Download Report

Kanata Lakes Environmental Kanata
Lakes Environmental
Studies
March 4, 2015
,
Facilitator: David Sherwood
Meeting Sponsor: Councillor Wilkinson, Kanata North
Chair: Lee Ann Snedden, Manager Policy Development
Manager, Policy Development and Urban Design
1
Agenda
1. Welcoming remarks and guidance (David Sherwood)
2 Ward
2.
W d Councillor
C
ill remarks
k (C
(Councillor
ill Wilki
Wilkinson).
)
3. Status of the South March Highlands Blanding’s Turtle
Population
p
((Nick Stow).
)
4. Shirley’s Brook and Watt’s Creek Stormwater
Management Study – Phase 2 (Darlene Conway)
5. Next Steps (Lee Ann Snedden)
6. Formal Question and Answer (David Sherwood
moderating)
7. Closing remarks (Councillor Wilkinson)
2
Status of the South March
Highlands Blanding’s Turtle
Nick Stow, Senior Planner
Nick Stow, Senior Planner
Population
Land Use and Natural Systems
March 4, 2015
3
4
5
Conclusions of the South March Highlands
Blanding’s Turtle Conservation Needs Assessment
• The current,
current long
long-term
term outlook of the population
is poor.
• The population is likely already in decline
decline.
• Development without mitigation would
accelerate the decline
decline.
• Mitigation measures can improve the outlook for
the population.
• Even with mitigation, the current habitat may be
too small to support
pp the p
population
p
in the long
g
term.
6
M d ll d Effects
Modelled
Eff t off Development
D
l
t on Population
P
l ti
(no loss of nesting area)
7
M d ll d Effects
Modelled
Eff t off Development
D
l
t on Population
P
l ti
(loss of nesting area)
8
Recommendations of the South March Highlands
Blanding’s Turtle Conservation Needs Assessment
• R
Reduce the loss of mature, reproductive females to d
th l
f t
d ti f
l t
road mortality and poaching
• Reduce egg and hatchling mortality
Reduce egg and hatchling mortality
• Identify and protect core habitats of the population and surrounding populations
and surrounding populations
• Continue to monitor and research the population and surrounding populations
and surrounding populations
• Establish education and awareness programs in the surrounding communities.
surrounding communities.
9
What is Being Done to Conserve the Population?
• KNL is working with the City and the Ministry of Natural Resources on an Overall Benefit Permit
Natural Resources on an Overall Benefit Permit Application for development of Phases 7 and 8 (
(Phase 9 does not require a permit)
q
p
)
• Councillor Wilkinson is working with staff on a p p
proposal for a Student Naturalist Program in the g
Conservation Forest
• Staff have been attending community events to promote awareness
• Wetlands are being created and enhanced to expand the effective habitat area for the population.
10
11
12
Shirley’s Brook and Watts Creek Stormwater Management Study – Phase 2
Darlene Conway, P. Eng. Darlene
Conway P Eng
Infrastructure Policy March 4, 2015
March 4, 2015
13
Study Background
Study Background
• Proposed development within the headwaters of Shirley’s B k (K t Lakes North) was draft‐approved on the basis Brook (Kanata
L k N th)
d ft
d
th b i
of a previous study recommendation to divert about 150 ha of drainage area into the Kizell Drain/Watts Creek system
• Given the size of the proposed diversion, changes in regulatory approval and permitting requirements and anticipated concerns of downstream landowners the City
anticipated concerns of downstream landowners, the City initiated the Shirley’s Brook and Watts Creek SWM Study to provide the necessary tools to assess the impact of the proposed development of KNL phases 7, 8 and 9 on both receiving watercourses
14
Study Background
y
g
The Study has been carried out in two phases:
• Phase 1 SWM Study:
y
z
z
assessed the performance of the existing Beaver Pond SWM facility (for uncalibrated model ‐
completed in October 2011)
completed in October 2011)
Phase 2 SWM Study: z
z
calibrated the model and identified existing g
conditions (flows, water levels, erosion) in Shirley’s Brook and Kizell Drain/Watts Creek downstream of the future development
the future development
conceptual SWM servicing alternatives
15
16
17
Key Phase 1 Study Finding: •Review and update of previous modeling identified that the 100 year water level and peak
100 year water level and peak discharge for the existing
Beaver Pond SWM facility
exceeded the approved target values 18
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Calibration • A
A key task of
key task of Phase 2 was to calibrate the existing conditions Phase 2 was to calibrate the existing conditions
hydrologic model to observed data collected by the City • Draft Phase 2 results (March 2013) were based upon rainfall and flow monitoring data from 2011 and 2012 and showed a decrease in 100yr water level and peak outflow (compared to the Phase 1 results)
the Phase 1 results)
• Additional calibration efforts were undertaken based upon 2013 and 2014 monitoring data to arrive at the final existing condition model 19
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Calibration Beaver Pond SWM facility results: MOE Cof A approved value Phase 1 SWM Study Phase 2 SWM Study (draft)
(draft) Phase 2 SWM Study (final) 100yr water 100yr
water
level (m)
92.60
100yr peak outflow 100yr
peak outflow
(cms)
0.96
92.85
4.55
92.70
1.50
92.34
0.91
20
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Calibration 21
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Calibration f h
d
lb
Reason for differences between draft and final calibration R
f diff
b t
d ft d fi l lib ti
results: •allowance for additional “underground storage” to reflect effect of relatively pervious “blast rock” backfill material used in much of the existing development (south of existing Beaver Pond SWM facility)
of existing Beaver Pond SWM facility)
•validating the model to a larger rainfall event in June 2014 (65mm) helped to confirm this approach
22
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Summary
of Phase 2 Findings:
Hydrology (flows) • A good calibration has been achieved between modeled and observed events • The existing condition 100‐year water level and peak outflow Th
i i
di i 100
l l d
k
fl
from the Beaver Pond SWM facility do not exceed the approved values identified in the facility’s MOE Certificate of Approval
23
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Hydraulics (water levels)
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Hydraulics (water levels) • Updated 100‐year (draft) flood levels and spill areas are generally consistent with previous MVCA flood risk mapping (1989)
• A flood sensitive reach was identified on Shirley’s Brook between Shirley’s Brook Drive and Terry Fox Drive
• Flood Vulnerable Structures (FVS) were identified:
Flood Vulnerable Structures (FVS) were identified:
o 3 upstream of Herzberg Road on Kizell Drain
o 2 upstream of March Road on Kizell
2 upstream of March Road on Kizell Drain within MDS Nordion
Drain within MDS Nordion site
• FVS’ also identified in MCVA’s previous flood risk mapping (1989)
• Capacity of some road crossings does not meet the City’s design criterion for roadway overtopping:
• Kizell Drain: Legget Drive and Goulbourn Forced Road
• Shirley’s Brook: Goulbourn
Shi l ’ B k G lb
F
Forced Road and the DND crossing d R d d h DND
i
below March Valley Road 24
Summary of Phase 2 Findings: Summary
of Phase 2 Findings:
Geomorphology (stream function) • Shirley’s Brook and Kizell
Shi l ’ B k d Ki ll Drain/Watt’s Creek are currently D i /W tt’ C k
tl
adjusting to changes induced by past land use changes
• Channel downcutting
Channel downcutting (erosion) is occurring in some locations (erosion) is occurring in some locations
while other locations are aggrading • Erosion sites threatening property and infrastructure have b
been identified at a number of locations on both systems
id ifi d
b
fl
i
b h
• Further alteration to the existing flow regimes as a result of land use change has the potential to affect watercourse
land use change has the potential to affect watercourse functions and impact infrastructure, flood levels and aquatic species/habitat; appropriate stormwater management will be required to mitigate all such anticipated impacts
required to mitigate all such anticipated impacts
25
Phase 2: Conceptual Stormwater Management Servicing Alternatives •Potential alternative options (diversion and non‐diversion) to service development of KNL phases 7, 8 and 9
For each alternative, each alternative
•For
•Anticipated impacts to:
oSurface and groundwater resources
oStream function (erosion and sedimentation)
St
f ti (
i
d di
t ti )
oNatural systems (terrestrial, wetlands, aquatic)
•Engineering and cost considerations
•Anticipated approvals and permits required 26
KNL Development Inc Next Steps
• Overall Benefit Permit Application for development of Phases 7 and 8 (Phase 9 does not require a
of Phases 7 and 8 (Phase 9 does not require a permit)
• High
High‐level
level Stormwater
Stormwater solution solution
• Permits for tree removal in phase 7, the realigned Goulbourn Force Road, and Turtle Fencing Corridors Force Road, and Turtle Fencing Corridors
will be issued upon MNR and City approvals
• Registration for Phases 7, 8, and 9 g
, ,
27