Public Information Centre September 19 th, 2017
WELCOME! Public Information Centre for the Maple Hill Creek Rehabilitation Class Environmental Assessment Please take the time to sign our sign in sheet and fill out the project comment sheet, thank you. City Staff members and Consultant Team Members are available to discuss the project and any questions or concerns you may have.
PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE The City of Waterloo has held two Public Information Centres (PICs) to date (November 2016 and March 2017). This is the third and final PIC of the Class Environmental Assessment process. A fourth PIC will be held prior to the start of construction activities to communicate important details to affected residents. Objectives of this PIC: Review the potential restoration alternatives presented in PIC #2 (March 2017) Present a summary of the evaluation of these alternatives Present preliminary preferred alternatives for review by the public Input received from the public will be considered through the completion of the EA process.
STUDY AREA AND OBJECTIVES The City of Waterloo has initiated a Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Study for the rehabilitation of Maple Hill Creek from the Westvale Park Stormwater Management Area to the creek s confluence with Clair Creek at University Avenue. The Study Area is divided into two Stormwater Management Areas and six creek reaches, as shown on the map below. The study is being undertaken to examine options related to channel improvements on Maple Hill Creek. A rehabilitation and management plan for the preservation and enhancement of the Maple Hill Creek system will be developed, including bank stabilization, removing existing barriers to fish passage from the Clair and Laurel Creek systems and incorporating a more natural channel form.
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS The Study will be conducted in accordance with the planning and design process for Schedule B projects, as outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) document, (October 2000, as amended in 2015), which is approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Schedule B projects involve Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, as illustrated to the right. The Class EA process includes public/external agency consultation, an evaluation of alternative solutions and alternative design concepts, an assessment of potential impacts associated with the proposed improvements and the development of measures to mitigate identified impacts. PHASE 1 Problem or Opportunity PHASE 2 Alternative Solutions Identify Problem or Opportunity Public Consultation to Review Problem or Opportunity Inventory Natural, Social, Economic Environment Identify Alternative Solutions to Problem or Opportunity Evaluate Alternative Solutions, Identify Recommended Solutions Select Preferred Solution Public Notices and Public Information Centre #1 Public Information Centre #2 WE ARE HERE Public Information Centre #3 Public Notice of Completion Opportunity for Part II Order Request Implementation (Design and Construction) Public Information Centre #4
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES WESTVALE PARK SWMA Alternative 1 Do Nothing Take no action to correct identified issues, let things take their course. Alternative 2 Sediment Removal, Maintain Pond in Existing Configuration Westvale Park SWMA - Dredge sediment from existing pond to improve water quality performance. Do not alter current pond configuration. Alternative 3 Distributed Oil Grit Separators in Upstream Watershed Install Oil Grit Separators strategically throughout upstream watershed to improve quality of water entering the Westvale Park SWMA, reducing future sedimentation. Alternative 4 Restore Pond with a Moderately Sized Wet Pond Reconfigure existing facility into a moderately sized stormwater wet pond, using adjacent available space in Westvale Park, resulting in improved water quality/quantity performance. Alternative 5 Restore Pond with a Moderately Sized Wetland Reconfigure existing facility into a moderately sized stormwater wetland, using adjacent available space in Westvale Park, resulting in improved water quality/quantity performance.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES WESTVALE SWMA Alternative 1 Do Nothing Take no action to correct identified issues, let things take their course. Alternative 2 Outlet Structure Modifications Modify the existing outlet to improve drainage conditions. Alternative 4 Restore Pond with a Wet Pond Reconfigure existing facility into a stormwater wet pond, using adjacent available space, resulting in improved water quality/quantity performance. Alternative 5 Restore Pond with a Wetland Reconfigure existing facility into a stormwater wetland, using adjacent available space, resulting in improved water quality/quantity performance.
Alternative 1 Do Nothing Take no action to correct identified issues, let things take their course. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES MAPLE HILL CREEK Alternative 2 Spot Repairs/Local Restoration Reach 1: Reconstruct gabion basket retaining walls that are showing early signs of instability, primarily located at the lower end of the reach near Westvale Drive. Reach 2: Complete spot repairs to concrete pipe as per City of Waterloo OSIM report recommendations for the structure. Address existing surface drainage issues in Thorndale Park adjacent to private residences. Reach 3: Reconstruct gabion basket retaining walls behind Thorndale Place with engineered retaining wall solution. Replace damaged gabion basket instream drop structure at the downstream end of Reach 3 with step pool sequence for fish passage. Reach 4: Reshape instream bar at upstream end of Reach 4 to reduce risk to adjacent gabion basket retaining walls. Repair failed section of gabion basket wall. Reach 5: Repair bank erosion adjacent to concrete lined channel at the upstream end of Reach 5. Repair existing erosion protection works at the downstream end of the concrete channel lining, which includes instream armourstone weirs and rock, as well as vegetated bank protection. Repair channel scour downstream of the existing concrete weir upstream of Erb Street. Reach 6: Install bank protection on critical areas adjacent to University Ave. to protect the infrastructure from ongoing erosion due to channel migration. Alternative 3 Partial Reach-Scale Restoration Reach 1: Reconstruct the downstream portion of Reach 1 to remove gabion basket retaining walls, and replace with armourstone walls or other appropriate stabilization to extend the lifespan of the creek banks and provide a more natural material for the instream structures. Reach 2: Not applicable: partial reach restoration is not possible in this Reach, as it would not be effective to restore only part of the buried channel (i.e., daylighting of creek and establishment of a natural channel in Thorndale Park) while maintaining the rest within a concrete pipe. Reach 3: Extend culvert pipe under Thorndale Drive through the upstream end of Reach 3 behind the properties on Thorndale Place to resolve ongoing issues of bank instability and impacts to the rear yards of the properties. Replace damaged gabion basket instream drop structure at the downstream end of Reach 3 with step pool sequence for fish passage. Reach 4: Reconfigure the upstream end of Reach 4 to eliminate gabion basket retaining walls and integrate increased flow dissipation from the golf course inlet to the south. Reach 5: Remove the concrete lined channel and the existing weir upstream of Erb Street and establish a step-pool or cascade system to improve fish passage. Reach 6: Realign portions of channel away from University Avenue where space is available. Alternative 4 Full Reach-Scale Restoration Reach 1: Remove all gabion basket drop structures and retaining walls and restore the entire reach as a step-pool or cascade system. Reach 2: Daylight channel and establish natural channel through Thorndale Park. Reach 3: Remove all gabion basket channel lining and restore reach as a step-pool or cascade system where possible given property constraints. Reach 4: Not applicable: full reach restoration has been previously completed and is in satisfactory condition. Reach 5: Remove the concrete lined channel and the existing weir upstream of Erb Street and establish a step-pool or cascade system to improve fish passage. Restore access to floodplain for incised channel areas. Reach 6: Restore entire reach to a natural channel with meanders as space is available; restore floodplain access for incised areas.
Evaluation Criteria Project Cost Capital Cost Consideration of O&M Cost/Frequency Technical Effectiveness Technical Effectiveness Constructability Approvability Natural Environment Healthy Fish and Aquatic Community Healthy Terrestrial and Wildlife Community Impacts to Existing Vegetation Nuisance Species Private Property Impacts to Private Property EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA Table below displays the evaluation criteria by which the alternatives for each Reach/SWMA are evaluated. A qualitative ranking system was implemented, using scores from 1 to 5. An assignment of 1 represents minimum quality or value, while an assignment of 5 represents the best outcome that can be reasonably attained. The category scores were averaged together to determine the overall score for each alternative. Social/Cultural Services Maintain Current Recreational Uses of the Reach/SWMA Archaeological Impacts Safety Short-term Impacts during Construction Criteria Details The capital cost to implement the alternative is estimated based on conceptual-level information. The lowest cost Alternative is assigned a score of 5. The highest cost Alternative is assigned a cost of 1. Other Alternatives are assigned a score between the high and low Alternatives based on the relative cost of the Alternative to the cost of the high and low Alternatives. The ongoing costs of operation and maintenance must be sustainable by the City of Waterloo. Maintenance requirements consider the site setting, scope and frequency of maintenance. Minimization of maintenance cost and frequency is desirable. The potential for the Alternative to effectively address the identified issues in each Reach or Stormwater Management Area. For Reaches of Maple Hill Creek, the measurement of technical effectiveness is specific to the issues in each Reach, but primarily involves the mitigation of active erosion to protect vulnerable infrastructure or private property. For the Stormwater Management Areas, the measurement of technical effectiveness indicates how well the Alternative addresses the need to remove accumulated sediment from the SWMA, as well as how well it meets the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change s targets for removal of Total Suspended Solids from stormwater runoff. Requirements for specialized expertise or equipment, sensitivity to weather conditions, access restrictions, specialized materials, etc. are evaluated to assess overall constructability of each Alternative. The potential for the Alternative to receive regulatory approval from applicable review agencies such as the Grand River Conservation Authority, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Evaluate the ability of the alternative to provide species diversity and a stable, healthy fish and aquatic community in the long term. Assessment of the timeframe following implementation of the alternative to achieve goals, and the reliance of community health on ongoing maintenance will also be included. Evaluate the ability of the alternative to provide species diversity and a stable, healthy terrestrial and wildlife community in the long term. Assessment of the timeframe following implementation of the alternative to achieve goals, and the reliance of community health on ongoing maintenance will also be included. The effect the alternative will have upon existing vegetation, including mature trees within the creek corridor and adjacent green spaces. The alternative should minimize the potential to promote growth of nuisance plant or aquatic species, or attraction of nuisance animals/birds. Measure of the impact to adjacent private property (i.e., loss of property, access to property) Potential impacts which positively or negatively impact current uses of the Reach or SWMA will be assessed. The alternative should mitigate impacts to areas of archaeological interest and preserve existing historical/heritage features. The alternative must provide a safe environment for members of the public of all ages. Evaluation of the potential temporary disruption to adjacent residents (i.e., traffic impacts, property access impacts), as well as nuisance factors such as noise and dust generation.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WESTVALE PARK SWMA List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (4.0): Alt 5 Wetland 2 nd Place (3.8): Alt 4 Wet Pond 3 rd Place (3.6): Alt 3 OGS and Alt 2 Sediment Removal (Tied) 4 th Place (3.4): Alt 1 Do Nothing Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Lowest capital cost, highest Alternative 3 Highest capital cost, high Alternatives 4 & 5 Moderate capital cost for each option, least amount of maintenance. Alternatives that solve current issues: Inflow short circuiting through north inlet Alt 4 & 5 Poor water quality treatment Alt 3, 4, & 5 Poor attenuation of peak flows Alt 3, 4, & 5 Sediment accumulation Alt 2, 4, & 5 Alternatives 4 and 5 provide the most opportunity to enhance the natural environment as native plants will be incorporated as part of the retrofit activities. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 provide minimal opportunities to enhance the natural environment. None of the alternatives are expected to incur any impacts to adjacent private properties. All work will be conducted on City-Owned property (Westvale Park). Alternatives 2 and 3 result in minimal impacted park area; however will create construction disruptions to install the OGSs. Alternatives 4 and 5 result in more impacted area of the park. Tobogganing poses public safety concern with Alternative 4.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES REACH 1 List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (4.1): Alt 3 Partial Reach 2 nd Place (3.9): Alt 2 Local Restoration 3 rd Place (3.6): Alt 4 Full Reach 4 th Place (3.4): Alt 1 Do Nothing Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Lowest capital cost, slightly higher maintenance costs. Alternative 3 & 4 Higher capital costs, less required maintenance. Alternatives that solve current issues: Unstable gabion lining channel Alt 2, 3, & 4 Barrier for fish passage Alt 3 & 4 Shape of channel None Lack of riparian vegetation Alt 3 & 4 Alternative 2 provides minimal enhancements to the natural environment, as it is limited to gabion failure areas. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide many opportunities to enhance the natural environment through the restoration activities. No significant impacts from any Alternatives Alternative 4 may cause minor impacts to rear yards along Appledale Crescent and Old Meadow Lane as several properties encroach the creek block. Alternatives 2 and 3 will have minimal impact due to their limited extent. Alternative 4 may involve disturbance to the adjacent trail during construction and possibly after if the restoration encroaches the trail to maximize storage areas.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WESTVALE SWMA List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (4.1): Alt 2 Outlet Modifications 2 nd Place (3.3): Alt 1 Do nothing 3 rd Place (3.0): Alt 4 Wetland 4 th Place (2.1): Alt 3 Wet Pond Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Lowest capital cost, lower maintenance costs expected Alternative 3 & 4 Higher capital costs, greater amount of maintenance. Alternatives that solve current issues: No water quality control Alt 3 & 4 Outlet blocks fish passage Alt 3 & 4 Outlet structure clogs with debris Alt 2, 3, & 4 Alternative 2 provides little opportunity for enhancement. Alternative 3 also provides little opportunity as most of the area would be a permeant pool. Alternative 4 creates the most potential to enhance the environment through a wetland. Alternative 3 and 4 may slightly impact the adjacent residential properties in terms of use or enjoyment of property. Alternative 2 would have no impact on private property. Alternatives 3 and 4 could potentially impact the area s recreational use, create public safety concerns (ponded water) and have short term construction impacts. Alternative 2 would minimize all impacts that 3 and 4 create.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES REACH 2 List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (3.9): Alt 2 Local Restoration 2 nd Place (3.0): Alt 1 Do Nothing 3 rd Place (2.7): Alt 4 Full Reach Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Lowest capital cost, higher maintenance costs expected Alternative 4 Higher capital costs, lower Alternatives that solve current issues: Concrete culvert requires repair Alt 2 & 4 Surface drainage issues in Thorndale Park Alt 2 & 4 Buried reach creates barrier to fish passage Alt 4 Alternative 2 provides no opportunity to improve the natural environment. Alternative 4 provides significant opportunity to enhance the environment through the development of a naturalized creek corridor. Alternative 2 creates no impacts to private property and will actually benefit them by creating improved drainage from their property. Alternative 4 could possibly impact private properties and could create a flooding risk to the properties. Alternative 2 would not impact the social and cultures features of the reach. Alternative 4 would significantly change the configuration of the Thorndale Park and could create some public safety risks with an open channel.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES REACH 3 List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (3.7): Alt 3 Partial Reach 2 nd Place (3.5): Alt 2 Local Restoration 3 rd Place (2.9): Alt 4 Full Reach 4 th Place (2.1): Alt 1 Do Nothing Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 & 3 Lower costs, alternative 2 has higher maintenance costs than alternative 3 due to retaining structures maintenance. Alternative 4 Highest cost, modest Alternatives that solve current issues: Gabion limit ecological potential Alt 2, 3 & 4 Gabion failing, creates barrier to fish passage Alt 2, 3 & 4 Lack of aquatic habitat Alt 4 Lack of vegetated banks Alt 4 Alternative 4 provides the most potential for enhancement through naturalization of the reach. Alternative 3 provides some enhancement, but will require removals of aquatic habitats Alternative 2 provides minor potential upstream of the reach. Alternative 2 would protect the properties with a more robust retaining wall solution. Alternative 3 would positively alter the rear yards of several properties. Alternative 4 will significantly disturb and change future uses of private properties. Alternative 2 will have minimal impact to social and cultural uses of the reach. Alternative 3 will provide a great benefit to the recreational use of the reach and solve current safety risks. Alternative 4 is expected to have the most widespread impact.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES REACH 4 List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (3.8): Alt 3 Partial Reach Restoration 2 nd Place (3.7): Alt 1 Do Nothing and Alt 2 Local Restoration (Tied) Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Lower capital cost, higher Alternative 3 Highest capital cost, lower Alternatives that solve current issues: Failing gabion basket Alt 2 & 3 Erosion risks Alt 2 & 3 Narrow Floodplain None High flows from outlet Alt 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 provide limited opportunities to enhance habitats. Alternative 3 provides higher potential due to the possibility of incorporating specific habitat features on a larger scale than alternative 2. Alternative 2 will results in negligible impact to private property. Alternative 3 may potentially alter a small portion of an upstream adjacent property. Alternative 2 maintains recreational use and results in negligible impacted areas. Alternative 3 will have a larger construction impact, but will improve public safety within the area.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES REACH 5 List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (3.9): Alt 3 Partial Reach 2 nd Place (3.7): Alt 2 Local Restoration 3 rd Place (3.6): Alt 4 Full Reach 4 th Place (2.9): Alt 1 Do Nothing Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Lowest capital cost, higher maintenance costs due to monitoring requirements. Alternative 3 Higher capital cost, low Alternative 4 Highest capital costs, low Alternatives that solve current issues: Scouring and erosion Alt 2, 3 & 4 Limited habitat Alt 2, 3 & 4 Concrete drop structure Alt 3 & 4 Low flow from riffle feature - Alt 3 & 4 Downstream incised and eroded Alt 4 Alternative 2 provides little enhancement. Alternative 3 and 4 provide significantly more benefits to the natural environment due to their design. Alternative 2 involves no impacts to private properties. Alternative 3 may incur a small impact to the properties due to slight changes to the creek. Alternative 4 will incur the largest impacts due to the floodplain reconnection efforts. Alternative 2 incurs the lowest impact to current social and cultural features with no impacts to recreational uses and minimal construction. Alternatives 3 and 4 have higher impacts to these areas due to greater restoration area and longer construction period.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES REACH 6 List of Alternatives and evaluation ranking: Preliminary Preferred (3.8): Alt 3 Partial Reach 2 nd Place (3.7): Alt 2 Local Restoration 3 rd Place (3.4): Alt 4 Full Reach 4 th Place (2.8): Alt 1 Do Nothing Project Cost Technical Effectiveness Natural Environment Private Property Social/Cultural Services Alternative 2 Modest capital cost, highest Alternative 3 Modest capital cost, low Alternative 4 Highest capital cost, low maintenance costs Alternatives that solve current issues: Incised and migrating channel Alt 3 & 4 Lack of riparian vegetation Alt 3 & 4 Lack of floodplain connectivity Alt 3 & 4 Ad-hoc treatments Alt 2, 3 & 4 Alternative 2 provides little enhancement. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide progressively more opportunities for enhancement; however has higher impact to the existing vegetation. All alternatives are expected to affect the adjacent private properties. As the scope of work increases from alternatives 2-4, the impact to properties also increases. Restoration will require negotiation of easements to affected properties. Alternative 2 incurs lowest impact to current social/cultural features. Alternatives 3 & 4 incur progressively higher impacts in these areas due to greater disturbance areas and longer construction periods.
COMMENTS AND NEXT STEPS Public Participation forms an integral part of the Class EA Study to ensure that the ongoing concerns of the public and affected groups within the study area are identified, documented and assessed. Please complete your comment form and submit them to the Consultant Team Members before you leave, so that our views and comments will be recorded and considered. A fourth PIC will be scheduled prior to initiating the construction phase of the Project. Public notices will be advertised in advance of each public information centre. For more information on this project, and to stay informed on project developments, please visit the City s website at: http://www.waterloo.ca/en/living/maple-hillcreek.asp If you would like to provide comments following the public information centre, or for any further information on the study, please contact the study leaders below: Jessica Kellerman, P.Eng. Project Manager City of Waterloo 100 Regina Street South PO Box 337, Station Waterloo Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 Tel: 519-886-1550 ext. 78243 E-mail: jessica.kellerman@waterloo.ca Jeff Daniel, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager GHD Limited 651 Colby Drive Waterloo, ON N2V 1C2 Tel: 519-884-0150 ext. 7287 E-mail: jeff.daniel@ghd.com