HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-131 - 2008 Annual Audit Report - Master Stormwater Management Policy1
Kl~rc~~R
Qevelo pment &
Technical Services
Report To: Chair Christina Weylie and Members
Development and Technical Services Committee
Date of Meeting: October 5, 2009
Submitted By: K. Grant Murphy, P.Eng., Director of Engineering Services
Prepared By: Diana Lupsa, Engineering Technologist
Ward(s) Involved: City Wide
Date of Report: September 4, 2009
Report No.: DTS-09-131
Subject: ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT 2008 - MASTER STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT POLICY
RECOMMENDATION:
That the recommendations of the 2008 Annual Audit Report -Master Stormwater
Management Policy, prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd., be approved; and,
That the updated Stormwater Management Policy Implementation Procedure for
Development be approved; and further,
That staff be directed to prepare a budget issue paper for a stormwater management 10-
year capital program which reflects the recommendations of the 2008 Annual Audit
Report -Master Stormwater Management Policy, for consideration during 2010 budget
deliberations.
BACKGROUND:
In 1999, the City of Kitchener commenced a study to prepare a Master Stormwater
Management (SWM) Policy, which would assess existing approaches to stormwater
management, investigate options for modifying the current approach and create aCity-wide
policy for SWM. The final report of the Master SWM Policy was approved at Council on
December 10, 2001 and subsequently filed as a Schedule 'B' Environmental Assessment under
the MEA Class EA.
As part of the Master SWM Policy, an annual audit report is to be completed each year to
summarize the practices carried out to date in each of the categories included in the Citywide
plan, namely:
• The development or site plan applications for the year and associated SWM fees
collected.
• The SWM facilities that have been constructed (or are in the process of being
constructed) over the last year. This includes new ponds, retrofitting of existing SWM
facilities and the installation of oil/grit separator units (OGS).
3-1
Stream rehabilitation works that have been carried out or are underway.
REPORT:
The focus of this report will be on the following areas:
a) SWM Redevelopment/Infill charge (Cash-in-Lieu)
b) Enhancements to the SWM Policy Implementation Procedure
c) Sustained SWM Capital Works Projects
a) SWM Redevelopment/Infill charge (Cash-in-Lieu)
The purpose of the annual audit report is to indicate whether or not the SWM measures provide
the necessary water quantity control and water quality treatment of stormwater resulting from
infill/redevelopment sites. The audit is completed in conjunction with a review of the capital
budget and an assessment of the following year's budget. The review lists the redevelopment
and infill drainage area for which SWM Redevelopment/Infill charge (Cash-in-Lieu) has been
collected, the drainage area serviced by the facilities built, and the drainage area serviced by
creek rehabilitation works.
The SWM Redevelopmentllnfill charges (Cash-in-Lieu) applies to all redevelopment and infill
sites that cannot connect to existing quality control facilities and it is to be used toward the
construction/retrofit of SWM facilities. In October 17, 2008 the City staff recommended a 25%
fee increase; as a result, the cash-in-lieu fee has been increased to $19,875 as of January 1,
2009 to cover increases in construction costs for new SWM facilities. This recommendation
was ratified by Council on November 27, 2008.
The 2008 SWM Audit Report summarizes the works that have been carried out as related to the
Citywide Plan from November 2007 to October 2008(see Table 1).
Table 1. Evaluation of SWM and Stream Rehabilitation (2002-2008)
Drainage Area Drainage Area
Year Cash-in-Lieu Serviced by SWM Serviced
Drainage Area (ha) ~q/orks (ha) by Rehabilitation
ha
2002 - 2003 10.99 41.1 157
2003 12.81 4.95 0
2004 19.84 0 0
2005 8.01 0 100
2006 9.89 0 0
2007 22.55 0 270
2008 22.12 9.67 0
Total 2002-2006 106.29 ha 55.72 ha 527.00 ha
Cash-in-lieu
reimbursed 2008 1.42
Overall Total 104.87 ha 55.72 ha 527.00 ha
At the end of year 2008 the total drainage area serviced by SWM works was 55.72 ha
compared with 104.87 ha drainage area for which City of Kitchener collected Cash-in-Lieu. As
3-2
the cash-in-lieu drainage is larger then the drainage serviced by SWM retrofit/OGS, in order to
ensure a net gain in stormwater improvements, sustained effort needs to be made to complete
SWM retrofits and implement other best management practices (BMP).
The following projects have been identified as priorities and have been completed in 2009 or are
proposed to be completed in 2010:
Creek Rehabilitation
- Voisin Greenway outfalls rehabilitation -the work was completed in August
2009 by the City of Kitchener Operations staff;
- Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Victoria Park
Lake Improvements - it was initiated in 2008 to address sediment
accumulation and water quality issues which currently exist. The project scope
includes the generation and evaluation of various alternatives to improve the
overall condition and function of Victoria Park Lake and its upstream tributaries.
The EA was completed in August 2009; the implementation of the selected
alternative could start in 2010, pending Council approval.
- Implementation of the selected alternative of the Environmental Assessment of
Ward's and Brigadoon Pond -the work was included in the 2009 and 2010
capital budget, and it is expected to be tendered in 2009.
• Pond Retrofit
- Krizsanderson SWM Pond - Due to recent development and re-development in
the area of Deer Ridge Plaza and Sportsworld, the City is retrofitting the SWM
facility to accommodate the increase in stormwater flows and provide improved
quality control for the receiving watercourses downstream. Construction is
scheduled to start at the end of 2009.
Oil Grit Separator (OGS)
- Five OGS units will be installed, if feasible, as part of the Capital Works for
various projects in 2009. An OGS is improving water quality by removing
contaminants through the gravitational settling of fine sediments and floatation
of hydrocarbons while preventing the re-suspension or scour of previously
captured pollutants. When installing an OGS in the road right-of-way as part of
road reconstruction or storm sewer reconstruction projects, there is a
significant cost savings as the road is already being removedlaltered and the
only additional cost is generally the capital cost of the OGS unit. Currently, it
is standard for the Capital Projects to investigate the feasibility to install OGS
units or exfiltration systems for enhancing water quality protection. The
implementation will be dependent on soil types, groundwater elevation,
wellhead protection boundaries and opportunity.
b) Enhancements to the SWM Policy Implementation Procedure
Over the last year, representatives of the City, GRCA, and our Consultants have met several
times to review the monitoring and analysis being undertaken in support of the principles of the
Master stormwater Management Plan. The stormwater Management Policy Implementation
3-3
Procedure for Development (Appendix F) was updated as part of the 2008 Kitchener
Stormwater Report. This included:
• Addition of site control (infiltration) targets set by Subwatershed Studies as part of the
implementation procedure
• Review and update of spill control procedures within the Region of Waterloo in
accordance with various federal, provincial and municipal acts, statutes and regulations
that address reporting and responding to spills
Update of current technologies and considerations for minimum site control practices
• Re-evaluation of the Conceptual Decision Tree for SWM Policy City of Kitchener (Figure
1, Appendix F) to re-define existing SWM quality facility as "facilities which have been
designed to receive the drainage from the proposed development area and were not
identified to be built or retrofit as part of this study, and have not been built or retrofit as
part of this study"
Update of Conceptual Decision Tree for SWM Policy (Figure 1, Appendix F) to account
for large sites and sites with direct discharge to water courses
A number of recommendations for additional work were identified in the 2008 audit and
proposed to be implemented throughout the course of 2009. These recommendations are
identified in the Executive Summary. Notable among the recommendations are:
Policy
• Pollution prevention plans for spills prevention and contingency is to be encouraged by
the City. Further information on spill prevention and contingency plans is included in
Appendix F of the 2008 Audit Report.
• The cash-in-lieu fee rate could be adjusted to recognize the change in %impervious land
cover to developed areas. This should be further investigated.
• Additional analysis of land costs should be completed to determine if land costs should
be added to the cash-in-lieu fee.
• To ensure objectives of the study are met, over the next four (4) years, the City should
be reviewing area re-developed or infilled within the Central Neighborhood Area which is
currently exempt from C-i-L fees payment.
Implementation
• A SWM Retrofit study should be completed to identify design enhancements to achieve
new legislative requirements orwatershed targets implemented since the original design
Monitoring
• If pre and post retrofit or new pond monitoring is deemed a useful measure of success,
consideration for a partnership with a University or as part of the EA for the retrofit or
new pond project may be investigated.
• Theoretical calculations for TSS removal may estimate water quality changes. Turbidity
sampling may be added to sampling program.
c) Sustained SWM Capital Works Projects
As recommended in the previous SWM Audit, an inventory and review of stormwater
management (SWM) facilities owned by the City of Kitchener was undertaken in 2008. Based
on the site inspections and field surveys, required actions and maintenance work was identified
to be undertaken in 2009 or as soon as is feasible (short term maintenance), and a complete
3-4
detailed overall stormwater management maintenance plan (long term maintenance) was
developed.
In order to address current facility deficiencies, the total estimated costs for the immediate
maintenance required for each facility (short term maintenance) range from approximately
$3.OM to $4.5M depending on sediment removal costs (2009 dollars).
For the long term maintenance, the average annual estimated cost of SWM facilities
maintenance and inspection (based on the 91 facilities that are assumed and maintained by the
City of Kitchener) is approximately $947,000. Over a period of 20 years, that would equate to
around $19M. As the SWM maintenance and inspection program becomes established, more
refined estimates will be used to update budget requirements.
The 2008 SWM facilities survey and inspection provided valuable information in identifying
performance function of each SWM facility. Several ponds outside of the previous retrofit priority
list were identified with retrofit potential as part of the pond inventory. A detailed comprehensive
study will need to be completed in order to identify potential retrofit requirements for these
ponds.
To prioritize work that will most cost-effectively improve the functioning of receiving water
bodies, for each proposed work (pond retrofit, new pond) a project scope document was
provided. The project scope document included information needed to evaluate the benefits
and costs for each proposed work, and it was used for generating a twenty year SWM capital
forecast.
The availability of the project scope documents allowed "just in time" delivery with regards to
securing federal and provincial infrastructure stimulus funds (ISF) for the retrofit of twelve SWM
ponds. The federal and provincial government will contribute two-thirds of the eligible cost, and
the City of Kitchener will contribute one-third. The ponds retrofit project is planned to start in
fall of 2009, and being substantially complete by March 31, 2011.
Details of the above cost analyses have been included in the 2008 City-Wide stormwater
Management Plan Annual Audit Report. A summary of the costs for the proposed SWM works
is provided in the Table 2. Future SWM Capital Projects.
Tablet. City ofKitchener -Future SWM Capital Projects
Item Total cost
New pond construction $20,687,000
Pond retrofits (Providing Level 1 enhancement)** $2,942,000
Stream Restoration * $84,576,000
SWM facility maintenance over 20 Years $18,940,000
SWM Audit and Monitoring $2,000,000
Immediate required maintenance costs (addresses current
facility deficiencies) $4, 568,000
TOTAL $133,713,000
* Costs for stream restoration will be updated upon completion of the stream assessments in 2010;
** Includes 13 ponds remaining on the retrofit priority list. The list will be updated upon further study of
additional retrofit opportunities.
3-5
As part of the 2010 Capital Budget deliberations, staff will be presenting several initiatives for
consideration by Council in order to efficiently implement the City's Master Stormwater Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The SWM Redevelopment/Infill fee (Cash-in-Lieu) is being deposited into account 315905 -
WTBI-SWM CERTIFICATION-DEPOSIT. The balance at the end of August 2009 is $94,478.
The available funding will be used for completion of new ponds, retrofit ponds, OGS and stream
rehabilitation works as identified on the priority list. As noted in the Table 2, the fund will not
sustain the required or anticipated capital works.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Copies of the final documents have been forwarded to members of the Steering Committee
(City of Kitchener, GRCA and the Region of Waterloo). Staff will continue to work with the
Consultants and the Steering Committee to prepare the 2009 Annual Audit.
CONCLUSION:
2008 represented the seventh year that the City's Master Stormwater Management Policy has
been in effect.
During 2008, significant effort was applied to review the conditions of the SWM Ponds across
the City, as part of the Master Stormwater Management Policy requirements. This review is
enabling the City to determine the need for improvement at existing SWM facilities and this work
will continue in 2009 and 2010.
The audit has once again reinforced the need for sustainable funding that is not dependent
upon the amount of land development occurring in any given year. It is estimated that over the
next 20 years, approximately $133M will be needed to retrofit, reconstruct and maintain SWM
ponds and complete watercourse rehabilitations.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager,
Development and Technical Services Department
3-6
AECOM
City of Kitchener
City Wide Stormwater Management Plan
Annual Audit Report (Year 2008)
Volume I -Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Prepared by:
AECOM Canada Ltd.
202 - 72 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, ON, Canada N2G 4Y9
T 519.886.2160 F 519.886.1697 www.aecom.com
Project Number:
110145
Date:
August, 2009
3-7
City of k"itchener rr
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) - Volume I - ~C~~~
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations
The attached Report (the "Report") has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. ("Consultant") for the benefit of the client ("Client") in
accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the "Agreement").
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report:
• are subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained
in the Report (the "Limitations")
• represent Consultant's professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of
similar reports
• may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified
• have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and
circumstances in which they were collected, processed, made or issued
• must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context
• were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement
• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the
assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time
Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:
• shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was
prepared or for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant
• agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above for the specific purpose described in the
Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations with respect to the Report or any part thereof
• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such conditions
geographically or over time
The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:
• as agreed by Consultant and Client
• as required by-law
• for use by governmental reviewing agencies
Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use of the
Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use.
This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report.
(kitchener_pond_policy_aug09_final.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
As part of the recommendations of the 2001 Stormwater Management (SWM) Report, an annual audit report
is prepared to indicate that the SWM facilities being provided meet the requirements for volume of
stormwater to service the current infill/redevelopment sites. The review is completed in conjunction with a
review of the capital budget and an assessment of the following year's budget. The review lists the
subwatershed serviced by the facilities built and the corresponding service areas associated with the
redevelopment and infill locations. The priority/implementation order of SWM related works is reviewed at
this time and modified as appropriate based on the monitoring results, location of redevelopment/infill and
the location of SWM measures implemented.. Proposed OGS, new pond and pond retrofit works are
illustrated in Figure 2.1.1.2. Each Annual Audit Report summarizes works completed from November to
October each year. The existing and new works completed as part of the Cash in Lieu (C-i-L) program during
the period 1999 - 2008 are illustrated on Figure 2.2.3.1.
In addition, in the 2008 audit, a complete review of the implementation report was completed and a full
inspection, survey and inventory update for all stormwater ponds was completed. Due to the addition, a new
format to the report was developed and is summarized here:
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
1.0 Introduction
- Overview of the purpose of the annual audit report and what is
provided
2.0 Stormwater Management Inventory and Maintenance Needs Plan
- Identification of existing SWM facilities
- Recommendations for SWM inspections
- Recommendations for SWM facilities maintenance and sediment
removal
3.0 Water Quality Monitoring Review
- Summary of water quality monitoring methodology and results from
2008
- Summary of water quality results from 2002-2008
- Summary of water quality monitoring completed within the City of
Kitchener by third parties
- Proposed 2009 Monitoring Plan
4.0 Stormwater Management Inventory and Maintenance Needs Plan
- Identification of existing SWM facilities
- Recommendations for SWM inspections
- Recommendations for SWM facilities maintenance and sediment
removal
(kitchener_pond_policy_aug09_final.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
SUMMARY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL AUDIT - 2008
Balance of C-i-L Fee Contributions and Refunds Completed in 2008
• $198,256 in SWM fee contributions have been collected in 2008 (as of October 31, 2008) from 13
development locations, with a combined site area of 22.21 ha.
• Developments from previous years which were altered or cancelled were refunded a total of $22,033
in C-i-L funds with a combined site area of 1.42 ha.
Stream Restoration
• Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Victoria Park Lake Improvements were
initiated to address sediment accumulation and water quality issues.
• Strasburg Creek and Wards and Brigadoon Pond Rehabilitation -Final design and construction
New SWM Facilities
No new SWM Facilities were completed by the City and no work was initiated by the City on new SWM
facilities with quality control in 2008. Table 2.2.4 outlines the pond approved and accepted by the City in
2008 and Table 2.2.5 outlines the pond assumed by the City in 2008. However, an EA for the enlargement
of the Kriszanderson Pond was completed. Construction of the pond is anticipated for 2009.
Table 2.2.4: SWM Ponds Approved and Accepted by Kitchener in 2008
Brittania Crescent Pond (30T-01201) 2008 Brittania Crescent Strasburg
Table 2.2.5: SWM Ponds Assumed by City of Kitchener in 2008
1 I 6 , I / • / I 6"
Max Becker Pond 2008 Fisher Hallman Road to Bleams Road Strasburg
Update and Review of Stormwater Management Policy Implementation Procedure
for Development (Appendix F)
The Stormwater Management Policy Implementation Procedure for Development (Appendix F) was updated
as part of the 2008 Kitchener Stormwater Report. This included:
• Addition of site control (infiltration) targets set by subwatershed studies as part of the implementation
procedure
• Review and update of spill control procedures within the Region of Waterloo
• Update of current technologies and considerations for minimum site control practices
• Re-evaluation of the Conceptual Decision Tree for SWM Policy City of Kitchener SWM Policy City of
Kitchener (Figure 1, Appendix F} to re-define existing SWM quality facility as "facilities which have
been designed to receive the drainage from the proposed development area and were not identified
to be built or retrofit as part of this study, and have not been built or retrofit as part of this study"
(volume 1 -implementation and policy reporf_final_aug09.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Water Quality and Biological Results
Water Chemistry and Temperature
Based on the water quality results for 2008, Table 3.3.2 summarizes the results by chemical parameter.
Summaries of previous year's results are attached in Appendix A-3.
Table 3.3.2: Kitchener Water Quality Monitoring Results -2008 Summary
ii.
Chloride Overall, dry weather samples showed higher chloride concentrations.
Montgomery Creek showed the highest levels for both dry and wet weather
samples, with a max dry weather value of 441 mg/L. Henry Sturm Greenway,
Sandrock Greenway, Montgomery Creek and Strasburg Creek (SB13) had dry
weather samples that exceeded the proposed SWM guideline of 250mg/L.
E. coli Most samples above the (100CFU/mL) and with wet weather results above the
Kitchener SWM Guideline of 1200CFU/100mL, with the exception of Strasburg
Creek (SB2) yielding 2/3 of dry weather results below PWQO and 2/3 of wet
weather results below Kitchener SWM Guideline. Henry Sturm Greenway and
Strasburg (SB13) showed the highest results. Sampling averages were all above
the Kitchener SWM Guideline.
Nitrate Overall dry weather samples showed higher nitrate concentrations. The
Canadian Water Quality Guideline for Nitrate (CCME) of 2.9 mg/L (for protection
of aquatic life) was exceeded in dry weather samples at Kolb (KD1 and KD2) and
Montgomery Creeks.
Ammonia Sandrock Greenway and Strasburg Creek had dry weather samples with
unionized ammonia greater than the PWQO of 0.02mglL.
Metals All stations with the exception of Strasburg Creek (SB2 and SB13) and Blair
Creek showed levels of copper at or greater than the PWQO. Results for lead
showed wet weather samples with higher values than dry weather, however all
samples were below the PWQO. Generally the PWQO for zinc was exceeded for
one of each wet and dry weather samples with the exception of Blair and
Strasburg (SB1) creeks. Kolb Creek (KD2) showed the highest dry weather
value of 1.6m /L.
Total Kjeldahl TKN is a measure of organic nitrogen and ammonia. High values of TKN (7.62
Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L) at Sandrock Greenway were found for all the dry weather samples on
September 22, 2008. All other results were below 1.33mg/L.
Total Total Phosphorus often exceeds the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO)
Phosphorus of 0.03 mg/L, especially in wet weather. Stations on Kolb Creek (KD1) and Henry
Strum Creek have the hi hest avera e levels.
TSS (Total Samples which exceed the CCME guideline of 25mg/L are wet weather samples
Suspended from Henry Sturm Greenway, Strasburg Creek (SB2) and Schneider Creek
Solids) (SC2). Henry Strum Greenway had the highest average results for TSS of
73.76m /L. All other avera es remained below 20m /L.
(kitchener_pond_policy_aug09_final.doc) 1 1
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Overall in 2008 Henry Sturm, Sandrock Greenway and Kolb Creek exceeded guidelines more frequently
than other creeks sampled.
Biological
The 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 results indicate a preponderance of riverine (sensitivity value 2) taxa
in the numerically dominant invertebrates. For example, Cricoto us, Conchapelopia, Tanytarsus and
Simulium all have sensitivity values of 2.
Several of the dominant invertebrate taxa found during the 2008 sampling (see Appendix B-3) are
considered to be pollution tolerant organisms. Examples include: tubificid worms and isopods Caecidotea
(OEPA 1987). Griffiths (1998) indicates that a site characterized by tubificid worms and isopods, is typical of
a nutrient enriched stream these species were most present at KD1, KD2, SB2 and SC2.
At the Schneider (SC2), Strasburg (SB2), and Kolb Creek (KD1 and KD 2) stations the invertebrate
communities were generally dominated by Isopods (Asellidae). At SB13, on Strasburg Creek in the Huron
Business Park, Isopods were absent but Blackflies dominated. Other True Flies, e.g. midges were abundant
at SB2 (Strasburg Creek at Biehn Drive) and SR2 (Sandrock near Highland Road). True Flies present
included various midges and blackfly larvae. Four of the eight stations sampled had blackfly larvae present.
Many of these taxa tolerate urban runoff which contains chloride, suspended solids, nutrients, metals and an
organic chemical load.
No stoneflies were found in 2008. Numerically caddisflies were important contributors to the invertebrate
communities at KD1. The number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly (EPT} taxa was zero at KD2 and 1 to 2
at HS1, MG1, SB13, and SR2. Stations with the greatest EPT values (4 or 5) are: SB2, SC2 and KD1.
These EPT values are generally lower than previous years.
Taxa richness (number of species present) values ranged between 7 (HS1) and 25 at KD1 and MG1. These
values indicate conditions of poor to fair water quality.
The number of mayfly, stonefly, caddisfly (EPT) taxa was zero at KD2 (Kolb Creek at Lachner Blvd.) and 1 to
2 at 4 other stations. Stations with the greatest EPT values (4 or 5) are: SB2, SC2 and KD1. These EPT
values are generally lower than during most previous years.
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) values for the study streams range between 5.51 (SB13) and 8.13 (SC2). In the
HBI system, lower numbers indicate better water quality and higher numbers indicate poorer water quality. A
value of less than 5.50 must be achieved to indicate good water quality (Hilsenhoff 1987).
Several of the dominant invertebrate taxa found during the 2008 sampling are considered to be pollution
tolerant organisms. Examples include: tubificid worms and isopods Caecidotea (OEPA 1987).
Griffiths (1998) indicates that a site characterized by tubificid worms and isopods, is typical of a nutrient
enriched stream.
iv
(kitchener_pond_policy_aug09_final.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Scouring of the stream channel by intense runoff events in 2008 and the late season invertebrate sampling
due to delays in contract authorization may explain changes in the invertebrate community results.
2008 SWM Pond Inventory
The main objective of this study was to perform an inventory and review of stormwater management (SWM)
facilities owned by the City of Kitchener and complete detailed overall stormwater management maintenance
needs plan. 106 SWM facilities were identified to be within the City of Kitchener, 91 of these were identified
as owned by the City and were selected for inspections and 86 were selected for surveys. The remaining 15
ponds either have not yet been assumed by the City or do not function as a SWM facility and therefore were
not included in the survey. The maintenance program aims to restore the original design function of these
facilities which will serve many benefits such as helping to safeguard public health, reduce flooding potential
for public andlor private lands and to demonstrate due diligence with respect to good asset management
principles.
This study identified the level of servicelperformance deficiencies of the existing conditions of the facility
compared to the conditions outlined in design reports and MOE stormwater design guidelines. The number
of ponds identified in this study as potential candidates for retrofits exceeded the number of ponds included
in the prioritization list, Table 2.5.1. Additional investigation beyond the scope of this study will be required
to establish rehabilitation, retrofit or re-designs.
On-going Works in Addition to the Annual Audit
In addition to the regular works for the Annual Audit report, the following works related to Stormwater
Management have been undertaken within the City of Kitchener, either as part of the audit program or
separate from it:
~ Creek Assessment Program (2004-2005), the summary of these works that were used for creek
prioritization as part of the 2005 annual audit were provided in a separate report. The stream
walks will be completed again in 2009-2010
~ Dry Weather Sampling Program in 2006 and 2008. This program will further be established in
2009-2010
~ Regional Municipality of Waterloo Source Water Protection Assessments and Planning
~ GRCA water quality sampling on Schneider Creek as part of the PWQM network
~ Study of the Huron Natural Area
~ Blair Creek Monitoring carried out by the GRCA
Future Work Priorities
The following works are anticipated to be completed in 2009:
~ Kriszanderson Pond Retrofit ($827,000)
v
(volume 1 -implementation and policy reporf_final_aug09.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
• Strasburg Creek and Wards and Brigadoon Pond Rehabilitation -Final design and construction -
$329,118 (not C-i-L funded)
• Design for 12 Priority Pond Retrofits (funded through Federal Infrastructure Program)
The 2008 SWM facilities survey and inspection provided valuable information in identifying the performance
function of each SWM facility. Several ponds outside of the previous retrofit priority list were identified with
retrofit potential as part of the pond inventory. A detailed comprehensive study to identify and prioritize
potential retrofit opportunities for these ponds will need to be undertaken.
Identification of SWM priorities on a subwatershed basis may provide additional selection criteria in
determining where C-i-L funds should be implemented. Figure 2.5.4.1 provides a key map of Kitchener
subwatersheds and Figure 2.5.4.2 through Figure 2.5.4.7 identify potential OGS, ponds, pond retrofits;
existing OGS and SWM ponds, and creeks on a subwatershed scale.
The following works are recommended as the top priorities for 2009:
• Kriszanderson Pond Construction
• Design of pond retrofits for 12 priority ponds identified in previous audits.
• Comprehensive study of additional SWM retrofit opportunities and prioritization
FUTURE COSTS
The 2008 City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report included cost analysis for:
• New pond construction
• Pond retrofits
• Stream Restoration (Costs for stream rehabilitation will be updated upon completion of the
stream assessments in 2010)
• Annual SWM facility maintenance
• Immediate required maintenance costs
Table: 0.1: City of Kitchener -Anticipated Future SWM Costs
,~-
--~~
New pond construction Table 2.5.1 $20,687,000
Pond retrofits (Providing Level 1 enhancement) Table 2.5.1 $2,942,000
Stream Restoration Table 2.5.3 $84,576,000
Annual SWM facility maintenance (annual average) Table 4.6.4.1 $947,000
Immediate required maintenance costs (addresses current facility deficiencies) Table 4.6.1.1 $4,568,000
vi
(volume 1 -implementation and policy reporf_final_aug09.doc) 1 4
City of k"itchener AA AA
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Note that costs for pond retrofits and new ponds were updated as part of the pond inventory process. SWM
facility maintenance planning for each individual facility includes costs for maintenance activities to be
completed each year (litter removal, grass cutting, etc.) as shown in Table 4.6.2.1 and total $2,050 per year
per pond. Costs associated with activities required every five years (vegetation, structural maintenance, etc.)
are shown in Table 4.6.2.2 and total $4,920 for wet ponds and $3,280 for dry ponds. Table 4.6.4.1 shows
the estimated total annual maintenance cost which includes annual, five year and sediment removal
maintenance required for the 91 facilities (68 wetponds/wetland, 23 dry ponds), currently assumed and
maintained by the City of Kitchener. An additional annual maintenance cost of approximately $125,000
could be expected for the additional 14 unassumed ponds indentified in the Kitchener SWM database.
Table 4.6.4.1: Estimated Annual Cost of SWM Facility Maintenance and Inspection Program
0
Yearly Effort Cost for Maintenance $168,000
5 Year Effort Cost for Maintenance (20% ponds per year) $82,000
Sediment Removal (91 cleanouts over 20 years) $697,000
Total $947,000
2009 PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM
It is the intent of the 2009 program to build upon data collected in 2008 utilizing the same sampling locations
as 2008 with the exception of site KD2. The parameters sampled for in 2009 will be condensed to provide
budget for a greater frequency of sampling. The 2009 program will include five (5) wet and five (5) dry
weather samples and will include the following parameters:
~ TSS
• Nitrate
~ Chloride
~ Total and Dissolved Phosphorus
~ Lead
® Zinc
• Copper
~ E.coli
Table 3.4.1 describes the proposed sampling location as well as the reason why the sampling location was
chosen.
vii
(volume 1 -implementation and policy reporf_final_aug09.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Table 3.4.1: Proposed 2009 Sampling Locations
Core Sample Stations (5 or more years of sampling)
HS1 Henry Strum Victoria Park Core station -sampling will provide more information
for trend analysis
MG1 Montgomery Wilson Ave at Core station -sampling will provide more information
Creek Wilson Park for trend anal sis
SC2 Schneider Homer Watson Core station -sampling will provide more information
Creek and Doon South for trend anal sis
SB2 Strasburg Biehn Drive - Core station -sampling will provide more information
Creek Central Branch for trend anal sis
KD1 Kolb Creek Misty Street and Core station and to provide increased background
Otterbein information for any rehabilitation program. This will
also have a continuous temperature and depth
logger.
Stations Sampled in Previous Years to be Resampled
SR2 Sandrock Highland and This station was sampled for biology and chemistry
Greenway Fischer-Hallman in 2002. A rehabilitation of the upstream reach was
completed. A sewer reconstruction project is to be
completed alongside the creek. This sampling will
provide some information to assess the rehabilitation
project and to provide pre-construction information
for the sewer project.
SB13 Strasburg Strasburg Rd This station had biological assessment in 2002.
Creek and Trillium Dr. Thistledown pond, upstream of this station, was
retrofit. This sampling will provide information to
assess the retrofit impacts on the stream. A
continuous tem erature to er will be installed.
EVALUATION OF SWM AND STREAM REHABILITATION TARGET
The evaluation of area serviced for SWM retrofitlOGS installation should exceed the development area for
infill and re-development on a yearly basis. It should be noted that in many cases, projects span several
years, but can only be included in a single year's assessment. Since projects often have several phases
(environmental assessment, design and construction) it is important not to double-count the drainage area
serviced. Due to the nature of these projects, a cumulative comparison provides a better evaluation of the
program. Tables 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 provide a summary of the program between 2002 and 2008. Between
2002 and 2008 the area being serviced for SWM retrofit/OGS installation was 55.72ha. This compares to the
cash-in-lieu drainage area of 104.87ha. SWM retrofit/OGS works should be implemented to ensure cash-in-
lieu payments are being matched by water quality control coverage.
viii
(kitchener_pond_policy_aug09_final.doc)
City of k"itchener AA AA
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Table 2.2.6: Summary of SWM RetrofitslOGS Installations Completed Under the Program (2002-2008)
.~ ~ e
g ~
~. e
~
,:.
Pond - Bleams Road at Thistledown $460,195 North Strasburg
2002 Quality Retrofit 41.1
Drive (Pond ID 107, 62,111)
OGS -Park Street at Victoria Avenue 2003 OGS 4.95 Schneiders Creek
OGS -Vanier Drive Road $40,000 Schneiders/
2008 1 OGS 1.37 Montgomery
Reconstruction
OGS - Breithaupt Street 2008 $91,200 Schneiders Creek
2 OGS 4.17
Reconstruction
OGS -Duke Road Reconstruction 2008 1 OGS 1.36 $36,000 Schneiders Creek
OGS -Madison Road Reconstruction 2008 1 OGS 2.77 $28,000 Schneiders Creek
Table 2.2.7: Evaluation of Areas Contributing to and Benefiting from C-i-L Program (2002-2008)
.~ ~ .~
-.
2002 - 2003 10.99 41.1 157
2003 12.81 4.95 0
2004 19.84 0 0
2005 8.01 0 100
2006 9.89 0 0
2007 22.55 0 270
2008 22.12 9.67 0
Total 2002-
106.29 55.72 527
2008
C-i-L
Reimbursed 1.42
2008
Overall Total 104.87 55.72 527
* drainage areas reported in the 2002 and 2003 annual audits have been revised to avoid counting the drainage
areas in more than one year (e.g. double counting)
* drainage areas for 2005 modified to reflect enhancement work completed
* rehabilitation drainage areas recalculated in 2007 to reflect drainage area to the rehab site
ix
(volume 1 -implementation and policy reporf_final_aug09.doc) 1 7
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
2007 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were generated as part of the 2007 Annual Audit Report.
Policy Review
1. Over the past 6 years planning decisions and development may have changed the potential location
for infill and redevelopment. The infill and redevelopment area boundary should be evaluated and
adjusted if necessary.
Action: The infill and redevelopment boundary was updated by the City. This boundary reflects
the City's new predicted redevelopment new growth plan and is shown in Figure 2.2.2.1.
2. Subwatershed based tables and maps to illustrate proposed works should be included in future audit
reports -these should include all projects (retrofit, new ponds, OGS and stream rehabilitation works}
on one map to tie together for priority setting. The maps should include riparian cover and erosion
locations as identified in the report card analysis.
Action: Subwatershed based maps have been included in Figure 2.5.4.1 through Figure 2.5.4.17
in the 2008 Audit Report.
3. A datasheet should be provided for each proposed work. The datasheet will provide information to
decide and evaluate each proposed work and will be used to generate a 10 year capital forecast.
Action: Completed as Appendix C-2 and D-2 in the 2008 Audit.
Monitoring
4. Water quality and biological monitoring for 2008 should be shifted back to core stations (with the
addition of a few previously sampled stations} to ensure enough trending data is available.
Action: 2008 monitoring stations included 5 core stations and the addition of three non-core
stations. The proposed 2009 monitoring stations are the same as those sampled in 2008 with the
omission of site KD2.
5. Temperature and depth monitoring should be moved from Victoria Lake as those should be
continued as part of the Victoria Lake EA. Temperature sensors should be installed on Kolb Creek
and Strasburg Creek.
Action: In 2008 temperature loggers were removed from Victoria Lake and installed at SB13, KD1,
KD2 and KD4.
6. Investigation of additional monitoring options should be undertaken to determine need for/use of
additional funding if it becomes available.
Action: Investigation of additional monitoring options resulted in the recommendation that future
monitoring include fewer sampling parameters and a high frequency of sampling (5 wet and 5
dry).
7. Consideration be given to setting standard protocols for all monitoring efforts undertaken in the City
so data from all sources can be utilized in the 5-year report card analysis.
Action: It was recommended to the City and GRCA during a meeting April 27, 2009 that future
monitoring efforts within the City include phosphorus, nitrate, chloride, total suspended solids,
lead, copper, zinc, and E.coli.
x
(kitchener_pond_policy_aug09_final.doc)
City of k'itchener
_ _ AECC~M
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year 2008) Volume
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
Prinriti~atinn
8. Kolb and Montgomery Creeks should have priorities changed for 2007 report based on discussions
at the Steering committee meeting.
Action: Priorities were changed for 2008.
9. SWM ponds priorities should be updated following SWM inspections. This should include a review
of the criteria for setting priorities to ensure that the costs and benefits of each new pond and pond
retrofit are identified. Pond inspection forms should be updated to ensure all data required for
prioritization are collected.
Action: Pond inspection forms were updated and utilized in the 2008 pond survey and inventory.
10. Future stream walks should identify barriers to fish movement to add additional information to stream
prioritization.
Action: 2009-2010 stream walks will include datasheets for identification of barriers to fish
passage and a ranking system to identify the severity of the barrier.
11. Creek rehabilitation priorities should be updated following stream walks. As well stream walk forms
should be updated to include all information required to complete the prioritization tables.
Action: Inspection forms to be updated prior to commencement of 2009-2010 creek walks.
12. Prioritization of and decisions on works to be undertaken should be set by the steering committee
prior to budgeting for the following year (i.e. by June 2008 for the 2009 budget).
Action: Steering Committee meeting to be scheduled for April 2009
2008 RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy
1. Pollution prevention plans for spills prevention and contingency is to be encouraged by the
City. Further information on spill prevention and contingency plans is included in Appendix F of
the 2008 Audit Report.
2. The C-i-L fee rate could be adjusted to recognize the change in %impervious land cover to
developed areas. This should be further investigated.
3. Additional analysis of land costs should be completed to determine if land costs should be
added to the C-i-L fee.
4. To ensure objectives of the study are met, over the next four (4) years, the City should be
reviewing area re-developed or infilled within the Central Neighbourhood Area which is
currently exempt from C-i-L fees payment. This area is not currently accounted for in Table
2.2.7
Implementation
5. For retrofits it could be possible to prioritize retrofits by existing removal efficiency. This could
be calculated based on survey volume.
xi
(volume 1 -implementation and policy reporf_final_aug09.doc)
City of Kitchener ~E~~ lYl
City-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report Year 2008) - Volume I - t
Stormwater Management Facility Policy Implementation
6. A SWM Retrofit study should be completed to identify design enhancements to achieve new
legislative requirements or watershed targets implemented since the original design
Monitoring
7. If pre and post retrofit or new pond monitoring is deemed a useful measure of success,
consideration for a partnership with a University or as part of the EA for the retrofit or new pond
project may be investigated.
8. Theoretical calculations for TSS removal may estimate water quality changes. Turbidity
sampling may be added to sampling program.
9. Where water quality sampling is being completed as part of a study within the City, parameters
in the stormwaterwater quality index should be included in the analysis (including phosphorus,
nitrate, chloride, total suspended solids, metals (lead, copper, zinc}, E.coli)
xii
(volume 1 -implementation and policy report final aug09)
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Appendix F
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT
UPDATED 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Several stormwater management measures have been recommended within the City of Kitchener as part of
Kitchener's Stormwater Management Policy. These measures attempt to mitigate past, present and future
deleterious impacts on surface and groundwater systems caused in part through the development, infill,
and/or redevelopment of land within the City. Implementation of the proposed works requires consideration
of how the approach will affect policies, when specific measures would be implemented and how the works
are to be funded. This document has been prepared as an implementation plan to aid in determining
required stormwater features and monetary contributions related to the development and/or redevelopment
of any land within the City of Kitchener.
2.0 APPLICABILITY
This document applies to anyone who chooses to develop or redevelop lands within the City of Kitchener. It
has also been produced to benefit City of Kitchener personnel who will use the document during the
approvals process. In addition, the GRCA and other governing bodies may find the report useful during their
own approvals process or future planning exercises.
The step-by-step process outlined in this document will assist developers and City personnel to establish the
required stormwater management measures to be implemented at each site. In addition, any cash
contributions that may apply to the site for additional stormwater management measures to be constructed
as recommended by the City's Stormwater Management Policy will be identified.
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
The implementation procedure for stormwater management measures and contribution of funds toward
future stormwater management measures is outlined in Figure 1. A discussion of each numbered box within
the flowchart (Figure 1) is described below.
3 ~' 21
City of k'itchener
stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Figure 1: Implementation Flow Chart
2 Spill Control
Other controls
s required?
Only part of area
controlled by spill
control?
FINISHED
Follow
Implementation
~ Plan
n ~
FINISHED
Minimum site
control measures
and cash
'-~ contribution
Y Industrial or Commercial on
1 Schedule A (spill potential)
Y N
New developed area with a
6 SWM/MDP/SW Plan
Y On remaining
area
Y
O
0
Site within downtown exemption Minimum quantity
~ boundary 10 control measures
O
O
t Redevleopment or infill to Minimum site
existing SWM quality facility ~'~ 12 control measures
O
Redevleopment or infill with OY On site quantity and quality
property area greater than 5ha control required -Lands for
3 SWM infrastructure conveyed
14 to Cit
for maintenance
O
N y
Redevleopment or infill with O On site quantity and
direct stormwater discharge to quality control required
5 stream 16
O
~ Redevleopment or infill to
existing SWM quantity facility
Redevelopment or infill to area
ere new SWM to be provided All other scenarios
Redevelopment or infill to areas
where no SWM to be provided
_but OGS to be implemented
(1) -Existing SWM quality facility refers to facilities which have been designed to receive the drainage from the
proposed development area and were not identified to be built or retrofit as part of this study, and have not been built
or retrofit as part of this study.
Spill Check
Class 1 -Undeveloped area
with SWM potential
O
U
3 ~ 22
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Box 1-Spill Check
In order to mitigate at source effects of groundwater and surface water pollution, selected industries will be
required to implement spill control measures as part of the stormwater management practices required for
the site. Development or redevlopment of sites containing site uses identified in Schedule A attached will
require implementation of a spill control to intercept any contaminants leaving the site. If the landuse type is
identified in Schedule A, proceed to Box 2, otherwise proceed to Box 6.
Box 2 -Spill Control
Facilities which are identified in Schedule A will require implementation of a spill prevention and contingency
plan discussed in Section 6.0 of this implementation report. Implementation of spill control measures may
not satisfy quantity and quality control requirements for the site and therefore it may be necessary to proceed
back to the main branch of the flowchart to ensure all requirements (quantity and quality) are met. Proceed
to Box 3 following Box 2.
Boxes 3, 4, and 5 -Control Check
In addition to providing spill controls, sites may be required to implement additional stormwater management
measures. If other controls are required (Box 3) or if only a portion of the developed or redeveloped site is
controlled by the spill control device (Box 4), the developer will address statements identified in Box 6. If
other controls are not required continue to Box 5. Should the entire developable area be controlled by
implementation of the spill control measure (for both quantity and quality requirements), and other controls
are not required, the developer has satisfied the requirements of the Stormwater Management Policy
document. It should be noted that maintenance of the spill control devices is mandatory and will be required
at the frequency recommended by the manufacturer. Should additional controls not be required,
implementation of stormwater management features is complete (Box 5).
Box 6 -Undeveloped Area with Stormwater Management Potential
This box focuses on development of virgin land in an area that is covered under a Stormwater Management
Plan (SWM Plan), Master Drainage Plan (MDP) or Subwatershed Plan (SW Plan). If this scenario applies,
the developer will continue to Box 7 which inquires as to whether or not site control beyond the minimum are
required by the SWM, MDP, or SW Plan. If there are no additional requirements, the minimum site controls
as required by the SWM, MDP, or SW Plan must be implemented and the process is complete. Should
additional controls be required, the developer will continue to Box 9 through Box 17.
Box 7 and 8-Implementation Plan Requirements
Should a SWM Plan, MDP or SWM Plan exist the implementation plan identified within the document should
be followed (Box 7). This applies to both quantity and quality control requirements. Upon satisfying the
plans requirements, no further implementation of stormwater measures are necessary (Box 8~.
Box 9 and 10 -Downtown Boundary Exemption
Should the redevelopment or infill site be within the Kitchener downtown exemption boundary (Box 9) as
identified in Figure 2, minimum quantity control measures are required (Box 10~.
3 ~ 23
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Box 11 and 12 - Redevelopment or Infill to Existing SWM Quality Facility
Should the redevelopment or infill site be able to route to an existing quality facility, only minimum site
control measures are required (Box 12). It should be noted that an existing SWM quality facility refers to
facilities which have been designed to receive the drainage from the proposed development area and were
not identified to be built or retrofit as part of this study, and have not been built or retrofit as part of this study.
Box 13 and 14 - Redevelopment or Infill with a Property Area Greater Than 5ha
Should the redevelopment or infill site not route to an existing quality facility and is greater than 5ha, it is
required to establish on site water quantity and quality control for the development area (Box 14). Upon
completion of development, the land for SWM infrastructure is to be conveyed to the City for maintenance.
Box 15 and 16 - Redevelopment or Infill with Direct Discharge to a Stream
Should the redevelopment or infill site not route to an existing quality facility and discharges directly to a
creek, stream, river or wetland, it is required to establish on site water quantity and quality control for the
development area (Box 16). The decision regarding what constitutes direct discharge will be related to the
distance of the outlet from the watercourse and the sensitivity of the watercourse. The final decision will be at
the discretion of City staff reviewing the application.
Boxes 17 Through 19 -All Other Scenarios
Boxes 17 through 19 cover the remainder of the scenarios described as follows:
^ Box 17 - Redevelopment or infill to existing quantity stormwater management measures
^ Box 18 - Redevelopment or infill to area where new stormwater management measures are to be
provided
^ Box 19 - Redevelopment or infill in areas where no stormwater management is to be provided but
OGS to be implemented
In each of these cases, minimum site control measures should be implemented and a cash contribution for
stormwater management measures to be implemented as recommended by Kitchener's Stormwater
Management Policy will be required. Sites applying to these cases will proceed to Box 20.
Box 20 -Minimum Site Controls and Cash Contribution
In order to ensure that stormwater management is practiced throughout the City in an effective, efficient and
consistent manner, minimum site controls and monetary contributions will be required from sites applying to
scenarios in Boxes 17, 18, and 19. Moneys collected from sites entering Box 20 will be utilized to create
centralized stormwater facilities which may include retrofit of existing facilities, construction of new
stormwater management ponds which will service currently unserviced areas or other beneficial stormwater
management controls that will be implemented in the future. Minimum site controls and cash contributions
are discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 respectively.
3 ~' 24
City of k'itchener
stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
4.0 MINIMUM SITE CONTROLS
Minimum site controls are methods of improving water quality, restoring water balance control andlor
reducing the quantity of runoff that can be implemented at each developed site and potentially at the lot level.
Establishing effective stormwater management to treat runoff efficiently may require implementation of a
combination of site controls used in conjunction with conveyance controls and end-of-pipe facilities. City
objectives as well as previous studies and reports provide water quality control and infiltration targets useful
in assessing and designing appropriate minimum site control practices.
4.1 Site Control Targets
The City of Kitchener has established minimum stormwater quantity control targets. These targets include:
• Reducing the 5 and 100 year event flow from post-development to pre-development levels
within the downtown core of the City of Kitchener shown in Figure 2.
• Providing controls for infiltration of 25mm from on-site rooftop surfaces. Sites which do not
provide this level of infiltration will be required to provide a geotechnical report proving this
target is unachievable.
Subwatershed Plans and Studies provide integration of environmental considerations in land use planning.
Subwatershed Plans typically include targets for minimum stormwater site controls measures to achieve
water balance. Subwatershed and smaller scale Subdivision Plans are available for various sites within the
City of Kitchener. Figure 3 delineates areas within the City where these plans have been completed.
Subwatershed and Subdivision plans provide minimum infiltration rates required within the specified
boundary. Table 1 below provides a summary of those plans completed within the City of Kitchener and
the associated required infiltration rates.
Table 1: Required Infiltration Rates within the City of Kitchener based on Subwatershed Plans
~~ ~~~,
Blair Maintain existing conditions or Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional
increase infiltration, design targets Drainage Study Final Report (Stantec, March
for specific subcatchments (shown in 2009)
Figure 14, Stantec, 2009) vary from
20 - 30 mm.
Doon South Maintain existing conditions or Doon South Creek Subwatershed Plan
increase infiltration (Paragon Engineering Limited, 1993)
Idlewood Maintain existing conditions or Idlewood Creek Master Drainage Plan
increase infiltration. At-source (MacLaren Engineers, 1992)
infiltration of 12 mm from impervious
land uses, and with drainage within
four days, interception of runoff
generated by 25 mm in two hours
(for both infiltration and extended
detention).
3 ~ 25
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Strasburg Creek Maintain existing conditions or Strasburg Creek Master Watershed Plan
increase infiltration Implementation Report, Revised Edition by the
City of Kitchener (Paragon Engineering Limited,
September 1996)
Upper Strasburg Maintain existing conditions or Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Plan
Creek increase infiltration Update (Plan Update) Report (CH2M Hill,
January 2008),
A description of several suggested site controls is provided in the following paragraphs. These controls
apply to primarily quantity control however some quality control is achieved as a secondary benefit.
3 ~ 26
o
~
Q ®
~ U
O W
~ ~ N
~
~
~
C
J L
L
O
r~//~~ 0
o ~ ~ U ~
VJ 3 m ~ ~ o L
N
~
~
~'
~
L O N ~ ~ Z
O
C O
~ ~ ~ a~ ~
o ~ >~ o
~ O
Y
L
~ -
~
a~
~~
~^^ OC Y > ~ N
1^
i i T
~ I I I
a--~ J ~~ U ~~ ~
~
~ N Y
a~
z U o
~ 0
i
O
EU
7 ~
~ O
~ ~ T ^
Q
Yy w6Y
.~,+ ry' ~ ! ~ ~ A s....f N Si ~~F'.d"~ ;~`~.~ ~ ~ ~^~ ~ ' ~ ~'~ i p it & ~ ; ~$n,.. ~,~, .. ~ ky,F4'~+~ °k s ~ per °'.M ~W y.T i.. ~~C~~
~( p ~ ~.~ _ l '~ 4 ~~~ „ f ,-.~ ~ pn'~ ~ {yr' rA~~„ ~~ / ~'.,.~ ~' `'st' ~ ,, a0,;~,~' .~ri~ x `-~~ _ P4.ar'~ y ~/~~,. ~„V ~r j
'~ °^~ ~ `~ ~ '~ ~` '~" *~ ~' LA~1~A5~'~E'FP ST E '~ '~ ~_ ~ , r ~ ~ ~~ d ,r ~,
,.
,+ AID i ~ 9, ~, j '- ~ ~ 't,
_,
,~rNr, 1.. ~" ~p I Q0.. ~ A h .~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~/Q
~~~+ ~r # ~ ~` 'S i gip. ~~~. / ,} ~. ~ $~~ ~~'t Li~'~~ J ~~~J ~ `~1.. ~.... /,~ '1 ~.
-. 1Iy~-~ ~ ' e~ ~ ~ ~ by ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ ~y~,~1 ~(,J~p ~~~~ g,4 b ~ ' , ~ ~~> ;~ ~
~' ~ ~ifi ,~F 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~l~ ~ vd. Y [O .1~ Div ~ Y A'~C ~ ~ ,. F ~ ." O~ ,5 ~ ~ y ~~ ~" ~.
~ ~y, 4y .~ ~;~~~ ~~~ s ~ ) ~.~~~.rw Jt ~ ~* ^k.lm r Y;~~ ~ #`~ 0,~~\ ~(~ ~.,~. 9~" ~ ~ 4.~` °d ~ ,~~~ ~Q` ~• ~.r ,
r *. Y y ~ #{~y5 ~! '. /rJ '~r~~"' ~,A~ ~~:.a~ I ,~ ~~f~ ~4~ ~{Pl e9 ~~~ t~^' ~; '~~_ ~s k ~ i". ~ Y ~~ ~ +I~~ ~1 A~~f~d~ `+ ~ `
Y V V`) J
~, ~ y k= t7Jl it X y ~'~, r e ~, `Y •~ ~d `SU~ /*
~~~30 ~~ .~ ~ ' ~` ti ~'~~,~ 1 ~ .* ~~ ;, ,~~ ~~ ~, do ~~' g,, ' ~~k~'~ s ~
t~ ~ r ~ }~,~ ~, ° - ~° o ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. ~s ;,, ,~, a~
~` ~' +4~,,'~ 4 ~ # k~ ~ V, , Y A ti °~ .jf ..~ , ~~ ^" f ^ ~ 'A ,. ~y~ ~e, ~AY/ k f ~~/~,~ - ~/ (71~ ~ F p ~ ~~
mY 1 y. r ~ ~ p V~ w h p A. ~ t ~ ~Yi y 'C ~ ~"' vl 'e lj ~^ ~~.y, '.
X r~ `4 ~ T ,~°`. ~ ~Y.
d t ~.
yi }
[
'~
i
t ~
`
t
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~~
~
~'
1
'~T~'
~
.~
Y F
`
~ _
'{~ ~ 1
~
//.
" ~
~~t7'.~, ~
r}{`n ~,R~a
~l ~/ (~ C'
~ ~ y
.[~ J ~'~: ~ ~ (/J~ ~4k ~ ~~ A f a ~ ~~y~y~~yy ~~ { dry.. "J~ y~O~U J ~ ~T ,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-
~ ~~ ~ ~ C \ ~ j' ' ~b ~,y $ ~~ ~' ~ a_l'~C4 1 S .' y~ A~ S /, ~ ~V ~~.,. ~~ ~~9p~ ~' ~~~ i...
a
air s~ . ! G~7 ~ ,. ~ ~ l~ .t .9' ~ ,~,~~ ~v 7,,6U ~<~~ + Cl- `V ~` , '~j i .° W y'~~ ~`a` .
G """MM ( ~~ r ~
h G '
q~~~:A ~1 ~~ ..~~ ~~
~ ~ ~, '~ ~' ~ o q~ `1 r N~ , ~. ~~,~, ~ ' ~ ~ ~- r ~6 Kra ~
4~
Q A_ ~
~ ~~
4
~
Y
~
~ ~
~~
~
~ k~~ ~
`~
~ f
~
t f
~
~
f
'
~
, V
~
.
y 1~
.-y, }
r:
>°~:: ,~ F .
'
.vt r" ,r~
~` ~ ~~~
~ ~
'
,
1 ~ ~y
~.~ (
~
V h ~~, J ~,,e,~ '$~ ~,~~t
4 >
~
1 ~ Q g, y
r ,y
y~ r '~ a ~~. '~~` ~c'!h 4 ~~:~- ~. ~~ F.` wT~ny `~ ~'~~. y$v' 4,r 3 :~ ~q ~ ~ "°' r 4~''~i` ~Za ~ J ° ~'z ~{
;~ ,~'
S - _ r,, ~ w r^ ~Jj
C/
aa,, p~
Y I ~~
,,
.~
tP
.~ ~" r Y t f s i r rv
- _ d n (/~
~~ ~ f
'§E .~~ u~1~ ~ a
A ,
.- ~ ~ ~
~c
$ G 4
d ~ ~ 4 w
F
m ~ a,,. ~ ,' ' ~ .,. 2 ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ : ~~ ~, .~ . ', ~s ~ ~ .` ~~,
~ t
y.
~~
~
'
~ ~ fix' ~ ~
" '.,~ "4/. ~ ) ~. ;
~ ~~° ~ ~ ~
„~ f' ='j
~ v
e- < ,gyp {~y //y9
r ~r
k , ~ et ;.4 1 y# 9r ~+' ~9"ll i ~~~~ i~,° `~,1~ ~y~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ , r. +~ ~/ ~ tl'° ~~/~~ J'
4 ^ f, , £ Q. ~C A ~,
~ ~J' ~ x +~ f. 1 k "s u ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ., .r
4S' S
x°'
Y ~ ~ ,-
yy V' ,' ;e 1 +Ir I's
~~ ~ ~ ~
"
~
~ A ~
~ d4 ;„
y
t ~ /~ ~ ~.~ ~, ~ }`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V. z .. ' ~ 5 '~• •. t; ~ S P. ~ ' 1 ~ `may I~
~ 5 1, + i
,r -ai'd's , a r, y i x _. ~,
'µ' l ...f ..±~ ~ plea. ~ $~ f .T i~ ~ V _aa`..
d~~'1, gl~~~ ~;• ~ yyr~ ,~:. ~~ {" ~.~ r.I" ~ ~, „..~ t ry,. `,,~ AA7 SS~~~ '„ K-ft' ~~` n~ ., I ~~ ~.+' ~J
~~ r , ~ t
~= tr~ s } ~ 1. .l~ ~~-
~~
~
V~ ~ 16~
~
~ A
J~ 1
~
,~
.i y k .
1 *
s ~
A
f
., '
l
~'~, " ' ~.„ ~ ~,~'~ `n~'',~~' ~ `,~~. ~ .~, ~. , ~ ~.' ~~y ~ r~ '~ ~ t 1177 ~~ ~ ~7/~ L. ~ ~~ -~. ~t~, ~~ ~~~. ~ ~ ~ :.+'~i~'
~~~~~ a .,~~ yix .~ t ~d yg, ..JP~~ ~~ !'\O CJ ~ qr ciT f~i e°" ..<"r 4- - 'V ~M~1~ ~+ ~~ ~Z~,I~F r ~".~~ ._
A~" ~ ' ~ ~~4 ~~ ~ .. $ ny ~ ~r+,v, '~~~~~,F ~ rc~`w~11"~~~~.LL ~~~. ~y ~ k ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ,~ 4` '~A~,~ ~ .per ` a?~+~'`~,~ + ~ ., ~'k ~ ~. ~1 # y
x i`"~, ` X11 yj ~ t ~/ ~ a ,~~ .f g F ' ~ ~.. ~ s ~ ~ b
k ~~ l +~ b 1[ ~~1 ~ ~ ~ ~q~ S$ ~ p., y p` '~~4~° _ i4 4, - O ~2,~1'(/)~ Mp ~,,~ 7 ~' ,
~~ ~} - 4i4~ 1l, `~ ,~'~, ';1 ~ 6 6\~ 5.- ~' 1 ~~ J. !~ ~.. }, ~! ;~~ J+,,~ ~~~ 4' • a,
~1-. is 1~` ~ k~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~'.-~. Y~j 4 ~.& 0 is 1 s i h ".... rk v ~~y~• .1~, y'"~,'!. m'"a ~~, ~'"e 'R
' r':: a ~.' ..
-
a
~ ~.
~ ~ ~` ~
I~ I ' 4
I `~~ u` -(CL RRR {L
~! ~ ~ ~ R L
i
~ ~ ~
• ~F
a p jp
l i (ff~~ !f, [
~ ''i,
EI N r ~ f ryy~y ~ '¢y px ~ ~ ~
A q' t X31 ~ ~~ {d a ~ 3. ,~Y ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ - ~~'.~ ~~~ a ~ y ~ ~y! ~4'
,r
1.
~
' Q
~
'
~~
~
~
~ ~ ~
F ~
~
r ~ ~ ~
E
\ ~
~
~, ~'~.~
1~
~
~~" ~'1. ~ n ~a} t '~,~' c~~ '~,t ~'~ ~'~ ~',ti ~':~ t,'jJ~~ ~~~• ~(„~ `~ fir,` ~ `.
"~ ~~ r ~'~,=;~ '~ ,~ >~ ~ P tab
~~ I ~ ~ ~IgS~N~ ~~i,~~~ }~~. ~°~ ~ Lei ~` ~:'~~~~6 ~'~ ~ ~`'`'"' ~~ ``~.~ ~u
~z °~1`~.
I
,~
1 ~ 1 k j
~ ~ ~
+ti,'~.
~+ ~' f •6'~ 1 L.~,t. ~ It Ql ^ ~ Ft r
~
~ ; ~ i 1'~AG '~ 4g ~ `7. ~ ~ ~r(~ y~V' .l~ ~~.
~ • ~ '~ , Y ~ ~ .g ~' Q` i , ~ r'
._
m
Q Y
L
~ U ~'
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5 ~ ~~~,~
O
(n ° ~ ~ ~j U ~ con m
~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ L
L ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ p ~
~ c~ ~ 0 3 c~ a ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0] ~ ~ (A ~ ~ Y
~ ~_
~ ~ II
- J ~~~~IC~!_J
®
M
~' W ~
~
~
11
N ~
~ o
N ~
o ~
Z
Y ~
- ~
r~
U ~ ~,
r
V ~_
~ a~
N .~
OO
~
~ wY ~ O
d - a° ~ N
EU r Q
Q
Q ~ O
~ ~
,~ ~.
~ 4
h ~ 1
"~ ° ~~ 1
o~
0
,+ ~ le!r
} ~ ~ V ~1
~~,~ cy D 0 ~
.~f^tl f `~"c~ 09 ~a
1
City of k'itchener
stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
4.2 Minimum Site Control Practices
Rooftop Storage and Green Roofs
Flat building roofs can be used to store rainfall and in turn provide water quantity control. Rooftop storage
provides minimal water quality and balance control benefits. This control method is highly effective in
reducing downstream peak flow rates as the discharge occurs over a much longer duration. Rooftop storage
is an economical option when addressed during the building design phase and requires little extra cost
during construction.
Traditional rooftop storage may be provided on large flat commercial and industrial rooftops, and potentially
on residential apartment/condominium development. Rooftop storage is particularly useful for infill
development scenarios to relieve the need for downstream storm sewer size increases.
Green roofs are roof tops that have a growing medium (soil) and vegetation fully or partially covering the roof
surface. Green roofs add a new dimension to rooftop storage in that they also provide benefits to stormwater
management and energy efficiencies. These systems also provide improved aesthetics, reduction of heat
island effects, improvements to air quality and insulation of buildings.
Green roofs may be as straightforward as installing a layer of soil medium and establishing turf to create a
sodded roof to retain water provide filtration or as elaborate as a fully landscaped area with trees, shrubs,
gardens, seating areas and other outdoor amenities. Regardless of garden type, roof top garden stormwater
management is an integral design objective.
These living roofs are typically designed to reduce total annual runoff volumes, making them more effective
at providing water quality, erosion and water balance-type benefits than traditional rooftop storage methods.
Types of plants suitable for rooftop environments are influenced by the extremes of microclimate of the roof
top setting, including high wind, low winter temperature due to lack of ambient heat which is retained in the
ground in at-surface situations, and drought. In some designs, infrastructure such as irrigation systems,
increased insulation and venting from interior heat sources can be incorporated to mitigate any adverse
microclimate.
Downspout Disconnection
Roof downspouts in older portions of many cities may be connected to the storm sewer system. These
connections contribute significant runoff directly to the storm system following a storm event. Disconnection
of the roof leaders from storm systems and impervious surfaces that eventually drains to a storm sewer is
effective in reducing direct runoff where site conditions and grading allow roof runoff to be directed to
pervious area of sufficient size. Runoff may also be collected in rain barrels for later use in gardening and
lawn maintenance. It is most successful where positive drainage exists from the building to the street and
where there is also good street drainage. It should be noted that roof leader disconnection may aggravate
3 ~ 29
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
localized site drainage problems in areas where surface water collects because of impervious soils or
inadequate site drainage. Roof leader disconnection has a minimal effect on pollutant removal since very
little pollutant load accumulates on rooftops.
Rainwater Harvesting
Rainwater harvesting systems typically capture rooftop runoff from residential, industrial or commercial
buildings. Collected water is stored in cisterns either above or below ground where space is limited. Stored
water can be used for outdoor watering needs (irrigation, lawns and gardens, carwashing, fountains) and
indoor non-potable uses (toilet flushing, laundry).
Soakaway Pits
Soakaway pits provide temporary storage for water to be infiltrated from roof drainage by directing the rain
water roof leader to an underground infiltration trench or "soakaway pit". The "soakaway pit" typically serves
a single lot and receives water from roof drainage. This technology generally does not receive road runoff
and provides similar benefits to the rear yard ponding option (flooding and erosion potential benefits and
treatment of atmospheric pollutants).
Design of soakaway pits should ensure that the depth from the bottom of the soakaway pit to either the
seasonally high water table or to bedrock is greater than or equal to 1 metre and located at least 5 metres
away from the building to prevent excessive drainage to the foundation drainage. The pit should be filled
with 50 mm clear stone and completely enveloped with filter cloth. This will prevent migration of surrounding
native soil into the pore spaces of the stone fill thus reducing the infiltration potential. The roof leader
extends underground into the pit and is perforated to allow distribution of flow along the length of the pit.
Potential also exists to locate common pits in neighbourhood park areas or along rear lot lines in areas with
compact build forms.
Design of the roof leader should contain a removable section above ground level in the vertical direction with
a filter screen for maintenance purposes and to prevent leaves and debris from being conveyed to the
soakaway pit. In addition, an overflow pipe to a splash pad should be provided above the removable section
to react to potential plugging and backups of the removable filter screen.
Soakaway pits should be located as close to the ground surface as possible, however this is dependent on
depth of storage, potential for frost heave and surrounding soil characteristics. Typically, surficial soils are
coarser than deeper soils allowing greater percolation which makes them preferable for soakaway pit
locations. Soil types are site specific and should be identified prior to proceeding. Subject to site limitations,
the length to width ration of the pit should be maximized to promote proper distribution of runoff into the
entire pit and to minimize the potential for groundwater mounding. The depth of achievable storage will be
dictated by the permeability of the native soil but generally not exceed 1.5 m for cost effectiveness.
Industrial and commercial locations with large rooftop areas should accommodate a minimum storage
volume of 5 mm over the rooftop in the soakaway pit. As 90% of all daily rainfall depths are less than 20mm,
3^30
City of k'itchener
stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
the maximum target storage volume in the soakaway pit should be 20 mm over the rooftop area. Soakaway
pits can be implemented for soil types where minimum percolation rate >_ 15 mmlhr.
Lot Grading
Lot grading can be a means of reducing storm runoff through promoting recharge and natural infiltration.
Development standards typically require minimum lot grades of 2% to adequately drain stormwater away
from buildings. Alternative Development Standards have been proposed (Ministry of Housing, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs, 1994) which would permit the reduction of minimum lot grades from 2% to 0.5%. However,
grading occurring within 5 metres of a building should be maintained at 2% or higher to protect against any
foundation drainage problems. In areas where grades of less than 2% are acceptable greater depressions
storage in increased infiltration can be achieved. Scarification of the lots to a depth of at least 300mm prior
to laying sod will also enhance infiltration potential by decreasing the compaction of the underlying soil. It
should be noted that use of the lots may be restricted following storm events during the time it may take to
fully drain the lot. Implementation of this site control may also be influenced by soil characteristics.
Lot Level Storagellnfiltration Systems (Rear Yard Ponding)
Discharging roof leaders to rear yard ponding areas can be beneficial in both quantity and quality control of
runoff. Rear lot infiltration reduces peak flow rates in receiving systems, reduces total volume of runoff from
a given event and somewhat contributes to water quality improvement by reducing atmospheric pollutants
through natural filtration. This form of site control is primarily applicable to new developments or re-
developmentwhere soils permit.
Areas for ponding can be implemented in either the rear yards or along rear lot lines. Roof leaders should be
directed to the ponding area by means of a splash pad and overland flow route. Any water that is detained in
the ponding area either evaporates or infiltrates. It is recommended by MOE SWM Guidelines that the depth
of pond depression not exceed 0.1 m with an overland relief flow route to accommodate depths greater than
this.
Target storage volumes should range from a minimum of 5 mm to a maximum of 20 mm over the rooftop
area. Ponding configurations are site specific and depend on the layout of the development. In general,
pond depth should be minimized and length to width ratio should be maximized to prevent short-circuiting,
reduce the potential for groundwater mounding and maximize the infiltration potential.
In order to minimize any impacts on the foundation drain, rear yard ponds should be located a minimum of 5
metres away from the building. Tilling the ponding area to a depth of 300 mm prior to placing sod and/or
providing an infiltration trench below the pond area can enhance the infiltration potential.
Filter Strips
Filter strips are stormwater conveyance systems suitable in small drainage areas. Filter strip consist of a
level spreader and numerous vegetative plantings designed to slow runoff velocities and settle out sediment
3 ^~~ 31
City of k'itchener
stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
and pollutants. This technology can be a useful technique in areas of low grade, so long as there is a
reasonable distance that the water is to be conveyed.
Where soil characteristics indicate good infiltration potential, this measure contributes towards maintaining
the hydrologic balance (through recharge) and pollutant removal. In addition, erosion control (slowing down
runoff) and pre-treatment for downstream end-of-pipe controls are also benefits, to a lesser extent. The
measure does not provide flood control and may in some instances lead to localized nuisance flooding (in
large storms).
It is recommended that filter strips be implemented adjacent to a buffer strip, watercourse, or roadway.
Discharge from a filter strip will be in the form of sheet flow and therefore must be channelled (either in a
sewer, swale system or the receiving watercourse) for subsequent conveyance.
Vegetated strips should be 10 - 20 m wide in the direction of flow to promote sufficient stormwater quality
enhancement. The preferred slope for a filter strip is < 5 % (1% - 5%). Shorter filter strip widths (10 m - 15
m) are appropriate for flat slopes and longer filter strips (15 m - 20 m) are required in areas with a higher
slope (5% -10 %) in order to achieve the desired results.
Where soils are not acceptable for infiltration purposes, vegetative filter strips act only as filters, removing
coarse particulate and providing pre-treatment for downstream controls. In this case, a significant
contribution to the hydrologic balance or to erosion control is not achieved. Water quality control is limited for
vegetated filter strips that rely on filtering alone due to the difficulty of maintaining sheet flow through the
vegetation. Filter strips are most effective when the filter area is kept relatively "wild" (eg. longer, thicker
vegetation).
Enhanced Vegetation and Storm Gardens
Incorporating various form of enhanced vegetation or storm gardens promote evapotranspiration, in addition
to infiltration and evaporation to the atmosphere. Use of plants appropriate for the existing site conditions can
be used to facilitate absorption and transpiration and provides many benefits related to restoring the natural
hydrologic cycle. Plantings are also an important functional component in the design of non-structural
SWMPs such as ponds, wetlands, filter strips and bioretention facilities.
Permeable Pavement
Permeable pavements allows for filtration, storage or infiltration of stormwater runoff. Porous pavement can
potentially divert a substantial portion of the annual runoff volume into the soil and can prevent erosion
impacts immediately downstream. Surface treatments techniques vary from concrete pavers and porous
asphalt to interlocking concrete block pavers and plastic lattice/grid systems (grass pavers).
Infiltration in concrete pavers is provided through paver joints that provide the pervious area required for
infiltration. Porous asphalt incorporates a pervious, open graded asphalt wearing course over a base course
with large void spaces. The base course acts as a detention reservoir for the stormwater runoff. Rain passes
through the wearing course, collects in the void space of the base course, and ultimately infiltrates naturally
3^32
City of k"itchener rr
Stormwater Management Policy Development AC~~~
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
or to an underdrain system. There are also interlocking concrete block paver and plastic lattice designs that
include spaces within the block to provide the pervious area.
The permeable pavement is applicable for low speed areas such as parking lots, driveways, access roads,
and walkways. Concerns such as winter operations, clogging, road salt, and structural stability are to be
considered in permeable pavement design. It is recommended in "Low Impact Development Stormwater
Management Manual" (CVC et al, 2008) that these systems should:
• Not be used when sand or granular material are applied for winter traction
• Be applied to surfaces with slopes between one and five percent
• Be located at least 1.5 metres above the seasonally high groundwater table and at least 30
metres from drinking water wells
• Include underdrain systems if soils have infiltration rates of less than 25 mm/hour.
• Ensure the storage layer under the permeable pavement accommodates runoff from the
impervious drainage area
• Not be used in areas with high contamination potential, e.g. vehicle wrecking and impound
yards, fleet storage areas, marinas, liquid container storage or areas subject to drainage with
pesticides and/or fertilizers (golf courses)
• Be located down gradient, at least 3 meters away from and slope away from a building
foundation
Contaminant loads resulting from porous pavements are reduced as the amount of direct runoff from the
surface is decreased. Contaminant loads infiltrated increase below the surface; therefore, the surface runoff
has less contaminant, indicating that porous pavement demonstrates excellent performance with respect to
runoff reduction and pollution abatement (University of Guelph).
Underground Storage
A superpipe acts as an underground storage device, similar to a tank. The superpipe is created using pre-
manufactured pipe (usually 1800 mm or larger) and a flow restrictor such as an orifice plate or a small
diameter outlet pipe that limits the rate of discharge. As flow out of the pipe is restricted, the runoff is
detained within the pipes, usually for a few hours. Underground storage provides an alternative to rooftop
storage or surficial parking lot storage by making an underground storage mechanism available.
Underground storage are primarily used for quantity however, marginal water quality benefits are achieved
as some of the coarser sediment particles will settle out. In order to provide quality control, underground
storage must be used in a treatment train with other stormwater controls such as filters and oil/grit
separators.
Underground storage may be applied for all types of development where they can be can be easily
excavated if required. Underground storage should not be constructed under structures. In residential uses,
underground storage are normally constructed within the road allowance and are usually a retrofit option.
They are typically used in existing residential areas where basement flooding is a problem. In commercial or
industrial areas, they are most often placed below parking lots. As such they may be applied to all types of
development. In retrofit situations however, high subsidies are normally required because of the high cost of
the option.
3^33
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Catchbasin Restrictorsllnlet Controls
Potential exists to install inlet control devices (ICDs) in storm sewer inlet structures to restrict the discharge
from local catchment areas in order to reduce peak flow rates in receiving sewer systems. Installation of
these devices results in overland flow. Design should ensure that the resulting overland flow and ponding is
within municipal allowable limits.
Minimal benefits to water quality are achieved through this method, however this management practice is
useful for quantity control. This method is suitable for commercial and industrial parking areas where short-
term storage of storm runoff can be practically accommodated. The practice is not applicable in residential
areas.
Several forms of ICDs exist including flow restrictors for use in catchbasins or orifices for use in maintenance
holes. Design of the discharge rate is dependent on the volume of storage and the required drainage period.
5.0 CASH CONTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS
The proposed work for stormwater management includes a series of components with funding to be obtained
from specific sources. The required works and method of funding are summarized as follows:
SWM (quality) in new development
• Retrofit of existin onds Development costs
• New onds in existin areas SWM charge against infill and redevelopment
• Centralized OGS and exfiltration
• Infrastructure rehabilitation Municipal taxes, shared between SWM charge and
~ Stream rehabilitation Municipal taxes
• Stream rehabilitation Developer costs
The proposed charges are outlined as follows:
Developer charges for infill and redevelopment include the costs toward constructing new SWM facilities in
existing development areas, SWM pond retrofits, centralized oil/grit separators (or exfiltration) and stream
rehabilitation works.
• Total charge of $19,8751ha (effective January 1, 2009) to apply to all redevelopment and
infill sites that cannot connect to existing quality control facilities, are not greater than 5ha
and do not discharge directly to a watercourse
^ No additional charges will be applied to new development. Developers in
greenfield areas are responsible for implementing SWM measures
consistent with the Subwatershed Plans, MDPs, etc.
3 ^~ 34
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Development Monitoring for SWM Requirements
An inventory of development and SWM provided will be required to ensure that SWM facilities are
constructed in infill and redevelopment areas prior to development occurring and should be installed by order
of priority as identified in the annual SWM Audit report.
6.0 SPILL CONTROL MEASURES
There are various federal, provincial and municipal acts, statutes and regulations that address reporting and
responding to spills. The main focus of these regulations is to protect against injury or loss of property as
well as to maintain the integrity of the natural environment and to prevent any adverse effects to natural
resources (i.e drinking water).
Legislation
Canadian Environmental Protection Act -The Canadian Environmental Protection Act focuses on pollution
prevention through implementation of risk management. Examples of risk management measures for
existing substances include regulations, pollution prevention plans, environmental emergency plans,
guidelines, codes of practice and administrative agreements. For regulations, pollution prevention plans or
environmental emergency plans the substance must be on the List of Toxic Substances or in the case of
environmental emergency plans be, at least, recommended for addition to the List.
Fisheries Act -The Canadian Fisheries Act (section 36) prohibits the disposal or permission of disposal of a
deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place where fish may enter such
water. This act requires that anyone who is responsible for a deleterious substance that is spilled is required
to report the spill and take all reasonable measures to prevent or mitigate any negative impact on fish or fish
habitat.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act -The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act requires in the event
of a spill the person who has charge of the dangerous goods at the time of an accidental release or imminent
accidental release must take all reasonable emergency measures necessary to eliminate or reduce any
danger to public safety, and notify proper authorities. A written follow-up report must be completed and sent
to Transport Canada within 30 days by the employer of the person who reported the accident or spill.
Environmental Protection Act (Ontario)
The disposal of pollutants into the natural environment is regulated under the Provincial Environmental
Protection Act. This act requires in the event of a spill, the spills is to be reported forthwith. This act also
requires the owner of the spilled material, and the person who had control of a material when it was spilled to
promptly clean up and restore the environment. The ministry ensures that the cleanup and disposal of spilled
materials is done in an environmentally acceptable manner. When those under statutory duties cannot or
will not respond adequately, the Minister has the authority under the Environmental Protection Act to order
those responsible for the spill to clean. Ontario Regulation 224107 -Spill Prevention and Contingency Plans
within the act documents procedures and actions to betaken during and after a spill event in order to
eliminate or reduce the consequences or adverse effects of a spill. (section 6 of O.Reg. 224/07).
3^35
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) - Approval to Operate
The OWRA provides for the protection and conservation of the water environment, and the control of the
quality of drinking water supplied to the public. It prohibits against pollution activity: "Every person that
discharges or causes or permits the discharge of any material of any kind into or in any waters ... that may
impair the quality of the water... is guilty of an offence" (Section 16.(1)).
Technical Standards and Safety Authority Act, 2000 -This act requires the person responsible for the spill to
notify the MOE Spills Action Centre and implement the required actions to mitigate the spill or leak. The
TSSA provide standard methods to address the escape of product and site restoration. The Protocol also
allows for development of a Contaminant Management Plans which will allow for contaminants to remain on
Site while a facility continues to be operational.
By-Law-Number 1-90 of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
This by-law prohibits, regulates and controls the discharge of waters and wastes into bodies of water within
the regional area or into the regional sanitary tributary and trunk sewers, and sewage treatment works.
Every person who discharges sewage into or in land drainage works, private branch drains or connections to
any sanitary sewer or combined sewer shall, if such discharge or deposit is not in the ordinary course of
events notify the municipality or the agency responsible for operating the sewage works receiving the
discharge or deposit.
Spill Response
Ontario Regulation 224/07 defines spills as "a discharge into the natural environment, from or out of a
structure vehicle or container, and that is abnormal in quality or quantity in light of all the circumstances of
the discharge" (s. 91(1) of the EPA). In the event of a spill the EPA requires that the spill is reported to the
MOE Spills Action Centre (SAC) forthwith.
In the Region of Waterloo, the following agencies are required to be notified at the time of the spill.
1. Region of Waterloo's Spill Line at: 519-650-8260 (8:30 a.m. - 4:30
p.m.) or 519-650-8200 (after hours)
2. Ministry of the Environment (MOE)- Spills Action Centre (SAC) at 1-
800-268-6060
Agencies will require the following information:
• Name of Company or individual responsible
• Location of the spill
• Name and phone number of the person reporting the spill
• Time of the spill
• Type and quantity of material discharged and any associated hazards
• Status, including corrective actions being taken to control the spill
Additionally the Region recommends that when a spill has occurred the following items are addressed:
• Ensure public safety and environmental protection
3^36
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
• Immediately initiate containment activities
• Remove the spilled substance and all contaminated materials
• Ensure appropriate disposal of the spilled substance and all contaminated materials
• Remediate the site
• Cooperate fully with all affected parties and enforcement groups
• In the case of a spill, as defined in Section 12 of the Sewer Use By-law, provide a written
report to the Region within 5 working days (Section 12(6))
• Investigate and Implement a CorrectivelPreventative Action Plan
Spill Prevention and Contingency Plans
Spill prevention and contingency plans are necessary to protect against damage to human health, property
and the environment. In 2008, 16% of all spills reported to the MOE Spill Action Centre were identified as
having environmental impacts to water and 5% of all reported spills were identified as having possible
environmental impacts to water. Spill prevention and contingency plans reduce spills to stormwater systems
and impacts to the natural environment. Similar to any emergency plan, spill protection plans should be
carefully planned and practiced regularly.
Spill prevention and contingency plans can be a cost saving to organizations. These plans may:
• Lead to more productive and profitable organization
• Reduce waste lost to spill
• Decrease delays, challenges, and associated cost with managing a spill
• Avoid charges
• Reduce risk of reputation due to a spill
• Reduce risk of employee injury
• Save costs
Spill Prevention and Contingency Plans identify and assess potential spill hazards, implement procedures to
reduce or contain a spill, identify proper equipment to handle a spill and outlines actions to be taken in the
event of a spill. The plan should consider how regulations may apply to the facility's operations and
recognize where potential spills may result in damage to the natural environment and human health. Proper
training of spill prevention and contingency plans is a critical step in implementing the plan.
A spill prevention plan may include identification of:
• Potential material on site which could result in a spill
• Alternative methods of storing, handling and transferring material which could result in
spill prevention
• Proper equipment required to contain a spill
• Equipment available on-site to contain a spill
A spill contingency plan may include identification of:
• Person responsible to notify proper authorities in the event of a spill
3 ^~~ 37
City of k'itchener
Stormwater Management Policy Development
Implementation Procedure for Development
Updated 2008
AECOM
• Potential spill pathways (storm sewer catchbasins, building underdrains, site
topography)
• Methods and equipment required to block spill pathways and eliminate the spread of the
spill to water bodies
• Proper equipment or spill kits are required to handle spill material
• Third party groups which may be equipped to assist in the clean up a potential spill
• Disposal method of the spilled material
Industry and Spill Prevention and Contingency Plans
Ontario Regulation 224107 requires spill prevention plan for persons as identified in O.Reg 222/07 and
generally identified as sectors subject to the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement ("MISA"}. This
regulation provides guidelines for implementing spill prevention and contingency plans that are applicable to
industries beyond MISA sectors.
MISA industries handle large quantities of unsafe material and are associated with a greater risk of spills.
However industries that do not meet this classification may benefit from the implementation of a spill
prevention and contingency plan. MOE SAC spills reporting data for 2008 shows that transportation-related
spills (motor vehicles, transport trucks and tank trucks) are the single largest group of spills reported,
accounting for 22% of spills. Loading or transferring stations also have a greater risk of spills due to the
number and volume of trucks passing through such a facility and the quantity of material being handled and
transferred.
The Ontario Ministry of Environment has secured funding until 2012 for pollution prevention reviews up to
$12,000 for small and medium sized businesses whose property intersects with one of the following:
• A 100-metre radius of a municipal wellhead
• A 200-metre radius of a surface water intake
• The two-year time-of-travel around a municipal wellhead, approved by the local
municipality
• The intake protection zone-one (IPZ-1) around a surface water intake, approved by the
local municipality
Under this program spill control measures are to be provided at the site control level to provide protection
from contaminants. This would include items such as spill prevention plans, construction of spill containment
areas and materials handling facilities.
3^38
Schedule A
Industries with Spill Potential
1. Roofing, Siding, and Sheet Metal Contractors
2. Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing
3. Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
4. Electrometallurgical Ferroalloy Product Manufacturing
5. Non-ferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminium) Rolling, Drawing and Extruding
6. Metal Heat Treating
7. Metal Can Manufacturing
8. Other Metal Container Manufacturing
9. Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
10. Enameled Iron and Metal Sanitary Ware Manufacturing
11. Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
12. Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
13. Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge)Manufacturing
14. Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing
15. Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing
16. Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing
17. Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
18. Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
19. Motor Vehicle Stamping
20. Metal Stamping
21. Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewellery and Silverware), and Allied Services to
Manufacturers
22. Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing
23. Machine Tool (Metal Cutting Types) Manufacturing
24. Machine Tool (Metal Forming Types) Manufacturing
25. Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing
26. Metals Service Centres and Offices
27. Jewellery, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Wholesalers
28. Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Colouring
29. Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturers
30. Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing
31. Gasoline Stations
32. Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance
33. Automotive Exhaust System Repair
34. All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
35. Automotive Transmission Repair
3 6. General Automotive Repair
3 7. Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance
3 8. Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops
39. Photofinishing Laboratories
40. Dentist Offices
41. General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
42. Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals
43. Speciality Hospitals
44. Medial Laboratories
45. Dental Laboratories
46. Testing Laboratories
47. Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)
48. Support Activities for Rail Transportation
49. All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
50. School and Employee Bus Transportation
51. Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
52. School and Employee Bus Transportation
53. Other Support Activities for Road Transportation
3-39
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
Books Printing
Quick Printing
Other Commercial Printing
Commercial Lithographic Printing
Commercial Gravure Printing
Commercial Flexographic Printing
Commercial Screen Printing
Other Commercial Printing
Manifold Business Forms Printing
Printing Ink Manufacturing
All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
Petrochemical Manufacturing
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
Other Chemical and Allied Products Wholesalers
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Leather and Hide Tanning and Finishing
All Other Leather Goods Manufacturing
Note: Schedule A has been adapted from the Toronto Sewer Use By-law.
3-40