HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnv - 2018-03-15 - Item 2 - 5-Year SWM Card & Results of 2017 SWM Monitoring Program2- 1
2- 2
Draft for Review
This document is in draft form. A final version of this document may differ
from this draft. As such, the contents of this draft document shall not be
relied upon. GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from
decisions made based on this draft document.
2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring
Program
City of Kitchener
GHD | 651 Colby Drive Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2 Canada
11139676 | Report No 2 | January 25 2018
2- 3
Executive Summary
In 2001, the City of Kitchener completed the Kitchener Stormwater Policy Development program.
This program resulted in a report detailing the existing stormwater management (SWM)
infrastructure including SWM Ponds (wet ponds, wetlands and dry ponds), Oil-Grit Separators
(OGS) and streams.This program assisted the City with outlining new policies to manage, monitor
and improve SWM within the City. As a result of the SWM plan, a city wide monitoring plan was
developed and initiated in 2002 as part of a process to evaluate the effectiveness of the SWM
approach.
The overall health of watersheds in Kitchener was recently evaluated in the Integrated Stormwater
Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) completed
2016. This document replaced the 2001 SWM Policy Study (#I-1135) in 2016 as over time, the
policy no longer aligned with changing industry practices and changes in federal, provincial,
regional, and local policies. The purpose of the ISWM-MP is to address existing urban areas of the
City and recommend measures to improve overall environmental performance, increase
efficiencies, and reduce costs. A few of the environmental issues identified in the ISWM-MP specific
to surface water included:
Degradation of surface water quality
Increased sediment loads to surface water
Thermal enrichment of surface water
Loss and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat
Increased erosion
In the ISWM-MP, watersheds within the City were evaluated and prioritized with Priority 1
watersheds were identified as having the greatest need of environment improvement while Priority 4
watersheds were identified as closest to natural conditions and therefore had the lowest need for
environmental improvement.
Under the original 2001 SWM Policy and continued under the 2016 ISWM-MP, an annual
stormwater monitoring program was mandated to monitor the performance of SWM works within
Kitchener. This report includes a review of monitoring activities undertaken in 2017. In addition, a
summary of monitoring efforts at the newly constructed permeable paver parking lot at the Huron
Natural Area is included. This report once again, includes a summary of the monitoring work
completed at the recently restored section of Henry Sturm Greenway within Filsinger Park, as part
of habitat banking efforts within the City of Kitchener in coordination with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); this is the second of three years of post-construction monitoring in
Filsinger Park. The 2017 annual report includes habitat banking efforts also in coordination with the
DFO along Idlewood Creek near the mouth of the Grand River; this constitutes the pre-construction
characterization of the Creek, against which future years of post-construction monitoring will be
compared.
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 4
HD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page i
Physical and Chemical Analysis
Water quality samples were collected by grab sample methodology at the SWM Audit stations:
three dry samples were collected at core stations including: Henry Sturm Greenway (HS1), Kolb
Drain (KD1), Montgomery Creek (MG1), Strasburg Creek (SB2), Shoemaker Creek (SM1),
Sandrock Greenway (SR2), Lower Schneider Creek (SC1), and Upper Schneider Creek (SC9).
Five dry grab samples were collected at the DFO stations as part of the Habitat Bank monitoring
work: Idlewood Creek (IW1) and Henry Sturm Greenway (HS4). Dry-weather sampling was
conducted seasonally, with one event in each season (spring, summer, and fall) at the core
stations. Dry-weather sampling consists of grab samples which are analyzed to provide an
indication of failing infrastructure or contamination due to spills upstream. ISCO automated
sampling devices were installed at Upper Schneider Creek (SC9), Lower Schneider Creek (SC1)
and Idlewood Creek (IW1), which included continuous stage and temperature measurements. Also
included in the analysis was available information for Blair Creek (BL1 and other stations) sampled
by Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).
Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the 2017 SWM monitoring dry grab sampling program.
Similar to previous years, the average concentration of Chloride at all locations exceeds the Long
Term Exposure Limit of 120 mg/L, except Strasburg Creek (SB2). Henry Sturm Greenway (HS4)
experienced an exceedance only for the maximum Chloride value. Blair Creek did not have any
exceedances, however only the Dissolved Chloride was analyzed by GRCA, not Total Chloride.
Eight locations' minimum concentrations exceeded the Long Term Exposure Limit (red) for
Chloride, identifying a significant negative water quality impact. The average concentration for Total
Phosphorus exceeded the PWQO limit of 0.03 mg/L at five locations including Blair Creek at New
Dundee Road (2414002), Idlewood Creek (IW1), Kolb Drain (KD1), Shoemaker Creek (SM1) and
Sandrock Greenway (SR2) in 2017. During the 2017 monitoring there were no average
exceedances for Lead, Copper or Zinc. However, the maximum concentration exceeded guideline
limits at Idlewood Creek (IW1) for Lead, Copper and Zinc.Similar to 2016, Nitrate concentrations
experienced no exceedances at any of the locations during the 2017 monitoring program.
Water Temperature
Temperature monitoring from 2017 resulted in the classification of Upper Schneider Creek (SC9) as
cool-warmwater, Lower Schneider Creek (SC1) as coolwater and Idlewood Creek (IW1) as
coolwater and cold-coolwater. Water temperature and thermal enrichment of the City’s creek
systems was identified as a key environmental issue in the 2016 ISWM-MP, and will continue to
form a component of the City’s annual SWM Monitoring Program into the future.
Flow Measurement
Discrete flow measurements and flow depths were recorded at the flow-proportionate automated
sampling locations (SC9, SC1 and IW1) on five separate occasions. The continuous level data
collected at the automated sampling locations was converted to flow rates using a rating curve
which relates flow to depth. Continuous flow monitoring data was normalized using barometric
pressure.
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 5
HD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page ii
During the 2017 monitoring season, additional discrete flow measurements were conducted at
Voisin Creek (VS1), Middle Strasburg Creek (SB7) and Strasburg Creek (SB1) to allow for the
creation of rating curves in advance of the 2018 automated sampler installation.
Trends
Water quality trends have been identified by comparing stations monitored in 2017 that had eight or
more years of historical water quality data. Stations with eight or more years of data included:
Strasburg Creek (SB2), Henry Sturm Greenway (HS1), Kolb Drain (KD1), Montgomery (MG1),
Sandrock Greenway (SR2) and Idlewood (IW1). Historical trends were also evaluated for
Shoemaker Creek (SM1) because EMC sampling was conducted on this watercourse during the
2016 monitoring.
General seasonal trends that remain consistent across all monitoring locations include chloride
concentrations being higher during dry-weather grab samples collected throughout the summer
period. This is likely caused by the concentrated effect in the waterbody due to low water levels.
TSS values reveal wet-weather samples to have higher TSS concentrations than dry-weather
sample events. The maximum seasonal concentration in 2017 is generally seen during the summer
monitoring period when water levels are at their lowest and intense precipitation events create
flashy, turbid conditions. In some monitoring years, the maximum seasonal concentration is seen
during the spring melt when debris is flushed through the waterbodies; however this trend is
dependent on the annual precipitation regime.
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 6
HD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page iii
2- 7
An analysis summary of the historical trends is presented below for each monitoring location:
Strasburg Creek (SB2):No long-term trends have been observed at this site for Chloride or TSS
concentrations. TSS and Chloride concentrations have generally been below CCME guidelines.
Henry Sturm Greenway (HS1):The majority of wet sample results and EMC results fell below the
CCME Chloride guidelines. Chloride concentrations were higher during dry sample events, with the
maximum Chloride concentration observed in 2010 with a value of 372 mg/L. The maximum TSS
value at this location was observed in 2008 with a value of 2100 mg/L. The 2017 TSS dry grab
concentrations ranged from 0 mg/L to 3.5 mg/L, similar to the dry-weather grab results collected in
2015 and 2016.
Kolb Drain (KD1):Chloride concentrations during wet-weather events initially were below the
CCME Long Term Concentration guideline of 120 mg/L at this site; however, the limit has since
been exceeded. Dry-weather concentrations have exceeded the long term concentration limit, with
the exception of one sample event in 2005. The majority of dry-weather samples continue to fall
below 25 mg/L for TSS. The maximum dry-weather grab sample of TSS was observed in 2005 with
a concentration of 62.3 mg/L. Wet-weather TSS measurements consistently read higher than dry
sample events, with the maximum value observed in 2004 with a value of 251 mg/L.
Montgomery Creek (MG1):A general trend at Montgomery Creek reveals Chloride concentrations
hovering around 400 mg/L during both wet and dry-weather events. About half of the wet-weather
monitoring results fell below the CCME guideline of 120 mg/L for long term concentration; however
the majority of dry-weather samples exceeded this guideline.The maximum recorded dry-weather
value of 2300 mg/L was measured on January 23, 2012. Historical trends show that dry-weather
concentrations of TSS have generally been below 20 mg/L. Historical wet-weather samples at MG1
ranged from concentrations of 0 mg/L to 143 mg/L.
Sandrock Greenway (SR2):Wet-weather Chloride samples have for the majority been below the
CCME Long Term Concentration guideline of 120 mg/L. The maximum recorded wet-weather
Chloride concentration was observed in 2015 with a value of 646 mg/L. Dry-weather Chloride
concentrations have generally hovered around the 300-400 mg/L range, with the majority of
samples exceeding the long term concentration limit. The maximum recorded dry-weather Chloride
concentration at SR2 was collected in January 2012 with a value of 2090 mg/L. Historical data has
revealed that dry-weather concentrations of TSS have generally been below 25 mg/L. Historical
wet-weather grab samples at SR2 ranged from 0 mg/L to 290 mg/L.
Shoemaker Creek (SM1): Wet-weather Chloride samples have for the majority been below the
CCME Long Term Concentration guideline of 120 mg/L. The dry-weather sample results all
exceeded the CCME Long Term Concentration guideline, except for one sample collected in 2010.
The maximum dry-weather Chloride concentration was reached in 2016 with a value of 462 mg/L.
Historical data has revealed that dry-weather concentrations of TSS have been below 10 mg/L.
Historical wet-weather grab samples ranged from 21.4 mg/L to 519 mg/L. The 2017 TSS dry grab
concentrations ranged from 5.2 mg/L to 12.3 mg/L, once again similar to previous years.
Idlewood Creek (IW1): Wet-weather Chloride samples have typically been below the CCME Long
Term Concentration guideline of 120 mg/L, with the exception of five wet grabs. The majority of
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 8
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page ii
dry-weather sample results exceeded the CCME Long Term Concentration guideline. The
maximum dry-weather Chloride concentration was reached this year, with a value of 200 mg/L. The
Chloride EMC values observed this year ranged from 49.7 mg/L to 113 mg/L. The 2017 Chloride
dry grab concentrations ranged from 124 mg/L to 200 mg/L. Dry-weather concentrations of TSS
have been below 25 mg/L, with the exception of one dry sample collected this year with a value of
392 mg/L. Historical wet-weather grab samples ranged from 0.0 mg/L to 339 mg/L. The TSS EMC
values observed in 2017 ranged from 34.7 mg/L to 1090mg/L. The 2017 TSS dry grab
concentrations ranged from 2.4 mg/L to 392.0 mg/L.
Biological Sampling
Fish community and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted as part of the 2017 SWM
Monitoring Program, as well as under the Blair Creek monitoring program implemented by the
GRCA. The results of both programs are discussed below, with the Blair Creek results following the
core SWM Monitoring Program results.
Fish community surveys were conducted at four core stations on Schneider, Sandrock and
Strasburg Creeks (SC1, SC9, SB2 and SR2), as well as one station at each of the DFO Habitat
Bank stations on Henry Sturm Greenway (HS4) and Idlewood Creek (IW1). Benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at the fish community survey stations, as well as at
HS1 on Henry Sturm Greenway, KD1 on Kolb Drain, MG1 on Montgomery Creek, and SM1 on
Shoemaker Greenway.
Samples collected were compared between streams and results for MG1 and SB2 were compared
against annual data collection dating back to 2013. SB2 was also compared against the First and
Second Five Year Report Card values to help identify any changes in the benthic community over
time.
Overall, benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected during the 2017 Kitchener SWM monitoring
program returned similar results as previous monitoring years. Taxa Richness returned similar
results both between watercourses and between previous monitoring years. Number of EPT
families was low across all sites indicating a moderately impacted systems. Percent Shredder was
also very low across all watercourses, falling well below expected values. This may indicate a lack
of detritus or leaf litter available for this feeding group.
Montgomery Creek (MG1) and upper Schneider Creek (SC9) returned the highest abundance of
organisms although they had the lowest Taxa Richness. This indicates that the benthic community
is not very diverse and composed mainly of a few species at those sites and is reflected in the
dominance of one Family in SC9 and the high percent Chironomidae at MG1.
Considering all metrics, Strasburg Creek (SB2) has the highest overall water quality of all locations
studied in 2017 with the best score of all sites on the Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index corresponding to
good water quality. It also had the highest percent EPT of any site, and included EPT species with a
tolerance value of 0, or highly sensitive to disturbance.
The past four years (2013 – 2016 data) of benthic macroinvertebrate results for Montgomery Creek
(MG1) and Strasburg Creek (SB2) were compared to the 2017 data. The overall trend for both
locations displays an improvement in water quality over the four (4) year monitoring period. The
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 9
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page iii
2017 fish community sampling revealed similar results as previous monitoring years. Strasburg
Creek (SB2) scored highest in water quality. Once again, Strasburg Creek (SB2) had the highest
percent intolerant species, which is a result of the presence of four brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis), a highly pollutant-sensitive, coldwater species. Brook trout have been well-documented
in Strasburg Creek (SB2) since 2011. An abundance of mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii) were
captured once again during the 2017 monitoring, reinforcing that the creek supports coldwater
species. Lower Schneider Creek (SC1) had the lowest value in percent tolerant species (0%),
however also had a low total catch and low species diversity. Upper Schneider Creek (SC9) had the
second highest total number of fish caught as well as the second highest species diversity amongst
all stations. Henry Sturm Greenway (HS4) had the highest number of percent tolerant species,
indicating a community lacking diversity and dominated almost solely by tolerant species. However,
HS4 did not have the lowest species richness between all stations monitored in 2017. Sandrock
Greenway (SR2) scored second lowest for total number of fish captured. This watercourse
consisted of tolerant and intermediate tolerant species, with a mix of species that prefer coolwater
and warmwater thermal regimes. Idlewood Creek (IW1) scored the highest for total fish captured
and second highest for percent tolerant species (0.6%). This community assemblage consisted of a
mix of coolwater and warmwater species.
Annual fish community trends were identified between stations that had a minimum of four
consecutive years of data available. Strasburg Creek (SB2) was analyzed for trends from 2013 to
2017. Strasburg Creek (SB2) displayed a general trend of increasing water quality over the five
years of monitoring. This year's monitoring saw a decrease in total number of fish captured,
however a school of mottled sculpin were captured during the 2016 monitoring thus significantly
increasing the total number of fish collected. The percentage of tolerant species increased in 2017,
however the general trend also suggests an increase in the percentage of intolerant species.During
2017, there was an increase in percent intolerant species because four brook trout were caught; an
increase from the two that have previously been captured during the 2014 and 2015 monitoring.
In addition to the biological monitoring work undertaken under the core 2017 SWM Monitoring
Program, the GRCA collected fish community and benthic macroinvertebrate data for several sites
along Blair Creek, as part of the ongoing monitoring program in that subwatershed to assess
impacts of development. The biological results for one of these monitoring locations (Blair Creek at
Reichert Drive, noted as BL1) are included in this report.
Once again, the total number of benthic organisms collected increased in 2017 compared to 2016
and the overall water quality at this location appears to have improved. Blair Creek (BL1) scored
higher in 2017 on all metrics. Notable changes include taxa richness almost double that of 2016 and
falls well above the range of expected values for unimpaired creeks; percent Oligochaeta
decreased to 7.5, the lowest it’s been since 2014 monitoring; and percent Chironomidae decreased
to the lowest measured since 2014, though it still falls outside the expected range within unimpaired
creeks of 10-30 percent. The high proportion of Chironomidae was also reflected in the functional
feeding groups where collector gatherers are almost dominant with 49 percent and the other
feeding groups are poorly represented. Percent EPT and number of EPT families both increased to
the highest reported since 2014. While percent EPT is still low for a healthy system, the number of
EPT families is consistent with expected values for a slightly impacted creek system and overall
indicates an increase in the diversity and abundance of these sensitive species.
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 10
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page iv
The Shannon Diversity Index for BL1 increased from 2.7 in 2016 to 3.6; a value consistent with an
unimpaired system. The HBI decreased quite significantly in 2017 and indicates good water quality
with some pollution. Overall the metrics for BL1 from 2017 mark a dramatic improvement from
previously reported community structure and composition.
Inconsistencies in the reported 2014 and 2015 results are noted in the reporting of the Shannon
Diversity Index and HBI values. Irrespective of these inconsistencies, the 2017 BL1 results still
indicate a distinct improvement over the period of survey.
The fish community data set recorded in 2017 displayed similar results to those of 2016. The total
number of fish collected decreased from 2016, however species richness remained comparable.
The percentage of tolerant species has shown a general declining trend since 2014, and has
remained at zero for the last two years. Previous monitoring suggested that the Blair Creek fish
community consisted of a mix of tolerant, intermediately tolerant and intolerant species. In 2017,
zero tolerant species were captured, shifting the system to support intolerant and intermediately
tolerant fish communities. In 2017, 4 brown trout (Salmo trutta) and 7 brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) were captured, both being intolerant species. The totals of both of intolerant brook trout
and mottled sculpin are consistently down in total numbers since 2014, but represent a consistent
proportion of the community.
Results from the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring conducted at Blair Creek (BL1) indicate an
improvement in water quality; the 2017 fish community results suggest a consistent fish community
within Blair Creek, despite a lower catch in 2017.
Huron Natural Area Permeable Paver Parking Lot Monitoring
As part of the 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program, GHD conducted monitoring at
the Huron Natural Area (HNA) permeable paver parking lot, which was installed in November 2015.
The monitoring consisted of infiltration testing of the permeable paver surface, to determine an
effective infiltration rate, as well as continuous subsurface water level monitoring.
Through six infiltration tests, the average infiltration rate was calculated to be 1,900 mm/h in 2017,
compared to an average of 2,700 mm/hr measured in 2016.
As part of the continuous water level monitoring study, all rain events in 2017 were infiltrated into
the underlying soils with little ponding in the aggregate reservoir under the parking lot. The highest
peak water level measured during 2017 was 0.342 m, compared to a peak of 0.757 m in 2016
during a large rain storm event.
The continuous leveloggers were left in the monitoring well over the winter of 2016-2017 in order to
catch any spring melt events that may occur. In addition, another round of infiltration testing will be
completed by GHD in 2018 to identify any capacity decreases that will likely occur due to regular
sedimentation and aging of the infrastructure.
DFO Habitat Bank Monitoring
In 2016, a habitat banking monitoring station was established along Henry Sturm Greenway, in
accordance with The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) policies. The second
year of monitoring along Henry Sturm Greenway was completed in conjunction with the 2017 SWM
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 11
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page v
Audit monitoring. This monitoring program aims to establish a "habitat bank" in the City of Kitchener
such that the work completed through Filsinger Park could be applied as compensation for other
watercourse work where serious harm to fish may be unavoidable. The 2017 monitoring program
addressed water chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate, fish community, and physical/geomorphic
monitoring. The complete habitat bank monitoring report is included under separate cover.
Water quality samples were collected along Henry Sturm Greenway (HS4), with a total of five wet
samples, five dry samples, and one melt sample collected between March and December2017.
Water quality parameters were measured at the sampling site during sample collection and
biological sampling using a Horiba U-52 Water Quality Meter. Parameters collected included
temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled in July at HS4 (downstream of the
confluence of Henry Sturm and Sandrock Greenway) using OBBN travelling kick and sweep
method, as well as conducting one Surber sample.
A single pass backpack electrofishing survey was conducted on three separate dates during
discrete seasonal periods. The intent of this survey was to produce a comprehensive fish species
inventory within the site, characterize the fish community, and provide a qualitative assessment of
species abundance. The seasonal fish community sampling results were:
Spring – Total fish caught = 60; consisting of six species
Summer – Total fish caught = 53; consisting of five species
Fall – Total fish caught = 144; consisting of four species
In 2017, GHD also monitored the physical characteristics of three reaches within Filsinger Park to
evaluate the condition of existing in-stream geomorphologic conditions and aquatic habitat. The
2016 monitoring evaluated the baseline condition of existing in-stream habitat and can now be used
as a benchmark for future studies within these reaches.
GHD also conducted a riparian assessment of the vegetation and tree cover within Filsinger Park in
2017. Riparian plantings were assessed in the fall (October 19, 2017). Overall, riparian vegetation
cover has established vigorously, and only minimal bare ground (<5%) occurs throughout the
restored reaches of Henry Sturm Creek in Filsinger Park. Along the Study Area, overhanging
vegetation in the form of shrub and herbaceous cover is providing shade and additional habitat
complexity to Henry Sturm Creek.
Recommendations for 2018 Monitoring Program
Based on the recommendations for an annual stormwater monitoring program as described in the
City of Kitchener Integrated SWM-MP – Implementation Plan, the results of the 2016/2017 SWM
Monitoring Program, as well as feedback from the Steering Committee members, the following
recommendations have been developed for the 2018 SWM Monitoring Program.
1. Establish four (4) flow proportionate monitoring sites each year at the below listed locations,
using a combination of City-owned and rented ISCO autosamplers:
a. 2018 SWM Monitoring Program: SB7, SB1, VS-1, HS-1
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 12
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page vi
2. At each flow proportionate monitoring location, water quality monitoring will be conducted to
produce Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for selected constituents to enable calculation of
pollutant mass loadings into receiving watercourses. Monitoring activities at the flow
proportionate monitoring sites would include the following:
a. 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. Flow meters would record continuous flow data in order to develop the EMC.
b. A minimum of eight sampling events per year should be undertaken, with two events per
season (i.e., Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter) to ensure the full range of seasonal variation is
captured.
c. Undertake a minimum of five (5) discrete flow measurements and installation of a staff
gauge 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 the
rating curve.
d. Undertake continuous temperature monitoring at the flow proportionate sampling locations
to establish baseline thermal regimes, with data recorded every 15-minutes.
e. Undertake a minimum of three (3) dry-weather sampling events at each flow proportionate
monitoring location with one (1) event in each of Spring, Summer, and Fall. Dry-weather
sampling is undertaken through grab samples to provide an indication of failing
infrastructure or contamination due to spills upstream. One dry weather sample is to be
timed to coincide with the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling (see f below). Discrete field
water quality measurements should be collected coinciding with all grab sampling events.
At minimum, the following parameters should be collected: pH, Temperature, Dissolved
Oxygen and Conductivity.
f. Undertake benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring at all flow proportionate monitoring
locations. This will allow for comparison of habitat quality over time. This type of biological
data can assist in identifying early stages of habitat change and fluctuations in watershed
conditions. One sampling event per year is recommended, to be timed to coincide with
previous year's monitoring.
g. Undertake fish community surveys at all flow proportionate monitoring locations. This will
allow for comparison of habitat quality over time. This type of biological data can assist in
identifying early stages of habitat change and fluctuations in watershed conditions. One
sampling event per year is recommended, to be timed to coincide with previous year's
monitoring.
3. Establish non-flow proportionate monitoring sites at the below listed locations, where EMCs
have been established through previous monitoring efforts:
a. 2018 SWM Monitoring Program (six sites): MG1, SC1, SR2, SM1, SC-9, SB2
4. At each non-flow proportionate monitoring location, water quality monitoring is recommended to
consist of the following:
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 13
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page vii
a. Undertake a minimum of three dry-weather sampling events at each monitoring location
with one event in each of Spring, Summer, and Fall. Dry-weather sampling is undertaken
through grab samples to provide an indication of failing infrastructure or contamination due
to spills upstream. One dry weather sample is to be timed to coincide with the benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling (see b below).
b. Undertake benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring at each monitoring location. This will allow
for comparison of habitat quality over time. This type of biological data can assist in
identifying early stages of habitat change and fluctuations in watershed conditions. One
sampling event per year is recommended, to be timed to coincide with previous year's
monitoring.
5. All dry-weather sampling events should be conducted on days when no rain has been received
during the previous 48 hours (minimum).
6. Discrete field water quality measurements should be collected coinciding with all grab sampling
events. At minimum, the following parameters should be collected: pH, Temperature, Dissolved
Oxygen and Conductivity.
7. All analytical samples should be sent to an accredited laboratory to maintain consistency
between historical analysis and lab detection limits. Sampling parameters should remain the
same and consist of: Chloride, Nitrate, Metals (Copper, Lead and Zinc), Total and Dissolved
Phosphorus, TSS and hardness.
8. Water quality results should be evaluated on an ordinal scale (days 1-365). Wet vs. dry results
may have less impact than seasonal trends; otherwise seasonal trends are not obvious.
9. Locations of autosamplers should be identified at minimum two (2) years prior to installation.
This would allow for flow monitoring to be conducted and rating curves to be created one (1)
year in advance of installation. Having a completed rating curve equation will simplify the
installation process and allow for greater autosampler accuracy across all sampling seasons.
Additional maintenance flow measurements could be included during the monitoring program to
further ensure rating curve accuracy. Prior to commencement of the 2018 monitoring program,
the 2019 EMC stations should be confirmed to permit rating curve development during the 2018
season.
10. Standardized biological sampling protocols (Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol
and Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol) should continue to be used to assess benthic
macroinvertebrates as well as fish community surveys. Consideration for the adoption of the
BioMAP Water Quality Index for benthic macroinvertebrate analysis is recommended, which
would involve the collection of quantitative serber samples in place of two of the qualitative kick-
and-sweep samples currently collected (i.e., two serber samples and one kick-and-sweep
sample for BioMAP, versus three kick-and-sweep samples collected currently). BioMAP would
allow the objective characterization of watercourse health using a metric developed specifically
for Ontario watercourses.
a. Fish samples should continue to be analyzed by watercourse to produce a comprehensive
fish species inventory within the site, characterize the fish community and provide a
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 14
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page viii
qualitative assessment of species abundance to compare to historical monitoring efforts.
The following indices should be analyzed:
# Fish Collected
Species Richness
% Tolerant Species
% Intolerant Species
2
# Fish Collected / 100 m
b. Benthic samples should continue to be analyzed by watercourse using a multimetric
approach including the following indices:
% Collector-Filterer
Taxa Richness
% Collector-Gatherer
% EPT
Number of EPT Families % Scraper
% Oligochaeta % Shredder
% Clinger
% Diptera
Shannon's Diversity Index
% Chironomidae
% Dominants Hilsenhoff's Biotic Index (HBI)
% Predators
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft
2- 15
GHD | 2017 Stormwater Management Monitoring Program | 11139676 (2) | Page ix
-
2- 16
-
-
-
-
2- 17
-
-
-
-
2- 18
-
-
-
2- 19
-
2- 20
-
-
-
-
2- 21
-
-
---
-- --
2- 22
Five-Year Stormwater Report Card
(2011 to 2015)
2015 Technical Report
City of Kitchener
GHD| 651 Colby Drive Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2Canada
11148139|100 | Report No 1 |February26 2018
2- 23
Executive Summary
Introduction
In 2001, the City of Kitchener completed the Kitchener Stormwater Management Policy
Development Study to develop a Stormwater Management MasterPlan.The intent of the master
plan was to guide the location, design, and implementation of future stormwater management
measures. As a result, the Kitchener Stormwater Management Policy (#I-1135) was developed,
including a report detailing the existing stormwater management (SWM) infrastructure.As a result
of the SWMplan, a city wide monitoring plan was developed and initiated in 2002 as part of a
process to evaluate the effectiveness of the SWM approach.
Since 2002, theSWM Monitoring Program has been used to establish baseline data to allow for
water quality characterizationof the City’s watercourses, as well as assist in the identification of
SWM issuesthat may occur, such as erosion, sedimentation, SWM pond failures, etc.The program
includes the collection of comparable data from a set of core stations through grab sampling and/or
auto-sampling for chemical analysis, benthic and fish sampling, continuous depth and temperature
monitoring, and flow monitoring.
Starting in 2006, watershed report cards covering a five-year period have been developed to
provide the City with an idea of overall stream health based on the results of the annual SWM
Monitoring Program. The report cards also provide the City a means for public awareness and
education of SWM.
The overall health of watersheds in Kitchener was recently evaluated in the Integrated Stormwater
Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment(EA) completed
in 2016. This document replaced the 2001 SWM Policy Study (#I-1135) as over time, the policy no
longer aligned with changing industry practices and changes in federal, provincial, regional, and
local policies. The purpose of the ISWM-MP is to address existing urban areas of the City and
recommend measures to improve overall environmental performance, increase efficiencies, and
reduce costs. The annual SWM Monitoring Program will continue under the 2016 ISWM-MP,
centered around the priority watersheds identified in the Master Plan.
Description of Parameters
Consistent with previous report card assessments, four parameters were evaluated to quantify and
identify the effectiveness of the City’s current SWM strategy. These parameters include the
evaluation of physical, chemical andbiological conditions of the streams within the City’s boundary
including the effectiveness of SWM treatment provided by existing infrastructure.
Physical
In previous report card assessments, physical indicators of water quality included riparian cover
(i.e.,vegetation on streambanks) and erosion in streams and along streambanks. For the 2015
2- 24
assessment, erosion was not included in the physical assessment as field verified data was not
available for evaluation.
Riparian Cover
Riparian cover has various benefits to ecosystem health within streams, especially in urban
environments. Specifically, vegetation along streambanks increases bank stability, filters out excess
nutrients, reduces suspended solids, provides shading from the sun which decreases in-stream
water temperatures, and provides fish habitat and cover for aquatic species.
The same ratings for riparian cover used in the 2010 report card were utilized for the 2015
assessment; however, a more systematic approach utilizing remote sensing was taken to determine
riparian cover.This new approach was selectedto: remove subjectivity from a user’s interpretation
of riparian areas based on air photos(instead relying on sensors), create a repeatable workflow for
riparian analyses conducted in subsequent years allowing for easier temporal comparison, and
increase the overall efficiency of the entire riparian analysis.
Chemical
To assess the water quality of the streams within Kitchener, the chemical analysis results of water
samples collected as part of the annual SWM Monitoring Programwere evaluated. The Water
Quality Indexdeveloped by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environmentwas used as a
comprehensive indicator of water quality. Eight parameters were selected to best represent the
impacts on receiving stream systems while the standard values selected are intended to protect
human and ecosystem health and identify the effectiveness of SWM practices. Consistent with
previous assessments, only stations where three or more years of data collected during the
five-year reporting period were analyzed.
Biological
As part of the SWM monitoring program, both fish and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling were
conducted to characterize the biological conditions of streams as both are good indicators of water
quality over time. Although three metrics are available for biological evaluation (number of fish
species, indicator fish species, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index \[HBI\]), the HBI values are given the
greatest weight as this metric is a direct quantitative calculation based on aquatic invertebrate data.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are more sensitive to changes in water quality than fish, and are
therefore more useful in characterizing the quality of a certain section of watercourse. The number
of fish species and the presence of indicator fish species are an indirect qualitative indicator. For the
2015 assessment, the biological rating for each station is based onthe average HBI rating over the
five-year period.
Stormwater Treatment
To characterize the effect of stormwater treatment on stream water quality, the following two
measures have been evaluated: drainage area treated by City-owned SWM ponds and type of
stream channel (i.e.,natural or naturalized versus straightened and/or hardened).
2- 25
Treated Area (Quality)
The historical goal of the City’s SWM strategy was to increase the areas within Kitchener that are
treated for water quality by end-of-pipe measures (i.e.,SWM facilities). Although this policy has
been updated in the City’s 2016 Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan to focus on
treatment of stormwater at the source, reflecting current best practices, for the purpose of the 2011
to 2015 SWM Report Card, an assessment of treated areas is still conducted. The purpose of these
end-of-pipe measures are to provide treatment for collected run-off at the end of a conveyance
system prior to discharge to a receiving watercourse. The following measures have been identified
to ensure the effectiveness of existing SWM infrastructure for the improvement of surface water
quality: proper maintenance of OGS units and catch basins, sediment removal from existing SWM
facilities, increase the number of planned SWM retrofits (i.e.,improve or enhance water quality,
quantity and erosion control performance), and identify areas where new SWM facilities can be
implemented to increase the areas receiving stormwater treatment.
For this assessment, a review of the SWM facilities (including both ponds and OGS units) owned by
the City was completed. The same rating system used in the 2010 report card was used for the
2015 assessment which allows for a rating comparison.
Channel Type
Another goal of the City’s SWM strategy is to enhance and restore natural features and functions
through promoting channel naturalization and reduce the length of channelized and concrete-lined
streams in Kitchener through rehabilitation. When streams are altered from their natural form
(i.e.,straightened or hardened with concrete), the potential for erosion downstream increases, and
the quality of aquatic habitat in the stream degrades. Stream restoration using natural channel
design and riparian zone naturalization improves surface water quality, improves aquatic health and
habitat conditions, and moderates in-stream temperatures.
The channel type ratings used in the 2010 report card assessment were also used for the 2015
assessment where watersheds with predominantly natural/mixed or rehabilitated channels scored
higher while watersheds with predominantly channelized and concrete channels scored lower.
Conclusions
The results of the 2015 report card assessment generally align with the 2010 results. The overall
chemical water quality rating of creeks currently being monitored under the Annual SWM Monitoring
Program is Poor. This level of water quality is evident especially in wet weather events and is most
likely attributed to little to no stormwater quality treatment in the subwatersheds assessed.
Ofthe ten subwatersheds assessed, only five monitored during the Annual SWM Monitoring
Program had results for more than three years: Montgomery Creek, Strasburg Creek, Idlewood
Creek, Sandrock Creek, and Kolb Creek. During dry weather monitoring events, only Strasburg
Creek and Sandrock Creek had ratings that remained unchanged from 2010 while decreases were
observed for Montgomery Creek(restoration activities planned for 2020), Idlewood Creek
(restoration activities planned for 2018-2019), and Kolb Creek.Noimprovements for dry events
were observed from 2010 to 2015. For wet weather monitoring events, the rating for all five creeks
remained unchanged from 2010 to 2015.
2- 26
The biological water quality ratings are almost evenly split between Fair and Marginal,which
indicates a better overall water quality rating when compared to the chemical rating. All ten
subwatersheds assessed included biological monitoring from 2011 to 2015. The ratings remained
unchanged from 2010 to 2015 for Schneider Creek (Fair), HenrySturm Greenway (Fair/Marginal),
Montgomery Creek (Marginal), Strasburg Creek (SB13 Marginal), and Sandrock Creek (Marginal).
The biological rating decreased from 2010 to 2015 for Strasburg Creek (SB2 Fair to Marginal) and
Idlewood Creek (IW1 Fair to Marginal). One biological rating improvement was observed for Kolb
Creek at KD1 from Marginal to Fair.
Over the five-year period of 2011 to 2015, most stations monitored had an average of six or fewer
fish species present, with the majority of fish communities being dominated by tolerant species.
Although Kolb Creek had a chemical water quality rating of Poor and biological water quality rating
of Fair, it had the most diverse fish community with over tenspecies identified in 2012 and over
seven species identified in 2011 and 2015. Shoemaker Creek was the least diverse fishcommunity
with zero species observed in 2014 and 2015; however, the biological water quality rating for
Shoemaker Creek is Fair.
All creeks, with the exception of Strasburg Creek, Idlewood Creek, Sandrock Creek, and Kolb
Creek had a riparian cover rating of Marginal, with Strasburg Creek, Idlewood Creek, and Kolb
Creek exhibiting Fair riparian cover ratings and Sandrock a Poor rating. The ratings within the
subwatersheds indicates an opportunity for improvement, especially during future creek
rehabilitation projects. Increased riparian cover can improve both water quality and ecological
habitat for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
The ratings for areas treatedby SWM facilities within the subwatersheds indicates two different
types of opportunities: opportunities to target SWM retrofit projects in those subwatersheds with low
amounts of treated areas; and opportunities to focus maintenance and facility upgrades in those
subwatersheds with high amounts of treated areas, to ensure no deterioration of existing SWM
facilities occurs. The subwatershed with the highest percentage of quality treated area was School
Creek; however this subwatershed was not included in the 2015 assessment. Of thesubwatersheds
assessed in 2015, the combined Strasburg Creek (specifically North Strasburg Creek) had the
highest percentage of quality treated area at 17% while Balzer Creek, Shoemaker Creek, and
Montgomery Creek had the lowest at 0% for all three subwatersheds.Note that the treated areas
for the City’s oil-grit separators were not available at the time of this Report Card, but would
contribute to the overall water quality treatment areas.
The rating for channel typewas the most varied parameter throughout the watershed, varying from
Excellent in Kolb Creek, Idlewood Creek, and Strasburg Creek to Poor in Shoemaker Creek. The
subwatersheds with an Excellent/Good rating for channel type exhibited Fair/Marginal ratings for
riparian cover, which indicates an opportunity to improve riparian cover in “natural/mixed” and
“rehabilitated” creek segments.
2- 27
Tableof Contents
1.Introduction...................................................................................................................................1
1.1Program Background.........................................................................................................1
1.1.1Kitchener Stormwater Policy Development......................................................1
1.1.2Kitchener Stormwater Report Card..................................................................2
1.2Existing Data......................................................................................................................2
1.3Parameter Descriptions.....................................................................................................5
1.3.1Physical............................................................................................................5
1.3.2Chemical...........................................................................................................8
1.3.3Biological........................................................................................................11
1.3.4Stormwater Treatment....................................................................................13
2.Summary of Parameter Ratings................................................................................................. 16
2.1Schneider Creek..............................................................................................................16
2.2Balzer Creek....................................................................................................................17
2.3Shoemaker Creek............................................................................................................18
2.4Henry Sturm Greenway...................................................................................................21
2.5Montgomery Creek..........................................................................................................23
2.6Strasburg Creek...............................................................................................................25
2.7Idlewood Creek................................................................................................................28
2.8Sandrock Greenway........................................................................................................30
2.9Kolb Creek.......................................................................................................................32
2.10East Creek (Hidden Valley)..............................................................................................34
3.Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................36
3.1Conclusions.....................................................................................................................36
3.1.1Physical..........................................................................................................36
3.1.2Chemical.........................................................................................................36
3.1.3Biological........................................................................................................36
3.1.4Stormwater Treatment....................................................................................37
3.2Recommendations...........................................................................................................37
4.References................................................................................................................................. 38
FigureIndex
Figure1.12011 – 2015 Monitoring Locations.................................................................................... 3
Figure1.2Existing Stormwater Facility Locations.............................................................................. 4
Figure1.3Physical Properties............................................................................................................ 7
Figure1.4Chemical Properties........................................................................................................10
2- 28
FigureIndex
Figure1.5Biological Properties........................................................................................................12
Figure1.6Stormwater Management Drainage Areas......................................................................15
Figure2.1Schneider Creek, Balzer Creek & Shoemaker Creek.....................................................20
Figure2.2Henry Sturm Creek.......................................................................................................... 22
Figure2.3Montgomery Creek..........................................................................................................24
Figure2.4Strasburg Creek..............................................................................................................27
Figure2.5 Idlewood Creek................................................................................................................29
Figure2.6Sandrock Greenway........................................................................................................31
Figure2.7Kolb Creek.......................................................................................................................33
Figure2.8East Creek (Hidden Valley).............................................................................................35
TableIndex
Table1.1 Riparian Cover Ratings..................................................................................................... 5
Table1.2 Water Quality Index Ratings.............................................................................................. 8
Table1.3 WaterQuality Standards................................................................................................... 8
Table1.4 Biological Ratings............................................................................................................11
Table1.5 Summary of Active SWM Facilities..................................................................................13
Table1.6 Stormwater Treatment Ratings........................................................................................14
Table1.7 Channel Type Ratings.....................................................................................................14
Table2.1Subwatershed Overview..................................................................................................16
Table2.2 Schneider Creek Overall Ratings....................................................................................17
Table2.3 Balzer Creek Overall Ratings..........................................................................................18
Table2.4 Shoemaker Creek Overall Ratings..................................................................................19
Table2.5 Henry Sturm Greenway Overall Ratings.........................................................................21
Table2.6 Montgomery Creek Overall Ratings................................................................................23
Table2.7 Strasburg Creek Overall Ratings.....................................................................................25
Table2.8 Idlewood Creek Overall Ratings......................................................................................28
Table2.9 Sandrock Greenway Overall Ratings..............................................................................30
Table2.10Kolb Creek Overall Ratings.............................................................................................32
Table2.11East Side - Hidden Valley Creek Overall Ratings...........................................................34
2- 29
TableIndex(following text)
Table 1 Summary of Monitoring Stations (2011 to 2015)
2- 30
1.Introduction
1.1Program Background
1.1.1Kitchener Stormwater Policy Development
In 2001, the City of Kitchener completed the Kitchener Stormwater Management Policy
Development Study to develop a Stormwater Management MasterPlan.The intent of the master
plan was to guide the location, design, and implementationof future stormwater management
measures. As a result of the study, the Kitchener Stormwater Management Policy (#I-1135) was
developed. This studyalso resulted in a report detailing the existing stormwater management
(SWM) infrastructure including SWM ponds (wet ponds, wetlands and dry ponds), Oil-Grit
Separators (OGS) and streams.Theprogram assisted the City to manage, monitor and improve
SWM within the City.
As a result of the SWMplan, a city wide monitoring plan was developed and initiated in 2002 as
part of aprocess to evaluate the effectiveness of the SWM approach. This monitoring program
focused on surface water quality, as well as invertebrateand fish community sampling (biological),
to assess the state ofthe city’s stream water quality. The monitoring program also included
continuous temperature and flow monitoring components to provide greater context for the chemical
and biological monitoring data. The intent of this program is to establish comparable baseline data
to allow for water quality characterization, as well as assist in the identification of SWM issuesthat
may occur, such as erosion, sedimentation, SWM pond failures, etc.
The overall health of watersheds in Kitchener was recently evaluated in the Integrated Stormwater
Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment(EA) completed
2016.This document replaced the 2001 SWM Policy Study (#I-1135) in 2016 asover time, the
policy no longer aligned with changing industry practices and changes in federal, provincial,
regional, and local policies. The purpose of the ISWM-MP is to address existing urban areas of the
City and recommend measures to improve overall environmental performance, increase
efficiencies, and reduce costs. A few of the environmental issues identified in the ISWM-MP specific
to surface water included:
Degradation of surface water quality
Increased sediment loads to surface water
Thermal enrichment of surface water
Loss and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat
Increased erosion
In the ISWM-MP, watersheds within the City were evaluated and prioritized with Priority1
watersheds were identified as having the greatest need of environment improvement while Priority4
watersheds were identified as closest to natural conditions and therefore had the lowest needfor
environmental improvement.
2- 31
1.1.2Kitchener Stormwater Report Card
These Report Cards provide the City with an idea of overall stream health based on theresults of
the annual SWM Monitoring Program, identify potential improvements to SWM and infrastructure,
and provide the City a means for public awareness and education of SWM.Although the annual
SWM Monitoring Program evaluates the physical, chemical and biological condition of targeted City
creeks, the Report Cards provide an opportunity to look at trends over a longer period of time,
incorporating the data from each annual monitoring report. As well, the Report Cards provide an
opportunity to distill the large amount of monitoring data down into a format that is clear and
accessible for the public.
1.2Existing Data
A summary of the stations monitored for this reporting period (2011 to 2015) including the type of
sampling completed is presented on Table 1 (located at the end of this report). The locations of the
monitoring stations are presented on Figure1.1.Monitoring efforts for the annual SWM Monitoring
Programwere completed by Aquafor Beech Ltd. in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and by AECOM in 2014
and 2015.One station (SC1) is part of the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN)
as station ID16018411702. Data for this station was downloaded from the PWQMN and included in
the data set for this report card.
Five wet and five dry monitoring events (i.e.,grab samples)were completed each year from 2011 to
2015. Ideally, wet weather samples are collected within 24-hours of a precipitation event of at least
10millimeters in order to capture the first flush of pollutants on the rising limb of the hydrograph.
Dry weather sampling is conducted with a minimum of three days without precipitation and ideally
with at least one event per season.
As part of the SWM Monitoring Program, various Geographic Information Systems (GIS) datafiles
have been created and maintained by the City. The following datafiles were provided for use in this
report card:
SWM facility locations (City and private owned, including quality and/or quality treatment and
wet/dry pond)
Oil/grit Separator (OGS) locations (City and private owned)
SWM facility and stream subwatersheds (i.e.,drainage areas)
Location of streams and tributaries and channel type
Only City-owned SWM facilities were included in this assessment. City-owned SWM facilities and
OGS locations are presented on Figure1.2. No field studies were completed as part of this
assessment therefore physical characteristics such as riparian cover and stream channel type are
limited to desktop review of existing GIS datafiles. It should also be noted that erosion was not
included as part of this assessment as it has been in previous report cards, since annual
assessment of erosion sites in City creeks was discontinued; instead, erosion assessments will be
completed every three to four years moving forward. Aerial photographs were used to identify
riparian cover provided to stream corridors.
2- 32
KD1
!
.
HS1
IW1
!
.
!.
HS3
!.
SM1
!
.
SR2
!.
MG1
!
.
BZ1
HV1
!
.
!.
SC4
!.
SB13
!
.
SC1
!
.
SB2
!
.
SC2
!.
StationSubwatershed
BZ1Balzer Creek
HS1Henry Sturm
HS3Henry Sturm
HV1Hidden Valley Creek
IW1Idlewood Creek
KD1Kolb Creek
MG1Montgomery Creek
SB13Strasburg Creek
SB2Strasburg Creek
Legend
SC1Schneider Creek
Monitoring Station
!.
SC2Schneider Creek
Watercourse
SC4Schneider Creek
SM1Shoemaker Creek
Kitchener Roads
SR2Sandrock Greenway
City of Kitchener Boundary
Source: City of Kitchener, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
06001,2001,800
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Sep 28, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
2011 - 2015 MONITORING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 1.1
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA001.mxd
2- 33
MELTZER
CREEK
87
86
!(
!(
!(
UNNAMED
17
!(
CATCHMENT 1
!(
29
105
143
!(
126
106
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(181
LAUREL CREEK
!(
43
6
45
44
!(
119
!(
!(
KOLB CREEK
!(
!(
!(
85
!(
84
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
10180
WESTMOUNT
!(!(112
118
!(
CREEK
7
LAUREL
IDLEWOOD
!(11!(
!(!(
!(
144
8
CREEK
!(CREEK
!(!(
!(
!(!(67
41
125
!(
113
19
46
!(
42
!(
37
HENRY
!(
!(36
!(
!(
STURM
!(
127
102
CREEK
12
!(2123
MONTGOMERY
!(
UPPER
30
CREEK!(
22
!(SCHNEIDER
1
68
CREEK
!(
!(
70!(
SHOEMAKER
!(
124!(
138
CREEK
20
!(
DETWEILER
24
120
93
CREEK
!(
60
!(!(!(
32!(
49
33
7634
!(
!(
!(
VOISIN CREEK
71
77
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
MIDDLE
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
SCHNEIDER
!(
!(
!(
!(
CREEK
!(
108
!(
!(
!(
121
116!(
!(
!(
SANDROCK
!(!(
175
CREEK
!(
26
133
21
!(EAST SIDE
!(88
!(
!(
182
!(
!(
LOWER
136!(
3
39
13
SCHNEIDER
4!(
!(
BALZER CREEK!(
!(
176
131
!(
!(
CREEK
40
25
179
51
50
94 UNNAMED
5
47
!(
!(
CATCHMENT 2
48
BORDEN CREEK!(
!(!(
54
!(
!(
9675
95!(
97
157!(!(
!(
!(
!(
147
28
!(
159
!(!(
!(
107
!(!(
!(NORTH
!(
!(
115
!(
6553
STRASBURG
!(
!(
!(
62
111
CREEK
74
!(
!(
55
!(
UNNAMED
!(!(
63
169
153
61
!(!(
MIDDLE
56
CATCHMENT 3
174
!(
66
STRASBURG
100
64
23
!(
109!(
!(
!(
57!(
CREEK
58
168
152
134
14
117
101
!(
!(
178
!(
78
15177!(
59
16
80
99
151
18
STRASBURG
135 SCHOOL
15679
69
161
81!(
114
CREEK
CREEK
154
148
145
82
172
158150
73
DOON
122
167
72
166
52!(
83
SOUTH CREEK
146
ALDER CREEK
139
!(
160
155
!(!(
149
!(
!(
163
170
165
BLAIR CREEK
173
164
162
171
CEDAR CREEK
UNNAMED
CATCHMENT 4
Legend
!(OGS
Watercourse
Kitchener Roads
139
SWM Facility (ID labeled)
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
City of Kitchener Boundary
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
06001,2001,800
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
EXISTING STORMWATER FACILITY LOCATIONS
FIGURE 1.2
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA002.mxd
2- 34
1.3Parameter Descriptions
Consistent with previous report card assessments, four parameters were evaluated to quantify and
identify the effectiveness of the City’s current SWM strategy. These parameters include the
evaluation of physical, chemical, andbiological conditions of the streams within the City’s boundary
including the effectiveness of SWM treatment provided by existing infrastructure.
1.3.1Physical
In previous report card assessments, physical indicators of water quality included riparian cover
(i.e.,vegetation on streambanks) and erosion in streams and along streambanks. For this
assessment, erosion was not included in the physical assessment as field verified data was not
available for evaluation.
Ripariancover has various benefits to ecosystem health within streams, especially in urban
environments, as it provides the following:
Vegetation along streambanks increases bank stability and therefore can reduce erosion
Vegetation can filter out excess nutrients and reduce suspended solids
Shading from the sun provided by vegetation decreases in-stream water temperatures,
especially during summer months
In-stream roots and over-hanging canopy can provide fish habitat and cover for fish and other
organisms
Organic debris can provide energy inputs
Impacts of SWM on receiving streams includes increased water temperature and increased
potential for erosion. Increasing riparian cover can be implemented to address these concerns and
improve ecosystem health, especiallyalong smaller systems (i.e.,less than third-order streams)
(Environment Canada, 2013).
The ratings for riparian cover are summarized in Table1.1. In the 2010 report card, AECOM
identified that in Environment Canada’s publication of How Much Habitat is Enough?that stream
degradation occurs when riparian cover falls below 75% along streams. The most recent publication
of this document also states that a riparian and watershed habitat guideline of 75% of stream length
should be naturally vegetated (Environment Canada, 2013). This rationale was used for the ratings
selected in Table1.5 which were agreed upon through discussions between the City and AECOM.
Table 1.1 Riparian Cover Ratings
Percent CoverageRating
75–100%Excellent
55–74%Good
40–54%Fair
20–39%Marginal
0–19%Poor
2- 35
For the 2015 report card, a more systematic approach utilizing remote sensing was taken to
determine riparian cover.This new approach was chosen to:
Remove subjectivity from a user’s interpretation of riparian areas based on air photos(instead
relying on sensors)
Create a repeatable workflow for riparian analyses conducted in subsequent years allowing for
easier temporal comparison
Increase the overall efficiency of the entire riparian analysis
Sentinel-2 multispectral imagery, part of the European Space Agency’s Copernicus Programme,
was utilized for the riparian cover analysis due to its easy accessibility, frequent revisit time, high
resolution open data product (10m pixel resolution – compare with Landsat imagery at 30 m (metre)
pixel resolution), and multispectral bands (specifically the presence of blue, green, red, and
near-infrared bands).An August 8, 2016 image was chosen for the riparian cover analysis for two
reasons: the Sentinel-2 Programme launched in late 2015 and no late-2015 image available was
suitable, and secondly this was the first mid-summer image in 2016 that was cloud free across the
study area (mid-summer desirable due to the presenceof mature healthy foliage, important for
image classification).The imagery was then subjected to a maximum likelihood classifier algorithm
that utilized the blue, green, red, and near-infrared bands, as well as training points chosen from the
imagery to create three classes of pixels: dense/treed vegetation, grass/fields, and
asphalt/buildings/bare earth/open water.Visual inspections were made throughout the City’s urban
and rural landscapes to verify the quality of the imageclassification.Scores were assigned to each
class based on their relative impact on riparian health: dense/treed vegetation = 1.0 and
grass/fields/asphalt/buildings/bare earth/open water = 0.Next, 30m lines were created
perpendicular to the City’s linear stream reach data (bothsides of the stream) at 5 m intervals along
the length of the stream network. The perpendicular lines were then cut into pieces matching the
aforementioned class boundaries they intersected.The length of these class pieces, multiplied by
the class score anddivided by the original line length resulted in an overall score ranging between
0.0 and 1.0.
Example:
A 30m perpendicular line (60m total length on both sides of the stream) crossing through nothing
but 100% dense/treed vegetation would receive a scoreof 1.0 \[60m * 1.0/60m = 1.0\], whereas a
perpendicular line crossing through 50% dense/treed vegetation and 50%
grass/field/asphalt/building/bare earth/water would receive a score of 0.5 (\[30m * 1.0 / 60\] + \[30m *
0 / 60\] = 0.5).
These perpendicular linescores were generated for every 5 m segment along the City’s stream
reach network and were subjected to the same Riparian ratings utilized in the 2010 report card.
The physical ratings for each stream in Kitchener are presented and discussed further in
Section2.0 and are summarized on Figure1.3.
2- 36
MELTZER
CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
KOLB CREEK
WESTMOUNT
DRAIN
HENRY STURM
GREENWAYIDLEWOOD
MONTGOMERY
CREEK
CREEK
VOISIN GREENWAY
DETWEILER
GREENWAY
SANDROCK
GREENWAY
BORDEN
GREENWAY
BALZER
GREENWAY
N. STRASBURG
CREEK
SCHNEIDER
CREEK
MIDDLE
STRASBURG
CREEK
DOON
STRASBURG
SOUTH CREEK
CREEK
BLAIR CREEK
Legend
Kitchener Roads
Riparian Cover Rating (% Cover)
Excellent (75-100)
Good (55-75)
Fair (40-55)
Marginal (20-40)
Poor (0-20)
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
06001,2001,800
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Feb 26, 2018
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
FIGURE 1.3
2- 37
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES003\\11148139-100(PRES003)GIS-WA003.mxd
1.3.2Chemical
To assess the water quality of the streams within Kitchener, the chemical analysis (including E.
Coli) results of water samples collectedas part of the annual SWM Monitoring Programwere
evaluated. Similar to the report card assessment completed in 2010, the Water Quality Index (WQI)
developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) was used as a
comprehensive indicator of water quality. The WQI is based on a formula that incorporates scope
(number of variables not meeting water quality objectives), frequency (number of times objectives
are not met), and amplitude (amount by which objectives are not met) to evaluate water quality. A
ratingis produced between 0 (worst water quality) and 100 (best water quality). The WQI can be
used to track changes at a specific site over time and also allows for comparison to other sites, as
long as the sites havethe same variables and objectives used. A minimum monitoring period of one
year is recommendedwith a minimum of four variables (i.e.,parameters) sampled at least four
times per year(no maximum is specified). Data from multiple years can be combined, however, the
WQI indicates that some degree of variability can be lost. The WQI ratings identified in the CCME
Water Quality Index 1.0 User’s Manual (CCME, 2001) are summarized in Table1.2.
Table 1.2 Water Quality Index Ratings
WRI ScoreRating
95–100Excellent
80–94Good
65–79Fair
45–64Marginal
0–44Poor
Which and how many variables to include in a WQI calculation is at the discretion of the user.
Therefore, in 2006 the City, AECOM, and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) selected the
parameters outlined in Table1.3to include in WQI calculations. Theparameters were selected to
best represent the impacts of SWM on receiving stream systems while the standard values selected
are intended to protect human and ecosystem health and identify the effectiveness of SWM
practices.It should be noted that since the 2010 report card, some Provincial Water Quality
Objectives (PWQO) have been updated.
Table 1.3 Water Quality Standards
ParameterStandardUnitsStandard Choice
Parameter
Choice
Chloride -Dissolved250mg/LImpact of road CWQG for drinking
salt applicationwater
E. coli
1200CFU/100mLImpact of human Half the sewer use
th
and animal bylaw limit and 75
wastepercentile of dry
weather flow values
Copper -Total0.005mg/LPWQO
Metal indicating
industrial
impacts
2- 38
Table 1.3 Water Quality Standards
ParameterStandardUnitsStandard Choice
Parameter
Choice
Lead -Total0.005mg/LPWQO
Metal indicating
industrial
impacts
Zinc –Total0.02mg/LMetal indicating PWQO
industrial
impacts
25mg/L
Total Suspended Standard SWM CCME –2002
Solidsefficacy Guideline for the
parameter Protection of Aquatic
(MOE, 2003)Life
0.03mg/L
Phosphorus –Total Nutrient PWQO –For
Dissolvedindicating impact excessive plant
on ecosystemgrowth
Nitrate2.9mg/LNutrient CESI –2008
Initiative
indicating impact
on ecosystem
Notes:
CCME – Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CESI – Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators
CWQG – Canadian Water Quality Guidelines
PWQO –Provincial Water Quality Objectives
As noted in the 2010 report card assessment, the standard selected for E.coliis not based on a
guideline or objective; however, two standards currently exist in Ontario: 0CFU/100mL for drinking
water and 100CFU/100mL for recreation activities. The streams in Kitchener do not meet either of
these criteria therefore neither of the Ontario standards are applicable. The standard value of
1200CFU/100mL was determined by AECOMbased on the Cityof Kitchener’s Sewer Use Bylaw
(Article6) which limits coliform counts in storm sewage released to 2400CFU/100mL. AECOM
rationalized that a system should be expected to yield wet weather water quality values (caused by
stormwater entering a stream) that are comparable to dry weather water quality values. The value
nd
of 1200CFU/100mL matched the 82percentile of dry weather flow values measured from 2002
nd
percentile of dry weather flows
to 2006. Although a value of 1700CFU/100mL matched the 82
th
measured from 2011 to 2015 (1200CFU/100mL matched the 75percentile), the standard value of
1200CFU/100 mL was retained for this assessment to allow for comparison to previous report card
assessments.
As per the 2010 report card, only stations where three or more years of data collected during the
five-year reporting period were analyzed. The chemicalratings for wet and dry sampling events for
each stream in Kitchener are presented and discussed further in Section2.0and are summarized
on Figure1.4.
2- 39
MELTZER
CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
KD1
KOLB CREEK
NO
WESTMOUNT
DRAIN
IW1
IDLEWOOD
O
N
CREEK
HENRY STURM
GREENWAY
MONTGOMERY
CREEK
SR2
MG1
DETWEILER
O
N
GREENWAY
VOISIN GREENWAY
O
N
SANDROCK
GREENWAY
BALZER GREENWAY
BORDEN GREENWAY
SCHNEIDER
SB13
CREEK
N. STRASBURG
CREEK
O
N
SC1
MIDDLE SB2
NO
STRASBURG
CREEK
O
N
STRASBURG
CREEK
DOON SOUTH
CREEK
BLAIR CREEK
Legend
Kitchener Roads
Dry
Wet
Chemical Properties
Excellent
!(
Good
!(
Fair
!(
Marginal
!(
Poor
!(
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
06001,2001,800
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Feb 26, 2018
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
FIGURE 1.4
2- 40
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES003\\11148139-100(PRES003)GIS-WA001.mxd
1.3.3Biological
As part of the SWM Monitoring Program, both fish and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling were
conducted to characterize the biological conditions of streams as both are good indicators of water
quality over time. Although three metrics are available for biological evaluation (number of fish
species, indicator fish species, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index \[HBI\]), the HBI values are given the
greatest weight as this metric is a direct quantitative calculationbased on aquatic invertebrate data.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are lower on the food chain and are more sensitive to changes in water
quality than fish. The number of fish species and the presence of indicator fish species are an
indirect qualitative indicator.
For this assessment, the biological rating for each station is based on the average HBI rating over
the five-year period. The biological ratings are summarized in Table1.4.
Table 1.4 Biological Ratings
Mean HBIRating
0.00 –3.50Excellent
3.51 –5.50Good
5.51 –6.50Fair
6.51 –7.50Marginal
7.51 –8.50Poor
The biological ratings for each stream in Kitchener are presented and discussed further in
Section2.0and are summarized on Figure1.5. It should be noted that six of the thirteen stations
monitored from 2011 to 2015 had only one year of benthic macroinvertebrate data.
2- 41
MELTZER
CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
KOLB CREEK
4
!(
WESTMOUNT
DRAIN
2
1
IDLEWOOD
!(
!(
CREEK
1
MONTGOMERY
!(
CREEK
HENRY STURM
GREENWAY
2
!(
5
DETWEILER
!(
5
!(
GREENWAY
VOISIN GREENWAY
SANDROCK
GREENWAY
BORDEN
1
1
GREENWAY!(
!(
BALZER
GREENWAY
1
!(
SCHNEIDER
N. STRASBURG
CREEK
5
CREEK
!(
MIDDLE
0 3
!(
STRASBURG
5
!(
CREEK
1
!(
STRASBURG
CREEK
DOON
SOUTH CREEK
BLAIR CREEK
Legend
Kitchener Roads
Biological Properties
Excellent
!(
Good
!(
Fair
!(
Marginal
!(
Poor
!(
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
06001,2001,800
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Feb 26, 2018
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
FIGURE 1.5
2- 42
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES003\\11148139-100(PRES003)GIS-WA002.mxd
1.3.4Stormwater Treatment
The overall goal of the City’s2001SWM strategy was to increase the area within Kitchener that are
treated for water qualityby end-of-pipe measures (i.e.,SWM facilities).The purpose of these
end-of-pipe measures are to provide treatment for collected run-off at the end of a conveyance
system prior to discharge to a receiving watercourse. The 2001 SWM strategy has been replaced
by the2016ISWM-MPImplementation Plan, whichidentifiedthe following approaches to ensure
the effectivenessof existing SWM infrastructurefor the improvement of surface water quality:
Proper maintenance such ascleanouts of OGS units and catch basins andsediment removal
from existing SWM facilities
Increase the number of plannedSWM retrofits to improve or enhance water quality, quantity
and erosion control performance.
Identify areas where new SWM facilities can be implemented in combination with park
rehabilitations to increase the areas of stormwater treatment
To characterize the effect of stormwater treatment on stream water quality, the following two
measures have been historically evaluated:
Drainage area treated by City-owned SWM ponds
Type of stream channel (i.e.,natural/naturalized versus straightened and/or hardened)
For this assessment, a review of the SWM facilities (including both ponds and OGS units) owned by
the City was completed. The SWM ponds and associated drainage areas were provided in the GIS
datafiles along with the locations of OGS units within the City; however, the associated drainage
areas for the OGS units was not provided. Based on the information provided, the total number of
active SWM facilities in Kitchener as of March 2017 are summarized inTable1.5.
Table 1.5 Summary of Active SWM Facilities
Type of SWM FacilityTotalOwnership
(1)
SWM Pond144120City
22Developer
2Other
OGS16572City
85Private
8Region
Notes:
(1) Of the 120 SWM ponds owned by the City, 111 are engineered ponds and 9
are natural ponds functioning as SWM facilities
(2) There are currently 17 SWM facilities planned but have not yet been
constructed
The same rating system used in the 2010 report card was used for this assessment which allows for
a rating comparison to the 2010 report card. The rating system for stormwater treatment is
presented in Table 1.6.
2- 43
Table 1.6 Stormwater Treatment Ratings
Rating
Percent AreaTreated by City
Owned Stormwater Ponds (Quality)
75–100%Excellent
55–74%Good
40–54%Fair
20–39%Marginal
0–19%Poor
Another goalof the City’s SWM strategyis toenhance and restore natural features and functions
throughpromotingchannel naturalizationand reduce the length of channelized and concrete lined
streams in Kitchener through rehabilitation. When streams are altered from their natural form
(i.e.,straightened or hardened with concrete), the potential for erosion downstream increases as
energy does not dissipate in straightened and hardened channels to the extent that it does in
natural channels. Stream restoration using natural channel design and riparian zone naturalization
also improves surface water quality, improves aquatic health and habitat conditions, and moderates
in-stream temperatures.
Channel types were provided in the City supplied GIS datafiles; however, GHD was unable to field
verify the classifications as a field study was not part of this assessment. GHD attempted to verify
classifications where possible with aerial imagery from 2015. The channel type ratings used in the
2010 report card assessment were also used for this assessment and are presented in Table1.7.
Watersheds with predominantly natural/mixed or rehabilitated channels scored higher while
watersheds with predominantly channelized and concrete channels scored lower.
Table 1.7 Channel Type Ratings
Percent Stream Length ImpactedRating
0–19%Excellent
20–39%Good
40–54%Fair
55–74%Marginal
75–100%Poor
The stormwater treatment ratings for each stream in Kitchener are presented and discussed further
in Section2.0.The existing SWM drainage areas and stream classifications (i.e.,natural/mixed,
rehabilitated, channelized, concrete) are summarized on Figure1.6.
2- 44
MELTZER
CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
KOLB CREEK
WESTMOUNT
DRAIN
IDLEWOOD
CREEK
MONTGOMERY
HENRY STURM
CREEK
GREENWAY
DETWEILER
GREENWAY
VOISIN GREENWAY
SANDROCK
GREENWAY
BORDEN
GREENWAY
BALZER
GREENWAY
SCHNEIDER
N. STRASBURG
CREEK
CREEK
MIDDLE
STRASBURG
CREEK
STRASBURG
CREEK
DOON
SOUTH CREEK
BLAIR CREEK
Legend
Kitchener Roads
Creek Classification
Natural / Mixed
Rehabilitated
Channelized
Concrete
Unknown
Existing SWM Area
Quality
Quantity
Quality and Quantity
Unknown
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
06001,2001,800
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Feb 26, 2018
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DRAINAGE AREAS
FIGURE 1.6
2- 45
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES003\\11148139-100(PRES003)GIS-WA004.mxd
2.Summary of Parameter Ratings
The overall ratings for each creek are further described in the following sections. It should be noted
that only creeks with three or more years of chemical water quality monitoring data for at least one
station within the subwatershed are described. A table of overall ratings and a summary figure are
provided for each creek.An overview summarizing each watershed discussed is presented in
Table2.1.
Table 2.1 Subwatershed Overview
Watershed NameDrainage Stream No. SWM No. OGS Aquatic Average
Area (ha)Length FacilitiesUnitsClassificationNo. Fish
(km)Species
TotalCityTotalCity
Balzer Creek253.62.33220Warm Water4
East Side –Hidden Valley756.26.56422Warm Water6
Henry Sturm Greenway557.05.56442Warm Water2
Idlewood Creek950.611.323875Cold Water3
Kolb Creek1327.28.484203Cold Water7
Montgomery Creek846.34.200134Warm Water5
Sandrock Creek401.02.53100Warm Water4
Upper Schneider Creek725.94.2101510Warm Water-
Middle Schneider Creek281.02.210164Warm Water-
Lower Schneider Creek809.49.7312111Warm Water5
Shoemaker Creek233.63.61010Warm Water0
Strasburg Creek461.36.813222Cold Water5
North Strasburg Creek416.35.6154113Cold Water-
Middle Strasburg Creek673.96.09322Cold Water-
2.1Schneider Creek
The most prominent creek in Kitchener is Schneider Creek, a warmwater creek that is fed by
several other creeks including Henry Sturm, Westmount Creek, Sandrock, Detweiler, Voisin Creek,
Borden Creek, Shoemaker Creek, Balzer Creek, Montgomery Creek, Strasburg Creek, Doon Creek,
and School Creek. SchneiderCreek flows through much of Kitchener’s urban center, including the
downtown area and Victoria Park, before discharging to the Grand River.The creek has been
divided into three subwatersheds: Upper Schneider Creek, Middle Schneider Creek, and Lower
SchneiderCreek.
Middle Schneider Creek has been identified as a localized groundwater discharge area, specifically
portions of the middle reaches. Both the Middle and Lower Schneider Creek subwatersheds have
been identified as Priority2 Subwatersheds in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016 while the Upper
Schneider Creek Subwatershed was identified as Priority1.Portions of the creek have also been
identified with having a high to moderate risk for stream erosion and therefore have been identified
as potential mitigation opportunities.Lower Schneider Creek has been classified as “natural/mixed”
while the majority of Middle Schneider Creek has been classified as “channelized”. Upper
Schneider Creek is classified with both “channelized” and“concrete” segments of the creek.
2- 46
Although the primary land use for the three subwatersheds is a mixture of residential and industrial,
the majority of the catchmentareas are not controlled for stormwater treatment. Atotal of fiveSWM
facilities (one City-owned) and 52OGS units (25City-owned)are located within the Schneider
Creek subwatersheds.
For the purpose of this assessment, the three subwatershedshave been grouped together as one
subwatershed for Schneider Creek; however, it should be noted that the majority of the monitoring
from 2011 to 2015 was for the Lower Schneider Creek subwatershed.Overall ratings for Schneider
Creek from the 2006, 2010, and 2015 five-year Report Cards are summarized in Table2.2.
Table 2.2 Schneider Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
StationSC2SC2SC1SC2SC4
DryMarginalFairMarginaln/an/a
WetPoorPoorPoorn/an/a
Biological
StationSC2SC2SC1SC2SC4
ValueMarginalMarginaln/aFairFair
Physical
Riparian Covern/aMarginalMarginal
Erosionn/aPoorn/a
Stormwater
Treated Area (Quality)n/aPoorMarginal
Channel Typen/aGoodGood
For water quality, the chemical rating of Marginal for dry events and Poor for wet events was based
on monitoring data collected from 2011 to 2014 at SC1 which is currently monitored as part of the
Provincial Water Quality Network (ID16018411702). Compared to previous assessments, the Wet
events remained consistent with a chemical rating of Poor while the Dry event rating decreased
from Fair to Marginal. It should be noted that monitoring location SC1 is located downstream of SC2
just upstream of the confluence of Schneider Creek with the Grand River. The biological rating for
Schneider Creek was based on monitoring data collected from 2011 to 2015 at SC2 andSC4, both
of which are located in Lower Schneider Creek in “natural/mixed” segments of the creek. Both
monitoring locations had a biological rating of Fair, which for SC2 is an improvement from a rating
of Marginal in 2010. The rating for riparian cover was consistent with the2010 Marginal rating. For
stormwater, the treated area improved from Poor to Marginal with 38% of the combined
subwatersheds receiving quality treatment of stormwater.The channel type rating remained
unchanged from 2010 as Good with 32% of the total channel length impacted with a mixtureof
channelized and concrete segments.
2.2Balzer Creek
Balzer Creek is a warm water creek that runs through the centreportion of the city and is a tributary
of Lower Schneider Creek. The watershed has been identified as a localized groundwater discharge
2- 47
area and a Priority2 Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016. It has also been
identified with having a high to moderate risk for stream erosion and therefore has been identified
as a potential mitigation opportunity. The majority of the creek has been classified as
“natural/mixed” with a small portionof channelized reaches. A total of threeSWM facilities (two
City-owned) and twoOGSunits(zeroCity-owned)are located within the watershed, therefore much
of the catchment is not controlled for stormwater quality and/or quantity treatment.
Ratings for Balzer Creek were not developed in the 2010 five-year Report Card therefore Table2.3
summarizes only the ratings for 2015.
Table 2.3 Balzer Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2015 Rating
Chemical
StationBZ1
Dryn/a
Wetn/a
Biological
BZ1
Station
ValueMarginal
Physical
Riparian CoverMarginal
Erosionn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)Marginal
Channel TypeGood
For water quality, only a biological rating for BalzerCreek was determined as no chemical
monitoring was conducted from 2011 to 2015 at BZ1, located towards the downstream end of the
subwatershed in a “natural/mixed” segment of the creek. Both thebiological and riparian cover
ratings for 2015 wereMarginal. For storwmater, the treated area rating was Marginal with 29% of
the subwatershed receiving quality treatment of stormwater.The channel type rating for 2015 was
Good with 26% of the total channel length impacted with channelized segments. It should be noted
that a segment of creek in the Balzer Creek subwatershed was classified as “unknown” and
therefore was not included in the rating calculation.
2.3Shoemaker Creek
Shoemaker Creek is a warm water creek that runs through the central-western portion of the city
and is a tributary to Upper Schneider Creek. The subwatershed has been identified as a Priority1
Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016 and has mixed land uses, predominantly
residential. The majority of the creek has been classified as “channelized” with small segments
classified as “concrete” and “natural/mixed”. Although the subwatershed is predominantly urban
with a total of oneSWM facility(zero City-owned) and one OGSunits (zero City-owned), the
majority of the catchment does not receive stormwater treatment.
2- 48
Ratings for Shoemaker Creek were not developed in the 2010 five-year Report Card therefore
Table2.4 summarizes only the ratings for 2015.
Table 2.4 Shoemaker Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2015 Rating
Chemical
SM1
Station
Dryn/a
Wetn/a
Biological
SM1
Station
ValueFair
Physical
Riparian CoverMarginal
Erosionn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)Poor
Channel TypePoor
For water quality, only a biological rating for Shoemaker Creek was determined as no chemical
monitoring was conducted from 2011 to 2015 at SM1, located towards the downstream end of the
subwatershed where the concrete segmentof the creek begins. The biological rating for 2015 was
Fair while the rating for riparian cover was Marginal. For stormwater, the treated area rating was
Poor with 0% of the subwatershed receiving quality treatment of stormwater from SWM facilities.
The channel type rating for2015 was Poor with 84% of the total channel length impacted with a mix
of channelized and concrete sections.It should be noted that a small segment of creek in the
Shoemaker Creek subwatershed was classified as “unknown” and therefore was not included inthe
rating calculation.
2- 49
CHEMICAL & PHYSICALBIOLOGICAL & SWM
119
W
W
T
T
S
S
R
R
KE
T
KE
T
IB
I
N
B
N
E
G
R
E
GR
1
W
S
W
S
T
T
W
W
L
C
C
A
A
1
H
IG
H
LA
NDH
RIG
D HL
WA
ND
R
D
W
144
FR
E
DE
RRF
ICR
K ED
STE
RR
IC
K
ST
T
SS
T
TN
SS
SO
TN
T
NS
N O
E
T
QEN
E
BAN
UUE
QE
EE
QA
UB
EU
E
N
Q
SE
N
B
S
L
V B
N
DL
V
N
D
UPPER
UPPER
SCHNEIDER
SCHNEIDER
CREEK
CREEK
138
SHOEMAKER
SHOEMAKER
O
T
O
T
A 2
T
W
T
A
A
W
CREEK S
A
T 116
CREEK S
N
T
N
O
O
T
T
T
AT
WA
W
A
A
S
S
T
T
S
S
13
MIDDLE
MIDDLE
B
SCHNEIDER B
L
SCHNEIDER
OL
O
C
C
K
K
CREEK MG1
L
CREEK
L
I
N
I
N
E
E
R
R
D
D
5
N
O
28
BALZER CREEK
BALZER CREEK
121
107
S
S
R
111 R
B
88
S 133
182
B
S
1
LB
EL
62
E
A
MA
M
S
S 136
R
S
R
D
D
55
W
63
W
A
YA
Y
56
R
65
R
S
S
O
SB13
64
66
5
N
O
61
175
134
109
117 1
H
H
O LOWER
O LOWER
100
D
SCHNEIDER D
SCHNEIDER
176
CREEK
57
CREEK
78
131
SB2
23
7958
101
152
5
N
O
151
154
14
25
16
15
174
114
53
18
A
177
178
N
V
166
153
SC1
13580
145
122
81
N
O
1
150148
59
72
69
163
73
82
139
155
83
170
164
162
146
171
85
£
¤
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
UPPER
Wet
SCHNEIDER
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
CREEK
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!
(MIDDLE
Good (55-75)
ExcellentChannelized
!(
SCHNEIDER
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
Fair
CREEK
Fair (40-55)
!(
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
SHOEMAKER
!
(
8
Marginal (20-40)
£
¤
MarginalUnknown CREEK
LOWER
!
(
Fair
SCHNEIDER
!(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
CREEK
Poor
!
(
7
£
¤
Quality
BALZER
Marginal
!
(
CREEK
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!(
CITY OF
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
KITCHENER
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
04008001,200
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 17, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
SCHNEIDER CREEK, BALZER CREEK, & SHOEMAKER CREEK
FIGURE 2.1
2- 50
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA007.mxd
2.4Henry Sturm Greenway
Henry Sturm Creek, located in the Henry Sturm Greenway subwatershed, is a warm water creek
that runs through the northwestern portion of the city and is a tributary of Schneider Creek. The
creek runs from the upstreamend of VictoriaParkLake to the northwest corner of the city boundary
and is highly urbanized (Aquafor Beech, 2016). The subwatershedhas been identified as a
Priority2 Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016. Over half of the creek has been
classified as “concrete” or “channelized”; however, a good portion has been rehabilitated or remains
“natural/mixed”. A total of six SWM facilities(four City-owned)and fourOGSunits (two City-owned)
are located within the subwatershed; however, the majority of the catchment does not receive
stormwater treatment.
Overall ratings for Henry Sturm Greenway from the 2006, 2010, and 2015 five-year Report Cards
are summarized in Table2.5.
Table 2.5 Henry Sturm Greenway Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
StationHS1HS1HS1
DryMarginalMarginaln/a
WetPoorPoorn/a
Biological
HS3HS1HS3HS1HS3HS1
Station
ValueFairPoorFairMarginalFairMarginal
Physical
Riparian Covern/aMarginalMarginal
Erosionn/aExcellentn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)n/aPoorPoor
Channel Typen/aFairFair
For water quality, onlybiological ratings for Henry Sturm Creek were determined as no chemical
monitoring was conducted from 2011 to 2015 at HS1 or HS3. The biological rating for HS3, located
at the most upstream end of the concrete portion of the creek, has remained unchanged from 2006
to 2015 with a rating of Fair. The biological rating for HS1, located at the most downstream end of
the concrete portion of the creek and subwatershed, has remained unchanged from 2010 to 2015
with a rating of Marginal. Riparian cover remained consistent from 2010 with a Marginal rating. For
stormwater, the treated area rating remained constant from 2010 as Poor with 5% of the
subwatershed receiving quality treatment of stormwater.The channel type rating remained
unchanged from 2010 as Fair with 44% of the total channel length impacted with a mix of
channelized and concrete sections.
2- 51
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
SR2
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
144
1
!(
12
1
!(
30
22
68
70
138
124
20
24
93
5
!(
120
60
49
33
76
34
32
71
77
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM
¤
Dry Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
HENRY
Excellent (75-100)
Chemical Properties Rehabilitated
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
STURM
Good
!(
Good (55-75)
Excellent GREENWAY
Channelized
!(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!(
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!(
8
£
Fair
¤
!(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
Poor
!(
7 CITY OF
£
Quality¤
Marginal
!(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0200400600
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Feb 26, 2018
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
HENRY STURM CREEK
FIGURE 2.2
2- 52
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA008.mxd
2.5Montgomery Creek
Montgomery Creek is a warm water creek that runs through the northernportion of the city near
Fairway Road and is a tributary to Lower Schneider Creek.The creek crosses two highways
(Highway7 and Highway85) and therefore has been identified as highly impacted by chlorides due
to highway runoff. The subwatershed has been identified as a Priority1 Subwatershed in the
ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016and has been identified as a localized groundwater discharge
area, specifically at the headwaters. It has also been identified as an erosion site opportunity. The
majority of the creek has been classified as “channelized” with a small portion as “natural/mixed”.
There are noSWM facilities and 13OGS units(four City-owned)located within the subwatershed
which has predominantly residential land use,therefore it receives little to no stormwater treatment.
Overall ratings for Montgomery Creek from the 2006, 2010, and 2015 five-year Report Cards are
summarized in Table2.6.
Table 2.6 Montgomery Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
StationMG1MG1MG1
DryPoorMarginalPoor
WetPoorPoorPoor
Biological
MG1MG1MG1
Station
ValueMarginalMarginalMarginal
Physical
Riparian Covern/aPoorMarginal
Erosionn/aExcellentn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)n/aPoorPoor
Channel Typen/aPoorMarginal
Compared to the previous ratings from 2006 and 2010, the chemical parameter ratings for both dry
and wet weather events have generally remained unchanged with a rating of Poor at monitoring
location MG1, which is located towards the downstream end of the subwatershed in a channelized
portion of the creek. The biological rating has also remained unchanged at Marginal. Riparian cover
improved from 2010 from a rating of Poor to Marginal. For stormwater, the treated area rating
remained unchanged from 2010 as Poor with 0.01% of the subwatershed receiving quality
treatment of stormwater from SWM facilities.The channel type rating improved from Poor in 2010 to
Marginal in 2015 with 57% of the total channel length impacted with channelized segments.
2- 53
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
85
10
112
7
11
144
8
41
113
19
46
42
37
36
127
102
123
2
MONTGOMERY
CREEK
1
138
MG1
N
O
116
121
175
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
85
10
112
7
11
144
8
41
1
!(
113
19
46
42
37
36
127
102
123
2
MONTGOMERY
CREEK
1
2
!
(
138
5
!
(
116
121
175
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM¤
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!(
MONTGOMERY
Good (55-75)
Excellent
Channelized
!(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
CREEK
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!
(
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!
(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!
(
8
£
Fair¤
!
(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
Poor
!(
7 CITY OF
£
¤
Quality
Marginal
!
(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0300600900
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
MONTGOMERY CREEK
FIGURE 2.3
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA009.mxd
2- 54
2.6Strasburg Creek
The Strasburg Creek is a large creeksystem that is comprised of three branches/subwatersheds:
South/Main branch, Middle branch, and North branch. Thewatercourse is classified as a cold water
creek with portions identifiedas localized groundwater discharge areaswith known resident brook
trout. Both the South/Main and Middle branchsubwatersheds have been identified as Priority 4
Subwatersheds in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016 while the North branch subwatershed was
identified as Priority 2. Both the South and Middle branchesare classified as completely
“natural/mixed” while the North branchis predominantly “natural/mixed” with a small portion
classified as “concrete”.One erosion site opportunity was identified which is currently being
addressedat Old Huron Road. A total of37SWM facilities(nine City-owned)and 15OGSunits
(seven City-owned)are located within the three subwatersheds which provide over half of the total
catchment area with stormwater quality and/or quantity treatment.
For the purpose of this assessment, the threesubwatersheds have been grouped together as one
subwatershed for Strasburg Creek; however, it should be noted that the majority of the monitoring
from 2011 to 2015 was for the South/Main and North branchsubwatersheds. Overall ratings for
Strasburg Creek from the 2006, 2010, and 2015 five-year Report Cards are summarized in
Table2.7.
Table 2.7 Strasburg Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
SB1SB2SB1SB13SB2SB13
Station
DryGoodFairFairMarginalFairPoor
WetMarginalPoorPoorPoorMarginalPoor
Biological
StationSB1SB2SB13SB1SB2SB13SB2SB13
ValueFairFairMarginalGoodFairMarginalMarginalMarginal
Physical
Riparian Covern/aFairFair
Erosionn/aExcellentn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)n/aPoorPoor
Channel Typen/aExcellentExcellent
Compared to the previous ratings from 2006 and 2010, the chemical parameter rating, specifically
for dry weather events, decreased from Marginal to Poor at monitoring location SB13 (North
branch) and remained unchanged with a rating of Fair at SB2 (downstream of SB13 in South/Main
branch). For the wet events, the rating at SB13 has remained unchanged with a rating of Poor while
SB2 has shown improvement from 2006 to 2015 from Poor to Marginal. The biological ratings over
the years have remained consistent at SB13 with a rating of Marginal and have decreased from Fair
to Marginal at SB2. Riparian cover remainedconsistent from 2010 with a Fairrating. For
stormwater, the treated area rating remained unchanged from 2010 as Poor with 17% of the
subwatershed receiving quality treatment of stormwater from City-owned SWM facilities.The
2- 55
channel type rating remained unchanged from 2010 as Excellent with 3% of the total channel length
impacted with a mix of channelized and concrete sections. Itshould be noted that a portion of creek
in the North branchsubwatershed was classified as “unknown” and therefore was not included in
the rating calculation.
2- 56
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
NORTH
SB13
STRASBURG
CREEK
N
O
MIDDLE
STRASBURG
SB2
CREEK
N
O
STRASBURG
CREEK
!
(
182
136
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
39
13
176
131
40
50
94
47
51
48
1
!
96(
75
95
97
157
28
159
107
115
65
NORTH
62
111
STRASBURG
74
CREEK
55
5
!
(
63
169
61
56
66
174
64
23
100
109
57
MIDDLE
58
STRASBURG
168
CREEK
152
5
!
134(
14
117
101
178
78
177
15
STRASBURG
16
99
80
CREEK
15118
156
135
79
161
81
114
154
148
145
82
172
158
73
150
72
167
122
166
83
139
155
163
170
165
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM¤
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!(
Good (55-75)
Excellent
Channelized
!(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!
(
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!
(
8
Fair£
¤
!
(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
Poor
!(
7 CITY OF
£
¤
Quality
Marginal
!(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!
(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
STRASBURG
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
CREEK
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0300600900
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
STRASBURG CREEK
FIGURE 2.4
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA010.mxd
2- 57
2.7Idlewood Creek
Idlewood Creek isa significant watercourse that runs through the northeastportion of the city before
discharging into the Grand River near the end of Zeller Drive. Segments of the creek have been
characterized as both warm water and cold water with groundwater discharges observed at two
natural reaches during the SWM Policy Development Study (TSH, 2001). The subwatershed has
been identified as a Priority2 Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016. The majority
of the creek has been classified as “natural/mixed” with a small portion “unknown”. A total of 23
SWM facilities (eight City-owned) and sevenOGS units (five City-owned) arelocated within the
subwatershed; however, the majority of the catchment does not receive stormwater treatment.
Overall ratings for Idlewood Creek from the 2006, 2010, and 2015 five-year Report Cards are
summarized in Table2.8.
Table 2.8 Idlewood Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
IW1IW1IW3IW1
Station
DryGoodn/aFair
WetPoorn/aPoor
Biological
StationIW1IW1IW3IW1
ValueGoodFairFairMarginal
Physical
Riparian Covern/aExcellentFair
Erosionn/aExcellentn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)n/aPoorPoor
Channel Typen/aExcellentExcellent
Compared to the previous ratings from 2006 and 2010, the chemical parameter rating, specifically
for dry weather events, decreased from Good to Fair while wet events remained the same as Poor.
The biological rating over the years has shown a steady decrease from Good in 2006 to Fair in
2010 and Marginal in 2015 at monitoring location IW1, located at the most downstream end of the
subwatershed. Riparian cover decreasedfrom Excellent in 2010 to a rating of Fair in 2015. For
stormwater, the treated area rating remained unchanged from 2010 as Poor with 15% of the
subwatershed receiving quality treatment of stormwater.The channel type rating remained
unchanged from 2010 as Excellent with 0% of the total channel length impacted; however, it should
be noted that a number of creek segments in the subwatershed are classified as “unknown” and
therefore were not included in the rating calculation.The majority of the creek has been classified
as “natural/mixed” therefore the steady decrease in the biological rating could be attributed to
increased urbanization of the surrounding upstream areasand decreased riparian cover.
2- 58
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
IW1
IDLEWOOD
CREEK
N
O
MG1
N
O
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
85
84
180
10
118
112
7
11
IDLEWOOD
CREEK
8
67
41
125
2
!
(
113
19
46
42
37
36
127
102
123
2
1
5
!
(
121
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM¤
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!(
Good (55-75)
Excellent
Channelized
!(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!
(
IDLEWOOD CREEK
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!
(
8
Fair£
¤
!(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
Poor
!
(
7 CITY OF
£
¤
MarginalQuality
!(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!
(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0300600900
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
IDLEWOOD CREEK
FIGURE 2.5
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA011.mxd
2- 59
2.8Sandrock Greenway
Sandrock Creek is a warm water creek that runs through the northwestern portion of the city and is
a tributary to Henry Sturm Creek,south of Victoria Street. It is located in the Sandrock Greenway
subwatershed which has been identified as a Priority1 Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA
completed in 2016 and has also been identified ashaving an erosion site opportunity (i.e.,an
opportunity for restoration/stabilization of an active erosion site)at WestheightsDrive. The majority
of the creek has been classified as “rehabilitated” with downstream portionsclassified as “concrete”
and“channelized” with little riparian cover. Thesubwatershed is predominantly urban with a total of
three SWM facilities (one City-owned) and noOGSunits;thereforethe majority of the catchment
does not receive stormwater treatment.
Overall ratings for Sandrock Greenway from the 2010and 2015 five-year Report Cards are
summarized in Table2.9.
Table 2.9 Sandrock Greenway Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
Stationn/aSR2SR2
Dryn/aPoorPoor
Wetn/aPoorPoor
Biological
n/aSR2SR2
Station
Valuen/aMarginalMarginal
Physical
Riparian Covern/aPoorPoor
Erosionn/aExcellentn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)n/aPoorPoor
Channel Typen/aGoodGood
Compared to the previous ratings fromthe 2010 Report Card, the chemical parameter rating for
both dry and wet weather events and the biological ratings remained the same as Poorand
Marginal, respectively. Riparian cover remained consistent from 2010 with arating of Poor. For
stormwater, the treated area rating remained unchanged from 2010 as Poor with 0.64% of the
subwatershed receiving quality treatment of stormwaterfrom SWM facilities. The channel type
rating remained unchanged from 2010 as Good with 32% of the total channel length impacted with
a mix of channelized and concrete sections.
2- 60
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
SR2
N
O
SANDROCK
CREEK
30
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
22
68
70
124
20
24
93
5
!
(
120
60
49
33
76
34
32
71
77
108
116
SANDROCK
CREEK
26
21
3
39
13
4
40
50
94
5
47
51
48
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM¤
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!(
Good (55-75)
ExcellentChannelized
!
(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
SANDROCK CREEK
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!
(
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!
(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!
(
8
£
¤
Fair
!(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
Poor
!(
7 CITY OF
£
¤
Quality
Marginal
!
(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!
(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0200400600
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
SANDROCK CREEK
FIGURE 2.6
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA012.mxd
2- 61
2.9KolbCreek
Kolb Creek is a significant watercourse that runs through the northern portion of the city before
discharging to the Grand Rivernear the end of Ottawa Street. Segments of the creek have been
classified as both cold and warm waterby the Ministry of Natural Resources. The subwatershed
has been identified as a Priority2 Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016 and has
been identified as a localized groundwater discharge area. It has also been identified with having a
high to moderate risk for stream erosion however much of the identified areais located within
private property. The majority of the creek has been classified as “natural/mixed” with small portions
within the middle reach classified as “rehabilitated” and “channelized”. Riparian cover along the
majority of the watercourse is good due to the “natural/mixed” classification of the creek.Although
the subwatershed is predominantly urban with atotal of eightSWM facilities(four City-owned) and
20OGSunits(three City-owned);the majority of the catchment does not receive stormwater
treatment.
Overall ratings for Kolb Creek from the 2006, 2010, and 2015 five-year Report Cards are
summarized in Table2.10.
Table 2.10Kolb Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2006 Rating2010 Rating2015 Rating
Chemical
StationKD1KD1KD1
DryMarginalMarginalPoor
WetPoorPoorPoor
Biological
KD1KD2KD1KD2KD1
Station
ValueFairPoorMarginalPoorFair
Physical
Riparian Covern/aGoodFair
Erosionn/aExcellentn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)n/aPoorPoor
Channel Typen/aGoodExcellent
Compared to the previous ratings from 2006 and 2010, the chemical parameter rating, specifically
for dry weather events, decreased from Marginal to Poor. The biological rating changed from
Marginal to Fair at monitoring location KD1, located downstream of the previous monitoring location
KD2. The riparian cover rating decreased from Good in 2010 to Fair in 2015. For stormwater, the
treated area rating remained unchanged from 2010 as Poor with 5.5% of the subwatershed
receiving quality treatment of stormwater from SWM facilities. The channel type rating improved
from Good in 2010 to Excellent in 2015 with 17% of the total channel length impacted with
channelized sections.It should be noted that “unknown” channel classifications were identified in
portions of the subwatershed which discharge directly into the Grand River and therefore were not
included in the rating calculation.
2- 62
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
KD1
KOLB CREEK
N
O
N
O
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
17
29
105
143
106
126
181
43
6
45
44
KOLB CREEK
4
!
(
119
85
10
112
118
7
11
144
8
41
125
!
(
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM¤
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!(
Good (55-75)
Excellent
Channelized
!(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!
(
Concrete KOLB CREEK
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!
(
8
Fair£
¤
!
(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
Poor
!(
7 CITY OF
£
¤
Quality
Marginal
!(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!
(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0300600900
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
KOLB CREEK
FIGURE 2.7
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA013.mxd
2- 63
2.10East Creek (Hidden Valley)
The East Creek (Hidden Valley)subwatershed is a warm water creek that runs through the eastern
portion of the city before discharging to the Grand River. The subwatershed has been identified as a
Priority2 Subwatershed in the ISWM-MP EA completed in 2016. It has also been identified with
having a high to moderate risk for stream erosion; however, much of the watercourse is located
within private property. The majority of the creek has been classified as “unknown” in the GIS
datafiles provided by the City; however, the ISWM-MP EA Existing Conditions Reportprepared by
Aquafor Beech in 2016 identified all watercourses in the subwatershed as “vegetated”. Although the
majority of land use in the subwatershed is rural/agricultural, a total of six SWM facilities (four
City-owned) and two OGSunits (both City-owned) are located within the subwatershed. Previous
studies have indicated the subwatershed is dominated by permeable soils which suggest high
volumes infiltration, low surface water runoff volumes and rates, and significant contributions to the
local groundwater table and base flows (Aquafor Beech, 2016).
Ratings for East Creek (Hidden Valley)were not developed in the 2010 five-year Report Card
therefore Table2.11 summarizes only the ratings for 2015.
Table 2.11East Side - Hidden Valley Creek Overall Ratings
Parameter2015 Rating
Chemical
StationHV1
Dryn/a
Wetn/a
Biological
HV1
Station
ValueFair
Physical
Riparian CoverMarginal
Erosionn/a
Stormwater
TreatedArea (Quality)Poor
Channel Typen/a
For water quality, only a biological rating for East Creek (Hidden Valley)was determined as no
chemical monitoring was conducted from 2011 to 2015 at HV1, located upstream of the confluence
of the creek with the Grand River. The rating for riparian cover was Marginal. For stormwater, the
treated area rating for 2015 was Poor with 9.5% of the subwatershed receiving quality treatment of
stormwaterfrom theSWM facilities. The channeltype rating for East Side – Hidden Valley Creek
could not be determined as all streams in the subwatershed were classified as “To Input” in the GIS
datafilesprovided by the City.
2- 64
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
MG1
N
O
EAST SIDE
BIOLOGICAL & SWM
5
!
(
175
133
EAST SIDE
88
1
!
(
!(
136
176
131
179
25
1
!54
(
147
53
153
174
23
100
57
85
£
Chemical & PhysicalBase FeaturesBiological & SWM¤
Dry
Riparian CoverBiological PropertiesCreek Classification
Kitchener Roads
Wet
Rating (% Cover)
Natural / Mixed
Excellent
Watercourse
!(
Excellent (75-100)
Rehabilitated
Chemical Properties
Rivers / Ponds / Lakes
Good
!(
Good (55-75)
Excellent
Channelized
!(
Subwatersheds (GRCA)
Fair
Fair (40-55)
!
(
Concrete
City of Kitchener Boundary
Good
!(
Marginal (20-40)
Marginal
Unknown
!(
Fair
EAST SIDE
!(
Poor (0-20)
Existing SWM Area
8
Poor
£
¤
!(
7 CITY OF
£
¤
MarginalQuality
!(
KITCHENER
3
Years of Monitoring
!(
Quantity
Poor
!
(
139
SWM Facility
Quality and Quantity
ID labeled
Unknown
401
£
¤
Source: City of Kitchener, GRCA, 2017.
CITY OF KITCHENER 11148139-100
0300600900
5 YEAR STORMWATER REPORT CARD
Oct 12, 2017
2016 TECHNICAL REPORT
Meters
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
EAST SIDE (HIDDEN VALLEY CREEK)
FIGURE 2.8
GIS File: Q:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\11148000s\\11148139\\Layouts\\PRES001\\11148139-100(PRES001)GIS-WA014.mxd
2- 65
3.Conclusions and Recommendations
3.1Conclusions
The results of the 2015 report card assessment generally align with the 2010 results. It should be
noted that the monitoring locations for most subwatersheds are located at the most downstream
end of the creek, typically near the confluence of the creek with a major watercourse and in densely
urbanized/industrialize areas.
3.1.1Physical
All creeks with the exception of Strasburg Creek, IdlewoodCreek, Sandrock Creek, and Kolb Creek
had a riparian cover rating of Marginal, with Strasburg Creek, Idlewood Creek, and Kolb Creek
exhibiting Fair riparian cover ratings and Sandrock a Poor rating. The ratings within the
subwatersheds indicates an opportunity for improvement, especially during future creek
rehabilitation projects. Increased riparian cover can improve both water quality and ecological
habitat for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
3.1.2Chemical
The overall chemical water quality rating of creeks currently being monitored under the Annual
SWM Monitoring Program is Poor. This reduced water quality is evident especially in wet weather
events and is most likely attributed to little to no stormwater quality treatmentin the subwatersheds
assessed.
Of the ten subwatersheds assessed, only five monitored during the Annual SWM Monitoring
Program had results for more than three years: Montgomery Creek, Strasburg Creek, Idlewood
Creek, Sandrock Creek, and Kolb Creek. During dry weather monitoring events, only Strasburg
Creek and Sandrock Creek had ratings that remained unchanged from 2010 while decreases were
observed for Montgomery Creek, Idlewood Creek, and Kolb Creek. Noimprovements for dry events
were observed from 2010 to 2015. For wet weather monitoring events, the rating for all five creeks
remained unchanged from 2010 to 2015.
3.1.3Biological
The biological water quality ratings of creeks currently being monitored under the Annual SWM
Monitoring Program are almost evenly splitbetween Fair and Marginal, which indicates a better
overall water quality rating when compared to the chemical rating.
All ten subwatersheds assessed included biological monitoring form 2011 to 2015, with five having
only biological monitoring conducted (i.e.,no chemical monitoring). These subwatersheds included:
Schneider Creek, Balzer Creek, Shoemaker Creek, HenrySturm Greenway, and East Creek
(Hidden Valley), of which Balzer Creek, Shoemaker Creek, and East Creek (Hidden Valley) were
not included in the 2010 report card assessment. The ratings remained unchanged from 2010 to
2015 for Schneider Creek (Fair), Henry Sturm Greenway (Fair/Marginal), Montgomery Creek
(Marginal), Strasburg Creek (SB13 Marginal), and Sandrock Creek (Marginal). The biological rating
decreased from 2010 to 2015 for Strasburg Creek (SB2 Fair to Marginal) and Idlewood Creek (IW1
2- 66
Fair to Marginal). One biological rating improvement was observed for Kolb Creek at KD1 from
Marginal to Fair.
Over the five-year period of 2011 to 2015, most stations monitored had an average of six or fewer
fish species present, with the majority of fish communities being dominated by tolerant species.
Although Kolb Creek had a chemical water quality rating of Poor and biological water quality rating
of Fair, it had the most diverseaquatic community with over 10species identified in 2012 and over
seven species identified in 2011 and 2015. Shoemaker Creek wasthe least diverse aquatic
community with zero species observed in 2014 and 2015; however, the biological water quality
rating for Shoemaker Creek is Fair.
3.1.4Stormwater Treatment
The ratings for treated areas by SWM facilities within the subwatersheds indicates an opportunity
for the improvement of quality controls via continued maintenance and facility upgrades to ensure
no further deterioration of existing SWM facilities occurs. The subwatershed with the highest
percentage of quality treated area was School Creek; however this subwatershed was not included
in the 2015 assessment. Of the subwatersheds assessed in 2015, the combined Strasburg Creek
(specifically North Strasburg Creek) had the highest percentage of quality treated area at 17% while
Balzer Creek, Shoemaker Creek, and Montgomery Creek had the lowest at 0% for all three
subwatersheds.
The rating for channel typewas the most varied parameter throughout the watershed, varying from
Excellent in Kolb Creek, Idlewood Creek, and Strasburg Creek to Poor in Shoemaker Creek.The
subwatersheds with an Excellent/Good rating for channel type exhibited Fair/Marginal ratings for
riparian cover, which indicates an opportunity to improve riparian cover in “natural/mixed” and
“rehabilitated” creek segments.
3.2Recommendations
The following recommendations have been identified for the assessment covering the monitoring
period of 2016 to 2020:
Conduct a field investigation to verify creek channel classifications and fill in data gaps
(i.e., “unknown” or “to input”)
Conduct a field investigation to assess and identify erosion sites as per the 2006 and 2010
assessments
Repeat the methodology for calculatingriparian cover utilized in this 2015 assessment as this
new method: removes thesubjectivity from a user’s interpretation of riparian areas based on air
photos(instead relying on sensors), creates a repeatable workflow for riparian analyses
conducted in subsequent years allowing for easier temporal comparison, and increases the
overall efficiency of the entire riparian analysis
Continue to promote the city-wide SWM strategy via increased public awareness and
involvement to improving water quality, physical stability and aquatic ecosystems which
2- 67
improves the overall health the watershed and the City’s residents. These programs and
strategies include the following:
Redirection of roof runoff to lawns, infiltration galleriesand rain gardens (i.e.,Region of
Waterloo’srain barrel program)
Maintenance of infiltration galleries
Reduction/elimination of fertilizers and pesticides on lawns
Reduction/elimination of salt on driveways and sidewalks during winter months
Proper disposal of oils/paints/chemicals/batteries instead of disposal in street catchbasins
4.References
Aquafor Beech Limited. 2016. Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP)
Municipal Class Environmental AssessmentPrepared for the City of Kitchener.Aquafor
Beech Limited, Guelph, Ontario.
Aquafor Beech Limited. 2016. Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP)
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment: Existing Conditions ReportPrepared for the City
of Kitchener. Aquafor Beech Limited, Guelph, Ontario.
Aquafor Beech Limited. 2016. Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan Implementation
Plan Prepared for the City of Kitchener. Aquafor Beech Limited, Guelph, Ontario.
Aquafor Beech Limited. 2016. Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan Implementation
Plan Prepared for the City of Kitchener. Aquafor Beech Limited, Guelph, Ontario.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2001. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: CCME Water Quality Index 1.0,User’s Manual. In: Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Winnipeg.
Environment Canada. 2013. How Much Habitat is Enough? Third Edition. Environment Canada,
Toronto, Ontario.
Ministry of the Environment. 2003. Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual.Queen’s
Printer for Ontario, 2003
TSH & Don G. WeatherbyAssociatesLtd. 2001. City of Kitchener Stormwater ManagementPolicy
Development,December 10 2001.
2- 68
Page 1 of 1
2011-2015
Years Sampled
2006-2011
Years Sampled
2002-2006
553311000011
BCBCBC
Years Sampled
2015
5 Dry
5 Wet
BC555511
2014
5 Dry
5 Wet
BCC000012BCC000012BCBC003322
2013
5 Dry
5 Wet
BCCBC331123
2012
5 Dry
5 Wet
BC111111
CCCC000004
2011
5 Dry
5 Wet
786756810810
BCBCBCBC555544BCBCBCBCBC554455BCBCBCBCBC443355BCBCBCBCBC103355BCBCBCBCBCBCBC113355
Table 1
Kitchener, Ontario
2015 Technical Report
Five-Year Stormwater Report Card
Summary of Monitoring Stations (2011 to 2015)
Location
Along Fallowfield Dr.Victoria ParkEnd of Lynnhaven CourtAlong Hidden Valley Rd. and the Grand River
Near the end of Zeller Dr.Misty St. and OtterbeinWilson Ave. and Wilson ParkBiehn Dr. - Central BranchStrasburg Rd. and Trillium Dr.Bridge located along Old Mill Rd near Willow Lake
ParkHomer Watson and Doon South Dr.Near the intersection of Wabanaki Dr. and Manitou Dr.Borden Pkwy. and Mill St.Queens Blvd. and West Heights Dr. / Highland and Fischer Hallman
BZ1IW1
SB2
HS1HS3HV1KD1SC2SC4SR2
SM1
MG1
SB13
SC1 *
Station
Subwatershed
Total Number of Stations Sampled:
Balzer CreekEast Side (Hidden Valley Creek)
Henry SturmIdlewood CreekKolb CreekMontgomery CreekStrasburg CreekSchneider CreekShoemaker CreekSandrock GreenwayNotes:C - Chemical SamplingB - Biological Sampling* - Station part of
Provincial Water Quality Network (ID 16018411702)1) 2011 - 2013 sampling results provided by Aquafor Beech Ltd.2) 2014 - 2015 sampling results provided by Aecom
GHD 11148139 (1)
2- 69