HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-096 - Victoria Park Lake - Class Environmental Assessment EA StudyJ
KITC~i ~R ' •
De~elopment&
Technical5ervrces
REPORT T0: DTS Committee, Chair- Christina Weylie
DATE OF MEETING: June 22, 2009
SUBMITTED BY: K. Grant Murphy, P.Eng., Director of Engineering Services
PREPARED BY: Steve Allen, P. Eng., Manager, Engineering Design and
Approvals
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
DATE OF REPORT: June 15, 2009
REPORT NO.: DTS 09-096
SUBJECT: Victoria Park Lake Improvements -Class Environmental
Assessment (EA) Study
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Victoria Park Lake Improvements Class Environmental Assessment Report
prepared by CH2M Hill and Stantec Inc., dated June 2009 be received; and
That the Victoria Park Lake Improvements Class Environmental Assessment Report be
filed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for the mandatory thirty (30) day review
period as required by the Environmental Assessment Act; and further;
That staff be directed to commence the phased implementation of the recommendations
of the Victoria Park Lake Improvements Class EA, following the thirty (30) day mandatory
review period and Ontario Ministry of the Environment acceptance of the study, through
the Capital Budget process starting in 2010.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City initiated a Class Environmental Assessment study in 2008 to explore alternatives and
prepare a preliminary design that addresses Victoria Park Lake's sediment accumulation and
water quality problems. The study explored various solutions and evaluated each on defined
criteria to determine a preferred alternatives. Because the upstream watershed contributes to
the water quality of the Lake and is distinct, one preferred alternative was selected for the Lake
and several alternatives are recommended for the upstream watershed.
The preferred alternative for the Victoria Park Lake is Alternative 3 -Reconfigure Lake to
improve Function. The main features of this alternative are deepening the Lake and
constructing a sediment forebay at the upstream end of the Park to prevent sediment from
6-1
entering the main portion of Victoria Park Lake. The general configuration of the Lake will be
maintained.
Several alternatives for the upstream watersheds are identified. The purpose of the upstream
alternatives are to improve the quality of the water before it enters the Victoria Park Lake area.
The upstream alternatives are comprised of new or retrofit storm water management
opportunities. The alternatives have been prioritized based on their respective overall benefit to
the water quality of Victoria Park Lake.
BACKGROUND:
Kitchener's Victoria Park Lake has been an essential component of the city's recreational
and aesthetic green space for over 100 years. The lake was constructed in 1895 on Schneider
Creek, and receives water from four tributaries located in a predominantly urban upstream
area of roughly 1,400 hectares (ha): the Henry Sturm Greenway, Detweiler Greenway,
Sandrock Greenway, and Westmount Drain.
Stormwater from the upstream creeks slows as it enters Victoria Park Lake, which causes
sedimentation and the associated degradation of water quality. Over the past 30 years, efforts
to control sediment accumulation and improve water quality in the lake included adding an outlet
flood control structure, reinforcing the lake edge using stone and gabion baskets, and dredging
the lake every 12 to 15 years to remove silt. Despite these efforts, sediment accumulation and
poorwater quality in the lake have led to outbreaks of avian botulism, odour problems, a
reduced aesthetic appeal, and have restricted the overall enjoyment of the lake and park for
area residents and park visitors, particularly during the summer months.
The City of Kitchener has undertaken a number of activities and studies to address the
management of Victoria Park Lake as the park and lake in particular have an important cultural
and historic significance. In 2008, the City initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (Class
EA) study to explore alternatives for addressing both sediment accumulation and water quality
in Victoria Park Lake. The study area included Victoria Park Lake and its entire upstream
drainage area.
REPORT:
The City initiated a Class Environmental Assessment study to explore alternatives and prepare
a preliminary design that addresses Victoria Park Lake's sediment accumulation and water
quality problems and improves the overall condition and function of the lake and its upstream
watershed, in a manner that complies with Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act.
The Victoria Park Lake study area comprises Victoria Park Lake and the Schneider
Creek Watershed upstream of the lake, which includes the Upper Henry Sturm Greenway,
the Lower Henry Sturm Greenway, Detweiler Greenway, Sandrock Greenway, and
Westmount Drain. Victoria Park is a recreational open space area within the City of
Kitchener. It is surrounded by urban residential and commercial land uses. The Victoria
Park area was designated as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Actin 1997. The contributing watershed has undergone extensive urban development
over the past 60 years; approximately 98 percent of the contributing watershed is developed or
6-2
is being developed. This development has contributed to sediment accumulation in the lake and
to the deterioration of water quality. The upstream area is approaching its ultimate build-out
capacity, which will reduce future sediment loads. Low Rise Residential Districts makeup
the majority of the upstream area with Open Space, Mixed Use Node, and Medium Rise
Residential Districts being common as well.
A project team was formed and comprised of City staff and Consultant staff with expertise in
different fields, such that the project could be evaluated from multiple standpoints. The main
objective of the study is to determine a preferred option for Victoria Park Lake and its watershed
with respect to water quality and sediment accumulation, while taking into account:
Hydrology and hydraulic capacity
Flood control
• Aquatic habitat
• Operations and maintenance
• Aesthetics
• Safety
Social and recreational uses
Victoria Park Heritage
The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document (June 2000, as amended in 2007)
defines "alternative solutions" as:
"feasible alternative ways of solving an identified problem (deficiency) or addressing
an opportunity, from which a preferred solution is selected".
Based on the opportunities and constraints analysis, separate alternative solutions were
Identified for both Victoria Park Lake and the upstream watershed and evaluated on project-
specificevaluation criteria which covered four criteria categories as follows:
• Technical environment
• Natural environment
SociaUCultural environment
• Economic environments
Lake Based Alternatives
The following alternative solutions were identified as being feasible ways of addressing the
sediment accumulation and water quality problems in the Lake.
Alternative 1 - Do Nothing
As part of the Class EA process, the "Do Nothing" alternative solution must be considered.
For this project, "Do Nothing" would involve leaving lake conditions as they currently exist
and not implementing any measures to improve conditions.
6-3
Alternative 2 -Remove Lake Sediment
The "Remove Lake Sediment" alternative involves dredging the lake to remove the current
sediment accumulation, but otherwise maintaining the existing lake configuration and
taking no further measures to sustain or improve current water quality conditions. This
alternative assumes that the current maintenance and operating practices continue.
Alternative 3 -Reconfigure the Lake to Improve Function 1Preferred Alternative)
This alternative includes lake dredging to remove existing sediment, and implementing
additional measures to improve water quality in the lake. Under this scenario, measures
that alter the existing lake configuration, such as reconfiguring the lake's surface area
andlor changing the depth of the lake could be considered, as could changing the operating
andlor maintenance practices.
Alternative 4 -Take the Lake Offline and Build a Bypass ChannellPipe
This alternative would include dredging the lake and disposing of the existing lake sediment
and implementing a lake bypass channel or pipe where a portion of the normal stream
flows would be redirected around the lake. A splitter, or flow diversion structure that would
direct some of the low flow through Victoria Park Lake, but divert the remainder of the low
flows and most of the high flows (when sediment load is highest) around the lake via the
bypass channel or pipe would be constructed near the upstream end of the lake. The
configuration of the lake would likely need to be modified to accommodate the new bypass.
Alternative 5 -Remove the Lake and Reconfigure the Channel
The "Remove Lake" alternative would involve removing the existing lake, and constructing
anew channel through Victoria Park. The channel would maintain a functioning creek-
greenway system consisting of naturalized stream banks and a floodplain to restore stream
and terrestrial habitats.
Each of the above alternatives were evaluated based on their benefits in the four criteria
categories (technical, natural, cultural and economic) and were rated numerically to determine
the preferred solution. Using the numerical ratings the preferred solution for Victoria Park Lake
is Alternative 3 -Reconfigure Lake to Improve Function.
To improve Lake function, amulti-faceted approach is recommended, incorporating the
following key concepts:
Minimize the existing sediment load to the Lake by implementing upstream water
quality controls. Reducing the upstream sediment load addresses the primary cause of
the Lake's water quality problems:
Minimize the distribution of sediment accumulation within the Lake by constructing
a containment area or sediment forebay at its upper end to facilitate future cleanout
operations. Sediment will continue to accumulate in the Lake and ongoing maintenance
will be required; however, a Lake forebay would contain the majority of the settled
material in the upstream portion of the Lake, which would limit the frequency of
disturbance within the main Lake and Park areas.
6-4
Improve general conditions within the Lake by implementing various measures such
as appropriate shoreline modifications, bottom draw outlet, and lake bathymetry to
improve in-Lake conditions such as waterfowl controls, operations and maintenance,
and aesthetics.
Establish a more healthy environmental system associated with the Lake (including
aquatic and terrestrial components) to assist in achieving a more natural balance within
the Lake and maximize the potential for stabilizing the Lake environment. This concept
addresses the concern for a more sustainable and resilient system, which is can better
withstand and/or mitigate occasional human or natural perturbations.
This alternative provides the following benefits:
• Immediate improvement in lake conditions by removal and disposal of accumulated
sediment. The lake will be deeper than previously constructed, and additional
features/enhancements will improve function
• The general appearance of the lake will remain unchanged and the Romantic
Landscape will be maintained
• Aquatic and terrestrial habitats will be enhanced through the implementation of habitat
features both under water (habitat structures) and on land (native plantings)
• Measures such as reconfiguring the outlet weir, improving sediment removal capability,
goose management, etc. will be implemented to improve park maintenance and
operations
Sediment forebay located at the upper end of the lake designed to capture and trap
incoming sediment, and to provide easy access for regular removal. Removal frequency
would be more frequent than the current ~15-year lake dredging interval, but would
involve smaller quantities of material at any one time and thus shorter
disturbance/construction time
• Future lake dredging will still be required, but at a reduced frequency, with construction
primarily isolated to the sediment forebay area
• Lake viewing areas within Victoria Park can be improved
Upstream Alternatives
Upstream alternatives were identified separately from the alternatives considered for Victoria
Park Lake. The purpose of the upstream alternatives are to improve the quality of the water
before it enters the Victoria Park Lake area. The upstream alternatives are comprised of new or
retrofit storm water management opportunities. Unlike the Lake-based alternatives which were
evaluated to select the one best solution for the Lake, the upstream alternatives include a menu
of options, more than one of which may reduce sediment and improve water quality in the Lake.
6-5
Opportunity 1 - Do Nothing
As part of the Class EA process, the "Do Nothing" alternative solution must be considered.
For the upstream areas, "Do Nothing" would involve maintaining the upstream system in
its current condition and taking no additional measures to improve water quality andlor
creek-greenway conditions.
Opportunity 2 -Source Control Options
The "Source Control Options" alternative would consist of implementing a variety of source
water control options to improve stormwater quality where runoff is generated within the
catchment. Examples of source control options include on-lot runoff reduction measures
such as soakaway pits, parking lot cleaning, reduction insanitary sewer cross connections,
public education programs, by-laws and enforcement measures, etc.
Opportunity 3 -Conveyance Options
This alternative would consist of implementing a variety of conveyance control options to
improve stormwater quality between the location of runoff generation and the end-of-pipe
locations where flows are discharged into the receiving systems. Examples of conveyance
control options include catchbasin cleaning, street sweepinglcleaning, implementing storm
sewer infiltration measures, etc.
Opportunity 4 -End-of-Pipe Options
The "End-of-Pipe Options" alternative would consist of implementing a variety of end-ofpipe
control measures to improve stormwater quality and quantity immediately prior to
discharging flows to the receiving systems. Examples of end-of-pipe control options include
implementing stormwater management facilities such as ponds, swales or wetlands,
infiltration basins, manhole separators, etc.
Opportunity 5 -Restoration Measures
This alternative would consist of implementing a variety of restoration measures to improve
stormwater quality and quantity through improvements to the creek-greenway systems
upstream of Victoria Park Lake. Examples of restoration measures could include
improvements to stream morphology, such as natural channel design; stream bank
enhancements, such as natural plantings; floodplain improvements, such as landscaping;
in stream sediment removal structures, etc.
The upstream tributary area of Victoria Park Lake consists of five separate watersheds. Each
tributary area was evaluated individually such that specific recommendations could be made for
each. Unlike the Lake-based alternatives which were evaluated to select the one best solution
for the Lake, the upstream alternatives include a menu of options, more than one of which may
reduce sediment and improve water quality in the Lake. Instead of selecting one alternative, the
upstream greenways' evaluation is designed to indicate which alternatives from the menu
should be given priority for implementation based on their relative improvement value. The
preferred alternative for the upstream areas is essentially a prioritized combination of the listed
opportunities.
6-6
For the Detweiler Greenway, which contributes relatively small amounts of sediment load,
Source Control Options was ranked highest, with the Do Nothing Option and Restoration
Measures ranking the second-highest.
For Schneider Creek (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway), which contributes moderately to the
sediment load, Restoration Measures was the highest ranked option, with the Do Nothing
Option and Source Control Options ranking second-highest.
For the Upper Henry Sturm Greenway, which contributes the highest amount of sediment
load, Source Control Options was ranked highest, with the Do Nothing Option and
Restoration Measures ranking second-highest.
For the Westmount Drain, which contributes relatively small amounts of sediment load,
Source Control Options was ranked highest, with the Do Nothing Option ranking second
highest.
For the Sandrock Greenway, which contributes the smallest amount of sediment load,
Source Control Options was ranked highest, with the Do Nothing Option ranking second
highest.
Proposed Sequence of Implementation
The study proposes the following sequence for the implementation of the recommendations:
• Completion of 30-day review
• Source Control education including sediment and erosion controls
• Detailed Design (Lake components)
• Phase 1 Construction (Lake components)
• Improved Conveyance Control, including increase frequency of street
sweeping and catchbasin cleanout (All Henry Sturm Greenway)
• Detailed Design (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration)
• Phase 2 Construction (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and
Restoration)
• Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds)
• Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds)
• Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration}
• Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration)
• Determine schedule for remaining activities
6-7
All proposed work would be incorporated into the appropriate capital budget and subject to
Council approval prior to implementation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
V11ork completed to date on the Class EA has been accommodated in existing 2008 and 2009
capital budgets. The capital cost of implementing recommendations of the study are shown in
Table 1. The funding required for this work would be vetted through the normal budget
approval process and approved by Council on an annual basis.
Table 1. -Victoria Park Lake Improvements -Estimate of Capital Cost Requirements
Alternatives Description of Work Estimated Capital Cost*
Lake-based Improvements Forebay construction and
deepening Lake $1,400,000
• Dredging and disposal of
existing sediment $5,700,000
Sub-Total $7,100,000
Upstream Improvements Upstream SWM, new ponds
and retrofits of existing ponds,
creek restoration measures $2,350,000
Total $9,450,000
* including contingency and engineering
The implementation of the Study's recommendations will reduce the frequency and cost of
removing sediment from Victoria Park Lake. Instead of the existing 12-15 year clean-out
frequency in the main lake area, it is estimated that it will require cleanout once every 100
years. It is estimated that the proposed forebay will require cleanout every 10 years.
Other recommendations in the study identify Operational work that should be done on an
ongoing basis to enhance the benefits of the capital expenditures. These efforts include street
sweeping and catch-basin cleanouts. The full cost of these recommendations is estimated at
approximately $25,000 /year.
COMMUNICATIONS:
A Notice of Commencement was published in the KW Record, was posted on the City's
website, and was sent to a mailing list of interested individuals.
6-8
Three Public Information Centres (PIC) were held as part of this project. The first PIC was held
in June 2008, the second in September 2008 and the third in January 2009. The PIC's were
advertised through newspaper and community newsletter advertisements, and public signage
on Jubilee Drive. All PICs were held in the Victoria Park Pavilion and were well attended by an
average of 50 people each session. Members of the study team also met with the Cherry Park
neighbourhood association.
At the start of the project a Public Advisory Committee (PAC} was established to vet information
and solicit input. The committee includes members from the Environmental Advisory
Committee, the Victoria Park Working Group, and Neighbourhood Associations. The study
team have met with the PAC on three occasions and have maintained correspondence
throughout the project.
This project has also had other significant forms of exposure including articles in newsletters,
spots on the CKCO news, signage in the park, media releases as well as a web presence on
the City of Kitchener website. The study team has worked with the City's Communications
department throughout the project.
The Environmental Advisory Committee has been advised of the project through a committee
member who is serving on the PAC.
The Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association assisted in project communications by delivering
flyers notifying the neighbourhood of upcoming PIC dates.
CONCLUSION:
The completion of the Victoria Park Lake Class Environmental Assessment study has
established preferred alternatives to addressing the water quality issues of Victoria Park Lake.
The preferred Lake based alternative is identified as Alternative 3 -Reconfigure the Lake to
Improve Function. The main features of this alternative are deepening the Lake and
constructing a sediment forebay at the upstream end of the Lake to stop sediment from entering
the main portion of the Lake. The general appearance of the Lake will be maintained.
The preferred upstream alternatives are a selection of new or retrofit storm water management
opportunities designed to improve the quality of storm water entering Victoria Park Lake. The
highest priority recommendations are to implement source control on four of the five tributaries,
and implement creek restoration measures on one of the tributary areas.
Timing for the implementation of the recommendations is subject to Council approval through
future budget deliberations.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer
General Manager, Development and Technical Services
6-9
Executive Summary
Project Background
The City of Kitchener (City)'s Victoria Park Lake (Lake) has been an essential component of
its recreational and aesthetic green space f or more than 100 years. The Lake, which was
constructed in 1895 on Schneider Creek, receives water from four tributaries that are located
in a predominantly urban upstream area of roughly 1,400 hectares (ha): the Henry Sturm
Greenway, Detweiler Greenway, Sandrock Greenway, and westmount Drain.
Stormwater f rom the upstream creeks slows as it enters the Lake, which causes
sedimentation and the associated degradation of water quality. Over the past 30 years,
efforts to control sediment accumulation and improve water quality in the Lake included
adding an outlet flood control structure, reinforcing the Lake edge using stone and gabion
baskets, and dredging the Lake every 12 to 15 years to remove silt. Despite these efforts,
sediment accumulation and poor water quality in the Lake have led to outbreaks of avian
botulism, odour problems, a reduced aesthetic appeal, and have restricted residents' and
park visitors' ability to enjoy the Lake and park, particularly during the summer months.
The City has undertaken numerous activities and studies to address the management of
Victoria Park Lake, as Victoria Park and, particularly, the Lake are culturally and
historically significant. In 2008, the City initiated this Class Environmental Assessment
study to explore alternatives to address both sediment accumulation and water quality in
the Lake. The study area included the Lake and its entire upstream drainage area.
The Victoria Park Lake Improvements study is subject to Ontario's Environmental Assessment
Act (EA Act). The EA Act was passed in 1976, and was first applied to Ontario municipalities
in 1981. The EA Act requires studying, documenting, and examining the environmental
effects that could result from major projects or activities.
The EA Act's objective is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the
planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a pref erred
alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. For this project, the planning and design
process for a Schedule B project has been followed. This report presents the decisions and
study recommendations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore alternatives and prepare a preliminary design that
addresses Victoria Park Lake's sediment accumulation and water quality problems and
improves the overall condition and function of the lake and its upstream watershed, in a
manner that complies with Ontario's EA Act.
376704 WB022009005KW0 i
6-10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Delineation of Study Area
The Victoria Park Lake study area is 1,463 ha and comprises the Lake and the Schneider
Creek Watershed upstream of the Lake, which in turn includes the Upper Henry Sturm
Greenway, the Lower Henry Sturm Greenway, Detweiler Greenway, Sandrock Greenway,
and Westmount Drain. Victoria Park is a recreational open space area within the City of
Kitchener. It is surrounded by urban residential and commercial land uses. The Park area
was designated as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
in 1997.
The contributing watershed has undergone extensive urban development over the past
60 years; approximately 98 percent of the contributing watershed is developed or is being
developed. This development has contributed to sediment accumulation in the Lake and to
the deterioration of water quality. The upstream area is approaching its ultimate build-out
capacity, which will reduce future sediment loads. Low-Rise Residential Districts makeup
the majority of the upstream area, although Open Space, Mixed Use Node, and Medium
Rise Residential Districts are also common. Figures ES-1 and ES-2 illustrate the study area.
Lake-Based Alternatives
Lake-based alternatives ignore upstream conditions and focus on the Lake itself. Based on
the opportunities and constraints analysis, the f ollowing alternative solutions were
identified:
1. Do Nothing
2. Remove Lake Sediment
3. Reconfigure the Lake to Improve Function
4. Take the Lake Offline and Build a Bypass Channel/ Pipe
5. Remove the Lake and Reconfigure the Channel
Upstream Creek-Greenway Alternatives
The upstream creek-greenway alternatives f Deus exclusively on upstream tributary areas.
Based on the opportunities and constraints analysis, the f ollowing alternative solutions were
identified:
1. Do Nothing
2. Source Control Options
3. Conveyance Options
4. End-of-Pipe Options
5. Restoration Measures
Victoria Park Lake Preferred Solution
A rigorous evaluation process was conducted to determine the preferred solution. The
preferred solution f or Victoria Park Lake was selected as Alternative 3 -Reconfigure Lake
and Improve Function. Figures ES-3 and ES-4 illustrate the solution.
376704 W6022009005KW0
6-11
W
2
(n
W
Q
N
~ ~ ~
~ U ~
z ~
W ~ ~
I ~ Q
r Q J ~
~..
W ~ ~ N
H Q ~ ~
m ~ ~ i
o •~
X ~ •~ ~
W (l1 ~ lLl
~+ P~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ E 7r ~ R i 1 ~ . 1 9 1 I pT ) 7G ~
F
U ~~M. +, 3 ~ " { ~"'~~~~~~ r ~'' ~"y`,~,~~trM~~4~°d~ a~¢"~,~ t'4 ~r° - it
~ i a
~ r
,. ~ ~. i yY~~{7~ ~ d tl ' y s j~r ,
~~ ~~6 ~ ~ 4 ga A *1`~ '.~ ~~ R` ~ 1. ~• ~~~ ~ ~~ Y ~~ my ~' k mT~~ - .~
l -° Ifi p _
._ ~
i ,~. ~
~~ h ,
Iqq `ry ~
~; ~A , ~„
~~ ~~
,~.a
R.
.. ~y
~~~
6-12
w
Y
Q
J
Y
Q ~`"
N
~ ~
_U U ~
~ ~
I c~ Q
N Q J ~
W ~ ~ N
H Q ~ ~
m ~ ~ i
o •~
X ~ •~ ~
W (l1 ~ lLl
6-13
o
Z {y
a
o ~
J
Cn
W
(~
W
W
W
2
~ ~
N
~w ~ ~
~Q U ~
W ~ ~
M ~ ~ J ~
~ ~ ~ ~
W ~ Q ~ N
H W ~ ~ ~
mU0 •~ o
=z~ o'~
W O ~ ~ W
6-14
m
0
0
N
r
Q
z
W Q
b ~/
b Q
J C
~ ~
_ ; a/ ., ~n
.e ~ `;~ ate-„ Q ~ o
a a~
'°n~ i" o
" ° ~ ~ ~" "" " Q ~ ~
;; ~ ~ ~
J ~
W
\. ~
~ ~~\
W `;~% H
~,
2 J \\%`
a a '
~ O ~~ ;.
Z
g z ~,.. ": ;~~ ~ Q
~ ~+~. ~ w ~~~~~, ~ z
~ ~, ~i / :'
W ; ~~'
3 r~iii~:," .;
~~ ~~>~~
Q ~~i ~
~ / ~
P
~~ ~
~ ~ ~ /~
i
\;; / ; ~ ~ > V ~ ~/',A~ ;>~
o Z ~ ~ ~ ~~; ~/\;~ /~ ~~~;'"~ Z
g
~ ~ e
W Z ~ / / i ~
o~ s
~V ~ z -~ ~\ ;~/A,
~~ ~ ~ .~
~ • ~/ ~;'; X /~:
r i:" o /,
i \\ \
`'
i;~~~~;; ~j\
,~j~ j ~\;
!~~~\ ~ ~,
~, i / ~'> ~
:;~,~r~ //~~i;
/ /,
~\~\;~ A;
"%
s ~;~\; ~~;~.
~ ;~
° ° ~~%~
~~;
~~% ~ ~,
>W ~' ~\j~
~//~
Q ~\
w 3
Z J
_ ~ ~
U ~
O ~
Z Z K
~ ~ Q
3
J \,
W Y ~M ~
~g o
Z
o?~ ~" ~\ "
~~o ~ ~
~xo o ~ ~
awm ~ < , ~~i'
~?,
~,
~ ~~ q ~ap~e„ \ ,
\ h ~~
9
9
i~?~'uo~ ima A~>+\~a!w4m\~!~+r1~!~vk~ouea~~\~~a1a
o
Z {y
a
o ~
J
o~
wz
/^'~ O
L.L
Ov
~w
w~
w~
2~
~ ~
LL
U
O ~ ~ ~
~w ~ ~
~Q U ~
w ~, ~,
~ ~ ~ J Q
~ ~ ~ ~
W ~ Q tB N
~ W ~ ~
mU0 •~ o
=z~ o'~
W OU ~ ~ W
>~
Y
00
I
0
c~
(~
-15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs
The development of the preliminary design for the Lake/Park based construction elements
allows a preliminary opinion of the cost of these elements to be determined.
The Lake dredging costs are estimated over a range of $3.8M to $5.7M. The final costs will
be, to some extent, a factor of the disposal requirements that have yet to be determined and
the final volumes that need to be removed. The Lake-based improvements are estimated at
between $884,000 and $1,381,000. These costs may vary depending on the design and
construction elements that are put f orward at the f final design stage. Contingencies at 15
and engineering costs at 10% have also been included in the cost opinions for the Lake/park
works.
Because improvements to the Lake will only be observed over a long period of time, the
financial impacts of the proposed design are evaluated over a 100-year period. Table ES-1
compares the total improvement costs with the current Lake dredging strategy, based on the
inf ormation provided in this report and in Appendix D.
TABLE ES-1
Cost Comaarison
Item Current Proposed Comment
Capital costs nla $3,744,000 Includes Lake improvements ($1.4M), upstream
Stormwater Management (SWM) newlretrofits ($.45M),
Filsinger Park ($1.9M)
Street cleaning n!a $2,500,000 Includes monthly street sweeping and CB cleanouts over
100 years ($25,000lyr)
Forebay cleanout nla $7,500,000 Assumes 7,500 tonnes every 10 years (75,000 tonnes
over 100 years). Forebay to be cleaned out 10 times over
100 years
Lake cleanout n!a $1,628,000 Assumes 21,700 tonnes over 100 years. Lake to be
cleaned out 1 time in 100 years
Lake cleanout $16,500,000 n!a Assumes 165,000 tonnes over 100 years. Lake to be
cleaned out 3 to 4 times in 100 years
Total $16,500,000 $15,372,000 Savings of $1,128,000 over 100 years
Notes: All figures are in $2008
Assumes base annual loading rate 2000 tonne/yr
Assumes sediment removal costs of $100ltonne
Assumes Lake removal rates similar under both conditions (82.5%)
Excludes other costs associated with overall Lake cleanout such as Park disruption
Other measures such as street sweeping, and catchbasin cleaning in the upper watershed and
debris removal within the Lake could further reduce the cleanout frequency for the forebay
and Lake itself, although the amount of sediment removed from the system before being
washed into the watercourses is uncertain at this time and was therefore not included in the
above calculations.
Upstream Creek-Greenway Preferred Options
The evaluation of the upstream options in the various greenways was considered as a menu
of options that could be selected f or each greenway area. The proposed options for the
upstream creek-greenways area are shown in Figure ES-5.
376704 WB022009005KW0 vii
6-16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-5 illustrates the number and locations identified in each watershed for potential
new or retrofit stormwater management opportunities. The Citywide Stormwater
Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2007) has identified the cost for these
improvements at about $450,000.
The restoration measures recommended in the Schneider Creek section of the upper
watershed (Section 6.2.2) would further reduce incoming sediment loads, since the Upper
Henry Sturm Greenway flows through this reach. The on-line measures proposed over
about 670 m in Filsinger Park consist of construction of a grassed floodplain area easily
reached during storm flow conditions
The Citywide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2007) restoration
cost is $1,200/m; however, the additional excavation and concrete removal required for the
design are expected to increase that cost. Opinions of probable cost include $250,000
($10/m~ for 25,000 m3 of excavation) and $857,600 ($1,280/linear m for 670 m of channel for
concrete removal) for a total of about $1,912,000.
Sediment load would be further reduced by increasing the frequency of street sweeping and
catchbasin cleaning, particularly in the Upper Henry Sturm catchment area that generates
most of the sediment load. Total cost of street sweeping ($320) and catchbasin cleanout
($2,500) in the Upper Henry Sturm Greenway catchment area is $2,820 and if the initial
frequency is monthly, then the annual costs is about $25,000.
Project Implementation Schedule
Following the 30-day review period of the Class EA report and with no outstanding
concerns or Part II Order requests, the City intends to proceed with the implementation of
this undertaking. Table ES-2 shows the next steps and proposed schedule f or the priority
implementation components over the first 5 years of an implementation plan. After the f first
5 years of implementation, it is recommended that the plan be reviewed.
viii 376704 WB022009005KW0
-17
s ~ a J y.~ 4
.. o ~.~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~; ~~ x #~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ €
®~~~~ r
~~~E F~ ~~ H~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'I ~
h `~ ~k i
4 -. :o ~ ~
r fl
~~~
~:-
09~p"L ~
~, _ ,
~,
4
~+ -
~ N~`~~ _
.? II ' t
~ y ..
I I ~e
~ ~ I ~'~{
~ , ,. a,.
tl, [' `c,~~' r
I' ~
~19~
T~ ~ ~~
~+
1 ~
N I .I
~ ~ ~
~~ ~ K ~ z
``
a~
~ ~~'~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~'~
~-
Z
0
O
Q
W
w
w
U
W
~~
~ ~
W W
H ~
m ~
X ~
W ~
a~
~ ~
tB cry
. ~
U ~
~ ~
~Q
J
t~
i ~
~ ~
tB ~
'i i0
O •~
U ~
W
6-18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE ES•2
Next Steps and Proposed Schedule
Activity Proposed Schedule
Completion of 30-day review July 15, 2009
Source Control education, including erosion and sediment controls (Watershed) Fall 2009
Detailed Design (Lake components) End of November 2009
Tendering Phase 1 December 2009
Phase 1 Construction (Lake components) Winter 2010
Improved Conveyance Control, including increase frequency of street sweeping Spring 2010
and catchbasin cleanout (All Henry Sturm Greenway)
Detailed Design (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration) End of August 2010
Tendering Phase 2 (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration) Fall 2010
Phase 2 Construction (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration) Winter 2011
Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) End of August 2011
Tendering Phase 2 (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) Fall 2011
Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) Winter 2012
Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) End of August 2012
Tendering Phase 2 (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) Fall 2012
Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) Winter 2013
Determine schedule for remaining activities Spring 2013
x 376704 W6022009005KW0
6-19
Executive Summary
Project Background
The City of Kitchener (City)'s Victoria Park Lake (Lake) has been an essential component of
its recreational and aesthetic green space f or more than 100 years. The Lake, which was
constructed in 1895 on Schneider Creek, receives water from four tributaries that are located
in a predominantly urban upstream area of roughly 1,400 hectares (ha): the Henry Sturm
Greenway, Detweiler Greenway, Sandrock Greenway, and westmount Drain.
Stormwater from the upstream creeks slows as it enters the Lake, which causes
sedimentation and the associated degradation of water quality. Over the past 30 years,
efforts to control sediment accumulation and improve water quality in the Lake included
adding an outlet flood control structure, reinforcing the Lake edge using stone and gabion
baskets, and dredging the Lake every 12 to 15 years to remove silt. Despite these efforts,
sediment accumulation and poor water quality in the Lake have led to outbreaks of avian
botulism, odour problems, a reduced aesthetic appeal, and have restricted residents' and
park visitors' ability to enjoy the Lake and park, particularly during the summer months.
The City has undertaken numerous activities and studies to address the management of
Victoria Park Lake, as Victoria Park and, particularly, the Lake are culturally and
historically significant. In 2008, the City initiated this Class Environmental Assessment
study to explore alternatives to address both sediment accumulation and water quality in
the Lake. The study area included the Lake and its entire upstream drainage area.
The Victoria Park Lake Improvements study is subject to Ontario's Environmental Assessment
Act (EA Act). The EA Act was passed in 1976, and was first applied to Ontario municipalities
in 1981. The EA Act requires studying, documenting, and examining the environmental
effects that could result from major projects or activities.
The EA Act's objective is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the
planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a preferred
alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. For this project, the planning and design
process for a Schedule B project has been followed. This report presents the decisions and
study recommendations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore alternatives and prepare a preliminary design that
addresses Victoria Park Lake's sediment accumulation and water quality problems and
improves the overall condition and function of the lake and its upstream watershed, in a
manner that complies with Ontario's EA Act.
376704_WB022009005KW0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Delineation of Study Area
The Victoria Park Lake study area is 1,463 ha and comprises the Lake and the Schneider
Creek Watershed upstream of the Lake, which in turn includes the Upper Henry Sturm
Greenway, the Lower Henry Sturm Greenway, Detweiler Greenway, Sandrock Greenway,
and Westmount Drain. Victoria Park is a recreational open space area within the City of
Kitchener. It is surrounded by urban residential and commercial land uses. The Park area
was designated as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
in 1997.
The contributing watershed has undergone extensive urban development over the past
60 years; approximately 98 percent of the contributing watershed is developed or is being
developed. This development has contributed to sediment accumulation in the Lake and to
the deterioration of water quality. The upstream area is approaching its ultimate build-out
capacity, which will reduce future sediment loads. Low-Rise Residential Districts make up
the majority of the upstream area, although Open Space, Mixed Use Node, and Medium
Rise Residential Districts are also common. Figures ES-1 and ES-2 illustrate the study area.
Lake-Based Alternatives
Lake-based alternatives ignore upstream conditions and focus on the Lake itself. Based on
the opportunities and constraints analysis, the f ollowing alternative solutions were
identified:
1. Do Nothing
2. Remove Lake Sediment
3. Reconfigure the Lake to Improve Function
4. Take the Lake Offline and Build a Bypass Channel/ Pipe
5. Remove the Lake and Reconfigure the Channel
Upstream Creek-Greenway Alternatives
The upstream creek-greenway alternatives f Deus exclusively on upstream tributary areas.
Based on the opportunities and constraints analysis, the f ollowing alternative solutions were
identified:
1. Do Nothing
2. Source Control Options
3. Conveyance Options
4. End-of-Pipe Options
5. Restoration Measures
Victoria Park Lake Preferred Solution
A rigorous evaluation process was conducted to determine the preferred solution. The
preferred solution f or Victoria Park Lake was selected as Alternative 3 -Reconfigure Lake
and Improve Function. Figures ES-3 and ES-4 illustrate the solution.
376704_WB022009005 KWO
'P~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ E 7r ~ R i 1 ~ 1 9 1 I pT ) 7G ~
F
U ~~M. +, 3 YI u r ~'+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ' ~ ~` "y; ~,~ `fie a ~~4~°d ' +~ a ~¢ ,~~, t '4 ~ r° - it
~ i a
~ r
eta . w: ~ -° p
._ ~
i ~~~
V. ,~ ~ _ ~,
~~ h ,
Iqq `ry ~
~; ~A ,,~„
~~ ~~
,~.a
~ ~ ~' R
~±
~~
~~~
W
2
(n
W
Q
N
~ ~ ~
~ U ~
z ~
W ~ ~
I ~ Q
r Q J ~
~..
W ~ ~ N
H Q ~ ~
m ~ ~ i
o •~
X ~ •~ ~
W(l1 ~W
Y
0
0
0
0
N
N
O
m
~I
O
CO
(~
w
Y
Q
J
Y
Q ~`"
N
~ ~
_U U ~
~ ~
I c~ Q
N Q J ~
W ~ ~ N
H Q ~ ~
m ~ ~ i
o •~
X ~ •~ ~
W (l1 ~ lLl
o
Z {y
a
o ~
J
Cn
W
(~
W
W
W
2
~ ~
N
~w ~ ~
~Q U ~
W ~ ~
M ~ ~ J ~
~ ~ ~ ~
W ~ Q ~ N
H W ~ ~ ~
mU0 •~ o
=z~ o'~
W O ~ ~ W
m
0
0
N
r
Q
z
W Q
b ~/
b Q
J C
~ ~
_ ; a/ ., ~n
.e ~ `;~ ate-„ Q ~ o
a a~
J ~pn~. i ' o
"°~ ~ ~~~~ ~ Q ~ ~
;; ~ ~ ~
J ~
LJ
~ /~~
~ ~\i ~ Y
~ ~'/~
\.
a 3 ~~ ~ i~./% V
2 J \\%`
a a '
~ ~
Z ~ ~~'
g z o~ ;,< ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `~, Q
~ ~ +i . w ~~/~~, ; z
~ ~~~ ~ ~'
\ Q \/\ \\
i~
0
~ Z /\. / ~
,,~ } ,
_ ~ ,, `w ~~\j. ~~~
> ~ ~ //~ `Q
;.
J
~~y ~j~~~ . o / /~ , ~ ~.,
1~
~~\/ \ ,C7 X ~,
~~ ~ ~ ~
\ / A ~' V ~ ;jV~ .;~
,,
\;
z
rgn ~ ~ ~ ~~i~/~~i~i~ ~;
~ a n y~\ \~~~~j~~j ~
~~
ND ao ~'~/i~`~i~~/j~ boo ~1
~~ / ~ Y ~ ~~/i / ~// /i:,
~ ~~, .~ z --`~ ~~~ ~~~
~ ~,~/
'~ /; / ,
i~'~% ~' % j~;
\i. ' w ~\~
~~\ : ~ ~; .
j;~ ~ ~
/~/~ ~ ~ ~
/~
~~~~' ~ ~ a A <:
,~j~ j ~\;
~% %; ~ ii
rii / /j \
~ ,, ~i~yV
/~%'~%,
/~,,
qV i ~ i/\ \`i~.
° ° %~%\
~ '
~;
J
w ~ ~~\
~"~;~~ ~%
\/~ ,,
Q /\
w 3 \
Z J J
_ ~ ~
U ~
O ~
Z Z K
~ ~ Q
3
J ~
WY IM ~
~g J o
~ z
x
OZ~O ~
~~ i ~
~~~ ~ ~ .
~x0 0 0 ,. ~ ~
~~
U / \//
Q ~1.~ m ? f
\ \
~~
\ ~ 1~4°~S~ \,
\ h~~
C
9 e~
9
x k nasww u-w-aore
i~?~'uo~ ima A~>+\~a!w4m\~!~+r1~!~vk~ouea~~\~~a1a
o
Z {y
a
o ~
J
o~
wz
/^'~ O
L.L
Ov
~ W
~ ~
w~
2~
~ ~
LL
U
O ~ ~ ~
~w ~ ~
~Q U ~
w ~, ~,
~ ~ ~ J Q
~ ~ ~ ~
w~Q ~ a
H W ~ ~ ~
mU0 •~ o
=z~ o'~
W OU ~ ~ W
>~
Y
0
0
w
0
0
N
N
O
>m
O
CO
(~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs
The development of the preliminary design for the Lake/Park based construction elements
allows a preliminary opinion of the cost of these elements to be determined.
The Lake dredging costs are estimated over a range of $3.8M to $5.7M. The final costs will
be, to some extent, a factor of the disposal requirements that have yet to be determined and
the final volumes that need to be removed. The Lake-based improvements are estimated at
between $884,000 and $1,381,000. These costs may vary depending on the design and
construction elements that are put f orward at the f final design stage. Contingencies at 15
and engineering costs at 10 % have also been included in the cost opinions f or the Lake/ park
works.
Because improvements to the Lake will only be observed over a long period of time, the
financial impacts of the proposed design are evaluated over a 100-year period. Table ES-1
compares the total improvement costs with the current Lake dredging strategy, based on the
inf ormation provided in this report and in Appendix D.
TABLE ES-1
Cost Comaarison
Item Current Proposed Comment
Capital costs n!a $3,744,000 Includes Lake improvements ($1.4M), upstream
Stormwater Management (SWM) newlretrofits ($.45M),
Filsinger Park ($1.9M)
Street cleaning n!a $2,500,000 Includes monthly street sweeping and CB cleanouts over
100 years ($25,000lyr)
Forebay cleanout nla $7,500,000 Assumes 7,500 tonnes every 10 years (75,000 tonnes
over 100 years). Forebay to be cleaned out 10 times over
100 years
Lake cleanout n!a $1,628,000 Assumes 21,700 tonnes over 100 years. Lake to be
cleaned out 1 time in 100 years
Lake cleanout $16,500,000 n!a Assumes 165,000 tonnes over 100 years. Lake to be
cleaned out 3 to 4 times in 100 years
Total $16,500,000 $15,372,000 Savings of $1,128,000 over 100 years
Notes: All figures are in $2008
Assumes base annual loading rate 2000 tonne/yr
Assumes sediment removal costs of $100ltonne
Assumes Lake removal rates similar under both conditions (82.5%)
Excludes other costs associated with overall Lake cleanout such as Park disruption
Other measures such as street sweeping, and catchbasin cleaning in the upper watershed and
debris removal within the Lake could further reduce the cleanout frequency for the forebay
and Lake itself, although the amount of sediment removed from the system before being
washed into the watercourses is uncertain at this time and was therefore not included in the
above calculations.
Upstream Creek-Greenway Preferred Options
The evaluation of the upstream options in the various greenways was considered as a menu
of options that could be selected f or each greenway area. The proposed options for the
upstream creek-greenways area are shown in Figure ES-5.
376704 WB022009005KW0 vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-5 illustrates the number and locations identified in each watershed for potential
new or retrofit stormwater management opportunities. The Citywide Stormwater
Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2007) has identified the cost for these
improvements at about $450,000.
The restoration measures recommended in the Schneider Creek section of the upper
watershed (Section 6.2.2) would further reduce incoming sediment loads, since the Upper
Henry Sturm Greenway flows through this reach. The on-line measures proposed over
about 670 m in Filsinger Park consist of construction of a grassed floodplain area easily
reached during storm flow conditions
The Citywide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2007) restoration
cost is $1,200/m; however, the additional excavation and concrete removal required for the
design are expected to increase that cost. Opinions of probable cost include $250,000
($10/m~ for 25,000 m3 of excavation) and $857,600 ($1,280/linear m for 670 m of channel for
concrete removal) for a total of about $1,912,000.
Sediment load would be further reduced by increasing the frequency of street sweeping and
catchbasin cleaning, particularly in the Upper Henry Sturm catchment area that generates
most of the sediment load. Total cost of street sweeping ($320) and catchbasin cleanout
($2,500) in the Upper Henry Sturm Greenway catchment area is $2,820 and if the initial
frequency is monthly, then the annual costs is about $25,000.
Project Implementation Schedule
Following the 30-day review period of the Class EA report and with no outstanding
concerns or Part II Order requests, the City intends to proceed with the implementation of
this undertaking. Table ES-2 shows the next steps and proposed schedule f or the priority
implementation components over the first 5 years of an implementation plan. After the f first
5 years of implementation, it is recommended that the plan be reviewed.
viii 376704 WB022009005KW0
s ~ a J y.~ 4
.. o ~.~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~; ~~ x #~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ €
®~~~~ r
~~~E F~ ~~ H~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'I ~
h `~ ~k i
4 -. :o ~ ~
r fl
~~~
~:-
09~p"L ~
~, _ ,
~,
4
~+ -
~ N~`~~ _
.? II ' t
~ y ..
I I ~e
~ ~ I ~'~{
.~ , ,, ¢.
tl, [' `c,~~' r
,`a~ I ~
I' ~
~19~
T~ ~ ~~
~+
1 ~
N I .I
~ ~ ~
~~ ~ K ~ z
``
a~
~ ~~'~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~'~
~-
Z
0
O
Q
W
w
w
U
W
~~
~ ~
W W
H ~
m ~
X ~
W ~
a~
~ ~
tB cry
. ~
U ~
~ ~
~Q
J
t~
i ~
~ ~
tB ~
'i i0
O •~
U ~
W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE ES•2
Next Steps and Proposed Schedule
Activity Proposed Schedule
Completion of 30-day review July 15, 2009
Source Control education, including erosion and sediment controls (Watershed) Fall 2009
Detailed Design (Lake components) End of November 2009
Tendering Phase 1 December 2009
Phase 1 Construction (Lake components) Winter 2010
Improved Conveyance Control, including increase frequency of street sweeping Spring 2010
and catchbasin cleanout (All Henry Sturm Greenway)
Detailed Design (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration) End of August 2010
Tendering Phase 2 (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration) Fall 2010
Phase 2 Construction (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and Restoration) Winter 2011
Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) End of August 2011
Tendering Phase 2 (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) Fall 2011
Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) Winter 2012
Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) End of August 2012
Tendering Phase 2 (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) Fall 2012
Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) Winter 2013
Determine schedule for remaining activities Spring 2013
x 376704_WB022009005KWO