The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEnv - 2017-02-16 - Item 1 - 2016 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program 1 - 1 Overview•Background•Results of the 2016 Stormwater Management Program•Historical Trends•Monitoring of the Huron Natural Area Permeable Paver Lot•Coordination with the Middle Grand River NPS Pollution Study•Monitoring for DFO Municipal Fisheries Habitat Bank•Recommendations for Next Year’s Program 1 - 2 Background 1 - 3 in 2013 characterize system health and assess the effectiveness of SWM infrastructure throughout the City:–Chemical/water quality monitoring, with flow-proportionate EMC sampling starting –Biological monitoring including fisheries and benthics–Incorporation of other monitoring programs that occur within the City –Recommendations for revised monitoring program to begin in 2019–Maintain existing monitoring program for 2017-2018 Background•2001 –Kitchener Stormwater Policy Development Program•2002 to 2016 –Annual Stormwater Management Monitoring Program to •2016 –Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan 1 - 4 Parameters –Total Suspended Solids–Chloride–Phosphorus–Nitrate–Metals (zinc, copper, lead)–Dissolved Oxygen–pH–Conductivity–Fish communities–Benthic macroinvertebrates–(at EMC stations) Sampling•Water Quality:•Biological:•Flow and temperature 1 - 5 Types –Henry Sturm Greenway 1 (HS1)–Kolb Creek/Drain 1 (KD1)–Montgomery Creek 1 (MG1)–Strasburg Creek 2 (SB2)–Schneider Creek 1 (SC1)–SandrockGreenway 2 (SR2)–IdlewoodCreek 1 (IW1)–Shoemaker Creek 1 (SM1)–Strasburg Creek 13a (SB13a)–BalzerCreek 1 (BZ1)–Westmount Drain 1 (WD1)–Hidden Valley Creek 1 (HV1) Station•Core Stations•Non-Core Stations•Note: these have changed/expanded with the 2016 ISWMMP 1 - 6 Types Station•Flow-proportionate autosamplerstation•Dry-weather grab sample station 1 - 7 Locations EMC Stations:•SR2•SM1Dry-Grab Stations:•HS1•KD1•MG1•SB2•SB13aDFO Station:•HS4 (FilsingerPark) Station 2016 1 - 8 Management Program Results of the 2016 Stormwater 1 - 9 1 - 10 Flow Monitoring –SM1 1 - 11 Flow Monitoring –SM1 1 - 12 Flow Monitoring –SR2 1 - 13 Flow Monitoring –SR2 1 - 14 Temperature Monitoring –SM1 1 - 15 Temperature Monitoring –SM1 1 - 16 Temperature Monitoring –SR2 1 - 17 Temperature Monitoring –SR2 1 - 18 Water Chemistry –Chloride 1 - 19 Water Chemistry –Nitrate 1 - 20 Water Chemistry –Phosphorus 1 - 21 Water Chemistry –Diss. Phosphorus 1 - 22 Water Chemistry –Zinc 1 - 23 Water Chemistry –Copper 1 - 24 Water Chemistry –Lead 1 - 25 Water Chemistry –TSS 1 - 26 Water Chemistry –Dissolved Oxygen 1 - 27 Water Chemistry –pH 1 - 28 Water Chemistry –Conductivity 1 - 29 EMC Sampling –SM1 Phosphorus 1 - 30 EMC Sampling –SM1 TSS 1 - 31 EMC Sampling –SR2 Phosphorus 1 - 32 EMC Sampling –SR2 TSS 1 - 33 EMC Sampling –BL1 Phosphorus 1 - 34 EMC Sampling –BL1 TSS 1 - 35 EMC Sampling –BZ1 Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) 1 - 36 EMC Sampling –BZ1 TSS Concentration (mg/L) 1 - 37 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 1 - 38 Fish Community 1 - 39 Historical Trends 1 - 40 trends Historical Stations with 8+ years of data:•HS1•SB2•KD1•MG1•SR2•SM1 (analyzed this year due to new EMC results)Analyzed historical trends for chloride and TSS 1 - 41 trends Historical General trends:•Chrlorideresults seasonally higher during dry sampling•TSS results higher during wet and EMC events•TSS generally higher during the summer months•Sampling concentrated between months of April and October 1 - 42 Historical Trends –HS1 –Chloride 1 - 43 Historical Trends –HS1 –TSS 1 - 44 Historical Trends –SB2 –Chloride 1 - 45 Historical Trends –SB2 –TSS 1 - 46 Historical Trends –KD1 –Chloride 1 - 47 Historical Trends –KD1 –TSS 1 - 48 Historical Trends –MG1 –Chloride 1 - 49 Historical Trends –MG1 –TSS 1 - 50 Historical Trends –SR2 –Chloride 1 - 51 Historical Trends –SR2 –TSS 1 - 52 Historical Trends –SM1 –Chloride 1 - 53 Historical Trends –SM1 –TSS 1 - 54 Area Permeable Paver Lot Monitoring of the Huron Natural 1 - 55 Permeable Paver Lot Monitoring paver surface, to determine an effective infiltration rate; andmonitoring using a previously installed monitoring well. Huron NA The monitoring at the HNA lot consisted of two components:•Infiltration testing of the permeable •Continuous subsurface water level 1 - 56 2 Rate (mm/h) Infiltration Time, t (s) D (mm)Actual test Median Infiltration Rate:2,600 Average Infiltration Rate:2,700 1 M (kg) K *s/kg*h) 3 (mm Pre- wetting Time (s) Time (hh:mm) Testing Results Date 5/24/201614:5144.14,583,666,0003.629754.63,4005/24/201615:1051.54,583,666,0003.629769.82,7005/24/201615:3065.44,583,666,0003.6297101.81,8005/24/201615:4846.34,583,666,0003.629758.03,2005/24/201616:03 49.14,583,666,0003.629771.72,6005/24/201616:2456.54,583,666,0003.629774.02,500 (mm/dd/yyyy) 123456 Test Number Infiltration 1 - 57 1 - 58 1 - 59 1 - 60 1 - 61 1 - 62 Coordination with the Middle Grand River NPS Pollution Study 1 - 63 undertaken to characterize urban non-point source (NPS) pollution in the Middle Grand River watershed. the University of Waterloo for the project partners which includes the Grand River Conservation Authority, City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo, and Region of WaterlooEMC data for City watersheds (table at left) •Throughout 2016 a study was •The study was undertaken by •City of Kitchener contributed EMCYears2011-2014 HS12015KD1MG12014HS12015SC52011SB22015SB132012SB13a2013 Middle Grand NPS Study –City Contributions WaterbodySite IDHenry Sturm GreenwayKolb CreekMontgomeryCreekHenry Sturm GreenwaySchneiderCreekStrasburgCreekStrasburgCreekStrasburgCreek 1 - 64 26 516674797985 0.3 ±65.598 ±73708 0.4 ±158.1497 ±2034950.5 ±383.4121 ±1584600.2 ±108.6123 ±128069 -0.7 ±751.4143 ±276714 2.1 ±3699.7427 ±8280350.6 ±1536.32 ±212884 TP (kg/ha/yr)TSS (kg/ha/yr)% Impervious Site Kolb Grand Strasburg_2 Schneider_5 Schneider at Henry SturmMontgomery Strasburg_13a Middle Grand NPS Study Results 1 - 65 1 - 66 1 - 67 yields than agricultural areas ent plants were important sources in the Middle Grand River watershed, and are more highly variable;areas, which is reflected in the literature;related to increased TSS and TP exports from the watershed, as was increased commercial land use (for TP);impairment and percent impervious; andof TP to the Middle Grand River watershed during low flow conditions. Middle Grand NPS Study Results•Generally, urban areas have higher TP•TSS yields are also higher from urban areas than from agricultural •A higher proportion of open water in a watershed was significantly •There was no directly observed relationship between water quality •Identified that wastewater treatm 1 - 68 hould span multiple years to capture variability in climatic conditions and changes in land use;loadings and watershed yields can be more accurately determined; andNPS loadings from urban areas. Middle Grand NPS Study Recommendations•Monitoring at specific stations s•Monitoring programs should span all seasons;•Install flow gauges at all monitoring locations so that annual •Directly monitor storm sewer outfalls to more precisely understand 1 - 69 Fisheries Habitat Bank Monitoring for DFO Municipal 1 - 70 1 - 71 Greenway, as per discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) was completed in conjunction with the 2016 SWM monitoring program. the City of Kitchener such that the work completed through FilsingerPark could be applied as compensation for other works where serious harm to fish may be unavoidable. macroinvertebrate sampling, fish community sampling, and physical/geomorphic monitoring. program results earlier in this presentation. DFO Municipal Fisheries Habitat Bank•The first round of Habitat Banking Monitoring along Henry Sturm •This new monitoring program aims to establish a “habitat bank” in •The 2016 monitoring program addressed water chemistry, benthic •Water quality results are reported along with the rest of the 2016 1 - 72 e the expected range (20-40) for e species and their presence is impacted water quality can be inferred from the results. unimpaired creeks in Southern Ontario, but is not concerning because many orders and families are represented and no disproportionally dominant groups are present. noting because it is within the order Trichopteraor caddisflies. Caddisflies are generally sensitivindicative of high quality habitat and good water quality (Barbour et. al., 1999). sampled in 2016; this value corresponds to moderate pollution but is on the threshold of being considered unpolluted (>3). DFO Monitoring -Benthics•Overall the benthic community at HS4 is quite diverse and minimally •The taxa richness at HS4 was abov•The dominant species (Cheumatopsyche) at HS4 is also worth •The Shannon Diversity Index at HS4 (2.95) was the best of any sites 1 - 73 ), ) and ). ), consisting of five (5) species ), ), consisting of two (2) species consisting of five (5) species Pimephalespromelas Rhinichthyscataractae Cyprinuscarpio Lepomisgibbosus Catostomuscommersonii Semotilusatromaculatus DFO Monitoring –Fisheries The seasonal fish community sampling results were:•Spring –Total fish caught = 15;•Summer –Total fish caught = 30; •Fall –Total fish caught = 44; Fish species caught included: •Common Carp (•White Sucker (•Pumpkinseed (•Creek Chub (•Longnose Dace (•Fathead Minnow ( 1 - 74 h the Northwest and Southwest observed in approximately equal amounts.forms of cover. Minor amounts of woody debris and macrophytecover were also observed. Rapid Assessment Methodology (RAM), Section 4: Module 1 for two (2) locations. A detailed channel morphology assessment was conducted along the main reach in accordance with OSAP Section 4: Module 2.tributaries are slow moving, shallow systems wcomposedprimarily of pool habitat. predominantly a very slow moving, shallow watercourse. •Both embedded and unembedded cover was apparent within the site, •Unembedded round rock and embedded flat rock were the dominant DFO Monitoring -Geomorphology•GHD utilized the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) •The 2016 RAM survey found that bot•The main reach (Henry Sturm Greenway) was determined to be 1 - 75 Detailed Assessment Rapid Assessment Rapid Assessment 1 - 76 Program Recommendations for 2017-2018 1 - 77 established through previous Program Recommendations Recommendations follow the guidance established in the 2016 Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan.Establish three (3) flow proportionate monitoring sites each year at the below listed locations, using City-owned ISCO autosamplers:•2017 SWM Monitoring Program: SC1, SC-9, VS-1•2018 SWM Monitoring Program: SB7, SB1, IW1 Establish non-flow proportionate monitoring sites at the below listed locations, where EMCs have been monitoring efforts:•2017 SWM Monitoring Program (five sites): HS1, KD1, MG1, SB2, SR2•2018 SWM Monitoring Program (five sites): SM1, SC1, SC-9, VS-1, BZ-1 1 - 78 be identified at minimum two (2) be created one (1) year in advance of installation. process and allow for greater autosampleraccuracy across all sampling seasons.monitoring program to further ensure rating curve accuracy. 1-365). Wet vs. dry results may have less impact than seasonal trends; otherwise seasonal trends are not obvious. years prior to installation. •This would allow for flow monitoring to be conducted and rating curves to •Having a completed rating curve equation will simplify the installation •Additional maintenance flow measurements could be included during the Program Recommendations•Water quality results should be evaluated on an ordinal scale (days •Locations of autosamplersshould 1 - 79 Questions & Discussion 1 - 80 www.ghd.com 1 - 81