 212 5 Semotilus atromaculatus 55 Pumpkinseed Common Warm Intermediate 313 2 Lepomis gibbosus Bluegill Common warm Intermediate 314 1 Lepomis macrochirus 1 314314 Mottled Sculpin Common cold Intermediate 381 35 7 Cottus bairdii 38138135 Blacknose Dace Common cool Intermediate 210 41 17 Rhinichthys obtusus 21021041 Number of Fish Collected 61 42 Thermal Classifications: Number of Fish Collected Number of Fish Collected 61 61 Indicates an Increase in Fish Habitat (BBB-F6- Coolwater) Species Richness 5 6 Species RichnessSpecies Richness 55 Quality since 2014 Indicates a Decrease in Fish Habitat % Tolerant Species 8.2 4.76 % Tolerant Species % Tolerant Species 8.2 Quality since 2014 % Intolerant Species 34.4 33.3 % Intolerant Species % Intolerant Species 34.4 The fish community assemblage recorded in 2015 is similar to the 2014 sample; though there were fewer species The fish community assemblage recorded in 2015 is similar to the 2014 sample; though there were fewer species The fish community assemblage recorded in 2015 is similar to the 2014 sample; though there were fewer species captured in 2015, overall diversity is similar. Most species identified are intermediately tolerant of pollution, though captured in 2015, overall diversity is similar. Most species identified are intermediately tolerant of pollution, though are intermediately tolerant of pollution, though there was still a high percentage of intolerant species captured. Both Brown Trout () and Brook Trout Salmo trutta there was still a high percentage of intolerant species captured. Both Brown Trout (there was still a high percentage of intolerant species captured. Both Brown Trout (Salmo trutta () were captured in 2015, and the fish community demonstrated an overall decrease in tolerant Salvelinus fontinalis ) were captured in 2015, and the fish community demonstrated an overall) were captured in 2015, and the fish community demonstrated an overall species. Despite a notable decline in the biological water quality monitoring indices measured at Blair Creek station species. Despite a notable decline in the biological water quality monitoring indices measured at Blair Creek station species. Despite a notable decline in the biological water quality monitoring indices measured at Blair Creek station BL1, the fish community sampled at BBB-F6 in 2015 suggests that the fish habitat in Blair Creek remains healthy. F6 in 2015 suggests that the fish habitat in Blair Creek remains healthy. F6 in 2015 suggests that the fish habitat in Blair Creek remains healthy. These results increase the likelihood that the poor water quality measured at BL1 is attributed to seasonal variance. ese results increase the likelihood that the poor water quality measured at BL1 is attributed to seasonal variance. ese results increase the likelihood that the poor water quality measured at BL1 is attributed to seasonal variance. 58 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 11. Pond Sediment Volumes In order to estimate the sediment volumes, an existing surface survey was constructed using a combination a of total station survey and sonar technology. The results were compared to the design bottom surface of the stormwater management pond, which were either as-constructed information (design drawings provided by the City), or the bottom surface surveyed in 2008. The estimated sediment volume is based on the difference between the design e estimated sediment volume is based on the difference between the design e estimated sediment volume is based on the difference between the design surface and the bottom surface. Appendix C summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM pond sediment volume Appendix C summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM pond sediment volume Appendix C summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM pond sediment volume exercise. This project follows an assessment / survey exercise that was done in 2008. Many of the ponds surveyed in the Many of the ponds surveyed in the Many of the ponds surveyed in the 2015 exercise also had been surveyed in 2008. In cases where there was no retrofit or clean-out work done in In cases where there was no retrofit or cleanIn cases where there was no retrofit or cleanout work done in out work done in -- between the two surveys, an estimate of the annual loading is provided. There are some cases where the 2015 surveyed surface is or or sediment volumes reported due to the following reasons: Ponds 1, 2, 3, 70 and 77 have sediment surfaces near the bottom design and reported negative values. 2, 3, 70 and 77 have sediment surfaces near the bottom design and reported negative values. 2, 3, 70 and 77 have sediment surfaces near the bottom design and reported negative values. Specifically, Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 77 are dry ponds and there may be minimal sediment accumulation along there may be minimal sediment accumulation along there may be minimal sediment accumulation along the banks as the majority of flow (and, thereby, sediment accumulation) will occur in their low-flow channels, cumulation) will occur in their lowcumulation) will occur in their low the banks as the majority of flow (and, thereby, sediment acthe banks as the majority of flow (and, thereby, sediment acflow channels - except during extremely high flow events. Therefore the negative value may be explained based on the Therefore the negative value may be explainedTherefore the negative value may be explainedbased on the distribution and number of survey shots collected during each survey period. distribution and number of survey shots collected during each survey period.distribution and number of survey shots collected during each survey period. Pond 78 has a design surface that is significantly higher (+/- 0.5 m in the main cell) than the surveyed ce that is significantly higher (+/ce that is significantly higher (+/0.5 m in the main cell) than the surveyed 0.5 m in the main cell) than the surveyed - bottom. QA of the methodology indicates no issue with the measurement. One possible explanation is that . QA of the methodology indicates no issue with the measurement. One possible explanation is that . QA of the methodology indicates no issue with the measurement. One possible explanation is that the pond may have not been constructed as per the design drawings. per the design drawingsper the design drawings constructed as constructed as . Ponds 105, 112, 118, 131, 132,139, 141, 151, 155, 172, 173 do not have a bottom reference surface to nds 105, 112, 118, 131, 132,139, 141, 151, 155, 172, 173 do not have a bottom reference surface to nds 105, 112, 118, 131, 132,139, 141, 151, 155, 172, 173 do not have a bottom reference surface to compare the surveyed surface to. compare the surveyed surface to. Of the four retrofitted ponds, Ponds 4, 30 and 22 have no bottom surface survey, as-constructed or design onds 4, 30 and 22 have no bottom surface survey, asonds 4, 30 and 22 have no bottom surface survey, as information therefore there is no sediment level provided. The sediment volume can be estimated when a suitable fore there is no sediment level provided. The sediment volume can be estimated when a suitable fore there is no sediment level provided. The sediment volume can be estimated when a suitable bottom surface is available. It is therefore recommended to develop a work plan to fill these data gaps and to It is therefore recommended to develop a work plan to fill these data gaps and to It is therefore recommended to develop a work plan to fill these data gaps and to bottom surface is available. bottom surface is available. investigate the negative volumes where no apparent reason exists. investigate the negative volumes where no appareinvestigate the negative volumes where no apparent reason existsreason exists . 3 The volume comparison showed that the volume above the full volume is greater than 200 m in six ponds The volume comparison showed The volume comparison showed that the that the volumevolumeabove the full volume is greater than 200 above the full volume is greater than 200 (excluding wetlands and dry ponds) as shown in Table 11-1. These ponds are recommended as cleaning priority. 1111 (excluding wetlands and dry ponds) as shown in (excluding wetlands and dry ponds) as shown in Table Table 11. These ponds are recommended . These ponds are recommended -- Table 11-1: Priority List for Pond Cleaning Table Table 111: Priority List for Pond Cleaning - Pond Drainage Sediment full 2008 Sediment 2015 Sediment Change in Annual Loading Volume Drainage SedSedimentimentfull 2008 Sediment 2008 Sediment Pond Pond Number Area (ha) Volume (m3) Volume (m³) Volume (m³) Sediment Volume Rate 2008-2015 above Full Area (ha)Volume (m3)Volume (m3)Volume (m³)Volume (m³) NumberNumber 3 2008-2015 (m³) (m³/yr) (m) 41 4 80 230 320 90 13 240 80 53 44 800 700 1420 720 103 620 44800800 44 57 4 40 0 270 270 39 230 440 80 18 380 470 730 260 37 350 1818 380380 100 30 890 1450 1830 380 54 940 30 101 29 630 920 1170 250 36 540 59 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 12. Overall Summary 12.1 Results of 2015 Monitoring Program Table 12-1 summarizes the results of the 2015 SWM Audit monitoring. Annual average and maximum values of parameters are shown at each station. Exceedances of average and/or value from respective guidelines have been parameters are shown at each station. Exceedances of average and/or value from respective guideparameters are shown at each station. Exceedances of average and/or value from respective guide identified as bold fonts and colored cells, respectively. Average concentrations of chloride have exceeded the chronic guideline at all streams except Strasburg and Blair Average concentrations of chloride have exceeded the chronic guideline at all streams except Strasburg and Blair Average concentrations of chloride have exceeded the chronic guideline at all streams except Strasburg and Blair Creek stations. Total phosphorus average concentrations also exceed the guideline at most streams except ed the guideline at most streams except ed the guideline at most streams except Montgomery and Kolb Creek (where maximum concentration exceed the guideline). Maximum dissolved Maximum dissolved Maximum dissolved Montgomery and Kolb Creek (where maximum concentration exceed the guideline). Montgomery and Kolb Creek (where maximum concentration exceed the guideline). phosphorus concentrations exceed the guideline for total phosphorus in many stations, too. phosphorus concentrations exceed the guideline for total phosphorus in many stations, too.phosphorus concentrations exceed the guideline for total phosphorus in many stations, too. Total suspended solids and to some extent metals (lead, copper and zinc) exceed their respective guidelines in to some extent metals (lead, copper and zinc) exceed their respective guidelines in to some extent metals (lead, copper and zinc) exceed their respective guidelines in Blazer, Hidden Valley, Idlewood, Strasburg (SB2), Shoemaker and Sandrock. SandrockSandrock . Table 12-1: Summary of 2015 SWM Audit Monitoring Results SWM Audit MonitoringSWM Audit MonitoringResultsResults Stream (Station) Chloride TSS Total P Dissolved P Lead Copper Zinc Dissolved PLead 241 (535) 109 (565) 0.13 (0.73) 0.04 (0.09) 0.01 (0.02) 0.03 (0.11) Balzer (BZ1) 0.004 (0.02) 0.004 (0.02) 184 (384) 58 (171) 0.09 (0.31) Hidden Valley (HV1) 0.02 (0.03) 0.003 (0.005) 0.002 (0.005) 0.01 (0.03) 0.003 (0.005)0.003 (0.005) 0.002 0.09 (0.31) 0.06 (0.14) 139 (348) 25 (107) Idlewood (IW1) 0.03 (0.07) 0.002 (0.004) 0.003 (0.009) 0.01 (0.03) 0.06 (0.14)0.002 (0.004)0.002 (0.004) 0.03 (0.07) 0.04 (0.07) 21 (42) Strasburg (SB2) 72 (78) 0.01 (0.06) - - - 0.04 (0.07)0.01 (0.06) -- 238 (504) 87 (519) 0.15 (0.76) 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.03 (0.14) Shoemaker (SM1) 0.07 (0.36) 0.15 (0.76)0.01 (0.03) 0.07 (0.36) 284 (706) 35 (150) 0.1 (0.33) 0.01 (0.02) Sandrock (SR2) 0.06 (0.15) 0 (0.01) 0.02 (0.06) 0.1 (0.33) 0.06 (0.15)0 (0.01) 0.04 (0.07) 338 (380) Strasburg (SB13A) 5.3 (6.5) 0.02 (0.03) 0.0001 (0.0001) 0.001 (0.001) 0.005 (0.006) 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 (0.03)0.02 (0.03) 0.0001 (0.0001)0.0001 (0.0001) 5.3 (6.5) 257 (260) Kolb (KD1) 5.6 (11.9) 0.03 (0.04) 0.02 (0.03) 0.0003 (0.0004) 0.002 (0.002) 0.006 (0.008) 0.03 (0.04)0.02 (0.03)0.02 (0.03) 5.6 (11.9)0.0003 (0.0004)0.0003 (0.0004) 5.6 (11.9) 560 (600) Montgomery (MG1) 5.5 (8.5) 0.015 (0.023) 0.007 (0.008) 0.001 (0.001) 0.004 (0.005) 0.013 (0.016) 0.015 (0.023)0.015 (0.023)0.007 (0.008)0.007 (0.008) 5.5 (8.5)5.5 (8.5)0.001 (0.001)0.001 (0.001) 152 (196) 0.033 (0.04) 0.05 (0.126) Schneider (SC1) - 0.004 (0.004) 0.003 (0.003) 0.012 (0.014) 0.033 (0.04)0.05 (0.126) -- 120 (293) 0.17 (0.45) Henry Strum (HS1) 155 (371) 0.02 (0.05) 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.001 (0.001) 0.004 (0.006) 0.17 (0.45) 155 (371)155 (371)0.02 (0.05) 120 (293) 0.038 (0.11) Blair Creek (BC4068) 39.6 (42) 8.6 (23) 0.014 (0.025) 0.001 (0.001) 0.002 (0.002) 0.011 (0.026) 0.038 (0.11) 8.6 (23) 39.6 (42)39.6 (42)0.014 (0.025)0.014 (0.025) Guideline 120 25 0.03 0.03 0.005 0.005 0.02 120 Notes: All values are in mg/L All values are in mg/L Concentrations are shown as: Average (Maximum) values Concentrations are shown as: Average (Maximum) valuesConcentrations are shown as: Average (Maximum) values Exceedance of average concentration is shown through bold fonts Exceedance of average concentration is shown through bold fontsExceedance of average concentration is shown through bold fonts Exceedance of maximum concentration is shown through highlighted cells. Exceedance of maximum concentration is shown through highlighted cells.Exceedance of maximum concentration is shown through highlighted cells. 12.2 Trends Trends 12.212.2 Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were Stations with eight (8) years or more of data that were involved in both wet and dry sampling events in 2015 were compared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. These stations included Strasburg 2 (SB2), Henry compared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. These stations included Strasburg 2 (SB2), Henry compared with historical data for wet and dry sampling events. These stations included Strasburg 2 (SB2), Henry Strum 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery (MG1) and Sandrock (SR2). Time series are provided for TSS and Strum 1 (HS1), Kolb CreStrum 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek (KD1), Montgomery (MG1) and Sandrock (SR2). Time series are provided for TSS and ek (KD1), Montgomery (MG1) and Sandrock (SR2). Time series are provided for TSS and chloride. Metals and nutrients are generally correlated with TSS and follow the same patterns. A summary of the chloride. Metals and nutrients are generally correlated with TSS and follow the same patterns. A summary of the chloride. Metals and nutrients are generally correlated with TSS and follow the same patterns. A summary of the analysis result is as follows: analysis result is as follows: analysis result is as follows: SB2: no long-term trend is observed in this station for TSS and chloride with concentrations being generally below respective guidelines. HS1: wet weather measurements of TSS have been high since 2008, at which point it reached a concentration of 2100 mg/L. since. Dry weather concentrations of chloride started to increase from around 120 mg/L to a few hundred in 2008. 60 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit KD1: wet weather measurements of TSS have climbed to vales above 100 mg/L since 2009. Both dry and wet weather concentrations of chloride have been above the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L since 2009. MG1: wet weather measurements of TSS have climbed to vales about 140 mg/L since 2009. Chloride concentrations during both wet and dry weather events have been hovering around 400 mg/L with some wet years falling below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for chronic toxicity. SR2: wet weather measurements of TSS increased from earlier lower values to about 300 mg/L in 2012 and 150 SR2: wet weather measurements of TSS increased from earlier lower values to about 300 mg/L in 2012 and 150 SR2: wet weather measurements of TSS increased from earlier lower values to about 300 mg/L in 2012 and 150 mg/L in 2015. Dry weather concentrations of chloride have general been between CCME guidelines of 120 and 640 mg/L in 2015. Dry weather concentrations of chloride have general been between CCME guidelines omg/L in 2015. Dry weather concentrations of chloride have general been between CCME guidelines o f 120 and 640 mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific mg/L for chronic and acute toxicity, respectively, with one sample reaching 2100 mg/L in January 2012. No specific trend is observed for TSS or chloride. 12.3 Biological Sampling Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling was conducted at the eight stations listed above. ight stations listed above.ight stations listed above. Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number (or percentage) of organisms for each metric that should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Samples that should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Sampthat should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples were compared to one other by stream. Samp collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note collected within each watercourse were also measured against the First and Second Five Year Report Card to note any changes in the benthic data over time. Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program yielded similar Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Aquatic invertebrate samples collected as part of the 2015 Kitchener Stormwater Monitoring Program yielded similar results to the previous years. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), results to the previous years. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), results to the previous years. Shoemaker Greenway (SM1) scored highest in two metrics (% EPT and % Clingers), and second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker and second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker and second highest in three metrics (% Dominant, % Scrapers and HBI); the results suggest that Shoemaker Greenway (SR2) has the highest overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and as the highest overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and as the highest overall water quality within the study area. Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations Strasburg Creek (SB2) each scored highest in two metrics, suggesting good overall water quality at these locations as well. Kolb Creek (KD1) had the lowest overall water quality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the as well. Kolb Creek (KD1) had the lowest overall wateras well. Kolb Creek (KD1) had the lowest overall waterquality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the quality, scoring lowest in three indices (% EPT, % CL and the Shannon Diversity Index). Over the past three years, the overall quality of Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased Over the past three years, the overall quality of Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased Over the past three years, the overall quality of Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) has increased for all indices measured. Overall water quality in Strasburg Creek (SB2) plummeted in 2014 from its 2013 conditions, for all indices measured. Overall water quality in Stfor all indices measured. Overall water quality in Strasburg Creek (SB2) plummeted in 2014 from its 2013 conditions, rasburg Creek (SB2) plummeted in 2014 from its 2013 conditions, but results revealed a marked improvement in 2015. Values increased dramatically in Strasburg Creek (SB2) for but results revealed a marked improvement in 2015. Values increased dramatically in Strasburg Creek (SB2) for but results revealed a marked improvement in 2015. Values increased dramatically in Strasburg Creek (SB2) for almost all water quality indices from 2014 to 2015, and this watercourse is once again considered to have one of the almost all water quality indices from 2014 to 2015, and this watercourse is once aalmost all water quality indices from 2014 to 2015, and this watercourse is once a healthiest biological communities of the eight sites examined for the purpose of this study. While water quality has healthiest biological communities of the eight sites examined for the purpose of this study. While water quality has healthiest biological communities of the eight sites examined for the purpose of this study. While water quality has generally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this is not the case for generally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this is not the casegenerally improved in Montgomery Creek (MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2013, this is not the case Sandrock Greenway (SR2). Sandrock Greenway (SR2). Sandrock Greenway (SR2). The 2015 fish sampling revealed a fish community similar to that of past monitoring years. Strasburg 2 (SB2) scored The 2015 fish sampling revealed a fish community similar to that of past monitoring years. Strasburg 2 (SB2) scored The 2015 fish sampling revealed a fish community similar to that of past monitoring years. Strasburg 2 (SB2) scored highest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout, a highly sensitive species to highest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout, a highly sensitive speciehighest in % Intolerant Species, which is a result of the presence of Brook Trout, a highly sensitive specie pollution. Brook Trout have been well-known within Strasburg 2 (SB2) since 2011, and the trends suggest that their known within Strasburg 2 (SB2) since 2011, and the trends suggest that their known within Strasburg 2 (SB2) since 2011, and the trends suggest that their pollution. Brook Trout have been wellpollution. Brook Trout have been well - abundance has been increasing yearly. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1), with a variety of tolerant abundance has been increasing yearly. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1), with a variety of tolerant abundance has been increasing yearly. Species density was highest at Kolb Creek (KD1), with a variety of tolerant and intermediately tolerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker lerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker lerant coolwater and warmwater species identified. No fish were captured at Shoemaker and intermediately toand intermediately to Greenway (SM1) for the second consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. The Greenway (SM1) for the second consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. The Greenway (SM1) for the second consecutive year, and as a result this watercourse scored low in all metrics. The majority of the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) are coolwater species, with the exception of Brook Trout and majority of the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) aremajority of the species captured at Strasburg 2 (SB2) are Mottled Sculpin (which are coldwater species. The fish community in Montgomery Creek (MG1) is Cottus bairdii) Mottled Sculpin (Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) Cottus bairdii) which are coldwater species. The fish community in Montgomery Creek (MG1) is transitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species to a community dominated by only a transitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species to a comtransitioning from a diverse assemblage containing many different fish species to a com few tolerant species. In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock few tolerant species. In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock few tolerant species. In 2015, a higher number of individuals were captured in Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Sandrock Greenway (SR2) than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other Greenway (SR2) than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other Greenway (SR2) than during the previous two sampling years. However, species richness (as well as the other indices measured) has remained more or less consistent since 2013. Biological Monitoring tasks were undertaken as part of the Balzer Creek Class Environmental Assessment derate degree of species diversity. 61 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 12.4 Monitoring History at Locations with Autosampler Data Table 12-2 provides a description and history of monitoring activities at the five locations where flow proportionate l monitoring program. There is also one GRCA station with autosampler records. Table 12-2: Monitoring at Locations with Autosampler Data Years Sampled (# samples in Catchment Land Proposed Role Catchment Land Catchment Land Proposed Role Waterbody Site ID * Coordinates (X,Y) sampling record) Cover in Analysis in Analysis Agency: City of Kitchener Kolb Creek KD1 546777.1 4812293 TSS 2002-2012, 2014-2015 (n=79) Urban (residential, Needs more Urban (residential, Urban (residential, Needs more limited commercial) discussion TP 2002-2012, 2014-2015 (n=80) limited commercial) limited commercial) discussion Flow 2011-2014 Montgomery Urban (residential, Needs more Urban (residential, Urban (residential, Needs more Needs more Creek MG1 543756.1 4808565 TSS 2002-2006, 2008-2015 (n=77) limited commercial) discussion ))limited commercial) 2015 (n=72015 (n=777discussiondiscussion 2003, 2005-2006, 2008-2015 2015 2015 20082008 -- TP (n=85) Flow 2014 Henry Sturm HS1 540202 4810289 TSS 2002-2010, 2015 (n=80) Rural/ Urban Following Victoria )Rural/ Urban Rural/ Urban 2010, 2015 (n=2010, 2015 (n=8080Following (residential, limited Lake Post TP 2003-2010, 2015 (n=80) (residential, limited (residential, limited Lake Post ) 2010, 2015 (n=2010, 2015 (n=8080 ) commercial, limited Construction commercial, limited commercial, limited Flow 2015 rural) Monitoring rural) 2015 Strasburg 2002-2003, 2005-2009, 2011-Rural/ Urban (mixture Needs more 2003, 20052009, 20112009, 2011Rural/ Urban (mixture 20022002 ----- 2003, 2005 Rural/ Urban (mixture Creek SB2 544025 4804434 TSS 2015 (n=76) of rural, urban and discussion 2015 (n=2015 (n=76)of rural, urban and of rural, urban and 76 ) green space) 2003, 2005-2009, 2011-2015 green space)green space) 2003, 20052003, 20052009, 20112009, 20112015 --- TP (n=83) (n=(n=) TP8383 Flow 2015 Flow20152015 Strasburg Urban (mixture of Needs more Urban Urban Creek SB13a 543107.1 4805474 TSS 2013-2015 (n=17) urban, commercial discussion TSS201320132015 (n=17)2015 (n=17) 4805474 4805474 -- and industrial) TP 2013-2015 (n=17) TPTP20132015 (n=17)2015 (n=17) -- Flow 2013 FlowFlow2013 Agency: GRCA Blair Creek 2414002 546219 4802014 TSS 2006-2014 (n=83) Rural (agricultural, Rural "reference" TSSTSS 546219546219480201420062014 (n=83)2014 (n=83) - limited residential) TP 2006-2014 (n=83) TPTP20062014 (n=83)2014 (n=83) - Flow 1998-2014 FlowFlow1998199820142014 -- * Site descriptions: Site descriptions: KD1: Kolb Creek near Misty St and the Otterbien Rd. intersection. Upstream of the Grand River. KD1: Kolb Creek near Misty St and the Otterbien Rd. intersection. Upstream of the Grand River.KD1: Kolb Creek near Misty St and the Otterbien Rd. intersection. Upstream of the Grand River. MG1: Downstream of the walking bridge connecting Shelley Dr. and Wilson Ave. MG1: Downstream of the walking bridge connecting Shelley Dr. and Wilson Ave. MG1: Downstream of the walking bridge connecting Shelley Dr. and Wilson Ave. HS1: Henry Strum Greenway downstream of West Ave and the Iron Horse Trans Canada Trail Bridge HS1: HS1: Henry Strum Greenway downstream of West Ave and the Iron Horse Trans Canada Trail BridgeHenry Strum Greenway downstream of West Ave and the Iron Horse Trans Canada Trail Bridge SB2: Strasburg Creek upstream of Biehn Dr. SB2: Strasburg Creek upstream of Biehn Dr. SB2: Strasburg Creek upstream of Biehn Dr. SB13a: Strasburg Creek directly downstream of the Strasburg Rd and Trillium Dr. Intersection SB13a: Strasburg Creek directly downstream of the Strasburg Rd and Trillium Dr. IntersectionSB13a: Strasburg Creek directly downstream of the Strasburg Rd and Trillium Dr. Intersection 2414002: Blair Creek upstream New Dundee Rd. 2414002: Blair Creek upstream 2414002: Blair Creek upstream New Dundee Rd.New Dundee Rd. 62 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 13. Non-Point Source Pollution and Best Management Practices Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) comes from many different sources, such as rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and man-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater. These pollutants can include excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; oil, grease, and toxic chemiherbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; oil, grease, and toxic chemi runoff and energy production; sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and runoff and energy production; sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and runoff and energy production; sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding stream banks; salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients eroding stream banks; salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients eroding stream banks; salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems. In 2014, AECOM prepared a Best Practices Guide for Reducing Urban Non-Point Source Pollution in the Grand and Point Source Pollution in the Grand and Point Source Pollution in the Grand and Speed Rivers for the GRCA (AECOM 2014). A literature review completed as part of this study indicated that the . A literature review completed as part of this study indicated t. A literature review completed as part of this study indicated that the water quality of the water courses in the study area is reflective of the regional geology, land use, land management water quality of the water courses in the study area is reflective of the regional geology, land use, land management water quality of the water courses in the study area is reflective of the regional geology, land use, land management practices, and seasonal weather conditions. Although urban land use is relatively low at the watershed scale, urban practices, and seasonal weather conditions. Although urban land use is relatively low at the watershed scale, urban practices, and seasonal weather conditions. Although urban land use is relatively low at the watershed scale, urban development is increasing in the watershed both in area and intensity. These urban areas are concentrated adjacent increasing in the watershed both in area and intensity. These urban areas are concentrated adjacent increasing in the watershed both in area and intensity. These urban areas are concentrated adjacent to the Grand River. Some studies have been conducted to characterize the mass loading of phosphorus and to the Grand River. Some studies have been conducted to characterize the mass loading of phosphorus and to the Grand River. Some studies have been conducted to characterize the mass loading of phosphorus and sediment from urban areas in the GRW. Studies from the mid-1970s suggested that urban runoff accounted for 6% 1970s suggested that urban runoff accounted for 6% 1970s suggested that urban runoff accounted for 6% of the phosphorous load to Lake Erie, despite accounting for only 3% of the drainage area. As the Grand River of the phosphorous load to Lake Erie, despite accounting for only 3% of the drainage area. As the Grand River of the phosphorous load to Lake Erie, despite accounting for only 3% of the drainage area. As the Grand River flows through the central region, it accumulates both urban non-point and point source pollution. In the central Grand flows through the central region, it accumulates both urban nonpoint and point sourcpoint and point source pollution. In the central Grand e pollution. In the central Grand - River watershed, urban development and transportation corridors cover approximately 30% of the total area. Studies River watershed, urban development and transportation corridors cover approximately 30% of the total area. Studies River watershed, urban development and transportation corridors cover approximately 30% of the total area. Studies of the Grand River at Blair have estimated that urban runoff has contributed approximately one-third of the total of the Grand River at Blair have estimated that urban runoff has contributed approximately oneof the Grand River at Blair have estimated that urban runoff has contributed approximately onethird of the - phosphorous loading during high spring flows and summer storm events. phosphorous loading during high spring flows and summer storm events.phosphorous loading during high spring flows and summer storm events. A large proportion of the urban areas were developed prior to 1980 and do not have SWM controls. The prevalence A large proportion of the urban areas were developed prior to 1980 and do not have SWM controls. The prevalence A large proportion of the urban areas were developed prior to 1980 and do not have SWM controls. The prevalence of hard surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and roofs, results in large amounts of uncontrolled urban runoff. of hard surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and roofs,of hard surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and roofs,results results in large amounts of uncontrolled urban runoff. in large amounts of uncontrolled urban runoff. Existing and potential stormwater management practices applicable throughout the study area vary due to several Existing and potential stormwater management practicesExisting and potential stormwater management practicesapplicable throughout the study area vary due to several applicable throughout the study area vary due to several factors including: the existing level of SWM design features, the space constraints due to existing property and factors including: the existing level of SWM design features,factors including: the existing level of SWM design features, the space constraints due to existithe space constraints due to existi structures, the suitability of soils for infiltration, the potential for groundwater contamination with increased infiltration, structures, the suitability of soils for infiltration, the potential forstructures, the suitability of soils for infiltration, the potential forgroundwater contamination with increased infiltration, groundwater contamination with increased infiltration, cold weather considerations, access, monitoring and maintenance feasibility. maintenance feasibility.maintenance feasibility. cold weather considerations, access, monitoring andcold weather considerations, access, monitoring and However, there are a wide variety of operations and maintenance (O&M), infrastructure, and planning of operations and maintenance (O&M), infrastructure, and planningof operations and maintenance (O&M), infrastructure, and planning However, there are a wide variety However, there are a wide variety enhancements of stormwater management headed by the area municipalities. These stormwater management enhancements of stormwater management headed by the enhancements of stormwater management headed by the municipalities. These stormwater management area area municipalities. These stormwater management ic Information System (GIS) availability, transportation corridor maintenance (i.e., street sweeping, leaf collection, catch basin cleanouts, (GIS) availability, transportation corridor maintenance (i.e., street sweeping, leaf collection, catch basin cleanouts,(GIS) availability, transportation corridor maintenance (i.e., street sweeping, leaf collection, catch basin cleanouts, and road salting operations), SWM infrastructure inventory and maintenance practices, and monitoring programs, and road salting operations), SWM infrastructure inventory and maintenance practices, and monitoring programs,and road salting operations), SWM infrastructure inventory and maintenance practices, and monitoring programs, are outlined in AECOM (2014). Stormwater management practices in the area include but are not limited to: the outlined in AECOM (2014)outlined in AECOM (2014). Stormwater. Stormwater management practices in the development of master plans, SWM facility operation and maintenance, stream monitoring and rehabilitation works, development of master plans, SWM facilitydevelopment of master plans, SWM facilityoperation and maintenance, stream monitoring and rehabilitation works, retrofit activities, and maintenance of transportation corridors. ofof retrofit activities, and maintenanceretrofit activities, and maintenancetransportation corridors.transportation corridors. Stormwater ponds are common throughout the area. New developments with sizes greater than 5 hectares are Stormwater ponds are common throughout the Stormwater ponds are common throughout the typically outfitted with stormwater ponds for stormwater quantity and quality control in all of the area municipalities. typically outfitted with stormwater ponds for stormwater quantity and quality control in all of the typically outfitted with stormwater ponds for stormwater quantity and quality control in all of the For new developments with areas less than 5 hectares, the application of grassed swales and/or OGS are the most For new developments with areas less than 5 hectares, the application of grassed swales and/or OGS areFor new developments with areas less than 5 hectares, the application of grassed swales and/or OGS are common enhanced stormwater quality measures. common enhanced stormwater quality measures.common enhanced stormwater quality measures. The GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo are initiating a study in GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo are initGRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo are init 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, using existing water monitoring 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, using existing water monitoring 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, using existing water monitoring data. AECOM (2014) Best Practices guideline identified three key objectives (themes) and 13 recommendations for reducing urban NPS pollution; a summary of which is provided here: Objective 1: Improve Stormwater Management Governance and Stewardship 63 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Stormwater management governance and stewardship was identified as an area of improvement by the SWMG. Improvement is necessary at all levels, whether it be the Province updating stormwater guidelines, or the GRCA supporting municipalities to implement BMP pilot projects. The following are recommendations to improve stormwater management governance and stewardship within the watershed: Recommendation 1: Guidance and Approvals (long-term) a) Based on most recent science, monitoring and implementation of LID measures, the Province should update SWM guidelines to provide as much, if not more, guidance and recognition of LID lot level and conveyance SWM guidelines to provide as much, if not more, guidance and recognition of LID lot level anSWM guidelines to provide as much, if not more, guidance and recognition of LID lot level an controls when compared to end of pipe controls. This includes design, monitoring, and maintenance controls when compared to end of pipe controls. This includes design, monitoring, and maintenance controls when compared to end of pipe controls. This includes design, monitoring, and maintenance requirements. Watershed municipalities should keep the MOE (and the Ministry of Infrastructure, as requirements. Watershed municipalities should keep the MOE (and the Ministry of Infrastructure, as requirements. Watershed municipalities should keep the MOE (and the Ministry of Infrastructure, as appropriate) engaged at a local level to keep dialogue open about innovative solutions. Municipalities should dialogue open about innovative solutions. Municipalities should dialogue open about innovative solutions. Municipalities should work with the MOE to satisfy permitting criteria using LID approaches in new developments. work with the MOE to satisfy permitting criteria using LID approaches in new developments.work with the MOE to satisfy permitting criteria using LID approaches in new developments. b) The GRCA should 1) support municipalities in their efforts to implement BMP pilot projects, 2) participate in The GRCA should 1) support municipalities in their efforts to implement BMP pilot projects, 2) particThe GRCA should 1) support municipalities in their efforts to implement BMP pilot projects, 2) partic ipate in and provide input for municipal SWM plans consistent with an emphasis on LID measures for improved and and provide input for municipal SWM plans consistent with an emphasis on LID measures for improved and and provide input for municipal SWM plans consistent with an emphasis on LID measures for improved and more cost-effective stormwater management, 3) take a clear position on the conditions requiring end of pipe effective stormwater management, 3) take a clear position on the conditions requiring end of pipe effective stormwater management, 3) take a clear position on the conditions requiring end of pipe measures, and 4) support the elimination of end of pipe requirements where implementing LID measures tion of end of pipe requirements where implementing LID measures tion of end of pipe requirements where implementing LID measures are expected to be sufficient during the development planning and permitting process. The SWMG should are expected to be sufficient during the development planning and permitting process. The SWMG should are expected to be sufficient during the development planning and permitting process. The SWMG should support the GRCA in these endeavours when possible. c) Watershed municipalities should seek input from SWM experts with experience in LID to update their input from SWM experts with experience in LID to update their input from SWM experts with experience in LID to update their respective SWM Guidelines/Plans. Consideration should be given for potential climate change impacts on respective SWM Guidelines/Plans. Consideration should be given for potential climate change impacts on respective SWM Guidelines/Plans. Consideration should be given for potential climate change impacts on the frequency and severity of rainfall events. In addition, watershed municipalities should develop a review the frequency and severity of rainfall events. In addition, watershed municipalities shouldthe frequency and severity of rainfall events. In addition, watershed municipalities shoulddevelop a review process for stormwater management facilities to assess the effectiveness of specific BMPs and identify and process for stormwater management facilities to assess the effectiveness of specific BMPs and identify and process for stormwater management facilities to assess the effectiveness of specific BMPs and identify and correct deficiencies. The SWMG should support watershed municipalities in these endeavours when The SWMG should support watershed municipalities in these endeavours when The SWMG should support watershed municipalities in these endeavours when possible. Recommendation 2: Sediment Management (short-term) term)term) ent Management (shortent Management (short -- a) Watershed municipalities and the Region of Waterloo should work with the Province to continue to increase Watershed municipalities and the Region of Waterloo should work with the Province to continue to increase Watershed municipalities and the Region of Waterloo should work with the Province to continue to increase the clarity and appropriateness of provincial guidelines for the removal and disposal of sediment from SWM the clarity and appropriateness of provincial guidelines for the removal and disposal of sediment from SWM the clarity and appropriateness of provincial guidelines for the removal and disposal of sediment from SWM ponds. Recommendation 3: Enforcement (long-term) ndation 3: Enforcement (longndation 3: Enforcement (longterm)term) - a) The Province should provide more enforcement of SWM regulations and permitted stormwater discharge The Province should provide more enforcement of SWM regulations and permitted stormwater discharge The Province should provide more enforcement of SWM regulations and permitted stormwater discharge criteria. b) infill or redevelopment projects) to avoid on-site SWM controls that are available to new developments fill or redevelopment projects) to avoid onfill or redevelopment projects) to avoid onsite SWM controls that are available to new developments site SWM controls that are available to new developments -- (particularly for infill or redevelopment projects) to avoid on-site SWM controls. (particularly for infill or redevelopment projects) to avoid on(particularly for infill or redevelopment projects) to avoid on c) The GRCA and/or watershed municipalities should ensure that erosion and sediment controls are in place The GRCA and/or watershed municipalities should ensure that erosion and The GRCA and/or watershed municipalities should ensure that erosion and on all construction sites within the watershed, where applicable. These controls should be monitored and on all construction sites within the watershed, where applicable. These controls should be monitored and on all construction sites within the watershed, where applicable. These controls should be monitored and implemented effectively. Greater enforcement of the installation and proper operation of ESC controls is implemented effectively. Greater enforcement of the installation and proper operation of ESC controls is implemented effectively. Greater enforcement of the installation and proper operation of ESC controls is required. required.required. Recommendation 4: Monitoring (long-term) RecoRecommendation 4: Monitoring (longmmendation 4: Monitoring (longterm) - a) The Water Quality Working Group should continue to work to better characterize urban stormwater NPS The Water Quality Working Group should continue to work to better characterize urban stormwater NPS The Water Quality Working Group should continue to work to better characterize urban stormwater NPS pollution in the GRW. For example, the urban-sourced pollutants of greatest concern and the most likely pollution in the GRW. For example, the urbanpollution in the GRW. For example, the urban causes or areas of discharge should be identified. The urban impact on river and Lake Erie health relative of discharge should be identified. The urban impact on river and Lake Erie health relative of discharge should be identified. The urban impact on river and Lake Erie health relative causes or areascauses or areas to other inputs (point sources and rural non-point sources) should be investigated. Based on knowledge of to other inputs (point sources and rural nonto other inputs (point sources and rural non urban NPS pollution and the ecological health of the Grand River, the Water Quality Working Group under urban NPS pollution and the ecological health of the Granurban NPS pollution and the ecological health of the Gran the Water Management Plan should provide effective water quality targets along with monitoring strategies the Water Management Planthe Water Management Plan for urban SWM efforts to improve river water quality and ecosystem health for urban SWM efforts to improve river water quality and ecosystem healthfor urban SWM efforts to improve river water quality and ecosystem health Recommendation 5: Data Sharing (long-term) a) The GRCA should provide central online resources for sharing data (e.g. monitoring data, pilot projects) among GRW municipal SWM staff and the greater watershed community. The GRCA should operate and maintain the monitoring data management system. 64 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit b) monitoring tool. Other online data sharing tools should be developed as the need for information sharing arises. Recommendation 6: Leadership (long-term) a) GRCA and watershed municipalities should foster partnerships with the development community and private sector; particular emphasis should be placed on encouraging them to demonstrate SWM leadership to their customers. Watershed municipalities should offer merit awards to private companies, organizations, or should offer merit awards to private companies, organizations, or should offer merit awards to private companies, organizations, or individuals who demonstrate leadership in SWM design. GRCA and watershed municipalities should also individuals who demonstrate leadership in SWM design. GRCA and watershed municipalities should also individuals who demonstrate leadership in SWM design. GRCA and watershed municipalities should also show leadership by implementing LID BMPs where possible. Objective 2: Source Funding to Implement Stormwater BMPs A funding mechanism must be in place to properly implement stormwater BMPs. The following are A funding mechanism must be in place to properly implement stormwater BMPs. The following are A funding mechanism must be in place to properly implement stormwater BMPs. The following are recommendations relating to securing funding to achieve BMPs: Recommendation 7: Opportunity-based Funding (short-term) a) GRCA and watershed municipalities should review and take advantage of opportunity-based and alternative hed municipalities should review and take advantage of opportunityhed municipalities should review and take advantage of opportunitybased and alternative based and alternative - funding sources for SWM projects and studies. These may include grants, one-off government programs or funding sources for SWM projects and studies. These may include grants, onefunding sources for SWM projects and studies. These may include grants, oneoff government programs or off government programs or -- alternative tax streams (i.e., gas tax) and might be used to fund capital projects, pilot studies, monitoring alternative tax streams (i.e., gas tax) and might be used to funalternative tax streams (i.e., gas tax) and might be used to fund capital projects, pilot studies, monitoring d capital projects, pilot studies, monitoring equipment purchase, etc. Recommendation 8: Sustainable Funding (long-term) term) term) a) Watershed municipalities should investigate sustainable funding mechanisms to treat stormwater as a investigate sustainable funding mechanisminvestigate sustainable funding mechanism to treat stormwater as a s specific program to facilitate planned development and implementation of SWM best practices. specific program to facilitate planned development and implementation of specific program to facilitate planned development and implementation of SWMSWM best practices. Objective 3: Improve Stormwater Management Education Objective 3: Improve Stormwater Management EducationObjective 3: Improve Stormwater Management Education Stormwater management education was identified as an area of improvement by the SWMG. Focused education at Stormwater management education was identified as an area of improvement by the SStormwater management education was identified as an area of improvement by the S all levels is necessary to improve knowledge of proper SWM. For example, educating school-age children about all levels is necessary to improve knowledge of proper SWM. For example, educating schoolall levels is necessary to improve knowledge of proper SWM. For example, educating school SWM ensures that our future leaders understand and appreciate these issues. The following are recommendations SWM ensures that our future leaders understand and appreciate these issues. The following are recommendations SWM ensures that our future leaders understand and appreciate these issues. The following are recommendations to improve SWM education within the watershed: SWM education within the watershed:SWM education within the watershed: Recommendation 9: Education in Schools (long-term) 9: Education in Schools (long9: Education in Schools (longterm) - - term) a) The Province should provide guidance to school boards on SWM as it pertains to school board properties The Province should provide guidance to school boards on SWM as it pertains to school board properties The Province should provide guidance to school boards on SWM as it pertains to school board properties and on educational opportunities in their classrooms. and on educational opportunities in their classrooms.and on educational opportunities in their classrooms. b) Watershed municipalities should develop partnerships with elementary, secondary, and post-secondary Watershed Watershed municipalities should develop partnerships with elementary, secondary, and postmunicipalities should develop partnerships with elementary, secondary, and post educators to encourage student participation and learning about SWM through the implementation of simple educators to encourage student participation and learning about SWM through the implementation of simple educators to encourage student participation and learning about SWM through the implementation of simple SWM measures on school properties. Municipalities should encourage school boards to participate in on-site SWM measures on school propertiSWM measures on school properti Municipalities should enco es. SWM initiatives and educational programming on stormwater services. SWM initiatives and educational programming on stormwater services.SWM initiatives and educational programming on stormwater services. Recommendation 10: Education in the Community (long-term) commendation 10: Education in the Community (longcommendation 10: Education in the Community (long a) Watershed municipalities should develop a SWM education plan to engage residents, developers, and Watershed municipalities should develop a SWM education plan to engage residents, dWatershed municipalities should develop a SWM education plan to engage residents, d Council on the importance of stormwater management. Municipalities may work with partners to engage the Council on the importance of stormwater management. Municipalities may work with partners to engage the Council on the importance of stormwater management. Municipalities may work with partners to engage the community (i.e., REEP RAIN educational program in Waterloo Region, a collaboration with REEP Green community (i.e., REEP RAIN educational program in Waterloo Region, a collaboration with REEP Green community (i.e., REEP RAIN educational program in Waterloo Region, a collaboration with REEP Green Solutions). They should also work with other municipal departments (such as road reconstruction or parks Solutions). They should also work withSolutions). They should also work with maintenance) to communicate the basic principles of stormwater BMPs and find opportunities to collaborate maintenance) tomaintenance) tocommunicate the basic principles of stormwater BMPs and find opportunities to collaborate communicate the basic principles of stormwater BMPs and find opportunities to collaborate in the effort to improve SWM. Use visuals and concrete examples that people can relate to highlight why in the effort to improve SWM. in the effort to improve SWM. SWM is important and what needs to be done to protect residents, property, and the environment. The is important and what needs to be done to protect residents, property, and the environment. is important and what needs to be done to protect residents, property, and the environment. SWMG should support municipalities in these endeavours when possible. Recommendation 11: Community Engagement (long-term) a) Identify stakeholder groups that are likely to resist changes to local stormwater management. Watershed municipalities should be proactive in engaging these groups in the discussion and planning process. Municipalities should provide more education through demonstration at the ground level to effectively communicate how needs can be met. 65 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Recommendation 12: Innovation (long-term) a) The GRCA should recognize and communicate innovative stormwater management projects, monitoring results, and community participation in stormwater management. The GRCA should highlight stormwater the GRCA in these endeavours when possible. Recommendation 13: Best Science (long-term) a) The GRCA should maintain current knowledge of the academic research relevant to Grand River water maintain current knowledge of the academic research relevant to Grand River water maintain current knowledge of the academic research relevant to Grand River water quality and urban NPS pollution; highlight relevant studies on the GRCA website and utilise sound and website and utilise sound and website and utilise sound and relevant new knowledge/technology in planning and regular activities to the extent feasible so that the best logy in planning and regular activities to the extent feasiblelogy in planning and regular activities to the extent feasible so that the best science is being communicated to watershed stakeholders. The SWMG should support the GRCA in these science is being communicated to watershed stakeholders. The SWMG should support the GRCA in these science is being communicated to watershed stakeholders. The SWMG should support the GRCA in these endeavours when possible. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has produced results from case-studies on LID projects (EPA) has produced results from case(EPA) has produced results from casestudies on LID projects studies on LID projects - and cost-benefit analyses (EPA 2007, 2013). They have noted that uncertainties surrounding the costs, operation benefit analyses (EPA 2007, 2013). They have noted that uncertainties surrounding the costs, operation benefit analyses (EPA 2007, 2013). They have noted that uncertainties surrounding the costs, operation and maintenance requirements, budgetary constraints, and methodology for quantifying LID benefits may be ng LID benefits may be ng LID benefits may be and maintenance requirements, budgetary constraints, and methodology for quantifyiand maintenance requirements, budgetary constraints, and methodology for quantifyi prohibitive factors that explain why several jurisdictions that have implemented LID have not conducted economic prohibitive factors that explain why several jurisdictions that have implemented LID have not conducted economic prohibitive factors that explain why several jurisdictions that have implemented LID have not conducted economic analyses or monitoring of their programs. An economic analysis compared the program costs of seventeen LID analyses or monitoring of their programs. An economic analysis compared the program costs of seventeen LID analyses or monitoring of their programs. An economic analysis compared the program costs of seventeen LID projects to the costs of conventional SWM design. In most cases, with few exceptions, significant capital costs were the costs of conventional SWM design. In most cases, with few exceptions, significant capital costs were the costs of conventional SWM design. In most cases, with few exceptions, significant capital costs were reduced due to reduced costs for site grading and preparation, reduced need for conventional stormwater reduced due to reduced costs for site grading and preparation, reduced need for conventional stormwater reduced due to reduced costs for site grading and preparation, reduced need for conventional stormwater infrastructure, reduced materials for paving, and integrated costs for landscaping. Total capital costs were reduced nd integrated costs for landscaping. Total capital costs were reduced nd integrated costs for landscaping. Total capital costs were reduced by 15-80% compared to conventional SWM in all but a few of the case studies. Projected life-cycle costs also 80% compared to conventional SWM in all but a few of the case studies. Projected life80% compared to conventional SWM in all but a few of the case studies. Projected life cycle costs also - generally favoured LID practices over conventional SWM. generally favoured LID practices over conventional SWM.generally favoured LID practices over conventional SWM. The CVC website highlights several examples of LID practices in commercial/industrial, residential, public lands, and lights several examples of LID practices in commercial/industrial, residential, public lands, and lights several examples of LID practices in commercial/industrial, residential, public lands, and road right-of-way sites in Ontario completed in 2011, is one of the first green street retrofits in Ontario. The project involved the installation of six bioretention planters and retrofits in Ontario. The project involved the installation of sixretrofits in Ontario. The project involved the installation of six permeable pavement that treats and infiltrates road runoff on adjacent school property. Ongoing monitoring at this permeable pavement that treats and infiltrates road runoff on adjacent school property.permeable pavement that treats and infiltrates road runoff on adjacent school property. site since its construction has so far demonstrated performance exceeding design expectations, providing 99% total site since its construction has so far demonstrasite since its construction has so far demonstrated performance exceeding designted performance exceeding design suspended solids removal and reducing peak flows for 2-year events by 70-100%. Case study bulletins on the suspended solids removal and reducing peak flows for 2suspended solids removal and reducing peak flows for 2year events by 70year events by 70 - website provide useful information on the design, construction, and lessons learned in implementing these projects. website provide useful information on the design, construction, andwebsite provide useful information on the design, construction, andlessons learne Draft guidance documents for implementing LID measures are also Draft guidance documents for implementing LID measures are alsoDraft guidance documents for implementing LID measures are also The Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) is a multi-agency program, led by the TRCA. The The Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) is a multiThe Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) is a multi program was developed to provide the data and analytical tools needed to support broader implementation of program was developed toprogram was developed toprovide the data and analytical tools needed to support broader implementation ofprovide the data and analytical tools needed to support broader implementation of sustainable technologies and practices within a Canadian context. The STEP website houses several resources and sustainable technologies and practices within a Canadian context. The STEP website houses several resources andsustainable technologies and practices within a Canadian context. The STEP website houses several resources and examples of LID practices that have been implemented successfully in the Toronto region. examples of LID practices that have been implemented succexamples of LID practices that have been implemented succ Providing more specific recommendations requires a detailed knowledge of urban non-point sources (which may be Providing more specific recommendations requires a detailed knowledge of urban nonProviding more specific recommendations requires a detailed knowledge of urban non obtained from the proposed GRCA/City study) and analysis of pollution loads (estimated using EMC data). obtained from the proposed GRCA/City study) and analysis of pollution loads (estimated using EMC data). obtained from the proposed GRCA/City study) and analysis of pollution loads (estimated using EMC data). 66 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit 14. Recommendations Building on the recommendations for 2015-2019 contained within the 2014 SWM audit by AECOM, the results of the 2015 SWM Audit Program, as well as discussion with the Steering Committee members, the following recommendations have been developed for the 2016 SMW Audit. a) Establishment of the two existing flow proportionate sites at Stations SR2 (Sandrock) and SM1 Establishment of the two existing flow proportionate sites at Stations SR2 (Sandrock) and SM1 Establishment of the two existing flow proportionate sites at Stations SR2 (Sandrock) and SM1 (Shoemaker). Autosamplers are also recommended at Balzer Creek and Idlewood Creek to monitor Autosamplers are also recommended at Balzer Creek and Idlewood Creek to monitor Autosamplers are also recommended at Balzer Creek and Idlewood Creek to monitor changes associated with construction activities, to be completed under the project umbrella (outside of the , to be completed under the project umbrella (outside of the , to be completed under the project umbrella (outside of the scope of the 2016 SW Audit). b) At each autosampler station, water quality monitoring would be revised from manual grab sampling to At each autosampler station, water quality monitoring would be revised from manual grab sampling to At each autosampler station, water quality monitoring would be revised from manual grab sampling to automated flow proportionate sampling in order to produce Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for selected automated flow proportionate sampling in order to produce Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for selected automated flow proportionate sampling in order to produce Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for selected constituents and therefore enable calculation of pollutant mass loadings into receiving waters. Monitoring lutant mass loadings into receiving waters. Monitoring lutant mass loadings into receiving waters. Monitoring activities at the flow proportionate sites would include the following: activities at the flow proportionate sites would include the following: activities at the flow proportionate sites would include the following: i. Installation of an automated sampling device at the selected sites. A flow meter compatible with the Installation of an automated sampling device at the selected sites. A flow meter compatible with the Installation of an automated sampling device at the selected sites. A flow meter compatible with the selected automated sampling device would be utilized to trigger sampling as flow rates change. device would be utilized to trigger sampling as flow rates change. device would be utilized to trigger sampling as flow rates change. Flow meters would record continuous flow data in order to develop the EMC. Flow meters would record continuous flow data in order to develop the EMC. Flow meters would record continuous flow data in order to develop the EMC. ii. A minimum of eight (8) sampling events per year should be undertaken, with two (2) events per A minimum of eight (8) sampling events per year should be undertaken, with two (2) events per A minimum of eight (8) sampling events per year should be undertaken, with two (2) events per season (i.e. Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter) to ensure statistical significance. g, Summer, Fall, and Winter) to ensure statistical significance. g, Summer, Fall, and Winter) to ensure statistical significance. iii. Undertaking a minimum of five (5) single discrete flow measurements and installation of a staff Undertaking a minimum of five (5) single discrete flow measurements and installation of a staff Undertaking a minimum of five (5) single discrete flow measurements and installation of a staff gauge is recommended in order to develop a rating curve (i.e. depth versus flow relationship). gauge is recommended in order to develop a rating curve (i.e. depth versus flow relationship).gauge is recommended in order to develop a rating curve (i.e. depth versus flow relationship). Continuously recorded depth values are translated to flow rates per the relationship developed by Continuously recorded depth values are translated to flow rates per the relationship developed by Continuously recorded depth values are translated to flow rates per the relationship developed by the corresponding rating curve. iv. Continuous temperature monitoring is recommended at the automated flow proportionate sampling Continuous temperature monitoring is recommended at the automated flow proportionate sampling Continuous temperature monitoring is recommended at the automated flow proportionate sampling locations in order to establish baseline thermal regimes at the respective sampling location. Data h baseline thermal regimes at the respective sampling location. Data h baseline thermal regimes at the respective sampling location. Data locations in order to establis should be recorded every 15 minutes. should be recorded every 15 minutes. should be recorded every 15 minutes. v. A minimum of three (3) dry weather sampling events should be conducted at each sampling location A minimum of three (3) dry weather sampling events should be conducted at each sampling location A minimum of three (3) dry weather sampling events should be conducted at each sampling location with one event in each of spring, summer and fall season. Dry weather sampling consists of grab with one event in each of spring, summer and fall sewith one event in each of spring, summer and fall season. Dry weather sampling consists of grab ason. Dry weather sampling consists of grab samples which are analyzed to provide an indication of failing infrastructure or contamination due to samples which are analyzed to provide an indication of failing infrastructure or contamination due to samples which are analyzed to provide an indication of failing infrastructure or contamination due to spills upstream. spills upstream. spills upstream. c) For non-flow proportionate stations (listed below), 2016 water quality monitoring would remain consistent flow proportionate stationsflow proportionate stations(listed below), 2016 water quality monitoring would rema(listed below), 2016 water quality monitoring would rema with the historic approach, i.e. in stations where autosamplers have never been used, it will consist of five (5) where autosamplers have never been used, it will consist of five (5) where autosamplers have never been used, it will consist of five (5) with the historic approach, i.e. in stations with the historic approach, i.e. in stations wet weather sampling events, five (5) dry weather sampling events, and one melt/wet weather sampling wet weather sampling events, five (5) dry weather sampling events, and one melt/wet weather sampling wet weather sampling events, five (5) dry weather sampling events, and one melt/wet weather sampling event. In stations where autosamplers have already been used, only dry weather samples will be collected. event. In stations where auevent. In stations where autosamplers have already been used, only dry weather samples will be collectedtosamplers have already been used, only dry weather samples will be collected d) Monitoring stations for collection of grab samples in 2016 will only occur at locations where EMCs have Monitoring stations for collection of grab samples in 2016 will only occur at locations where EMCs have Monitoring stations for collection of grab samples in 2016 will only occur at locations where EMCs have already been established i.e. Henry Sturm 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek 1 (KD1), Montgomery 1 (MG1), Strasburg 2 already been established i.e. Henry Sturm 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek 1 (KD1), Malready been established i.e. Henry Sturm 1 (HS1), Kolb Creek 1 (KD1), M (SB2), and Strasburg 13a (SB13a). (SB2), and Strasburg 13a (SB13a)(SB2), and Strasburg 13a (SB13a) . Other monitoring stations not in the 2016 program include Hidden Valley (HV1), Schneider 1 (SC1) and Blair Creek Other monitoring staOther monitoring stations not in the 2016 program tions not in the 2016 program (BC4068). (BC4068)(BC4068) . Station SC1 is monitored by the GRCA, and in the 2014 Audit program was scheduled as an autosampler site for Station SC1 is monitored by the GRCA, and in the 2014 Audit proStation SC1 is monitored by the GRCA, and in the 2014 Audit pro 2017. The GRCA mainly collects dry weather samples but will attempt to collect dry and wet weather events using 2017. The GRCA mainly collects dry weather samples but will attempt to collect dry and wet weather events using 2017. The GRCA mainly collects dry weather samples but will attempt to collect dry and wet weather events using the approach described above (c). Blair Creek (BC4068) is also monitored through the GRCA as part of a the approach described above (the approach described above (c). subwatershed study. and BC4068 will be reported through the 2016 subwatershed study. subwatershed study. SWM Audit. The Balzer creek monitoring station (BZ1) and Idlewood 1 (IW1) stations were also scheduled for monitoring in the 2016 SWM Audit but due to construction activities will instead be monitored under the project budget for those respective projects using the EMC approach. If available, the monitoring results for BZ1 and IW1 will be reported / included in the 2016 SWM Audit. This can involve paraphrasing from the project report but also will involve integration of the collected data. 67 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit e) The proposed 2016 monitoring program is for the most part consistent with the program provided in the 2014 Audit report for 2016. Moving forward, it is recommended that the long-term monitoring program be in 2016), and landuse and future and/or active projects and programs be considered in the determination of monitoring needs. Specific recommendations include: iv. To place autosamplers strategically, and aim at producing long-term continuous data (rather than at 5-year cycles) at a limited number of stations. Generally speaking at least 10 consecutive years of data is required for establishment of trends. As more autosamplers become available, the program data is required for establishment of trends. As more autosamplers become available, the program data is required for establishment of trends. As more autosamplers become available, the program can be extended to other stations; v. In order to interpret the monitoring results correctly, it is important to identify site-specific receiving correctly, it is important to identify sitecorrectly, it is important to identify sitespecific receiving - water targets (when applicable), and a reference station (to establish baseline conditions). It is water targets (when applicable), and a reference station (to establish baseline conditions). It is water targets (when applicable), and a reference station (to establish baseline conditions). It is understood that these are being identified under the ISWMP, and therefore the Plan needs to be understood that these are being identified under the ISWMP, and therefore the Plan needs to bunderstood that these are being identified under the ISWMP, and therefore the Plan needs to b consulted when interpreting the monitoring results; and vi. The GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo, are The GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo, are The GRCA, in partnership with City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo, are initiating a study in 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, initiating a study in 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, initiating a study in 2016 to characterize urban nonpoint source pollution in the Middle Grand River, using existing water monitoring data. It is recommended that the consultant responsible for the 2016 sing existing water monitoring data. It is recommended that the consultant responsible for the 2016 sing existing water monitoring data. It is recommended that the consultant responsible for the 2016 Audit be informed of that process in order to apply the insight gained in revising the long term Audit be informed of that process in order to apply the insight gained in revising the long term Audit be informed of that process in order to apply the insight gained in revising the long term program. f) Wet samples are collected during the rising limb of a significant storm event (typically greater than 10mm) of a significant storm event (typically greater than 10mm) of a significant storm event (typically greater than 10mm) and dry sampling would be limited to days without rain event, i.e., not within 48 hours of a significant storm and dry sampling would be limited to days without rain event, i.e., not within 48 hours of a significant storm and dry sampling would be limited to days without rain event, i.e., not within 48 hours of a significant storm event. Dry weather sampling is limited to days without rain events and is not conducted within 48 hours of a ed within 48 hours of a event. Dry weather sampling is limited to days without rain events and is not conductevent. Dry weather sampling is limited to days without rain events and is not conduct significant storm event. g) Grab and field measurement for the various water quality parameters would be conducted for all event types Grab and field measurement for the various water quality parameters would be conducted for all event types Grab and field measurement for the various water quality parameters would be conducted for all event types mentioned. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity will be measured on site. Collected mentioned. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity will be measured on site. Collected mentioned. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity will be measured on site. Collected samples need to be sent to a private accredited laboratory for analysis of chloride, nitrate, metals (copper, amples need to be sent to a private accredited laboratory for analysis of chloride, nitrate, metals (copper, amples need to be sent to a private accredited laboratory for analysis of chloride, nitrate, metals (copper, lead, and zinc), total and dissolve phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS) and hardness. Laboratory lead, and zinc), total and dissolve phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS) and hardness. Laboratory lead, and zinc), total and dissolve phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS) and hardness. Laboratory sampling methodology and detection limits should be consistent with the 2015 sampling efforts to ensure sampling methodology and detection limits shosampling methodology and detection limits should be consistent with the 2015 sampling efforts to ensure uld be consistent with the 2015 sampling efforts to ensure consistency amongst past datasets. consistency amongst past datasets. consistency amongst past datasets. h) Biological monitoring, including fish and benthic invertebrate surveys, are recommended for all stations Biological monitoring, including fish and benthic invertebrate surveys, are recommended for all stations Biological monitoring, including fish and benthic invertebrate surveys, are recommended for all stations monitored for water quality. The purpose of this component is to document changes in habitat quality over monitored for water quality. The purpose of this componemonitored for water quality. The purpose of this component is to document changes in habitat quality over time which may indicate changes in water quality and watershed conditions. Such changes may trigger the time which may indicate changes in water quality and watershed conditions. Such changes may trigger the time which may indicate changes in water quality and watershed conditions. Such changes may trigger the need for additional monitoring or recommendations to update the established EMC for a specific station need for additional monitoring or recommendations to update the established EMC for a specific stationneed for additional monitoring or recommendations to update the established EMC for a specific station demonstrating evidence of change. demonstrating evidence of change. demonstrating evidence of change. i) Standard sampling protocols should be followed including the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Standard sampling protocols should be followed including the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Standard sampling protocols should be followed including the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol (OBBN) and Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP). Benthic samples should be analyzed Protocol (OBBN) and Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP). Benthic samples should be analyzed Protocol (OBBN) and Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP). Benthic samples should be analyzed using a multimetric approach to summarize the condition of the watercourse using the following indices: using a multimetric appusing a multimetric approach to summarize the condition of the watercourse using the following indices: roach to summarize the condition of the watercourse using the following indices: Taxa Richness % Diptera % Scraper Taxa Richness Taxa Richness % Diptera % EPT % Chironomidae % Shredder % EPT % Chironomidae # EPT Taxa % Collector-filterer % Clinger # EPT Taxa # EPT Taxa % Oligochaeta % Collector-Gatherer % Oligochaeta% Oligochaeta 68 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit References Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C. Bousfield, E.L. 1958. Fresh-water amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can. Field-Nat. 72: 55-113. Nat. 72: 55Nat. 72: 55 water amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can. Field water amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can. Field -- Brown, H.P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid beetles of the United States. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Brown, H.P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid beetles of the United States. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Brown, H.P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid beetles of the United States. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual 6, 82 p. Brown, H.P., and D.S. White. 1978. Notes on separation and identification of North American riffle beetles. Entomol. , H.P., and D.S. White. 1978. Notes on separation and identification of North American riffle beetles. Entomol. , H.P., and D.S. White. 1978. Notes on separation and identification of North American riffle beetles. Entomol. News 89: 1_13. Burch, J.B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 365 p. Burch, J.B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 365 p.Burch, J.B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 365 p. Clarke, A.H. 1980. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. Nat. Mus. Nat. Sci. 448 p. Clarke, A.H. 1980. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. Nat. Mus. Nat. Sci. 448 p.Clarke, A.H. 1980. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. Nat. Mus. Nat. Sci. 448 p. Crocker, D.W., and D.W. Barr. 1968. Handbook of the Crayfishes of Ontario. R. Ont. Mus. Life Sci. Misc. Publ., 158 1968. Handbook of the Crayfishes of Ontario. R. Ont. Mus. Life Sci. Misc. Publ., 158 1968. Handbook of the Crayfishes of Ontario. R. Ont. Mus. Life Sci. Misc. Publ., 158 p. Eakins, R. J. 2012. Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database. Version 4.08. On-line database. Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database. Version 4.08. OnOntario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database. Version 4.08. Online database.line database. - (http://www.ontariofishes.ca), accessed 20 January 2014 (http://www.ontariofishes.ca), accessed 20 January 2014(http://www.ontariofishes.ca), accessed 20 January 2014 Epler, J.H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. Version J.H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. Version J.H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. Version 1.0. Privately published. Available from Dr. Epler at http://www.concentric.net/~jhepler/index.html. 1.0. Privately published. Available from Dr. Epler at http://www.concentric.net/~jhepler/index.html. 1.0. Privately published. Available from Dr. Epler at http://www.concentric.net/~jhepler/index.htm l. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1973. Notes on Dubiraphia with descriptions of five new species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 66: 55 61 Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1973. Notes on Dubiraphia wiHilsenhoff, W.L. 1973. Notes on Dubiraphia with descriptions of five new species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 66: 55 61th descriptions of five new species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 66: 55 61 Hilsenhoff, W.L., and K.L. Schmude. 1992. Riffle beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Dryopidae, Elmidae, Hilsenhoff, W.L., and K.L. Schmude. 1992. Riffle beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Dryopidae, Elmidae, Hilsenhoff, W.L., and K.L. Schmude. 1992. Riffle beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Dryopidae, Elmidae, Lutrochidae, Psephenidae) with notes on distribution, habitat, and identification. Gt. Lakes Entomol. 125: Lutrochidae, Psephenidae) with notes on distribution, habitat, and identification.Lutrochidae, Psephenidae) with notes on distribution, habitat, and identification. 191-213. Holsinger, J.R. 1972. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Holsinger, J.R. 1972. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Holsinger, J.R. 1972. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 5, 89 p. Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 5, 89 p.Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 5, 89 p. Kathman, R.D., AND BRINKHURST, R.O. 1999. Guide to the freshwater aquatic microdrile Oligochaetes of North Kathman, R.D., AND BRINKHURST, R.O. 1999. Guide to the freshwaterKathman, R.D., AND BRINKHURST, R.O. 1999. Guide to the freshwater America, revised edition. Aquatic Resources Center, Tennesse, USA, 264 p. America, revised edition. Aquatic Resources Center, Tennesse, USA, 264 p.America, revised edition. Aquatic Resources Center, Tennesse, USA, 264 p. Klemm, D.J. 1991. Taxonomy and pollution ecology of the Great Lakes region leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea). Mich. Klemm, D.J. 1991. Taxonomy and pollution ecology of the Great Lakes region leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea). Mich. Klemm, D.J. 1991. Taxonomy and pollution ecology of the Great Lakes region leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea). Mich. Acad. 24: 37-103. Acad. 24: 37Acad. 24: 37103. - Larson, D.J., Y. Alarie, and R.E. Roughley. 2000. Predaeous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dystiscidae) of the Nearctic D.J., Y. Alarie, and R.E. Roughley. 2000. Predaeous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dystiscidae) of the Nearctic D.J., Y. Alarie, and R.E. Roughley. 2000. Predaeous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dystiscidae) of the Nearctic region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Reseach Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Reseach Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Reseach Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 982 P. Lenat D.R. 1988. Water Quality Assessment of Stream Using a Qualitative Collection Method for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7(3): 222-233 Mackie, G.L., D.S. White, and T.W. Zdeba. 1980. A guide to freshwater molluscs of the Laurentian Great Lakes with special emphasis on the genus Pisidium. EPA 600/3 80 068. 143 p. Mandaville, S.M., 2002. 69 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters- Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics, and Protocols.http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/ccn/info/Science/SWCS/H-1/tolerance.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2014. Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg. 2008. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 4th ed., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 1158 p. Morihara, D.K., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979a. The Baetis larvae of North America (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Morihara, D.K., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979a. The Baetis larvae of North America (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Morihara, D.K., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979a. The Baetis larvae of North America (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 105: 139-221. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons Pennak, R.W. 1989. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 628 p. Pfeihffer, J., E., Kosnicki, M. Bilger, and B.D. Marshall. 2006. A photographic key to the Baetidae of EPA region Pfeihffer, J., E., Kosnicki, M. Bilger, and B.D. Marshall. 2006. A photographic key to the Baetidae of EPA region Pfeihffer, J., E., Kosnicki, M. Bilger, and B.D. Marshall. 2006. A photographic key to the Baetidae of EPA region three. Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. For the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of three. Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. For the United States Environmental Protection Agency, three. Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. For the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Washington, DC. Environmental Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Washington, DC.Environmental Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Washington, DC. Rosenberg D.M., Davies I.J., Cobb D.G. and Wiens A.P. 1997. Protocols for Measuring Biodiversity: Benthic Rosenberg D.M., Davies I.J., Cobb D.G. and Wiens A.P. 1997. Protocols for Measuring Biodiversity: Benthic Rosenberg D.M., Davies I.J., Cobb D.G. and Wiens A.P. 1997. Protocols for Measuring Biodiversity: Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Fresh Waters. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg Macroinvertebrates in Fresh Waters. Department of Fisheries andMacroinvertebrates in Fresh Waters. Department of Fisheries andOceans, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg Oceans, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg Manitoba. 1-42 Saether, O.A. 1985. A review of Odontomesa Pagast, 1947 (Diptera, Chironomidae, Prodiamesinae). Spixiana Saether, O.A. 1985. A review of Odontomesa Pagast, 1947 (Diptera, Chironomidae, Prodiamesinae). Spixiana Saether, O.A. 1985. A review of Odontomesa Pagast, 1947 (Diptera, Chironomidae, Prodiamesinae). Spixiana Suppl. 11: 15-29. Stanfield, L. (ed.). 2013. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 9.0.Fisheries Policy Section. Ontario Ministry of Natural Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol.Version 9Version 9.0.Fisheries Policy Section..0.Fisheries Policy Section. Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 505 Pgs. Peterborough, Ontario.505 Pgs.505 Pgs. Stewark, K.W., and B.P. Stark. 2002. Nymphs of North American stonefly genera (Plecoptera), 2nd edition. The Stewark, K.W., and B.P. Stark. 2002. Nymphs of North American stonefly genera (Plecoptera), 2nd edition. The Stewark, K.W., and B.P. Stark. 2002. Nymphs of North American stonefly genera (Plecoptera), 2nd edition. The Caddis Press, Columbus, Ohio. 510 p. Caddis Press, Columbus, Ohio. 510 p.Caddis Press, Columbus, Ohio. 510 p. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), 2009. to and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), 2009. to and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), 2009. Aquatic Habitat and Species Monitoring: A Discussion Paper in Support of the Development of A Regional Aquatic Habitat and Species Monitoring: A Discussion Paper in Support of the Development of A Regional Aquatic Habitat and Species Monitoring: A Discussion Paper in Support of the Development of A Regional Watershed Monitoring Network. http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/114187.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2014 Watershed Monitoring Network. http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/114187.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2014Watershed Monitoring Network. http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/114187.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2014 Vannote R.L, Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W, Sedell J.R. and Cushing C.E. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. annote R.L, Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W, Sedell J.R. and Cushing C.E. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. annote R.L, Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W, Sedell J.R. and Cushing C.E. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 37: 130-137 CanadianCanadianJJournal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 37: 130ournal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 37: 130 Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 1. Part I. General. Part II. The Zygoptera damselflies. Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 1. Part I. General. Part II. The Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 1. Part I. General. Part II. The Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto. 292 p. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto. 292 p.Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto. 292 p. Walker, E.M., AND P.S. Corbet. 1975. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 3. Part III. The Anisoptera three Walker, E.M., AND P.S. Corbet. 1975. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 3. Part III. The Anisoptera three Walker, E.M., AND P.S. Corbet. 1975. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 3. Part III. The Anisoptera three families. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto. 308 p. families. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto. 308 p.families. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto. 308 p. White, D.S. 1978. A revision of the Nearctic Optioservus, with descriptions of new species. Syst. Entomol. 3: 59 74. White, D.S. 1978. A revisioWhite, D.S. 1978. A revision of the Nearctic Optioservus, with descriptions of new species. Syst. Entomol. 3: 59 74.n of the Nearctic Optioservus, with descriptions of new species. Syst. Entomol. 3: 59 74. Wiederhom, T. [ED.] 1983. Chironomidae of the holarctic region. Keys and diagnosis. Part 1. Larvae. Entomol. Wiederhom, T. [ED.] 1983. Chironomidae of the holarctic region. Keys and diagnosis. Part 1. Larvae. Entomol. Wiederhom, T. [ED.] 1983. Chironomidae of the holarctic region. Keys and diagnosis. Part 1. Larvae. Entomol. Scand. Suppl.. 19, 457 p. Wiederhom, T. [ED.] 1986. Chironomidae of the holarctic region. Keys and diagnosis. Part 2. Pupae. Entomol. Scand. Suppl. 28, 482 p. Wiggins, G.B. 1996. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (Trichoptera). 2nd ed. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 457 p. 70 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx City of Kitchener AECOM 2015 Stormwater Management Audit Williams, W.D. 1972. Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 7, 45 p. WBM, 2014.09.22 Wright, J. 2001. Grand River Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program (Draft Report). Grand River Conservation Authority. 71 RPT- 2016-01-19-SWM 2015 Audit-60342423.Docx