STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY …...infill developments, small-scale development or areas...

STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

COMMUNITY OF STONEY CREEK – MASTER PLAN

June 2004

PHILIPS ENGINEERING LTD. P.O. BOX 220

3215 NORTH SERVICE ROAD BURLINGTON, ON L7R 3Y2

TEL: 905-335-2353 FAX: 905-335-1414

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

June 2004 1 98040A – Final Report–- June 2004



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The former City of Stoney Creek is one of the oldest in Southern Ontario, with parts of the community dating back to early 1800’s. As such urban development form and support infrastructure spans a significant period, in terms of its type and associated design approach. In 1991, the Province introduced its stormwater quality management guidelines, as interim policy to address potential impacts on water resources resulting from new urban development. The approach to planning and designing stormwater management practices (SWMP’s), particularly those directed at stormwater quality control, became more formalized in 1994, with the publication of “Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual”, Ministry of the Environment and Energy and Ministry of Natural Resources, which has recently been updated in March 2003. The former City of Stoney Creek has a long history of effectively managing the quantity of runoff from its urban lands through floodplain management, channelization, flood control storage and infrastructure upgrades. Given the proximity of Lake Ontario, to the majority of the urban core, the philosophy of draining urban lands quickly and efficiently to the Lake has been prevalent in the former City’s approach to stormwater management. Given that current stormwater management policy requires the concurrent assessment and management of stormwater quantity and quality, municipal staff became concerned about the effectiveness of a non- integrated approach, whereby stormwater controls were applied to each new development regardless of size, location or watershed significance. For instance, how would these facilities work in combination? This problem or concern would be even worse for infill developments, small-scale development or areas where no master drainage plan exists (i.e. for stormwater quality management). Another concern of the former City is that addressing stormwater quality impacts from new development only addresses part of the problem. The bigger issue by far, is the impact from past (historical) development, constructed prior to the requirement for stormwater quality controls (pre 1991). It is considered probable that significant opportunities exist to remediate and restore areas of poor water quality in the existing urban developed areas, which would provide a greater benefit than addressing impacts from new development on a site by site basis. In fact, in certain new development circumstances, it may be preferable to contribute monies to solutions to address existing problem areas, in addition to, or in-place of, new development impact mitigation. One of the basic rationales regarding the foregoing approach is that it needs to be resource and scale specific. This means that higher quality resources or those with potential should be given a management priority. Similarly, reasonable scale specific alternatives should be considered for smaller or infill developments.


The application of the Provincial stormwater quality policy has led to a proliferation of stormwater management systems (planned and constructed) resulting in a system of controls that is considered functionally ineffective, has high capital and maintenance costs and continues to allow habitat degradation. By focussing on integrated management of higher valued resources results in those that are higher quality or those with potential are given a management priority. The potential of this approach is a system of controls that achieves the removal of contaminants from a much larger land area at the same cost to the development industry and City of Hamilton. Objectives (i) To maintain and/or enhance the existing stream system water quality through the

implementation of appropriate stormwater management practices. (ii) To develop a master plan for stormwater quality management that ensures no net loss of

habitat (and recovers “lost” habitat, where feasible ) and addresses the social, physical, and economic constraints and opportunities.

(iii) To ensure the stormwater quality management plan is in compliance with all applicable legislation and all agency mandates, requirements and policies.

Study Process This study has proceeded as a Class EA Master Plan in general conformance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Planning and Design Process for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects, as outlined within the June 2000 Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document. The study has had involvement from various stakeholders including City of Hamilton, Hamilton Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In addition input from the general public, development groups and interest groups has been obtained through consultation and two public information centres held on June 26, 2000 and September 17, 2001. Study Methodology The study has been conducted in three stages: Stage 1 Background Review and Study Area Inventory The study area encompasses the watershed area of the various drainage systems within the former City of Stoney Creek and includes Battlefield Creek, Stoney Creek, Watercourses 0 to 11 and Fifty Creek (Watercourse 12). The study area inventory identifies constraints and opportunities for the land use, aquatic resources, hydrogeology, water quality and hydrology/hydraulics components. The inventory has included existing stormwater management facilities and storm sewer outfalls.


Stage 2 Assessment of Management Opportunities for Existing and Future Land Use

Conditions In establishing the Strategy, a long-list of potential stormwater quality practices have been developed based on Direct, Indirect and Retrofit Opportunities categories. Direct opportunities directly address stormwater quality pollutant removal and have been broadly classified into Source and Conveyance Controls, End-of-Pipe Controls and Management Practices. Indirect opportunities partially, or indirectly affect stormwater quality in a positive way and have included watercourse riparian planting, erosion control and remediation and groundwater (recharge) promoting infrastructure. Financial contributions have been considered from infill development where traditional stormwater management practices are difficult to implement. Lastly, the potential for retrofitting existing/planned stormwater management facilities and existing storm outfalls has been considered. The long-list of stormwater quality practices has been evaluated through the use of various screening factors with respect to the specific aquatic, hydrogeologic, and water quality resources of the Municipality. The long-list has undergone preliminary screening using the factors of feasibility, water quality enhancement benefit, economics, environmental amenity and social impact. Alternatives have been screened using engineering evaluation, background data assessment, various guidelines and input from the Steering Committee. Following the preliminary screening, the resulting short list of alternatives has been quantitatively assessed. The performance of the short- listed stormwater quality control facilities has been based upon annual contaminant loadings (mass balance) for existing and future land use conditions. In addition the short- listed stormwater quality control practices have been evaluated on the basis of capital costs and land requirements. Further evaluation of retrofit and ‘Greenfield’ facilities has been conducted using an evaluation matrix to establish priority ratings as a guide for developing an implementation strategy and prioritization of the implementation of the proposed quality control facilities. Stage 3 Preferred Solution And Implementation Strategy Preferred Solution The Strategy supports a hierarchy of stormwater quality management techniques starting “at source” moving through “conveyance” to end of pipe facilities in addition to encompassing management practices and provides an effective approach to providing stormwater quality treatment. The recommended Strategy will provide a high level of environmental protection and will address current planning, environmental and engineering requirements.


Implementation Strategy For the Stormwater Quality Strategy to succeed, an Implementation Strategy has been developed. This section of the Strategy outlines the specifics associated with the implementation of the Master Plan for Stormwater Quality including: (i) Environmental Assessment and Planning Acts (ii) Phasing Plan (iii) Financing/Cost Sharing Plan (iv) Monitoring Plan (v) Future Study Requirements As part of the implementation strategy, it has been recommended that the proposed stormwater quality facility and retrofit facility process should be incorporated into the new Official Plan for the City of Hamilton. The City of Hamilton should implement a phasing plan to identify inter-development timing dependencies for construction of stormwater and environmental management infrastructure. Interconnected with the phasing plan, a financing/cost-sharing plan should be developed to identify, evaluate and select methods of cost apportionment for capital and program works. This could include using this study as the basis for a new Development Charge. The implementation strategy would require a long-term monitoring plan to assess the future quality of stormwater discharges and their impact on the ecosystem within the former City of Stoney Creek. Implementation of any of the stormwater control facilities identified herein would require further study on a local subwatershed basis. This level of study would focus on integrating servicing and stormwater management of adjacent development to a greater detail than is normally achieved through a high level study such as the strategy. Conclusion This strategy has been developed to provide an ecological and cost effective approach of providing stormwater quality controls within the former City of Stoney Creek. The fundamental approach inherently addresses to the extent possible the problems created by either past development and/or the site-by-site stormwater approach.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Study Area............................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Background Information......................................................................................... 4 2.3 Study Methodology................................................................................................. 4 3. STUDY AREA INVENTORY ........................................................................................... 5 3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.1 Findings and Cons traints............................................................................. 7 3.2 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Background Review.................................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Field Inventory............................................................................................ 8 3.2.3 Findings and Constraints........................................................................... 10 3.2.4 Assessment of Proposed Development Stormwater Quality Impacts....... 13 3.3 Hydrogeology........................................................................................................ 15 3.3.1 Background ............................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Field Inventory.......................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Findings and Constraints........................................................................... 17 3.4 Water Quality........................................................................................................ 22 3.4.1 Land Use and Watercourse Characteristics .............................................. 23 3.5 Hydrology and Hydraulics.................................................................................... 28 4. SUMMARY OF CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES.......................................... 36 5. POLICIES & STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 39 6. OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 44 6.1 Long-List of Stormwater Quality Management Opportunities............................. 44 6.1.1 Direct Stormwater Quality Management Opportunities ........................... 44 6.1.2 Indirect Stormwater Quality Management Opportunities......................... 48 6.1.3 Financial Contributions............................................................................. 49 6.1.4 Retrofit Opportunities ............................................................................... 49 6.2 Long-List Preliminary Screening.......................................................................... 51 6.2.1 Direct Opportunities.................................................................................. 52 6.2.2 Indirect Opportunities ............................................................................... 53 6.2.3 Financial Contributions............................................................................. 53 6.2.4 Retrofits..................................................................................................... 54 6.2.5 New Facilities ........................................................................................... 60 6.3 Short-list of Opportunities .................................................................................... 61 6.4 Quantitative Assessment of Short- list................................................................... 63 6.4.1 Performance .............................................................................................. 63 6.4.2 Economics ................................................................................................. 67 6.4.3 Facility Priority Ratings ............................................................................ 69


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section . PREFERRED SOLUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY........................... 72 7.1 Preferred Solution................................................................................................. 72 7.1.1 Source Controls......................................................................................... 72 7.1.2 Management Practices .............................................................................. 74 7.1.3 End-of-Pipe Controls ................................................................................ 74 7.2 Implementation Strategy....................................................................................... 75 7.2.1 Environmental Assessment and Planning Acts..........................................76 7.2.1.1 Environmental Assessment Act .....................................................76 7.2.1.2 Planning Act...................................................................................77 7.2.2 Phasing Plan...............................................................................................77 7.2.3 Financing/Cost Sharing Plan..................................................................... 79 7.2.4 Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................ 82 7.2.5 Future Study Requirements....................................................................... 82 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 84 8.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 84 8.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 85

FIGURES (Prior to Appendix A)

Figure 1 Study Area Figure 2 Existing Land Use Figure 3 Future Land Use

Figure 4 Aquatic Resources Sampling Locations and Watercourse Characteristics

Figure 5 Hydrogeology Figure 6 Water Quality Figure 7 SWM Facilities Figure 8 New and Retrofit Stormwater Opportunities Figure 9 Recommended Stormwater Opportunities

APPENDICES

Appendix A Background Reports Appendix B Benthic Inventory Appendix C Pond Sizing and Cost Estimates Appendix D Land Use Conditions (Areas) Appendix E Mass Balance Existing & Future Conditions Appendix F Retrofit Opportunity Drawings Appendix G Watercourse Summary Sheets Appendix H Public Consultation Record


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 3.1 Summary of Existing Land Use (ha) 5 Table 3.2 Changes in Land Use (ha) Resulting from Future Development (OP) 6 Table 3.3 % Changes in Land Use Resulting from Future Development (OP) 6 Table 3.4 Baseflow Measurements 20 Table 3.5 Water Quality Impairment Sources 22 Table 3.6 Summary of Stormwater Quality Management Facilities 23 Table 3.7 EMC Values issued in Mass Balance Model (mg/L) 25 Table 3.8 Summary of Annual Pollutant Loadings (kg/yr) for Existing Land Use

Conditions

25 Table 3.9 Summary of % Change in Annual Pollutant Loadings for

Future Land Use Conditions (No Controls)

26 Table 3.10 Frequency Flows (m3/s) for Stoney and Battlefield Creeks 28 Table 3.11 Regulatory Flood Elevations (m) for Stoney and Battlefield Creeks 29 Table 3.12 Frequency Flows (m3 /s) and Regulatory Flood Levels for Watercourses

1 to 4

29 Table 3.13 Frequency Flows (m3 /s) and Regulatory Flood Levels for Watercourses

5, 6 and 7

31 Table 3.14 Summary of Watercourse Diversion Completed as Part of the QEW

Corridor Improvements for Watercourses 5, 6 and 7

31 Table 3.15 Frequency Flows (m3/s) for Watercourse 9 32 Table 3.16 Summary of Watercourse Diversion Completed as Part of the QEW

Corridor Improvements for Watercourses 9 and 10

32 Table 3.17 Frequency Flows (m3/s) and Regulatory Flood Levels (m) for Fifty

Creek

33 Table 3.18 Summary of Stormwater Quantity Management Facilities 33 Table 6.1 Source and Conveyance System Stormwater Management Techniques 45 Table 6.2 End-Of-Pipe Stormwater Management Techniques 46 Table 6.3 Indirect Opportunities Ranking 53 Table 6.4 Watersheds Considered for Financial Contribution 54 Table 6.5 Summary of Stormwater Quantity Management Facilities 55 Table 6.6 Potential Stormwater Quantity Management Facility Retrofits 57 Table 6.7 Lont-List of Potential Storm Outfall Retrofit Sites 58 Table 6.8 Short-List of Potential Storm Outfall Retrofit Site Ratings 59 Table 6.9 Normal Habitat Protection Contaminant Removal Rates (%) 64 Table 6.10 Summary of Annual Pollutant Loadings (kg/yr) for Future Land Use

Conditions with No Stormwater Quality Control

64 Table 6.11 Percent Difference (%) to Existing Conditions for Future Land Use

Conditions with No Stormwater Quality Control

65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES


Page Table 6.12 Summary of Annual Pollutant Loadings (kg/yr) for Future Land Use

Conditions with Stormwater Quality Control

65 Table 6.13 Percent Difference (%) to Existing Conditions for Future Land Use

Conditions with Stormwater Quality Control

66 Table 6.14 Percent Difference (%) for Future Land Use Conditions with

Stormwater Quality Control Versus No Stormwater Quality Control

66 Table 6.15 Total Annual Contaminant Loadings 67 Table 6.16 Stormwater Quality Retrofit Facilities Cost Analysis 68 Table 6.17 Proposed Stormwater Quality Facilities Cost Analysis 68 Table 6.18 Retrofit Stormwater Quality Facility Evaluation 71 Table 6.19 Proposed Stormwater Quality Facility Evaluation 71 Table 7.1 Estimated Future Infill Developments (ha) 74 Table 8.1 Recommended Infrastructure and EA Schedule and Public Process 86

DRAWINGS

Drawing 1 Opportunities Plan Drawing 2 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Catchment Boundaries Lake Avenue North & Battlefield Creek (Huckleberry Drive) Drawing 3 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Catchment Boundaries Barton Street and Battlefield Creek/Stoney Creek Drawing 4 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Catchment Boundaries Lake Avenue North and Battlefield Creek (Warrington Street) Drawing 5 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Catchment Boundaries Queenston Road and Battlefield Creek Drawing 6 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Quality Facility Lake Avenue North and Battlefield Creek (Huckleberry Drive) Drawing 7 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Quality Facility Barton Street and Battlefield Creek/Stoney Creek Drawing 8 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Quality Facility Lake Avenue North and Battlefield Creek (Warrington Street) Drawing 9 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Quality Facility Queenston Road and Battlefield Creek Drawing 10 Retrofit Stormwater Outlet Quality Facility Highway 8 and Fruitland Road




1. INTRODUCTION The former City of Stoney Creek is one of the oldest communities in Southern Ontario, with parts of the community dating back to early 1800’s. As such urban development form and support infrastructure spans a significant period, in terms of its type and associated design approach. In 1991, the Province introduced its stormwater quality management guidelines, as interim policy to address potential impacts on water resources resulting from new urban development. The approach to planning and designing stormwater management practices (SWMP’s), particularly those directed at stormwater quality control, became more formalized in 1994, with the publication of “Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual”, Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), subsequently the Ministry of Environment (MOE), “Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2000 Draft and 2003. The former City of Stoney Creek has a long history of effectively managing the quantity of runoff from its urban lands through flood plain management, channelization, flood control storage and infrastructure upgrades. Given the proximity of Lake Ontario, to the majority of the urban core, the philosophy of draining urban lands quickly and efficiently to the Lake has been prevalent in the former City’s approach to stormwater management. Floodline mapping produced for the former City of Stoney Creek in the late 1980’s through the Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Plan highlighted flood prone areas in the existing and future development areas. Concurrently, two Master Drainage Plans were prepared, one for the Industrial Corridor and the other for the Winona Urban Area, to effectively optimize and improve existing drainage networks in the context of future development potential (including the recently completed QEW widening). Notwithstanding, neither plan addressed the issue of stormwater quality and associated resource management. Recently however, the former City has participated (either as stakeholder or proponent) in what could be termed the next generation of stormwater management studies, which concurrently examine stormwater quantity and quality impact mitigation opportunities. These initiatives have to-date taken on a neighbourhood assessment approach, as opposed to watershed or Citywide. Neighbourhoods which have been assessed include Trillium, Felker, Nash and others in the Heritage Green development area. The concern that City of Hamilton staff has with the Neighbourhood approach is that depending on the size of the neighbourhood, possible watershed or subwatershed issues may not be appropriately addressed. This problem or concern would be even worse for infill developments, small-scale development or areas where no master drainage plan exists (i.e. for stormwater quality management).


Another concern of the City of Hamilton is that addressing stormwater quality impacts from new development only addresses part of the problem. The bigger issue by far, is the impact from past (historical) development, constructed prior to the requirement for stormwater quality controls (pre 1991). It is considered probable that significant opportunities exist to remediate and restore areas of poor water quality in the existing urban developed areas, which would provide a greater benefit than addressing impacts from new development on a site by site basis. In fact, in certain new development circumstances, it may be preferable to contribute monies equal to the cost of on-site measures, to address existing problem areas rather than new development impact mitigation. One of the basic rationales regarding the foregoing approach is that it needs to be resource and scale specific. This means that higher quality resources or those with potential should be given a management priority. Similarly, reasonable scale specific alternatives should be considered for smaller or infill developments. Through this study, the City of Hamilton has had the opportunity to review and address the concerns noted, as well as others that would be raised during the comprehensive site by site review. The outcome of the study has included the siting of management facilities, within the former City of Stoney Creek for the control of stormwater quality from lands to be developed, as well as retrofit opportunities for past development, in accordance with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The potential of this approach is a system of controls that achieves the removal of contaminants from a much larger land area at the same cost to the development industry and the City of Hamilton. Study Goals and Objectives: Goal: To develop stormwater quality management strategy for the former City of Stoney Creek Objectives: (iv) To maintain and/or enhance the existing stream system water quality through the

implementation of appropriate stormwater management practices. (v) To develop a master plan for stormwater quality management that ensures no net loss of

habitat (and recovers “lost” habitat, where feasible) and addresses the social, physical, and economic constraints and opportunities.

(vi) To ensure the stormwater quality management plan is in compliance with all applicable legislation and all agency mandates, requirements and policies.


2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Study Area The study area encompasses the watershed area of the various drainage systems within the former City of Stoney Creek. The watercourses in this study include: • Battlefield Creek • Stoney Creek • Watercourses 0 to 11 (Watercourse 11 has been included as part of Watercourse 10 due to the

existing residential development which has effectively removed the boundary between Watercourses 10.2 and 11)

• Fifty Creek (Watercourse 12) The Forty Mile Creek has been excluded from the study as the existing land use within this watershed is largely rural agricultural and will not change as a result of the current Official Plan Land Use. The Red Hill Creek (Upper Davis Creek – Felkers Falls) has also been excluded from the study, as it is the subject of a current separate study as of April 2004, which will address similar issues as this Master Plan. The drainage limits of each of the drainage systems are illustrated in Figure 1. The majority of historical development has taken place in the western limit of the study area, below the Escarpment. Development to the east is centred about Winona for residential and from Fruitland to McNeilly, south of the QEW for industrial. To the southwest, the Heritage Green development comprises the most significant future development potential in the former City of Stoney Creek. The lands below the Escarpment generally drain from south to north (Lake Ontario) at relatively mild gradients. Flood plains due to heavy rainfall tend to be shallow and wide. Existing watercourses, particularly south of the QEW have been significantly altered due to urbanization and agriculture, including realignment, channelization, armouring, enclosure and loss of riparian vegetation. In addition, in many locations, land use adjacent to the watercourses has significantly encroached the riparian zones; land use management practices, in some areas are less than ideal. The Natural Areas Inventory completed in 1993 by Hamilton Naturalist’s Club as well as the recent Greenlands Inventory and Strategy produced by the former City of Stoney Creek, identify in varying degrees the significance of certain terrestrial features within the Municipality. In addition to the foregoing, the MTO, as part of the QEW widening planning and design in the early 1990’s, completed an inventory of primary streams from the QEW to Lake Ontario. The Hamilton Conservation Authority commissioned a Class Environmental Assessment of the Fifty Creek in 1997/98 for which information is available which also benefits this study. Past studies have confirmed that the mid and upper reaches of most of these streams do not contain fish. This is presumably due to a combination of intermittent flow, barriers to access, and possibly, but not necessarily, habitat degradation.


In addition to the watercourses, there are “dynamic beaches” at the mouths of Stoney Creek, Fifty Creek, and at Community Beach which probably did, and may still, provide important spawning and nursery habitats to some fish species from Lake Ontario. 2.2 Background Information A number of engineering and environmental studies have been reviewed as part of the current study. These studies have been provided by the former City of Stoney Creek, or have been obtained from the internal files of Philips Engineering Ltd. Each of the reports included in the review is listed in Appendix ‘A’. 2.3 Study Methodology This study has necessarily involved various stakeholders including the Hamilton Conservation Authority, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment, City of Hamilton and various Municipal departments. In addition, the General Public, Development Groups and interest groups have been involved for input and comment. As such, this study has followed the procedures outlined in the June 2000 “Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document” as described within Section 7.2.1.1 of this report. The study has proceeded in conformance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Planning and Design Process for Municipal Class Environment Assessment Projects, intended to represent a Master Plan as defined in the Class Environmental Assessment document. The study has been conducted in three stages: • Stage 1 – Background Review and Study Area Inventory • Stage 2 –Assessment of Management Opportunities for Existing and Future Conditions • Stage 3 – Preferred Solution and Implementation Strategy The study documents the existing conditions and significance of all watercourses and their associated habitats. The natural and anthropogenic processes, which determine these existing conditions, have been described. The potential effects of a range of future options for stormwater management have been assessed, and a comprehensive plan developed which optimizes the future benefits.


3. STUDY AREA INVENTORY 3.1 Land Use Conversion of undeveloped lands to urban land use is one of the primary determinants with respect to stormwater quality impacts on aquatic resources; future land use also influences opportunities to manage these impacts. Typically the process of land use conversion also provides the Municipality with the opportunity to ensure that stormwater quality impacts are addressed in accordance with the accepted standards of the day. The existing and proposed land uses set the context for the consideration of all other issues, hence, discussion of proposed land use is presented first in this report to context the discussion of other resources. As part of this study, it is intended to examine three land use cases: • Existing land use (2002) • Official Plan land use (future) • Ultimate land use (longer term future land use)

The existing land use has been provided in digital format by the former City of Stoney Creek, and has been incorporated into the database of information used in this study. Figure 2 illustrates the existing land use in the study area. Existing Land Use The land use information provided by the former City of Stoney Creek and the City of Hamilton has been categorized and consolidated into a number of broad land use categories. This approach simplifies the analysis of water quality impacts, which can be estimated on the basis of broad land use types. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the various land uses determined through the analysis of the digital data base information.

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE (ha)

Watercourse Total Area (ha)

AGRIC RES RES-H1. COM IND INST OPEN HWY/Roads

WC0 221.3 0.00 73.20 4.10 20.90 75.89 11.30 26.89 9.00

WC1 330.2 31.70 145.00 12.50 7.80 45.10 8.10 70.00 10.00

WC2 282.6 0.00 147.00 1.00 5.50 62.00 9.30 50.80 7.00

WC3 189.5 0.00 67.90 6.50 3.30 65.60 4.40 34.80 7.00

WC4 375.5 77.85 125.70 8.20 2.00 41.00 17.85 85.85 17.00

WC5 582.2 201.70 87.60 8.98 7.66 90.72 12.23 159.32 14.00

WC6 69.3 8.20 19.90 0.00 0.00 18.10 0.00 18.05 5.00

WC7 418.9 194.30 59.90 17.30 2.00 16.30 9.90 109.16 10.00

WC9 562.3 225.21 118.59 0.00 19.40 22.60 8.80 154.15 13.50

WC10/11 201.0 40.41 97.76 0.00 8.21 0.24 0.00 40.41 14.00

WC12 637.3 351.38 76.40 0.10 9.30 3.50 1.30 185.85 9.50

SC & BFC2. 2918.2 1822.34 321.37 42.09 90.44 95.85 22.98 507.16 16.00

Total 6788.2 2953.09 1340.32 100.77 176.51 536.91 106.16 1442.44 132.00 1. RES-H High Density Residential 2. SC & BFC: Stoney Creek and Battlefield Creek


Proposed Future (Official Plan) Land Use Proposed Future (Official Plan) land use has not been available in digital form through the Municipality; rather it has been established through comparison of hard copy Official Plan Land Use to the existing land use information. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed land use and primary changes in proposed land use. While some land uses shown on Figure 3 are not consistent with the existing Stoney Creek Official Plan, assumptions have been made as to potential future land uses so that the proper magnitude of development can be determined. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 provide a summary of the changes in land use for each subwatershed area.

TABLE 3.2 CHANGES IN LAND USE (ha) RESULTING FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (OP)

Watercourse AGRIC RES RES-H COM IND INST OPEN HWY/ Roads TOTAL

WC0 0.00 -1.25 0.00 1.38 2.05 3.24 -5.42 0.00 0.00

WC1 0.00 -1.00 5.40 0.00 2.60 0.00 -7.00 0.00 0.00

WC2 0.00 -0.50 6.10 2.00 0.70 1.40 -9.70 0.00 0.00

WC3 0.00 -2.80 0.00 5.20 5.60 1.70 -9.70 0.00 0.00

WC4 -6.90 -1.60 0.00 3.70 19.70 1.30 -16.20 0.00 0.00

WC5 -59.17 66.47 1.61 24.78 35.92 -8.82 -60.79 0.00 0.00

WC6 -7.90 20.17 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 -12.77 0.00 0.00

WC7 -14.70 -5.30 0.00 0.00 60.35 0.00 -40.35 0.00 0.00

WC9 -56.80 38.86 0.00 5.00 65.85 0.00 -52.91 0.00 0.00

WC10/11 -40.41 28.61 0.00 25.27 7.37 1.24 -22.08 0.00 0.00

WC12 -16.10 19.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.20 0.00 0.00

SC & BFC -20.87 23.87 0.00 2.00 -1.00 0.50 -4.50 0.00 0.00

TOTAL -222.85 184.83 13.11 69.83 199.14 0.56 -244.62 0.00 0.00

TABLE 3.3

% CHANGES IN LAND USE RESULTING FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (OP)

Watercourse AGRIC RES RES-H COM IND INST OPEN HWY/Roads WC0 0.00 -1.71 0.00 6.60 2.70 28.67 -20.16 0.00

WC1 0.00 -0.69 43.20 0.00 5.76 0.00 -10.00 0.00

WC2 0.00 -0.34 610.00 36.36 1.13 15.05 -19.09 0.00

WC3 0.00 -4.12 0.00 157.58 8.54 38.64 -27.87 0.00

WC4 -8.86 -1.27 0.00 185.00 48.05 7.28 -18.87 0.00

WC5 -29.34 75.88 17.93 323.50 39.59 -72.12 -38.16 0.00

WC6 -96.34 101.36 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 -70.75 0.00

WC7 -7.57 -8.85 0.00 0.00 370.25 0.00 -36.96 0.00

WC9 -25.22 32.77 0.00 25.77 291.37 0.00 -34.32 0.00

WC10/11 -100.00 29.27 0.00 307.80 3020.49 NA -54.64 0.00

WC12 -4.58 25.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.72 0.00

SC & BFC -1.15 7.43 0.00 2.21 -1.04 2.18 -0.89 0.00

An assessment of the amount of infill land development and public land has also been undertaken with the following rationale:


• Infill developments typically feature smaller parcel sizes. In many instances the infrastructure

planned and constructed to service these sites is incompatible with current stormwater management standards. In addition, these parcels are often located in heavily urbanized areas where significant water quality impacts have historically occurred. Hence, infill developments provide a primary opportunity for consideration of off-site, rather than on-site stormwater management.

• Public lands and vacant lands, in conjunction with storm sewer outfall locations provide an indication where retrofit stormwater management facilities may be considered, for initial screening.

Using the digital database, an estimate of the total infill development lands within the study area has been made. This estimate has been based on a “first order” review of the parcels less than 5 ha in size within the urban boundary with the exclusion of lands within the Upper Davis subwatershed. The associated infill potential for the study area has been reviewed and is documented within Table 7.1. The infill development is distributed throughout the Community of Stoney Creek, with the highest potential within the drainage areas of Watercourses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and Stoney Creek and Battlefield Creek. In addition Watercourse 5 north of Barton Street contains potential areas for infill development to occur. Ultimate Land Use At this time a definition of the “ultimate” land use within the study area has not been obtained from the City of Hamilton’s Planning and Development Department. City of Hamilton staff are currently reviewing the policies of the former City of Stoney Creek Official Plan, in conjunction with the other former area municipalities’ Official Plans, with the intent of creating a new Officia l Plan for the amalgamated City of Hamilton which will provide further direction on development within the former City of Stoney Creek.

3.1.1 Findings and Constraints In summary, the proposed changes in land use (Official Plan) would primarily be focussed within the following areas: • Primary residential development would occur in Watercourse 10/11 (28 ha), Watercourse 9

(39 ha), Watercourse 5 (66 ha) and Watercourse 12/Fifty Creek (19 ha). Residential development within Watercourse 10/11 is currently ongoing within the Fifty Road Joint Venture Subdivision and incorporates a stormwater quality facility as per the Fifty Road Joint Venture Inc Stormwater Management Implementation Report, November 1999.

• Primary industrial development would occur in Watercourse 7 (60 ha), Watercourse 5 (36 ha), Watercourse 9 (66 ha) and Watercourse 4 (20 ha)

• Development within the drainage areas of Watercourses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and Stoney and Battlefield Creeks would primarily be infill development (totalling 64.6 ha +/-). Watercourse 5 north of Barton Street contains potential areas for infill development to occur.


3.2 Aquatic Resources

3.2.1 Background Review Fish collection information was assembled from the 1997 work undertaken by Beak International Incorporated in support of the Fifty Creek Flood and Erosion Control Project, as well as from the 1999 Stoney Creek Fisheries Assessment undertaken by the Hamilton Conservation Authority. These data were used in conjunction with the 1999 fish collections undertaken in support of this study, to characterize fisheries resources in the former City of Stoney Creek. Fifty Creek and Lake Ontario fish and fish habitat information from 1978 and 1979 was reviewed. Collections on 14 occasions throughout the open water period in 1979 using standard methods at established locations, provided data with which to evaluate the contribution made by intermittent watercourses to the aquatic environment. Even though the creek was reduced to standing pools during that year, large numbers of young-of-the-year fishes survived in those pools and apparently migrated back to Lake Ontario in the fall, when flow resumed. There was no existing benthic invertebrate information from these watercourses in the former City of Stoney Creek.

3.2.2 Field Inventory An initial field reconnaissance was undertaken on October 14, 1998. One of the purposes of this visit was to document the flow conditions within the many stream reaches. It was thought that this would accurately establish which reaches were permanently flowing, since a severe drought through the summer of 1998 had still not abated at that time. Permanence of flow is an important factor for both fish and benthic communities, and thus the value of particular aquatic habitats. Other objectives of this initial reconnaissance were to identify barriers to fish movement and migration and to delineate the primary types and characteristics of aquatic habitat within the study area. Benthic Invertebrates The information gleaned during the reconnaissance was used to identify candidate benthic invertebrate sampling locations within urban areas, as well as candidate reference locations uninfluenced by urbanization. If available, local reference locations would have been used to characterize “expected” benthic communities. However, during both the October 1998 reconnaissance survey and the field collections in November and December 1998, no appropriate reference locations were identified. All non-urbanized streams or ponds within the vicinity of the Community of Stoney Creek were either dry or were influenced by vineyards and orchards. Vineyards and orchards are known to have severe impacts on water quality and benthic communities (Barton, 1996). They would therefore not be suitable as reference locations.


Fourteen stream sites were selected for the benthic community survey (ref. Figure 4). They were selected primarily on the basis of there being flowing water at the time of the survey and natural substrates. During the planning stage of this benthic study, there was some interest in obtaining benthic data from the various ephemeral (dry) streams. Using benthos to characterize water quality of ephemeral streams is problematic because taxa that are typically associated with impaired conditions are often dominant at ephemeral sites, even if water quality is reasonably good (Credit Valley Conservation et al., 1997; Barton and Farmer, 1997). The use of indicator organisms to classify the water quality of ephemeral sites is, therefore, questionable. Some streams in the Community of Stoney Creek are now concrete channels, especially the smaller streams flowing under the QEW. As with the ephemeral streams, using benthos to characterize the quality of water flowing through concrete channels is problematic because there are no data to characterize unimpaired benthic communities living in concrete channels. Diversity of benthos in these concrete channels will be low because of low habitat diversity. Any interpretation of water quality based on indicator benthic organisms would inevitably lead to a conclusion of impairment, even if water quality was reasonably good. With the larger streams (e.g. Stoney Creek), multiple stations were selected in order to provide some spatial characterization of water quality. Benthos were collected from two ponds: the first at Confederation Park, the second at Community Beach. The pond at Confederation Park receives flows from Stoney Creek, while the pond at Community Beach receives flows from a small, unnamed creek (ref. Figure 4). Stream benthos were collected on November 19, 1998, and pond benthos were collected on December 2, 1998. At some of the sites, flows were so low that collection of benthos was difficult. Since this was an unusually dry year, such extreme low flows should not be routine. Fish and Fish Habitat Fish sampling sites were selected in the spring of 1999, based on the observations made during the fall of 1998. The spring fish collections, combined with additional spring observations of habitat and fish spawning activity at the Lake Ontario stream mouths and at upstream locations, helped determine where fishing effort was directed during the mid-summer fish collections. Fish collections were undertaken on April 7, and again on July 7, 1999. This provided fish community information during periods of both cool and warm water temperatures, as well as for both high and low stream flows. Most of the migratory fishes that would be expected in warm water streams adjacent to Lake Ontario would likely be observed during early April. During July, most fishes have finished spawning and larval or juvenile fishes, which are indicative of important spawning and nursery areas might be observed or captured. Fish were collected using a Smith-Root Model XII backpack electrofisher. All representative aquatic habitats within the vicinity of a location were fished for a sufficient length of time and area of coverage until no new fish species were being captured. Fish, which could not be identified in the field, were preserved in 10% formalin for later identification using a microscope and the appropriate taxonomic literature.


3.2.3 Findings and Constraints

Rationale/Description for the Evaluation of Findings

Ø Benthic Invertebrates The lack of suitable reference streams or ponds in the vicinity of the Community of Stoney Creek makes interpretation of the benthic community data somewhat more challenging. Local reference streams and ponds would have provided the opportunity to characterize background benthic communities that would normally be present in the absence of urban development. Interpreting the condition (“health”) of benthic communities in the streams and ponds of the Community of Stoney Creek can be accomplished using indicator species. Some taxa such as the midge Chironomus and the worm Tubifex tubifex tend to be abundant only in severely degraded habitats. Other taxa are indicative of moderate impairment, while others are indicative of unimpaired conditions (e.g., many mayflies and stoneflies). Such information on indicator taxa is available in the extensive literature on benthic communities from streams and ponds. There is even a reasonably large base of literature on the benthos from urban stormwater ponds. Indices of community composition are other metrics which are commonly used to assess the health of benthic invertebrate communities. These are often based on the proportion of various species present and the known or perceived sensitivity of those species to various water quality parameters. There is a considerable body of literature available on various indices for stream benthos, but little for ponds.

Ø Fish and Fish Habitat Base flow is obviously very important to fish communities. If streams dry completely, the fish which are present die, and if they dry to standing pools the extreme physical environment is fatal to many species. If water is available, temperature is probably the most important factor affecting fish communities (Hynes, 1970), followed by other factors including water velocity, substrate and the availability of suitable shelter (Hynes, 1970). Dissolved oxygen is also of importance, but it is strongly linked to stream flow and water temperature. In the absence of human influences the chemical content of water appears to be of rela tively minor importance (Hynes, 1970). However, human inputs of oxygen demanding substances, toxic chemicals and sediment can alter fish communities directly, or indirectly through their effect on organisms on which fish feed. Barriers to fish movement or migration are also important considerations when evaluating habitat or fish populations. Barriers can limit the amount of available spawning habitat for migratory species, and they can reduce the capacity of a local fish community to recover from severe environmental events by blocking re-population routes.


The species of fish collected in each watercourse also provides some information of the quality of environmental conditions. Certain fish are more tolerant of certain environmental conditions than others. It is often difficult, however, to separate the impacts of water quality from the effects of physical parameters such as temperature. The assessment of these factors provides criteria for the evaluation of fish communities and fish habitat. Findings Figure 4 details benthos and fish sampling locations, and classifies stream habitat into eight types. Stream habitat types are classed as: • Perennial streams with natural channel form • Perennial streams which have been channelized • Streams in concrete channels • Streams in terrablock channels • Intermittent watercourses with natural channel form • Intermittent watercourses which have been channelized or straightened • Swales (no defined channel and vegetated or cultivated through watercourse) • Buried in concrete culvert. Benthic Invertebrates

Ø Stream Benthos The stream benthic communities were comprised of 53 taxa representing the Hirudinea (leeches), Oligochaeta (worms), Chironomidae (midges), Gastropoda (snails), Bivalvia (clams), Isopoda (sowbugs), Amphipoda (scuds), Ostracoda (seed shrimp), Coleoptera (beetles), Ceratopogonidae (no see ums), Simuliidae (black flies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies), Nematoda, Nemertea and Platyhelminthes (flatworms) (ref. Appendix B). The most common benthic animals in the streams were Oligochaete worms and chironomids. Benthic communities from streams in the Community of Stoney Creek were generally impaired. The number of Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera (EPT) taxa was low (≤ 3) at all stations, with many streams having no mayflies, stoneflies or caddisflies (Stations 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14). Stoneflies (Paracapnia angulata), which typically indicate cold, clean water, were found at only a single station (3) just downstream from the Escarpment. Appendix B (ref. Table 3) provides values for a number of indices in the Community of Stoney Creek watercourses.


Most of the impairment in the Community of Stoney Creek watercourses may be due to changes in water temperature. The BioMAP water quality index was shown to be unusually low at all sites except Station 3. Barton and Kilgour (1999) showed that the BioMAP index was correlated with stream temperatures. In contrast to the BioMAP index, the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index was unusually high at only about half the stations (ref. Table 3, Appendix B). The Hilsenhoff index was designed to reflect nutrient status with high values indicating enrichment (Hilsenhoff, 1988). Given that most of the stations showed impairment with the BioMAP index, but not necessarily with the Hilsenhoff index, changes in thermal regimes may have been more likely the cause of changes in the benthic community.

Ø Pond Benthos The pond benthic communities were represented by only 11 taxa from the Oligochaeta, Chironomidae, Chaoboridae (phantom midges), and Ephemeroptera (a single baetid mayfly in Stoney Creek Pond). In general, the benthic communities of both ponds suggested severe impairment. There were no mayflies, clams, snails or amphipods, all of which can be expected in ponds that are 0.5 to 1 m deep. From three Ekman samples, there was only a single baetid mayfly in Stoney Creek Pond, but unimpaired ponds should have considerably larger numbers (Voshell and Simmons, 1984; Wayland, 1991). The most dominant organisms by far were Oligochaeta (especially tubificids) and Chironomidae. Both groups are typically dominant in lake and pond environments where there is nutrient enrichment (Carr and Hiltunen, 1965; Johnson and Matheson, 1968) and/or sedimentation (Johnson et al., 1993). Large numbers of chironomids and oligochaetes are common in stormwater retention ponds (Free and Mulamoottil, 1983). Fish and Fish Habitat The results of the fish sampling are presented in Appendix B (ref. Table 4). Fish communities within the watercourses and ponds of the former City of Stoney Creek are typical of most small urban watersheds in southern Ontario, and were dominated by white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), and brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans). A few other species were collected in low numbers at isolated locations. Four of these are typical lake or pond species which were captured in ponds or streams in close proximity to Lake Ontario [i.e. rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)], while two are typical stream species that were found in only a couple of locations [creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and central mudminnow (Umbra limi)]. Of those species collected upstream of habitats adjacent to Lake Ontario (white sucker, fathead minnow, brook stickleback, creek chub, and central mudminnow), all can withstand periods of low flow in which the stream habitat is reduced to isolated pools. These fish can survive relatively high temperatures and low oxygen, with the central mudminnow being capable of gulping air when dissolved oxygen levels are extremely low (Scott and Crossman, 1973).


Fathead minnows dominated the fish community in the Community Beach Pond, as well as being present at many other sites in the former City of Stoney Creek. Fathead minnows are apparently intolerant of competition from other fishes, and are generally common only in low-diversity communities (Hubbs and Cooper, 1936, and Starrett, 1950 In Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Trautman, 1981). Several rainbow trout were observed in the Stoney Creek watercourse over a redd in gravel substrate, immedia tely upstream of the CNR bridge, on April 7, 1999. Anecdotal observations related to the field investigators during this study, suggest that stocked salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) from Lake Ontario migrate up Stoney Creek during some fall seasons when flow conditions permit. This is typical for streams which flow into Lake Ontario, where both rainbow trout and chinook salmon are stocked each year. However, given the warm summer water temperatures it is unlikely that the progeny of these introduced salmonids survive. Contributions by the streams of the Community of Stoney Creek to fish production in Lake Ontario are made through providing spawning and nursery habitat to fish, which spend their adult life in Lake Ontario. White sucker were observed on their spawning migration in Stoney Creek and Battlefield Creek during April 1999, and YOY (young-of-the-year) white suckers were captured in Stoney and Battlefield Creeks, Watercourse 7, and Fifty Creek. Though not considered a game fish, white suckers are important forage fishes, providing food for a wide variety of predatory fishes (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The presence of complete or partial barriers (temporary or permanent), and variations in stream flow and weather during the spawning run and through the nursery period, determine the success of year classes. In Fifty Creek the small number of YOY white suckers in 1999 was likely a function of the year-long drought that was in progress, along with an intermittent barrier at the mouth of the creek. In contrast, during 1978 and 1979 the pools of Fifty Creek had large numbers of YOY white suckers, and in the early 1980’s conditions allowed spawning white suckers to penetrate almost as far upstream as Winona Road, which is almost 2 km farther than usual. Lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) were not observed during this study, however, during March 1978 and 1979 large numbers of adult lake chub migrated up Fifty Creek to spawn. During the summer of those two years YOY lake chub could be found in the isolated pools of Fifty Creek. None could be found in the creek soon after it began to flow again in September, when they presumably migrated to Lake Ontario. During 1979 the YOY were found in Fifty Creek in approximately equal numbers to white suckers. It is likely that this species also utilizes Stoney Creek, and possibly some of the other streams examined during this study. It is possible that the low stream flow that was evident during 1999 had impacted migrations, or that the beaver dam between Barton and the CNR tracks on Stoney Creek, and the perched culvert at the outlet of Fifty Creek, denied this species access to these streams.

3.2.4 Assessment of Proposed Development Stormwater Quality Impacts Figure 4 classifies particular reaches based upon anticipated benefits to aquatic resources that may result from improvement of water quality. The following discussion pertains to those assessed as receiving the greatest potential benefit from water quality improvements or protection from further degradation.


It should be noted that the following listed streams, except Watercourse 7, would benefit from increases in base flow. Greater quantity of base flow would increase the amount of habitat available, and would have a moderating effect upon water quality and in-stream temperature. Stoney and Battlefield Creeks In Stoney Creek, water quality improved from upstream at Benthic Sampling Station 5 to downstream at Benthic Sampling Station 4, (ref. Figure No. 4). Benthic communities just downstream of the Escarpment at Station 5 were dominated by worms and chironomids suggesting nutrient enrichment. Further downstream at Station 4, benthic communities were dominated by isopods and amphipods suggesting a recovery from organic enrichment. Agricultural activities upstream on the Escarpment may have been the source of nutrients, although flow from above the Escarpment had likely been non-existent since spring 1998. Stoney Creek could benefit from improvements in water quality. In Battlefield Creek, benthic communities suggested only minor changes in water quality with distance downstream. At the upstream station, 3 benthos were dominated by worms, isopods and amphipods. Downstream at Station 2, benthos were dominated by worms, isopods, amphipods and snails. The increased importance of snails downstream implies greater algal growths, potentially reflecting less vegetative canopy. Otherwise, the benthos do not suggest any significant differences in water quality. Battlefield Creek should be protected from water quality degradation. Community Beach Pond The benthic and fish communities in Community Beach Pond were of low diversity. Few fish were captured and the dominant species was fathead minnow. As discussed in Section 3.2.3 above, fathead minnows are typically found in high numbers where there is little competition from other fish species. The benthos were dominated by worms and midges indicating a community highly tolerant of polluted conditions. Community Beach Pond has large potential for improvement with changes in water quality. Watercourse 7 The analysis of benthos indicates that water quality improves in a downstream direction in Watercourse 7. Since all of the baseflow in this stream originates from a discharge from the E.D. Smith & Sons factory, the observed water quality gradient might be a result of assimilative processes within the creek improving the water quality with distance from the discharge point. Habitat within this stream is fairly diverse, though it is likely that this watercourse was straightened in the past. Without the factory discharge this stream would likely go dry during summer, therefore, improvements to water quality should be explored (either source treatment or pond or marsh treatment after discharge but near the source) while attempting to maintain the existing flow. With water quality stability, this watercourse has the potential to become good fish habitat, though artificially sustained.


Watercourse 9 Though recently modified, the lower portion of Watercourse 9 (from the North Service Road to Lake Ontario) has habitat structure and perennial flow that might supply spawning and nursery habitat for fish that are resident in Lake Ontario as adults. Only two YOY threespine stickleback, typically a lake species, were captured here. Analysis of benthos indicated that the water quality was reasonably good compared to many locations examined during this study, however, additional protection or enhancement of water quality would benefit this watercourse reach and potentially increase its contribution to the Lake Ontario ecosystem. Fifty Creek Water quality in Fifty Creek was generally poor as indicated by the benthic invertebrate community analysis, despite the fact that this watercourse has significantly long sections of natural channel and a generally rural watershed. The incomplete sewer coverage of this area may be the cause of the poor water quality. Combined with low or intermittent stream flow, this has exacerbated problems such as low oxygen levels and anaerobic sediments. During 1979 it was observed (Coker pers. observation) that some pools had gone anaerobic, and contained no fish. Connecting all residences adjacent to this watercourse to the sewers would improve water quality. Orchards, which also have significant effects on benthos (Barton, 1996), were also in moderate numbers within Fifty Creek. 3.3 Hydrogeology

3.3.1 Background Hydrogeology is the study of the movement of water through the ground and the interaction of this groundwater with surface water. It is important to understand the inter-relationship between the hydrogeologic conditions and the subwatershed ecosystem in order to assess and develop targets and controls for potential land use changes. It is important to understand how hydrogeologic cond itions influence the water movement and the hydrologic cycle. Water from precipitation percolates or infiltrates into the ground until it reaches the water table. Areas where water moves downward and away from the water table are known as recharge areas. These areas are generally in areas of topographically high relief. Areas where groundwater moves upwards towards the water table are known as discharge areas. These generally occur in areas of topographically low relief, such as stream valleys. Groundwater that discharges to streams is the water that maintains the baseflow of the stream. Wetlands are often fed by groundwater discharge. There are different types and rates of recharge and discharge. Water percolating into the ground at a specific location may discharge to a small stream a short distance away. This is local recharge and local discharge. Some water may recharge a certain area and discharge to a larger river basin a long way from the source of recharge. This is known as regional recharge and regional discharge.


Permeable geologic materials through which groundwater moves are known as aquifers. Aquifers are "water bearing" formations meaning that water can be easily extracted from these units. The less permeable units are known as aquitards, and although water can move through these units, it moves slowly and it is difficult to extract water from these units. How these aquifers are connected within a hydrogeologic setting is what controls much of the movement of groundwater. A delineation of the flow system(s) in this way will identify where groundwater originates, where it discharges and the most prominent paths it travels between these points (e.g. the aquifer pathways or more permeable hydrostratigraphic units). Having done this, one can assess the relative sensitivity of the linkage from the groundwater system to the aquatic or terrestrial systems. Knowing the level of sensitivity of the receptor one can determine the impacts of particular types and scales of land uses or land use changes on the groundwater flow system and other linked ecosystem components. Best management practices can then be developed to prevent unacceptable impacts from occurring. The overall objectives of the hydrogeological inventory component of the stormwater quality strategy are to: • Identify the geological and hydrogeological setting for the study area watershed and • Identify the linkages between the watershed’s hydrogeology and hydrology A background review, assessment and selected compilation of existing data included: • Published government maps and reports (i.e. geological, hydrogeological, water surveys,

etc.) • Reports of previous hydrogeological studies carried out within the study area • Published scientific and technical papers

3.3.2 Field Inventory In order to fill in the data gaps and refine the hydrogeological understanding determined through the background review, detailed streamflow measurements were carried out to assess baseflow quantities at selected streamflow measurement locations. Spot baseflow measurements were taken throughout the study area on September 17, 1999 and November 1, 1999, June 8, 2001 and September 18, 2001. The measurement locations are shown on Figure 5. Spot baseflow measurements are used to determine the distribution of baseflow within the watershed. Based on the distribution of volumetric flow along the watercourses within the study area it is possible to determine the general locations of groundwater discharge areas.


The streamflow method used was a cross-sectional velocity survey. This method gives an accurate site-specific representation of streamflow conditions at the time of measurement. In order to accurately compare streamflow measurements taken along a tributary or the entire system the measurements must be taken within a short time span; preferably the same day in unchanging (dry) weather conditions. This technique involves first measuring the total width of the stream (width of water surface) at each location. The water depth is then measured at regular intervals across the stream. The water velocity is also measured at each of these points. The velocity is generally measured at 0.6 water depth for streams 30 cm or less in depth and at 0.2 and 0.8 water depth for streams greater than 30 cm deep. The depth, velocity and distance (from stream-edge) for each measuring point are recorded in the field along with the total stream width. The first and last measurements are taken at the respective stream edges. Allowance is made in the choice of measuring points for changes in water velocity, sudden changes in stream depth, etc., in order to increase the accuracy of the technique. For example, if the stream depth is relatively constant across a portion of the stream but the velocity is noted to change significantly within a short distance (i.e. most of the streamflow occurs within a short interval) then measurement points are located at the velocity transition points. The total streamflow is then calculated using the “mean-section” method. This method calculates the cross-sectional area of the “panel” between measuring points, and the average velocity within that panel using the two end-point velocity measurements. Where the water depth is sufficient to require two measurements (0.2 and 0.8 depth), the average of these two measurements is used to represent the velocity at that point. The area and velocity are multiplied to obtain a flux (discharge). The summation of the flux across the panels equals the total stream discharge at that location at that time. The width and depth measurements are recorded in metres (m) and the velocity measurements are recorded in metres per second (m/s). The calculation results in a flux in cubic metres per second (m3/s) which is converted to litres per second (L/s) for the purposes of this study. The measurement locations were determined based on the identification of areas of interest as well as access and suitability. The measurement locations were generally road crossings or other easily accessible stream reaches. The measurement point within the channel at each location was located to minimize the influence of such factors as turbulence, blockages, vegetation growth, channel meander, etc.

3.3.3 Findings and Constraints Physiography The study area straddles three physiographic regions based on interpretations by Chapman and Putnam (i) The Haldimand Clay Plain (ii) The Niagara Escarpment and (iii) the Iroquois Plain. The Haldimand Clay Plain is generally flat to rolling. The soils consist of clay and silt sediments draped over a series of subdued moraines. The Vinemount Moraine and Niagara Falls Moraine transect the Haldimand Clay Plain parallel to the Niagara Escarpment accounting for some of the local relief. The southern limit of the watershed is delineated in part by the Niagara Falls Moraine which serves as a groundwater divide between Twenty Mile Creek, Forty Mile Creek


and the study area. The Niagara Escarpment represents a significant physiographic region which extends as a band across Ontario from Niagara Falls to the east to the Bruce Peninsula to the northwest. The Niagara Escarpment is capped with a resistant dolostone of the Lockport Formation which is typified by a steep rock bluff above a talus till covered slope. Soil cover along the crest of this feature is limited whereas soils at its base can be in the order of 15 m thick. Bedrock is very close to ground surface through a large portion of the study area below the Niagara Escarpment. Above the Niagara Escarpment overburden is generally less than 8 m thick except in the morainic areas. The Iroquois Plain represents a north sloping plain with several stranded shoreline features located between the Niagara Escarpment and present day Lake Ontario. Total surface relief for the watershed is in the order of 140 m, most of which is due to the height of the Niagara Escarpment which is approximately 70 m. Surficial Geology The Haldimand Clay Plain, on top of the Niagara Escarpment, consists of glaciolacustrine clay and silt deposits overlying the Vinemount and Niagara Falls Moraines. These moraines consist of Halton Till which were deposited during the Port Huron Stage of the late Wisconsinan Stage. The overlying clay and silt were deposited shortly thereafter during the same stage at the northern margin of an extensive preglacial lake, Lake Warren. The Iroquois Plain, below the Niagara Escarpment, consists of up to 25m of Halton Till deposited onto the Queenston Shale or the Escarpment rock during the same era as the moraines above the Escarpment. Following retreat of the Ontario lobe of the glacier the area below the Escarpment was exposed and resubmerged on various occasions. Based on the depositional history of this area it is interpreted that the Halton till had not yet been penetrated at this location and the interbedded sand and silts were likely deposited when the area was submerged by Lake Iroquois. Bedrock Geology Bedrock geology in the area ranges from Middle Silurian (Lockport Dolostone) above the Niagara Escarpment to Upper Ordovician (Queenston Shale) below the Escarpment. The bedrock of the Niagara Escarpment represents the transition between the Appalachian Basin and the Algonquin Arch sedimentary environments. The depositional sequence is summarized below: Lockport Formation • Eramosa Member: Greyish brown to grey dolostone • Goat Island Member: Light brown dolostone with chert nodules (Ancaster Chert Bed) • Gasport Member: Light to medium grey medium crystalline crinoidal dolomite


Sequential Formations Decew Formation: Grey to brownish grey argillaceous microcrystalline dolomite Rochester Formation: Dark grey shale interbedded with crinoidal dolomite Irondequoit Formation: Grey crinoidal dolomite Reynales Formation: Grey to greenish grey dolostone with thin shale partings Thorold Formation: Greenish grey sandstone and shale Grimsby Formation: Red and green sandstone, siltstone and shale Cabot Head Formation: Grey, green interbedded shale, siltstone and dolostone Whirlpool Formation: Tan to grey sandstone with siltstone inclusions Queenston Formation: Red shale with inclusions of green siltstone The surficial topography generally reflects the bedrock topography through a majority of the watershed. The bedrock topography slopes towards the Escarpment. Karstic features were not observed within the study area, but could potentially exist and may be found during future, more detailed site-specific studies in support of potential development. Hydrostratigraphy Hydrostratigraphy is a term used to describe geological units and their functions in the hydrogeological system. Within the study area much of the surficial overburden consists of clay material which typically is of a low permeability, that is, it does not transmit water readily. When the clay overburden is thin and overlies a more permeable unit, which acts to underdrain the overburden, extensive fracturing in the clay generally occurs. Throughout the upper portion of the watershed the underlying dolostone bedrock can be highly fractured in the upper 10 metres. This bedrock fracturing allows for ready transmittal of groundwater both in the vertical and horizontal direction. The fracturing within the clay is known to occur to depths of 8 metres and allows for a significant amount of infiltration and movement of groundwater vertically. The horizontal hydraulic connection of the clay fractures is much weaker. Below the Escarpment the underlying bedrock is a low permeability shale which may not provide as significant an underdrain and as such will likely not lead to extensive fracturing in the overlying clay tills. There are deposits of permeable sands along the west central boundary of the study area which will allow for significant infiltration and transmittal of groundwater on a more local scale.


Above the Niagara Escarpment, where the overburden is generally less than 8 metres thick, precipitation infiltrates through the overburden to the upper bedrock. The groundwater moves horizontally through the fractured dolostones of the Guelph, Eramosa and Gasport Units and would normally discharge to the creek and local tributaries, generally where topographic breaks occur and the bedrock outcrops. This does not appear to occur to any great degree within this portion of the study area. The Vinemount Shale will tend act as an aquitard or a barrier to the vertical transmittal of significant amounts of groundwater. Groundwater is transmitted to depth under relatively strong hydraulic gradients (i.e. differences in water levels in the various units). The amount transmitted is a smaller percentage of that groundwater which moves through the shallow horizontal flow system due to the low vertical permeability of a number of the geological units, in particular the shale units. In the upper watershed groundwater adjacent to the Niagara Escarpment tends to discharge as diffuse seeps at the Escarpment face generally at the contacts of the dolostone and shale units. Groundwater at depth, in the Queenston Shale, tends to move towards the lake. In addition, below the Escarpment groundwater can move on a local scale within the permeable sands and may discharge to local stream reaches. Groundwater may discharge in limited quantities where there are topographic breaks and the streams cut into the shale. As discussed, relatively higher rates of infiltration occur where the overburden is thin or permeable. The area which potentially gives rise to potential groundwater recharge and discharge systems is shown in Figure 5.

TABLE 3.4 BASEFLOW MEASUREMENTS

Date/Spot Flow (L/s) Site September 17, 1999 November 1, 1999 June 8, 2001 September 18, 2001

1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Trace 0 0 0 4 5.1 3.1 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 Trace 3 0 0 7 2.4 Trace Trace <1 8 Trace 1 0 Trace 9 8.3 8 5.1 6.4

10 2 <1 Trace <1 11 9 7 5 4 12 2.9 1.5 <1 1 13 <1 0 0 0 14 1.3 2 1 1.4 15 1 1 1 <1 16 Trace 0 0 0 17 1.8 0 Trace 0 18 1.3 1 0 0 19 1 0 1 <1 20 1.2 Trace 1.1 Trace 21 Trace 0 0 0 22 1 Trace <1 0 23 3.2 2.8 2 1.5


A major part of the hydrogeological component of the stormwater quality strategy was to determine, on a more detailed scale, the groundwater discharged as baseflow to the local reaches. The baseflow information, when correlated with the conceptual model, can provide a more detailed understanding of local, intermediate and regional groundwater flow systems by balancing expected groundwater recharge with the measured discharge. It is important to recognize that prior to and through the course of this study below average precipitation has occurred and as a result lower water tables exist. This would likely influence the location and quantities of groundwater discharge to the various stream reaches. Baseflow observations can be found in Table 3.4. The sites referred to in Table 3.4 are identified in Figure 5. Streamflow generally correlates with field observations carried out during the fisheries study. The main branches of Battlefield and Stoney Creek below the Escarpment consistently show groundwater discharge as well reaches in the vicinity of baseflow locations 12, 14, 15 and 23. The groundwater quality within the study area will vary depending on the geological formation from which the water is taken. Generally, the water increases in total dissolved solids as one moves deeper in the groundwater system. Due to their composition, the shale units tend to have elevated levels of dissolved solids within the groundwater. Local groundwater recharge and discharge above the Escarpment, where existing and historical agricultural practices occur, may provide a source for nitrogen inputs into the local tributaries. Constraints The contaminant susceptibility of the groundwater resources is based on the conceptual groundwater model presented above. The shallow bedrock flow system above the Escarpment is susceptible where the overburden is generally less than 8 metres thick. Although there appears to be no significant stream discharge which could be impacted, local domestic water wells are susceptible. Contaminant susceptibility is greatest below the Niagara Escarpment where the permeable sands exist. The thin overburden below the Escarpment is susceptible to contaminant input but the lower permeability of the underlying bedrock would present a reduced ability for the degradation of the groundwater quality as contaminants would not readily enter the bedrock unit. The risk is increased due to the potential for groundwater short-circuiting by way of infrastructure conduits and conveyances which intercept the water table. The subcatchment areas (i.e. local recharge areas) associated with the groundwater discharge reaches outlined above would be considered as ‘potentially’ sensitive with respect to groundwater quality and quantity degradation.


3.4 Water Quality The primary factors relating to water quality impacts include the following sources as outlined in Table 3.5.

TABLE 3.5 WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT SOURCES

Category Type Land Use Factors Impacts

Non-Point Source

Urban Storm run-off from roads and impervious surfaces (separate sewer systems).

Primary contributions: Metals, PAH, suspended sediment and thermal impacts Secondary contributions: Nutrients, coliforms, BOD, chlorides from seasonal road salting.

Point Source Urban Storm run-off from combined sanitary and storm sewer systems.

Primary contributions: Fecal coliforms, suspended sediment, metals, PAHs, nutrients, BOD.

Non-Point Source Urban

Residential land use (excludes roads and impervious surface impact as noted above).

Contributes pesticides, herbicides, BOD, nutrients.

Non-Point Source Urban Institutional, commercial, industrial

land use. Varies based type of industry

Point Source Urban Sewage treatment plant. Primary contributions: nutrients, metals, BOD impacting low flow water quality.

Point Source Urban Landfills. Varies depending on type of landfill and hydrogeologic conditions.

Anthroprogenic

Non-Point Source Rural Fertilizer, application and tillage

practices

Primary contributions: Suspended sediment and nutrients during run-off, nutrient contributions to groundwater system through infiltration.

Natural Non-Point Source Natural Geologic conditions. Composition of geologic strata impacts

background metal concentrations

An inventory of water quality issues has been undertaken through two primary approaches as follows: • Inventory of land use and watershed characteristics • Analysis of land use impacts and loading using a mass balance model Assessment of current water quality conditions also to a great extent has been documented through the aquatic resource assessment, particularly with respect to the benthic communities found within each watercourse (ref. Section 3.2).


3.4.1 Land Use and Watercourse Characteristics An inventory of watercourse characteristics, which may potentially affect water quality has been compiled based on digital mapping provided by the former City of Stoney Creek and a review of background information and reports. Information extracted from the database used in the inventory includes: • Storm sewer outfall locations • Landfill site locations • Locations of planned and constructed stormwater quality and quantity management facilities • Other point sources such as Combined Sewer Outfalls (CSOs) and Wastewater Treatment

Plants (WWTPs) Figure 6 illustrates the location of these features for the purpose of reviewing possible feature interdependencies. In addition, the location of a number of potential point source water quality concerns has been noted as determined through discussion with Municipal staff and based on field inspection by project team staff. A review of the Hamilton-Wentworth Pollution Control Plan indicates that there are no CSOs located within the study area. Similarly, the review indicates that there is no WWTP discharge within the study area. Stormwater Quality Management Facilities Based on review of the various background reports an inventory of existing and planned stormwater quality management facilities has been undertaken (ref Table 3.6). Table 3.18 provides a summary of the various stormwater quantity management facilities.

TABLE 3.6 SUMMARY OF STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Reference Watercourse Status Type Storage (m3) QEW1 WC12 (Fifty Creek) Built Wetland (0.3m depth) 810 Trillium (C1) WC5.1 Planned Wetland 2,007 Bridgeport WC6.1 Planned Wetland 739 Bridgeport/ Cloverdale WC6.3 Planned Wet pond 1,732 Trillium Estates WC6.4 Planned Wetland 2,857 Nash A Battlefield Planned/Existing Wetland 3,650 Lake Vista Estates WC10/11 Planned Wetland 1,116 Fifty Rd. Joint Venture WC12 Existing Wetland 3,490

Mass Balance Model A mass balance model was prepared to provide an estimate of the annual pollutant loading from each of the primary watercourses within the study area. Land use information received from the former City of Stoney Creek has been used as a basis to assemble the mass balance model of the study area as outlined below. The mass balance model has been used to assess the potential for changes to annual pollutant delivery to each of the watercourses within the study area. The model has been based on stormwater runoff generated loadings only. Baseflow pollutant loading has been excluded for the purposes of this study. However, urban development would not be expected to produce significant pollutant loads under low flow conditions of the parameters analyzed through the mass balance model.


Hence, the exclusion of base-flow pollutant loading provides a more conservative estimate of the changes that will occur under future land use conditions. The mass balance model assessment has three primary objectives, as follows:

(i) Characterizes and places into context the relative contribution of various pollutant sources within each watershed

(ii) Indicates proposed development's relative impacts on annual pollutant loads and the effectiveness of mitigation of the impacts of such development

(iii) Provides an estimate of each watercourse’s pollutant loads in the context of the overall study area loading.

Ø Methodology The mass balance model for the study area watercourses has been based on a spreadsheet analysis method. The model provides an estimate of annual loading from non-point sources for selected water quality parameters. This information is useful as a comparative tool in assessing impacts on in-stream water quality associated with proposed development, land use changes and remediation efforts. However, it should be noted that the level of analysis undertaken is intended to provide only a planning level estimate of the various pollutants and their sources.

The pollutants evaluated have been based on typical indicators of general water quality. The approach used to assess the loading of each parameter to the creek is based on the use of an Event Mean Concentration (EMC) for each constituent and land use category. Combined with typical annual rainfall values for the geographic area, contaminant loading for the study area watercourses has been calculated.

The mass balance model includes estimation of annual pollutant loads for the following parameters (which have been interpreted as the primary pollutants associated with urban and agricultural land usage):

• Ammonia • BOD5 • Total phosphorus • Fecal Coliforms • PAH • Total Suspended Solids • Copper • Zinc • Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Annual mass pollutant loadings in runoff have been calculated as the products of the event mean concentrations and annual flow volumes. An EMC has been defined as the mean concentration of a water quality parameter in flow over the time period of interest. The actual storm runoff EMC values for used in this water quality model (Table 3.7), have been obtained from previous mass balance modeling and calibrations (ref. Red Hill Creek Watershed Plan Water Quality Report, 1997). For this previous study, EMC values for each contaminant were calculated by averaging historical in-stream concentrations (MOE data from 1964 to 1991) during storm flow conditions, as defined through hydrologic and hydrogeologic assessment. These values were


then compared to values abstracted from literature and the calculated EMC values were found to be similar.

TABLE 3.7 EMC VALUES USED IN MASS BALANCE MODEL (mg/L)

Parameter (in mg/L)

Park/Open/ Forest Agricultural Industrial Institutional Commercial Residential

Ammonia 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

BOD5 2 2 9 9 9 9

Copper 0.005 0.005 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034

Fecal Coliform1 1000 5000 10000 10000 10000 25000

PAH 0.00005 0.001 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.001

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

1 2.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 2

Total Phosphorus 0.1 0.5 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.3

TSS 100 400 150 150 150 150

1. Counts/100mL

Mass Balance Modeling Results

The model results for existing land use are outlined in Table 3.8.

TABLE 3.8 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS (kg/yr)

FOR EXISTING LAND US E CONDITIONS

Watercourse Ammonia BOD5 Copper F. Col1. PAH TKN TP TSS Zinc WC0 287.1 9902.8 36.4 1.28E+14 1.4 1533.5 203.6 148233.2 192.7

WC1 319.9 10164.5 33.9 1.71E+14 1.3 1847.0 263.9 162170.7 180.7

WC2 296.0 9857.5 32.5 1.65E+14 1.3 1717.0 237.6 153001.7 183.0

WC3 224.4 7721.4 27.8 1.09E+14 1.1 1247.4 168.5 116598.7 146.8

WC4 361.4 10857.5 39.3 1.53E+14 1.4 1955.7 286.3 177716.7 186.6

WC5 556.3 12321.1 45.5 1.60E+14 1.8 556.3 349.5 254329.6 224.0

WC6 69.0 2569.1 10.6 2.74E+13 0.3 392.5 55.9 35934.9 45.4

WC7 356.0 6352.4 22.5 9.39E+13 0.9 1495.0 230.4 152904.1 103.0

WC9 505.4 9553.9 34.1 1.40E+14 1.3 2172.6 328.5 221631.4 159.1

WC10/11 177.5 6069.1 23.5 8.66E+13 0.7 172.5 166.1 87729.8 94.6

WC12 538.7 5647.2 19.2 8.94E+13 0.9 1890.1 300.9 212008.1 82.0

SC & BFC 2994.2 29995.8 94.8 5.27E+14 5.3 9911.3 1559.0 1163390.0 502.3

Total 6685.8 121012.4 420.2 1.8E+15 17.5 24891.0 4150.0 2885648.9 2100.3 1. Units = counts/year

The mass balance model has been used to complete an assessment of annual pollutant loadings under future conditions. The future land use changes have been based on the net changes in land use illustrated in Figure 3.


The mass balance results, as summarized in terms of percent change in annual loading for each parameter, are outlined in Table 3.9.

TABLE 3.9 SUMMARY OF % CHANGE IN ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS

FOR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS (NO CONTROLS)

Watercourse Ammonia BOD5 Copper F. Col PAH TKN TP TSS Zinc

WC0 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.1 3.7 2.4 2.0 3.1 3.6

WC1 3.5 3.3 2.9 4.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.7

WC2 4.9 4.5 3.8 5.6 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8

WC3 8.4 7.4 7.9 4.6 9.7 5.6 4.4 7.7 9.2

WC4 9.7 11.7 12.3 8.7 15.7 7.9 5.8 10.1 15.7

WC5 17.0 38.6 34.7 53.3 37.2 17.0 23.7 21.8 44.0

WC6 16.4 21.6 11.9 56.5 18.3 25.9 27.0 17.7 21.6

WC7 24.8 49.0 53.8 34.2 60.5 25.6 17.9 29.5 69.5

WC9 19.4 50.8 49.5 51.2 54.9 28.4 21.5 26.0 66.2

WC10/11 26.0 43.9 37.5 48.1 56.0 29.7 24.7 34.9 59.8

WC12 -0.3 12.5 13.9 16.3 8.3 4.2 4.2 1.9 14.6

SC & BFC 0.0 2.4 1.7 3.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.3 2.6

Based on the foregoing results, the primary water quality impacts, relative to existing loadings would be expected to occur in the following locations: • Watercourse 7 (increases in annual loading ranging from 18 to 70%) • Watercourse 6 (increases in annual loading ranging from 12 to 57%) • Watercourse 9 (increases in annual loading ranging from 19 to 66%) • Watercourse 10/11 (increases in annual loading ranging from 26 to 60%) • Watercourse 5 (increases in annual loading ranging from 17 to 53%) It should be noted that the foregoing results provide an indication of the relative changes for various areas. Historically developed areas would experience relatively small changes in annual unit pollutant loadings due to the small amount of future development. For the same developed areas, however, the unit loadings would be expected to be relatively high as per the high density of existing development. Stormwater quality measures would be implemented to mitigate the development impacts on contaminant loadings in accordance with the habitat potential of each watercourse and the priority ratings for stormwater management facilities developed in Section 6.4.3. Findings and Constraints Primary considerations for addressing water quality impacts arising from urban land use include the following: • Non-structural methods (public education programs, pollution prevention programs, spill

response planning and emission reductions) • Structural methods (water quality facilities and at-source contaminant facilities)


The focus of this study is primarily to examine structural methods in the context of proposed urban development. Specifically, this study addresses the issue of optimizing the performance and achieving an optimum cost/benefit relationship by examining the issue of stormwater quality mitigation on a system wide basis. Hence, while other stormwater quality measures such as public education programs and pollution reduction and prevention are certainly valid and in fact would be complementary to the focus of this study, they are beyond the focus of this study.

Legal and Policy Requirements There are several policies and regulations related to the quality of surface water and discharge to receiving watercourses. Primary legislation includes: • Provincial Water Quality Objectives • Sediment Quality Management Guidelines • Ontario Drinking Water Objectives • Canadian Water Quality Guidelines • Ministry of Environment: Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003 • Recommendations of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP)

The Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) define the limits of acceptable water quality for aquatic for aquatic life and human recreation. While the PWQOs are useful indicators of aquatic ecosystem health, they cannot however be viewed as direct measures, since non-chemical factors, such as habitat loss, also have significant impact on aquatic ecosystems. In addition to contaminants in the water column, contaminated sediment can also have significant impact on aquatic organisms. The Ontario Sediment Quality Management Guidelines, produced by the Ministry of Environment, provides management directives for contaminated sediments and details the protocol for setting the guidelines. The Ontario Drinking Water Objectives are normally applied to drinking water supplies for the protection of public health. In some cases however, aesthetic objectives may be used in characterizing surface water sources. The MOE - Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003, provides guidelines for Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development. While there are many additional documented guidelines, these are considered the most commonly used as a benchmark for assessing the quality of the waters and ecosystem health in Ontario. Each benchmark defines the water quality protection requirements for each watercourse, which within the Community of Stoney Creek applies to warm water creeks.


3.5 Hydrology and Hydraulics An inventory of the hydrology and hydraulics of the watercourses within the study area has been completed based on review of previous studies and reports, as outlined in Section 2 (ref. Appendix A). The various reports outline among other issues, drainage boundaries, peak return period flow rates for various reach locations, regulatory flood levels, proposed quantity control facility locations, watercourse characteristics and conveyance capacity, as well as local sensitivity to flood and erosion impacts. The primary hydrology and hydraulic analysis for many of the watercourses in the study area has been completed through the City of Stoney Creek Flood Damage Reduction Study – General Report, Philips Planning and Engineering, June 1989, which included the entire study area. A number of drainage projects have been completed following the Flood Damage Reduction Study, the results of which are discussed in the following sections. Hydrologic and hydraulic results for some of the minor watercourses have not been included in this summary as upstream drainage boundaries have been altered and hydrologic information for the downstream systems have not been updated. These hydrologic data would have to be updated as necessary prior to implementation of stormwater quality measures in these locations. In addition to the primary reports, a number of development specific studies have been also included in the review. Where stormwater management facilities have been recommended through these studies, their locations have been shown on Figure 7. The inventory information has been assembled according to watershed/subwatershed systems as outlined below: Battlefield and Stoney Creeks The primary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis completed for the Stoney and Battlefield Creeks has been completed as part of the City of Stoney Creek Flood Damage Reduction Study – General Report, Philips Planning and Engineering, June 1989. This study defined the catchment areas for each watercourse, Regulatory flow rates and Regulatory flood levels through the Stoney and Battlefield Creek watershed. Table 3.10 summarizes the various flow rates at a number of locations with the Stoney and Battlefield Creeks (ref. Figure 7).

TABLE 3.10 FREQUENCY FLOWS (m3/s) FOR STONEY AND BATTLFIELD CREEKS

Frequency (years) Location Land Use

2 5 10 20 50 100 Regional

Existing 7.5 12.1 16.1 20.3 26.4 31.3 158.1 Lake Ontario (SB1) Future 7.6 12.3 16.3 20.6 26.5 31.9 158.3

Existing 7.8 12.4 16.3 20.6 26.5 31.8 158.2 QEW (SB2)

Future 7.9 12.6 16.7 21.0 27.1 32.5 158.0

Existing 8.7 12.8 16.1 19.9 26.0 30.8 156.1 CNR (SB3)

Future 8.8 12.9 16.3 20.3 26.5 31.5 155.8


Table 3.11 provides a summary of regulatory flood elevations at key locations along the Stoney and Battlefield Creeks.

TABLE 3.11 REGULATORY FLOOD ELEVATIONS (m)

FOR STO NEY AND BATTLEFIELD CREEKS

Location Flood Elevation QEW (City of Hamilton) 79.30 CNR (City of Hamilton) 81.70 Confluence of Battlefield and Stoney Creek (City of Hamilton) 84.05 Battlefield Creek @ Highway 8 (d/s) 86.01 Battlefield Creek @ Highway 8 (u/s) 89.77 Battlefield Creek @ King Street 102.02 Stoney Creek @ Lake Avenue 84.08 Stoney Creek @ Highway 8 (d/s) 86.67 Stoney Creek @ King Street 99.92

Watercourse 1 to Watercourse 4

Similar to the Battlefield and Stoney Creeks, the primary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis completed for Watercourses 1 to 4 has been completed as part of the City of Stoney Creek Flood Damage Reduction Study – General Report, Philips Planning and Engineering, June 1989. Table 3.12 summarizes the various flow rates at a number of locations within Watercourses 1, 2, 3 and 4. The 100 year flow data and Regulatory flood levels have been updated (ref. QEW Drainage Report, Pinelands Avenue to Fifty Road, UMA Engineering Ltd., 1991).

TABLE 3.12 FREQUENCY FLOWS (m3/s) AND REGULATORY FLOOD LEVELS FOR WATERCOURSES 1 TO 4


2 5 10 20 50 100

Regulatory Flood Level (m) Future Conditions

Watercourse 1

Existing 24.8 35.8 42.8 49.3 60.0 66.8 Lake Ontario (1.1)

Future 27.6 39.6 47.5 53.9 65.5 73.0

77.35

(50m u/s)

Existing 13.1 18.6 22.2 26.4 31.7 35.9 QEW (1.2)

Future 14.0 20.0 24.2 28.2 33.8 38.3 78.40

Existing 12.5 17.7 21.0 24.8 29.7 33.5 CNR (1.3)

Future 13.4 19.0 22.8 26.5 31.7 35.7 81.69

Watercourse 2


Future 27.6 39.6 47.5 53.9 65.5 73.0

77.35

(50m u/s)

Existing 12.0 17.3 20.7 23.0 28.2 30.6 QEW (2.2)

Future 12.1 17.7 21.0 22.9 28.3 30.7 78.94

Existing 13.2 20.0 23.8 25.2 31.5 33.5 CNR (2.3)

Future 12.8 19.6 23.3 24.1 30.7 32.1

81.86

(Pedestrian Bridge)

Watercourse 3


Future 11.2 15.4 18.7 21.8 25.1 28.2

78.81

(NSR)

Existing 9.1 12.9 15.0 17.4 20.8 23.4 QEW (3.2)

Future 10.6 14.5 17.5 20.3 23.8 27.0 79.29


TABLE 3.12 (CONT’D)

FREQUENCY FLOWS (m3/s) AND REGULATORY FLO OD LEVELS FOR WATERCOURSES 1 TO 4


2 5 10 20 50 100

Regulatory

Flood Level (m) Future Conditions

Watercourse 3 (cont’d)

Existing 7.7 11.6 12.7 14.8 19.0 21.6 CNR (3.3)

Future 8.9 12.2 15.3 18.6 21.7 24.4

80.57

(Seaman Street)

Watercourse 4


Future 8.4 12.6 15.3 18.5 22.7 26.1

76.62

(Lakeview Road)

Existing 6.8 10.7 12.9 15.8 19.4 22.3 QEW (4.2)

Future 11.0 16.2 18.7 22.2 26.4 34.0 79.38

Existing 6.5 10.5 12.3 15.4 18.7 21.6 CNR (4.3)

Future 9.8 15.3 16.5 19.8 24.0 27.7

80.67

(Seaman Street)

Watercourses 5, 6 and 7 In addition to the analysis completed as part of the Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP) study, Watercourses 5, 6 and 7 have been subject to additional study (ref Industrial Corridor – Master Drainage Plan Areas 5, 6 and 7, Philips Planning and Engineering, 1990). Several works recommended within this previous study have been constructed including: • QEW and Service Road culvert replacements • Diversion of drainage from Watercourse 6 to Watercourse 5 and associated channel works Remaining works include: • Completion of channel works for Watercourses 5, 6 and 7 upstream of the QEW (South

Service Road) • Siting and construction of stormwater management storage facilities which have been

recommended, upstream of Barton Street for Watercourses 5, 6 and 7 (i.e. for “ultimate” development).

Table 3.13 summarizes the various flow rates at a number of locations within Watercourses 5, 6 and 7 (ref. Figure 7). The QEW Drainage Report, 1991, has been referenced for updated flows and flood levels.


TABLE 3.13

FREQUENCY FLOWS (m3/s) AND REGULATORY FLO OD LEVELS FOR WATERCOURSES 5, 6 AND 7


2 5 10 20 50 100

Regulatory Flood Level (m) Future Conditions

Watercourse 5 & 6

WC5 & WC6 at

Lake Ontario (5.5) 12.84 18.64 22.92 27.33 33.25 37.86

79.15 (WC6) at Cope Lane

WC5 @ QEW

(5.4E & 5.4W) 11.26 16.41 20.24 24.19 29.51 33.65 80.22

WC6 @ QEW (6.4) 4.25 6.42 8.06 9.75 12.07 14.00 79.82

WC5 @ Highway 8 (5.1)

1.80 3.08 4.13 5.29 6.98 8.39 96.49

WC6 @ Highway 8 (6.1)

Future zoning with recommended works in place (including SWM storage)

1.13 2.00 2.76 3.61 4.87 5.94 93.39

Watercourse 7

Lake Ontario (7.7) 7.57 10.69 12.88 15.04 17.90 25.99 78.09 (Seabreeze Avenue)

QEW (7.6) 7.52 10.63 12.80 14.93 17.79 25.35 79.61

Highway 8 West (7.1) 0.86 1.57 2.20 2.91 3.98 4.89 Beyond study limit

Highway 8 East (7.3)

Future zoning with recommended works in place (including SWM storage)

2.13 3.33 4.27 5.28 6.73 7.91 Beyond study limit

Since the time of the Industrial Corridor – Master Drainage Plan Areas 5, 6 and 7, the Ministry of Transportation has completed reconstruction of the QEW corridor. This reconstruction has also included local diversion of flows from minor watercourses along the QEW corridor to the larger watercourse systems. Verification of the diversions has been provided within the Preliminary Servicing Report for the Trillium Neighbourhood, 1996, and updated within the Bridgeport Subdivision Preliminary Stormwater Management Report, 2003. Table 3.14 provides a summary of the drainage system changes that have occurred as a result of the Ministry of Transportation works.

TABLE 3.14 SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE DIVERSION COMPLETED

AS PART OF THE QEW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR WATERCOURSES 5, 6 AND 7

Diverted Watercourse (WC) Receiving watercourse WC6.1 WC6.2 WC6.3

WC5.1 WC5 WC6.4 WC7.1 WC7.3

WC7

Watercourse 9 Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for Watercourse 9 has been completed through the Winona Urban Area Master Drainage Plan, 1987, and updated in the Winona Urban Area Master Drainage Plan Implementation 1987 Study Update, May 1990. This study recommended stormwater management works for the Winona Urban area, which included:


• Diversion of subareas 121 (Fifty Creek), 101 (Watercourse 10/11), and 91A (Watercourse

9.1) to Watercourse 9 • Channelization of Watercourse 9 from QEW to West Ave. and Barton Street • Storm sewer construction (West Ave. to Hwy. 8) • Culvert replacements (Service Roads, QEW, CNR, Lewis Road) The recommended drainage works for Watercourse 9 have been implemented with the exception of the Petit Street diversion of Watercourse 10 headwater, upstream of the CNR and channelization from Barton Street to the CNR. Table 3.15 summarizes the various flow rates at a number of locations within Watercourses 9.

TABLE 3.15 FREQUENCY FLOWS (m3/s) FOR WATERCOURSE 9


5 100

Lake Ontario (9.5) 13.82 33.46

QEW (9.4) 13.17 32.22

Highway 8 (9.1)

Future zoning with recommended works in place (including SWM storage) 0.71 2.94

Table 3.16 provides a summary of the local drainage system changes that have occurred as a result of the Ministry of Transportation works.

TABLE 3.16 SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE DIVERSION COMPLETED

AS PART OF THE QEW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR WATERCOURSES 9 AND 10 Diverted Watercourse (WC) Receiving watercourse

WC7.4 WC9 WC9.3 WC9A WC10A WC10

Fifty Creek The most current hydrologic and analysis of the Fifty Creek (Watercourse 12) has been completed as part of the City of Stoney Creek Flood Damage Reduction Study – General Report, Philips Planning and Engineering, June 1989. A Class Environmental Assessment has also been completed to assess various flood and erosion mitigation options for a section for the Fifty Creek between Winona Road and Highway 8 (ref. Class Environmental Assessment Fifty Creek Flood and Erosion Control Project, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, March 1998). Additional hydraulic analysis of this section of the watercourse has been completed through the EA study. Among the study recommendations the following are noted: • Maintaining/reinstating baseflow (only) from area 121 to Fifty Road; Creek flood flow to

continue along diversion to Watercourse 9. • Agricultural BMPs have been recommended for upstream areas. • Culvert replacements at Highway 8 and Fifty Road • Natural channel design restoration of sections of the Fifty Creek


Table 3.17 summarizes the various flow rates at a number of locations within the Fifty Creek.

TABLE 3.17 FREQUENCY FLOWS (m3/s) AND REGULATORY FLO OD LEVELS (m)

FOR FIFTY CREEK


2 5 10 20 50 100

Regulatory Flood Level (m)

Existing Conditions

Existing 3.3 6.7 9.6 13.0 18.0 22.1 Lake Ontario (FC.1)

Future 3.5 6.9 9.8 13.1 18.1 22.1

80.58 (Winston Road)

Existing 4.1 8.5 12.1 16.1 22.0 26.8 QEW (FC.2)

Future 4.3 8.6 12.2 16.1 22.0 26.8 81.57

Existing 4.1 8.5 12.0 16.2 22.3 27.4 CNR (FC.3)

Future 4.3 8.7 12.2 16.4 22.4 27.4 85.04

Winona Road (FC) Existing 3.5 5.4 6.9 8.4 10.6 12.4

93.5 (with FC EA recommended

works)

Stormwater Quantity Management Facilities Based on review of the various background reports, an inventory of existing and planned stormwater quantity management facilities has been undertaken (ref. Table 3.18).

TABLE 3.18 SUMMARY OF STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Reference Watercourse Status Type Storage (m3) Arvin Avenue WC7 Planned Dry pond 11,800 WC7 south of Barton WC7 Planned Dry pond 26,200 WC6 south of Barton WC6 Planned Dry pond 18,515 WC5 south of Barton WC5 Planned Dry pond 20,395 Fruitland Meadows WC4 Built Dry pond 4,680 (approx.) (0.7 ha footprint area) Highland Estates SC & BFC Built Dry pond 4,000 Glover Industrial Park WC7 Built Dry pond 5,500

Summary The factors of importance with respect to hydrology and hydraulics, as they relate to the development of a stormwater quality management strategy, are primarily related to: • Functional constraints to stormwater quality management facilities imposed by hydrologic

processes (i.e. flow rates, depths of flooding, available storage, outfall location, drainage area)

• Legal and policy requirements of various government agencies


Functional Constraints The functional constraints to stormwater quality management facilities include the following: • Where (off- line) facilities are proposed adjacent to larger watercourse systems the flood

levels in the vicinity of the proposed facility must be suitable. The twenty-five year flood limit has been suggested within the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003, as the minimum flood plain from which water quality facilities should be excluded; notwithstanding, consideration for a lesser standard should be reviewed for retrofits.

• Where facilities are located adjacent to watercourses, the flood plain velocities for severe storm events should not be excessive, so as to cause washout and failure of the facility.

• The opportunity to construct combined water quality/quantity facilities occurs where stormwater quantity management would be required to control post development flow to pre-development rates.

A number of areas have been noted where control of stormwater flow rates (i.e. quantity) would be required as part of future urban development, these areas include: • Watercourses 5, 6, 7 and 9 (storage recommended as part of ultimate development) • Through areas of Battlefield and Stoney Creek (based on potential flood susceptibility of the

urban area in the downstream reaches near the system outlet)

Legal and Policy Requirements Government policy and legislation relating to control of surface water flow (flooding and erosion and water quality) is based on three primary sources: • Riparian Law (Common Law) • Statute Law and Regulations • Site specific plans (Environmental Assessment, Watershed Plans) Riparian Law or Common Law provides the basic principles which govern the rights and obligations of riparian landowners (landowners adjacent to watercourses). The principles of riparian law include obligations of riparian owners to accept damages due to natural flooding, as well as obligations to ensure that land use changes and other actions do not adversely affect flooding and erosion conditions on upstream and downstream properties. Statute Laws concerning surface water flow include Federal, Provincial and Municipal policies and regulations, which prescribe standards and approval requirements for construction of drainage works, restrictions on alteration to watercourses and floodplains, as well as restrictions on construction within flood susceptible areas.


The primary regulations and policies which would relate to surface water flow in the study area, include: • Federal Fisheries Act - authorization and compensation requirement for destruction-

alteration of fish habitat • Environmental Protection Act - requires approval of stormwater management and sewer

works • Public Lands Act - regulations for the management of publicly owned water resources • Conservation Authorities Act - Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterway Regulations • Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act - requires approval for works within watercourses • Water Resources Act - requires approval for stormwater management facilities and sewers. • Municipal By-Laws - relate to site drainage and connections to drainage works

The requirements of each of these regulations and riparian doctrine will need to be evaluated with respect to hydrologic and hydraulic impact of the selected water quality mitigation strategy.


4. SUMMARY OF CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Based on the study area inventory, a number of primary constraints and general opportunities have been identified for each of the inventory components. These have been summarized as outlined in the following. Land Use Proposed changes in land use (Official Plan) would primarily be focussed within the following drainage areas: (a) Primary residential development would occur in Watercourse 10/11 (28 ha), Watercourse

9 (39 ha), Watercourse 5 (66 ha) and Watercourse 12 (Fifty Creek 19 ha). (b) Primary industrial development would occur in Watercourse 7 (60 ha), Watercourse 5

(36 ha), Watercourse 9 (66 ha) and Watercourse 4 (20 ha). (c) Development within Watercourses 0, 1, 2, 3 and Stoney and Battlefield Creeks would

primarily consist of infill development. Aquatic Resources

(a) Aquatic habitat quality is highly dependent on baseflow contributions, hence areas which

have been designated as high priority are typically associated with the occurrence of sustained baseflow.

(b) Changes in water temperature have a significant impact on in-stream habitat as evidenced by benthic community surveys (i.e. BioMAP vs. Hilsenhoff Indexes).

(c) With the exception of the high priority habitat locations noted at Stoney Creek and Community Beach Pond, aquatic habitats along Lake Ontario at the outlet of tributary watercourses do not pose a significant constraint.

(d) Watercourse habitats which would have a higher priority for improvements in water quality (based on presence of baseflow and significance of the habitats present) include:

• Stoney and Battlefield Creeks from the crest of Niagara Escarpment downstream to outlet

• Community Beach Pond (Watercourse 0) • Watercourse 7 from Highway 8 to outlet • Watercourse 9 from QEW to outlet • Fifty Creek from upstream of Highway 8 (east and west tributaries) to the system

outlet.

(e) There may be opportunities to improve water quality of Fifty Mile Creek through continued conversion of septic systems to municipal sanitary services and/or septic system upgrades to tertiary treatment.

(f) Watercourse 7 currently benefits (in terms of sustained baseflow) from an industrial point source discharge in the vicinity of Highway 8. If this discharge can be expected to continue, there may be an opportunity to provide quality treatment near the point of discharge such that overall water quality throughout this reach is improved. This would have to be reviewed under a separate study.


(g) There may be an opportunity to improve fish passage conditions at the mouth of

Watercourse 7 by reducing the slope of the creek entering Lake Ontario. (h) There may be opportunities to improve habitat connectivity through a review of the

existing culverts within the Hamilton Conservation Authority lands near the outlet of Fifty Mile Creek.

Hydrogeology (a) The potential for infiltration throughout the study area is relatively low based on the

predominant clay soils. (b) There are areas within the study area which on a relative scale have a greater potential for

infiltration of groundwater recharge. These occur in two primary locations:

• Areas above and below the Escarpment where overburden depths are less than 8 metres, and

• Locations below the Escarpment where permeable sands are found.

(c) These areas pose a constraint to water quality in terms of

• Potential impact on local wells (primarily above the Escarpment), and • Input to local water table (natural groundwater quality is generally poor below the

Niagara Escarpment).

Water Quality Preliminary assessment of water quality loading changes due to planned future development indicates that the primary water quality impacts, relative to existing loadings would occur in the following locations:

• Watercourse 7 (increases in annual loading ranging from 18 to 70%) • Watercourse 6 (increases in annual loading ranging from 12 to 57%) • Watercourse 9 (increases in annual loading ranging from 19 to 66%) • Watercourse 10/11 (increases in annual loading ranging from 26 to 60%) • Watercourse 5 (increases in annual loading ranging from 17 to 53%) Hydrology/Hydraulics (a) There are a number of areas which have been recommended for stormwater quantity

management. These locations provide an opportunity for consideration of combined stormwater quality management. Watercourses 5, 6, 7 (Storage recommended as part of ultimate development as outlined in the Industrial Corridor Master Drainage Plan Areas 5, 6, and 7, Philips Planning and Engineering, 1990).


(b) Although not currently prescribed through site-specific study, it is expected that any

development above the Escarpment within the Battlefield and Stoney Creek drainage areas would require stormwater quantity and quality control measures. This is based on an assessment potential of flood susceptibility of the urban area near the system outlet, and potential erosion impacts as well as the high priority ranking of the habitat present in the downstream reaches of the system.

(c) A number of stormwater quantity control facilities have been planned or constructed

throughout the study area. Each of these locations provides a potential retrofit opportunity.


5. POLICIES & STANDARDS The following outlines the policies and standards for addressing the impacts due to development as they relate to hydrogeology, flooding, erosion, water quality, aquatic habitat, fisheries, vegetation and wildlife. Policy The former City of Stoney Creek, Hamilton Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of the Environment, each have criteria and guidelines pertaining to drainage and natural resource areas within the study area. The following outlines the basic policy of each agency. The former City of Stoney Creek addresses storm drainage through its Official Plan, and engineering design standards. Part 2, Section D of the Official Plan outlines policies relating to stormwater management, pollution control, and general flood management. Part 2, Section D, Subsection 1.2.2.6 of the Official Plan also states that:

“It is the intent of this Plan to develop and adopt a comprehensive Storm Water Management Policy which, among other things, will address in detail the storm drainage requirements for development and/or redevelopment.”

This Stormwater Quality Management Strategy Master Plan will assist in fully realizing the intent and scope of the Official Plan by providing the former City of Stoney Creek with stormwater quality guidelines to complement existing master drainage plans which are primarily concerned with quantity control. Urbanization also increases the potential contaminant load to natural stream systems. Sediment, metals, nutrients, and bacteria are all by-products of urban form. As a result, water quality treatment will be required for all new development within the former City of Stoney Creek. Water quality treatment performance shall conform to Provincial requirements (ref. MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003, Water Management Policies, Guidelines Provincial Water Quality Objectives (Blue Book), MOEE, 1994). In areas of existing development where re-development is proposed, provisions for stormwater quality measures will be evaluated on a site-specific basis, based on the feasibility of implementation. Where on-site measures are considered infeasible, the City of Hamilton may consider the potential for contributions to off-site improvements in the form of a cash- in- lieu policy, as in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. In order to appropriately direct these resources this Storm Quality Management Strategy Master Plan involves identification of retrofit locations and determination of the respective costs.


As a general consideration, maintenance of the natural hydrologic cycle including infiltration is encouraged. Therefore the use of stormwater management practices which enhance or maintain infiltration should be considered for each development. Generally active infiltration measures such as soakaway pits and rear yard ponding will be applicable in permeable soils areas and their use will require supporting soils documentation. Passive measures such as disconnection of roof leaders have been historically utilized in many areas and should be implemented as a matter of course in all areas unless specific constraints preclude these measures. In all cases, the potential for groundwater contamination shall be considered where infiltration of road runoff is contemplated and particularly in areas where groundwater is used for human consumption. Hydrogeology The Hamilton Conservation Authority mandate deals specifically with the regulation of issues related to surface water management and resource protection. While the prime mandate does not include management of groundwater resources, due to the inter-relationship between groundwater and surface water, activities that have the potential to affect groundwater and ultimately surface water are of concern. In this regard, protection of natural recharge and discharge features is key. The potential effects of hydrogeological changes on fish habitat would also be considered under the federal Fisheries Act (ref. Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries below). The Conservation Authorities administers the Federal Fisheries Act, where agreement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans exists. The Ministry of Natural Resources administers the Federal Fish Habitat Management Policy. The Federal Fisheries Act requires that stream flows be maintained at levels that will not affect fish habitat while the Federal Fish Management Policy requires no net loss of fish habitat. As such, any development that has the potential to alter groundwater and surface water relationships (i.e. baseflow and water quality) in a manner that impacts fish habitat, would require the preparation of plans designed to mitigate these effects. In the case of baseflow maintenance, at-source infiltration is generally encouraged provided the water is of suitable quality. The Ministry of the Environment provides protection and conservation of the natural environment (including groundwater) through various statues and regulations, most notably the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act. Flooding and Erosion The Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) mandate under the Conservation Authorities Act permits the Authority to regulate designated areas based on flood potential (risk), erosion, hazard potential and resource protection. The intent of the regulation is to reduce risk to life and property damage by assessing the technical feasibility of proposals based on examination of hydrologic and hydraulic effects. The HCA administers Policy 3 Public Health and Safety, Section 3.1 Natural Hazards of the Provincial Policy Statement. The HCA also provides input to City staff on groundwater recharge/ discharge, fish habitat and stormwater.


Stream Morphology Although not explicitly stated for this study, it is Hamilton Conservation Authority policy to protect stream morphological and fluvial character. Further, for stream corridor delineation from a planning perspective, the determination of an appropriate meander belt width is recommended. Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries The most encompassing legislation addressing aquatic habitat and fisheries is the Policy for the Protection of Fish Habitat (Department of Fisheries and Oceans; 1986), under the auspices of the Federal Fisheries Act. The policy is based on the guiding principle of "no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat" and "net gain" of habitat where feasible. No habitat which is required for the support of any aspect of a fishery or its productivity (feeding, nursery, spawning, migratory or general living habitat) can be destroyed, altered or otherwise deleteriously affected without permission of the Minister, subject to substantial fine and/or imprisonment penalties. Any assessment of a fishery resource and the constraints that the presence of a fishery resource has upon development activity must frame the assessment within the federal and provincial legislation designed to protect the fishery resource and species at risk. Federal protection of all fish habitat is provided under the Fisheries Act, and provincial protection of species at risk is provided under the Planning Act. The Fisheries Act states “no person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (Section 35(2))” without authorization by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As well, “no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of any deleterious substance into water frequented by fish” (Section 36(3)). Stemming from the Fisheries Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (1986) Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat has the objective of creating a net gain of habitat for Canada’s fisheries resources. The guiding principle to realize this end is “no net loss” which requires that if the productive capacity of a fish habitat is reduced, then a compensating increase in fish production must be made to occur. The hierarchy of prefe rences for applying this principle to development, or other activities, is as follows: 1. Maintain, without disruption, the natural productive capacity of habitats through redesign

or mitigation. 2. If the former proves impossible or impractical, then compensation by either creating new

habitat, or by increasing the productive capacity of existing habitat, will be considered. It should be noted, however, that compensation may not be acceptable in some cases where the habitats in question are deemed especially important or sensitive. It should also be noted that an Authorization under the Fisheries Act triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, so that screening under this Act also becomes necessary.


Administration of the policy at the local level has been delegated to the Hamilton Conservation Authority through a Memorandum of Intent (1998) with DFO. Typically the Hamilton Conservation Authority reviews the implications of the policy in conjunction with applications under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, as well as through subdivision approval, Environmental Assessment and other relevant processes. The Hamilton Conservation Authority’s responsibilities include determination of whether or not potential habitat impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level. If it is deemed that impacts cannot be mitigated, and the proposal involves compensation, applications to the Minister of Fisheries for approval of the relevant habitat impacts must be made, in conjunction with an acceptable plan for compensation of the proposed habitat impact/loss. The MNR has developed guidelines for the protection of various habitat types within the Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas, MNR, 1994, subsequently updated within the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, MNR, 1999, for Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. The guidelines specify three types of habitats as follows: • Critical Habitat (formerly Type 1) - Areas which generally limit the overall productive

capacity of the fisheries resource and include spawning and rearing areas, highly productive feeding areas, refuges, as well as habitat which support rare, threatened or endangered species and groundwater discharge areas in cold water streams.

• Important Habitat (formerly Type 2) - Areas which generally are not considered to limit the

overall productive capacity of the fisheries resource. These habitats include unspecified spawning and feeding areas, and pool riffle complexes.

• Marginal Habitat (formerly Type 3) - Areas which have low productive capacity with little

potential for enhancement. These areas may include municipal drains and highly altered watercourses which have been hardened or are polluted and artificial.

The presence of at-risk fish species elevates the fish habitat to MNR “Critical” habitat, and triggers Provincial protection of habitat under the Planning Act. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, the Province required that, in exercising any authority that affects planning matters, planning authorities “shall have regard to” policy statements issued under the Act. Under Section 2.3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, it is stated that “Development and site alteration will not be permitted in significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species”. Coldwater fish habitat is also considered “Critical”: which requires the highest degree of protection. However, there is no coldwater fish habitat nor, to the best of our knowledge, are there any fish species at risk in the study area. Erosion, flooding and water quality guidelines and policies noted previously also set objectives to protect fish and aquatic habitat, through water quality treatment objectives, requirements for erosion and sediment controls, and mitigation of impacts to stream morphology. DFO has drafted Terms of Reference (in 1999) for obtaining approvals for all forms of instream and overland work associated with waterway crossings and for channel works.


Water Quality The MNR and the MOE have developed technical guidelines for the control of stormwater from new development (ref. MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003). These guidelines encompass Best Management Practices for the control of water quality, erosion and hydrogeologic aspects of stormwater management. They provide direction in the preparation and review of planning documents and proposals, as well as master drainage and stormwater management plans to ensure that stormwater quality is appropriately addressed in stormwater management system design. The principles advanced in the documentation included focus on: various stormwater quality treatment levels for various types of receiving watercourse habitats, use of at-source controls, conveyance controls, and end-of-pipe controls, management of volumes, water quality treatment performance and volume requirements. Vegetation and Wildlife Natural Heritage resources are protected to varying degrees under Provincial policies and statutes (i.e., Endangered Species Act). Section 2.3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (OMAH 1997) provides for protection for natural heritage resources such as significant wetlands, significant woodland, significant wildlife habitat, habitat of endangered and threatened species, and areas of natural and scientific interest. Section 2.3.3 speaks to the maintenance and improvement of natural features in an area, and the natural connections between them. The MNR has produced a variety of white papers on the subject to assist in determination of significant natural heritage features. Interim discussion papers include a Provincial Wildlife Strategy (MNR 1991) and Natural Heritage Framework Paper (MNR 1991). The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (MNR 1993) is a well established evaluation methodology used to determine wetland significance. In 1999 a Natural Heritage Reference Manual was made available along with the PPS to assist municipalities in assessment of significant woodlands and wildlife habitats. A white paper entitled "Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines" (MNR 2000) was produced to update assessment methods and criteria. All of these documents discuss wildlife habitat protection issues, including management on an ecosystem or interconnected basis, cumulative impacts on habitat and the importance of natural core areas, linkage habitats and natural corridors to the ecosystem framework.

The Crombie Commission Watershed Studies (Crombie, 1990) and Kanter's Greenland Strategy (Kanter, 1990) are other major initiatives in introducing the concept of ecosystem management, as well as integration of the built and natural environments, the overall mosaic of habitats and the importance of linkages and connections.

The Conservation Authority, MNR and Municipal initiation of watershed and sub-watershed planning, reflects these broad ecological objectives of managing natural resources in an integrated, logical, and functional manner (MNR, June 1993).

Through changes to the Provincial Trees Act, the Province of Ontario has passed authority to the Municipal level enabling bylaws to be created in order to develop and manage tree cutting and woodlot protection. The City of Hamilton has a tree cutting by-law.


6. OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT In establishing the Stormwater Quality Management Strategy for the former City of Stoney Creek, a long-list of stormwater quality practices has been developed. Stormwater quality management practices have been evaluated based on their effectiveness in providing water quality enhancements for the watercourses within the former City of Stoney Creek. The long- list has included current stormwater quality preventative and treatment techniques which have been assessed for both rural and urban land uses. The long- list has been evaluated through the use of various screening factors with respect to the specific aquatic, hydrogeological, and water quality resources of the Municipality and includes the opportunities to retrofit existing and planned stormwater facilities and storm sewer outfalls. Through an evaluation of each water quality enhancement opportunity, various preferred opportunities have been identified for further consideration in developing an implementation plan for the future conditions within the former City of Stoney Creek. 6.1 Long-List of Stormwater Quality Management Opportunities The long- list of potential stormwater quality opportunities have been grouped into four categories:

• Direct Opportunities • Indirect Opportunities • Financial Contributions • Retrofit Opportunities

6.1.1 Direct Stormwater Quality Management Opportunities These opportunities directly address stormwater quality pollutant removal and can be broadly classified into three categories: 1. Source and Conveyance Controls 2. End-of-Pipe Controls 3. Management Practices Source and Conveyance Controls Source controls treat water at the source, where it is “generated”, or in the case of precipitation, in close proximity to where the rainfall has been converted to runoff, prior to it being conveyed further downstream to a possible centralized stormwater quality facility. The use, and/or effectiveness of source controls will depend on a number of factors, such as: soil type, available land, cost, and public cooperation. Typical source control techniques and their characteristics are summarized in Table 6.1.


Conveyance controls try to maintain the natural runoff-storage and hydraulic routing relationship, while enhancing the baseflow and interflow contribution through improving infiltration. Water quality benefits can be realized through natural biological uptake of nutrients. Detailed design criteria and methodology for source and conveyance controls can be found in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003.

TABLE 6.1 SOURCE AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Technique Comment

Reduced Lot Grading

• Requires relatively flat topography • Reduction of typical lot grade slopes from 2.0% standard to 0.5 % • Property owner could influence grading through unregulated changes, thus defeating the

purpose of this technique. • Promotes infiltration, reduces runoff volumes, and increases runoff travel time, reduces use of

properties following rainfall events as a result of less efficient drainage.

Discharge of Roof Leaders to Pervious Surface

• Requires a moderate slope topography • Reduces the directly connected impervious areas, which results in lower runoff volumes,

increased runoff travel time and increased infiltration. • Promotes passive infiltration while allowing positive drainage of yards

Roof Leader Discharge to Ponding Areas or Infiltration Pits

• Provisions for ponding of rainfall from impervious surfaces such as roof areas on the surface or subsurface of pervious land areas

• Increases infiltration, and reduces total runoff volume • Reduced use and enjoyment of lands due to standing water and potential negative reaction by

the Public due to perceived deficiency in the surface drainage system • Feasibility is highly dependent on local soil conditions • Potential for groundwater contamination and therefore is considered for use in conjunction

with roof drainage only

Rural Road Cross-section

• Rural ditch collection/conveyance system with ditch/swale drainage rather than an urban road section

• Increased infiltration, increase in runoff travel time and improvements to water quality due to vegetative uptake of nutrients and settling of coarse suspended sediment in the swale system.

• Increased land requirement (ROW) • Perception of a reduced level of service • Limited effectiveness to address erosion considerations

Surface Conveyance Techniques (Swales, Watercourses) (Within Development)

• Natural watercourses, man-made channels and swales, maintain natural runoff-storage and hydraulic routing relationships, provide opportunities for baseflow and interflow contribution and enhanced infiltration

• Watercourses provide major system (flood) flow conveyance • Provide for terrestrial and aquatic habitats and linkages • Water quality benefits related to natural biological pollutant uptake • Natural fluvial processes of sediment transport and deposition are maintained • Recreation and aesthetic value

Oil/ Grit Separators (Three Chamber Oil/Grit Separators, Manhole Separators)

• Consist of chambers used to separate oil and grit from runoff from impervious surfaces • Each unit services a small area (i.e. 1 ha) • High aesthetic value (locat ed underground), public acceptance, and effective

protection/containment of oils and grease • Poor removal of soluble and fine-grained pollutants, and relatively high maintenance and

construction costs as well as potential lack of municipal control over such facilities located on individual development sites

Pervious Pipe and Catchbasin Systems

• Subsurface conveyance system features include pervious pipe systems • Promotes infiltration, reduces runoff volumes • Increased potential for groundwater contamination, in the context of roadway runoff • Potential for failure due to clogging • High dependency on soil infiltration capabilities • High maintenance costs • Unproven winter performance • Low long-term reliability


End-of-Pipe Controls End-of-pipe controls refer to those facilities (i.e. wet ponds, wetlands) which are located downstream of the location where runoff is generated. They generally act as a centralized water quality/quantity treatment area for drainage areas as small as 5 ha, up to areas several hundred hectares in size serving a wide variety of land uses. End-of-pipe controls can achieve water quality targets by a number of processes, such as: settling of particles, filtration, decay (natural die-off), and the biological uptake of dissolved nutrients. Particles, which are suspended in stormwater runoff, can be removed by detaining the water for a long enough period of time to allow for any suspended particles to settle. Dissolved (soluble) pollutants such as nutrients and trace metals can be removed by relying on biological uptake from bacteria, algae, and various types of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation. The use of vegetation can also be effective in the filtering of particles suspended in the water stream. Microorganisms (i.e. fecal coliform) can be removed by detaining the stormwater for an extended period of time and allowing the organisms to die off naturally. The use of end-of-pipe stormwater facilities is also applicable to retrofit situations where an existing facility, such as a quantity control facility, is modified to incorporate water quality control features/devices or existing storm sewer outlets are converted to drain to new facilities. End-of-pipe controls can be in the form of detention, infiltration, and retention facilities. Table 6.2 describes the salient features of each of these types of end-of-pile controls. Detailed design criteria and methodology for end-of-pipe stormwater management techniques are described in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003.

TABLE 6.2 END-OF-PIPE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Technique Comment Extended Detention (Dry Ponds, Wet ponds, Wetlands)

• Temporary detainment and slow release of storm runoff • Enhances stormwater quality through the settling of sediments and adsorbed contaminants

(i.e. total phosphorus, metals etc.) • Generally does not reduce runoff volumes, however a release rate set less than the erosive

flow threshold of the downstream channel reduces exposure to erosive flow levels. • Provisions for baseflow augmentation, • Increases water temperature downstream due to increased solar exposure • Poor removal of soluble and bacterial pollutant • Provides removal of sediment through settling of stored waters. • Potential for re-suspension of sediments

Infiltration (Infiltration Basins)

• Typically infiltration is best implemented on relatively small local applications • Larger end-of-pipe application of this technique has historically been less successful than lot

level application. • Reduced runoff volume provides for reduced erosion potential, attenuated peak flows,

enhanced groundwater recharge, remove contaminants and moderated temperature fluctuations.

• Drawbacks include potential groundwater contamination, dependency on hydraulic conductivity of soil, seasonal effects, clogging, high maintenance costs and a high failure rate.


TABLE 6.2 (CONT’D) END-OF-PIPE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Technique Comment Stormwater Retention (Wet ponds, Wetlands)

• Stormwater retention basins maintain a permanent pool of water • Can be combined with extended detention to attenuate peak flows, remove sediments and

enhance downstream fish and wildlife habitats • Provides aesthetic and recreational benefits • Provides significant removal of pollutants through settling and biological processes. • Reduces the potential for re-suspension of previously settled material • Potential to increase water temperatures (minimized through use of wetlands), eutrophication,

potential for nuisance wildlife • Provides effective water quality treatment • Thermal impacts can be minimized through use of wetlands rather than wet ponds

Management Practices Ø Urban Management practices refer to programs, bylaws, standards, or operational procedures implemented by the Municipality to correct existing problems, or limit potential future problems. These may include such elements as: • Road salt management • Snow disposal • Controls on the type and quantity of pesticides and herbicides used • Road sweeping and sediment removal from catchbasins • Grass cutting policies which encourage the growth of long grasses in and around

watercourses that would benefit from shading and nutrient uptake; also to limit organic loading (grass clippings) of watercourses

• Protection and/or restoration of ravines and valley lands • Public education programs on the impacts of dumping household and automotive chemicals

into the storm sewer system • Erosion and sediment controls • Connecting existing or new developments to a sanitary sewer system and limiting the use of

septic systems Ø Rural The former City of Stoney Creek under the proposed Official Plan land use has defined large agricultural areas, predominantly above the Niagara Escarpment in the upper Stoney Creek Watershed. Agriculture practices can have a significant effect upon the water quality in a watershed through fertilizer application and soil tillage practices. Application of environmental farming practices provides mitigative measures thus reducing the negative agricultural impact on water quality within the watercourse.


The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) provides opportunities for the farming community to improve farming operations and reduce the negative impact on water quality. These would include existing OMAFRA programs such as:

• Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) • Best Management Practices Manuals • Biosolids Utilization Committee • Environment Coalition and Nutrient Management Strategy • Ontario Pesticides Education Program • Various Crop Residue Management Practices • Integrated Pest Management Programs and Food Systems 2002

The foregoing programs describe various general agricultural practices that minimize the negative impacts on water quality. Detailed agricultural practices (ref. OMAFRA literature) include:

• Pesticide/fertilizer storage and handling procedures • Biodegradable pesticides and fertilizers • Farm waste disposal practices • Agricultural waste storage procedures • Silage storage techniques • Soil management procedures • Nutrient management in growing crops • Field crop management • Stream, ditch and floodplain management • Wetlands and wildlife ponds

6.1.2 Indirect Stormwater Quality Management Opportunities

Indirect opportunities represent measures which partially, or indirectly affect stormwater quality in a positive way. These might include such elements as: • Riparian planting along watercourses and channelized sections to provide shading to mitigate

increases in water temperatures, and to encourage uptake of waterborne nutrients • Erosion control and rehabilitation of existing erosion areas as a means of limiting suspended

solids and excessive sediment loading within the watercourse; some of which may be accomplished with riparian planting

• Design of future infrastructure to promote groundwater recharge and subsequently the promotion of groundwater discharge to intermittent streams, by enhancing baseflow and interflow


6.1.3 Financial Contributions A common problem in urban land development relates to stormwater management for small infill developments (MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003). Infill developments generally involve parcels of land less than 5 ha in area, and are usually located in areas with established storm sewer infrastructure.

Due to the small areas involved, it is generally difficult or ineffective to implement “traditional” stormwater management techniques (i.e. ponds), whether it be for quantity or quality control. There is also the concern that implementing stormwater management for each new infill development will result in the proliferation of small facilities which will all require maintenance and upkeep, and which may not be economically or environmentally effective.

The purpose of applying financial contributions (FC), or “cash-in- lieu” requirements to infill developments is to limit the number of stormwater facilities being constructed. Monies, which would have been used for stormwater management by individual infill developments, are to be directed into larger, more centralized facilities, or in the upgrading of existing facilities and/or infrastructure. This approach of “compensating” for the absence of on-site SWM facilities would typically only be applied when the construction and/or installation of such facilities may be ineffective, or impractical, given the physical constraints of the property (MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003).

Various methods for calculating the FC have been proposed (ref. Chapter 5, MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003). The method most commonly used is the “Area/Imperviousness Basis” method, which links imperviousness and runoff volumes to the FC through using a generic formula. Although this method considers the water quality parameters of each individual development site, it fails to consider the required funds necessary to provide for water quality measures that would be implemented on a watershed and Municipal basis. By preparing and implementing the Stormwater Quality Management Strategy Master Plan, the total required FC for the former City of Stoney Creek can be determined and then divided proportionally for each development site where implementing “traditional” stormwater management techniques would be considered ineffective.

6.1.4 Retrofit Opportunities Existing/Planned SWM Facilities This method of stormwater quality control is intended to modify existing stormwater management facilities (quantity or quality control) to provide water quality control. Although this method is primarily intended for existing stormwater facilities, it can also be considered during the planning stages for quantity facilities if it is expected that upstream stormwater runoff (i.e. pond outflow) would adversely affect downstream watercourses and habitat through water quality degradation. When possible, retrofitting existing/planned facilities is considered to be a cost-effective approach since land costs (if any) would generally be less than that required for a new facility. Also, the majority of the infrastructure of an existing facility is already in place (headwalls, access paths, berms) and hence would only require modification. A reduction in future maintenance costs could be realized since both quantity and quality control functions have been consolidated in to one facility, therefore, the number of facilities requiring maintenance would be reduced.


There are four (4) methods generally considered available for the retrofitting of an existing, or planned facility:

1. Construct a permanent pool, or in the case of an existing quality facility, deepen or expand the existing permanent pool

2. Modify the facility to provide for extended detention storage 3. Provide longer, extended, flow paths through the facility to promote settling of suspended

solids 4. Provide additional, or enhanced vegetation within the facility to promote nutrient uptake,

water polishing, and temperature control (shading) In determining the feasibility of retrofitting an existing or planned stormwater management facility, a number of factors must be considered: • Ability to physically enlarge/retrofit a facility. Is land available (i.e. public lands, parks

etc…) adjacent to the facility? Is it possible to implement retrofits within the confines of the existing/planned facility?

• Tributary area draining to the facility • Type of upstream land use • Sensitivity of downstream (receiving) watercourses and the need for improved stormwater

quality • Cost-benefit of retrofit. Is maximum benefit being realized from monies spent, or should

monies be directed elsewhere to realize greater water quality benefits? The retrofit design approach taken is unique for each existing/planned stormwater management facility under consideration. Whenever possible, designs are based on the “Water Quality Storage Requirements based on Receiving Waters” (MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003). However, given that limitations may exist in providing water quality storage volumes as specified in the SWMP Manual, facilities can still be retrofitted to provide some level of stormwater quality control. The “criteria” in such cases when full quality volumes cannot be realized will take the form of runoff volumes expressed in millimeters (mm) of runoff; this would follow the equivalent removal principle.

Existing Storm Outfalls Existing storm outfalls provide opportunities to implement online treatment of various upstream land uses within the context of existing available public lands. Water quality facilities in the form of wetlands and wet ponds would provide extended detention for the “first- flush” of runoff. Possible sites are evaluated on factors similar to those listed in the foregoing for retrofit of existing/ planned SWM facilities.


6.2 Long-List Preliminary Screening

Based on the foregoing discussion of the long- list of alternatives and the potential for addressing various management criteria, the potential stormwater quality opportunities list, minus the retrofit opportunities, has been evaluated and screened on a preliminary basis. The comprehensive list of retrofit opportunities and end of pipe stormwater quality measures are evaluated in greater depth within Section 6.2.4 and 6.2.5. Each SWM alternative in the long- list has been screened on its potential for satisfying the criteria stipulated in the following: General Screening Factors 1. Physical feasibility for site conditions

• Certain alternatives will be constrained or precluded due to the physical features of the site such as topography, soil type and characteristics, and existing public land use.

2. Water quality enhancement benefits

• Various stormwater quality measures such as wetlands provide superior performance over other alternatives, for example, wetlands address water quality criteria more effectively than infiltration basins.

3. Economics

• Capital, land and operating costs vary considerably depend ing on which stormwater quality opportunity is to be implemented. For example, wetlands are more costly to implement than roof leaders discharging to pervious areas.

4. Environmental amenity

• Opportunities to enhance local terrestrial and aquatic environment s would vary depending on the stormwater quality measure implemented. Certain alternatives would only satisfy minimum water quality targets and criteria, with little or no environmental enhancement.

5. Social impact

• The societal perspective is required on each stormwater quality opportunity. The public will judge stormwater quality measures differently depending on the impact the opportunity has on them. Impacts on society would stem from these general factors:

− Intrusiveness − Aesthetic value − Safety considerations − Recreational benefits


Preliminary evaluation of the long- list of potential stormwater quality opportunities has been performed using a ranking system of high, medium and low positive potential with respect to each of the foregoing evaluation criteria. Alternatives were screened using engineering evaluation, background data assessment, various guidelines and input from the Steering Committee. The evaluation system has been determined to provide results, which satisfy the scope of study objectives.

6.2.1 Direct Opportunities The various land uses within the former City of Stoney Creek allow the majority of the long- list of direct stormwater quality opportunities to be considered suitable. However based on the management criteria certain alternatives have been considered infeasible and have been removed from the long- list, as highlighted in the following discussion: 1. Roof discharge to infiltration pits would be considered infeasible within the majority of

the Community of Stoney Creek due to the local soil conditions (predominantly clay and silt). These soil types allow only minimum infiltration and would typically produce standing water conditions within the majority of standard residential lots. Notwithstanding, two potential areas within the Community of Stoney Creek exist where infiltration techniques could be used on a limited basis:

• Above and below the Escarpment where overburden depths are less than 8 metres. • Below the Escarpment where permeable sands are found.

Soils testing for development sites located within these areas would be required before any implementation of infiltration technologies.

2. Pervious pipe and catch basins systems are precluded from the long- list based on the limited soil infiltration properties within the Community of Stoney Creek. Pervious storm sewer systems have an unproven winter performance history and would require a high amount of maintenance.

3. Infiltration basins have been eliminated from the long- list based on the local soil conditions and the high failure rate of existing systems. Water quality issues could arise with local ground water contamination occurring due to the lack of treatment provided by the infiltration basin stone membrane. Infiltration basins also require a high amount of maintenance in comparison to other end-of-pipe water quality opportunities.

After screening out stormwater quality management techniques that rely upon soil infiltration properties, the long- list of direct opportunities that remain are:

(i) Source Controls: • Reduced lot grading • Rural road cross-section • Surface conveyance techniques • Water quality inlets


(ii) End of Pipe Controls

• Extended detention facilities • Stormwater retention facilities

(iii) Management Practices

• Urban • Rural

6.2.2 Indirect Opportunities

Indirect opportunities could be applied within each watershed in the former City of Stoney Creek, although the watercourses rated medium to high from an aquatic resource perspective would benefit the most from application of these measures. Riparian planting, erosion control, watercourse rehabilitation projects and groundwater recharge promoting infrastructure, could be applied throughout the former City of Stoney Creek in an preferential order starting with the high ranked watercourses down through to the medium ranked watercourses; this would be of the most benefit to existing watercourse aquatic resources and water quality. The priority ranking would be as follows in Table 6.3:

TABLE 6.3 INDIRECT OPPORTUNITIES RANKING

Watercourse Watercourse Ranking Feasible Opportunities WC0 High Riparian planting WC7 High Riparian planting and erosion control measures WC9 High Riparian planting

WC12 (Fifty Creek) High Riparian planting and erosion control measures

SC & BFC High Riparian planting, erosion control and groundwater

recharge promoting infrastructure (Future development on Niagara Escarpment)

WC5 Medium Riparian planting and erosion control measures

6.2.3 Financial Contributions

Financial contributions have been evaluated as a viable method of providing for stormwater management quality controls through the perspective of the different land use types for each watershed. In watersheds where the future predominant type of development will consist of small infill developments, ‘traditional" stormwater management techniques such as end of pipe opportunities are difficult to implement. Compensation for not providing local stormwater water quality treatment for infill development would be in the form of a financial contribution that would be applied to stormwater quality management opportunities elsewhere within the former City of Stoney Creek and would be based on the stormwater quality management strategy and implementation plan (ref. Table 6.4).


TABLE 6.4

WATERSHEDS CONSIDERED FOR FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION

Watershed Development Type Comments

WC0 Infill Development High priority ranked watercourse, in addition to financial contributions potential for additional water quality retrofit facility

WC1 Infill Development Low priority ranked watercourse, financial contributions main water quality opportunity

WC2 Infill Development Low priority ranked watercourse, financial contributions main water quality opportunity

WC3 Infill Development Unranked watercourse due to it being completely buried, financial contributions main wat er quality opportunity

SC & BFC Infill Development High priority ranked watercourses, in addition to financial contributions potential for additional water quality retrofit facilities

6.2.4 Retrofits

Existing/Planned Stormwater Quality Facilities Throughout the former City of Stoney Creek, proposed changes in land use through development will have varying effects upon the sustainability and improvement potential of the existing aquatic resources. Retrofit of existing stormwater management facilities should be implemented with an efficient strategy that considers the full potential of each facility in the context of the future water quality requirements of the entire former City of Stoney Creek. Establishing a management plan for retrofitting existing and planned stormwater quality controls has required determining the maximum benefit from three different perspectives. Each retrofit opportunity has been assessed as to its aquatic resource enhancement benefit, water quality improvement potential and financial effectiveness. From a financial perspective this has meant determining whether the maximum benefit is being realized from a certain facility retrofit or should other facilities be considered. Therefore various facilities have been evaluated to determine the most effective water quality control retrofit for each watershed under consideration. As part of the first step in the process to determine the potential for retrofitting existing stormwater management facilities, the areas of future significant development and infill development have been determined based on the current Official Plan. The second step has been to consider the watercourse habitat potential which would have a medium to high priority for improvements in water quality, as follows: • Stoney and Battlefield Creeks (Escarpment to outlet) • Community Beach Pond (Watercourse 0) • Watercourse 7 (Downstream of Highway 8) • Watercourse 9 (Downstream of QEW) • Watercourse 12, Fifty Creek (Upstream of Highway 8 to outlet, east and west tributaries) An assessment of the inventory of existing and planned stormwater quantity management facilities has been undertaken to determine the potential for improving the water quality treatment that each facility could provide. Through preliminary review of the various background reports and literature, four existing and five planned facilities have been documented as shown in Figure 7 and summarized in Table 6.5.


TABLE 6.5

SUMMARY OF STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Watercourse Location Status WC12 (Fifty Creek) QEW1 Built

WC7 Arvin Avenue Planned WC7 WC7 south of Barton Planned WC6 WC6 south of Barton Planned WC5 WC5 south of Barton Planned WC4 Fruitland Meadows Built WC7 Glover Industrial Park Built

WC10/11 Fifty Road Business Park Planned SC & BFC Highland Estates Built

Preliminary screening of the existing and planned stormwater quantity facilities has been conducted using the following methodology: 1. An assessment of land availability adjacent to the existing facilities has been undertaken

using existing facility plans and land use mapping. A water quality cell within an existing stormwater quantity facility should be located adjacent to the quantity cell if land is available. The purpose for a two cell stormwater quantity/quality facility would be to provide water quality treatment for the “first flush”, separate from the quantity cell to provide a more effective water quality treatment process.

2. Where land is available adjacent to an existing stormwater quantity facility, such as lands

in Public control (i.e. those owned by the City of Hamilton), adjacent land use has been reviewed to determine the potential for conflict.

3. Where land is not available adjacent to an existing stormwater quantity facility, potential

facility alteration has been considered to determine the feasibility of providing water quality treatment. Information reviewed as part of this assessment has included facility drainage area characteristics and existing pond configuration and design. Pond alterations considered include inlet and outlet designs, pond configuration and layout, and the possible external effects upon neighbouring properties.

Once the above process was conducted and the information reviewed for each potential site, various stormwater quantity facility retrofits were considered. These included the following: (i) Conversion from a stormwater quantity facility to a wet pond. This would include

alterations to the existing pond outlet/inlet and redesign of the facility base. Water quality treatment volumes and the facility’s receiving water body are the two major factors considered as part of this potential retrofit option.

(ii) Conversion of an existing quantity facility to a water quality control facility with reduced

stormwater flood control. This option has only been considered in combination with areas where stormwater quantity control could be provided in another facility, elsewhere within the watershed.


An additional factor to be further considered as part of the short- list evaluation is the depth of excavation required for a wet pond facility. Groundwater seepage into the stormwater quality facility could be prohibitive for this type of retrofit, therefore, detailed soils investigations for potential retrofit sites should be conducted to establish existing groundwater elevations and conditions. Preliminary storage volumes required for the various types of stormwater quality facilities have been based on the criteria and guidelines within the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. Storage quantities have been based on the approximate level of imperviousness for the drainage areas within the context of the former City of Stoney Creek Official Plan. Each potential retrofit site has been evaluated on the basis of water quality storage required, the availability of land, and inlet and outlet modification potential. A list of existing and planned facilities that could be retrofitted has been assembled. Each facility has been ranked for the potential of retrofit according to a ranking of low, medium or high. Four of the nine existing and planned facilities have been ranked as low or medium, while one existing facility has received a medium/high ranking as follows:

1. QEW 1: This facility currently only provides water quality treatment through extended detention for runoff from the QEW with minimum attenuation of flows provided. The facility footprint has been maximized within the available land on the north side of the highway, therefore provision for additional water quality treatment has been evaluated as not feasible and the facility has received a low ranking.

2. Highland Estates: This facility would have a low potential for retrofitting as it maintains only 0.15 m freeboard during the 100 year event, hence any extended detention would eliminate this freeboard. The outlet would have to be lowered by approximately 0.30 m in order to provide the requisite water quality storage, which could prove problematic, given the flat topography downstream. In addition, there are limited local opportunities to offset the ‘lost’ flood storage.

3. Fruitland Meadows : This facility has a volume of approximately 4680 m3, with a 0.7 ha footprint and is currently used as an open area. There is an opportunity for part of this facility to provide water quality treatment (ref. Appendix F). This location has received a medium/high ranking.

4. Arvin Avenue (Glover Industrial Park): This facility currently provides 5500 m3 volume for flood control. It has been given a medium priority ranking since a central facility could more effectively incorporate the lands currently used by the existing facility. This opportunity is part of a concurrent evaluation as part of the ongoing Watercourse 7 Class EA. An option currently under investigation which would involve filling the existing pond and constructing a new online central facility that would provide the required flood control and water quality measures without incorporating the existing facility lands. The existing lands could then be used for further development. Based on aquatic resources inventory, white suckers have been found near the downstream limits of Watercourse 7 at Lake Ontario. Prior to design of the proposed facility, an update of the aquatic resources inventory would have to be conducted.


Based on the updated aquatic resources inventory results, the design of the facility should incorporate fish passage features as to not present a barrier to fish movement.

5. Fifty Road Business Park: This facility has been prepared to provide Basic habitat protection (ref. MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003) to the 21.39 ha commercial development area bordered by the CN tracks, Fifty Road, Winona Road and the QEW. Basic protection has been proposed as the facility would discharge to municipal drains and eventually to Watercourse 10/11. Watercourse 10/11 has not been ranked due to the classification of being an intermittent channelized and partially buried watercourse with minimal habitat potential, and therefore, Basic protection could be considered appropriate for the receiving riverine habitat. Increasing the level of protection to Normal would contribute to the overall water quality discharge to Lake Ontario on a mass balance approach and is now recommended as a minimum level of protection within the City of Hamilton. Normal protection would only provide limited riverine habitat enhancement within the intermittent and partially buried watercourse, therefore, this planned facility has received a medium retrofit potential rating.

The remaining four facilities have been given a high ranking as presented in Table 6.6. These stormwater quantity facilities have been previously planned as part of the Industrial Corridor MDP. As part of the future development within each watershed, in addition to flood control provision, water quality control would have to be provided. Additional evaluation of each facility as to the possible level of water quality control has been provided in Section 6.3.

TABLE 6.6 POTENTIAL STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT FACILITY RETROFITS

Watercourse Facility Location Status WC12 (Fifty Creek) QEW1 Low

SC & BFC Highland Estates Low WC5 Fruitland Meadows Medium/High

WC10/11 Fifty Road Business Park Medium WC7 Glover Industrial Park Medium WC7 Arvin Avenue High WC7 WC7 south of Barton High WC6 WC6 south of Barton High WC5 WC5 south of Barton High

Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofits

Similar to the evaluation for existing and planned stormwater quantity facilities, existing storm outfall locations (ref. Figure 8) have been reviewed for their online retrofit potential. Storm outfall locations and public lands have been screened for proximity to each other to determine an initial list of possible storm sewer outlet retrofit sites (i.e. if public lands and storm sewer outfalls were not in close proximity, the site was deemed unlikely to be a candidate for retrofit). Each retrofit site from the initial list has been further evaluated based on the following factors:

(i) Land availability, land use flexibility and ownership (ii) Storm outfall location within the available land (iii) Storm outfall tributary drainage area and respective characteristics (iv) Potential outlet location with respect to receiving waters (v) Downstream aquatic resource benefit potential and water quality requirements (vi) Financial resource allotment and potential cost/benefit ratio


Evaluation of each potential site, using the previously identified factors, has screened only three sites from the long- list (ref. Table 6.7). Each of the remaining storm outfall locations has been ranked according to a rating of low to high, depending on the retrofit potential.

TABLE 6.7 LONG- LIST OF POTENTIAL STORM OUTFALL RETROFIT SITES

Watercourse Facility Location Existing Land Use WC0 Teal Avenue Park Area WC4 Sherwood Park, Royalwood Court Park Area WC7 Arvin Ave. (East of Glover Rd.) Existing SWM Quantity Facility BFC Little League Park, Queenston Rd. Park Area BFC Lake Avenue Park, Huckleberry Dr. Park Area

BFC/SC North of Barton Street Open Area BFC/SC Lake Avenue, Warrington St . Open Area

Sherwood Park This site has been eliminated from the long- list. It is located within the Watercourse 4 watershed. An existing 1800 mm storm sewer located on Royalwood Court has been reviewed to determine if it could discharge to the park through minor alterations. At the north limit of Royalwood Court the existing grade differential between the storm sewer and the top of road is approximately six metres, therefore causing significant grading constraints on the potential retrofit facility. In addition, Watercourse 4 has been rated as a low priority watercourse from an aquatic resource perspective. To locate a water quality retrofit facility within this watershed would produce a low benefit to cost ratio. Improving water quality for a watercourse with a low aquatic resource potential is deemed as less beneficial than enhancing the water quality of a watercourse with a high aquatic resource potential. Arvin Avenue This outfall has been screened from the long- list. It is located at the outfall for the existing stormwater management facility at Arvin Avenue east of Glover Road. A facility has been proposed through the Industrial Corridor M.D.P. in this location as a centralized facility within the vicinity of this retrofit site; based on this premise, further evaluation of this location, as a storm outfall retrofit site, has been discontinued. Teal Avenue The park area immediately east of Teal Avenue has been screened from the long-list as a potential storm sewer outlet retrofit site with a low rating. The existing storm outfall outlets to Watercourse 0 on the west side of Teal Avenue and Church Street. The potential for retrofitting the existing storm outlet at this location within the park area is considered low due to grading constraints and the existing storm outlet location. The potential of providing online water quality control within the park area in close proximity to the watercourse east of Teal Avenue, has been evaluated. The existing park area is partially used as tennis courts therefore, due to the lack of available land for a potential facility; the retrofit has been eliminated from the long- list.


The remaining storm outfall sites have been included in the short- list for further evaluation and analysis (ref Table 6.8). Each site has exhibited retrofit potential to varying levels based on the information reviewed; provided in the following is a list of the site locations and general characteristics. (i) Queenston Road, (Battlefield Creek): This site has been rated as having a high

potential for storm outfall retrofit. There are five outfalls within the vicinity of Queenston Road, two on the south side and three on the immediate north side. The north side of Queenston Road has been considered as providing a preferred opportunity for water quality enhancement, due to the larger tributary drainage area. This site is located on the former City of Hamilton, City of Stoney Creek border, however, due to the amalgamation of the two Municipalities a centralized facility could be located at this location. The existing land use is a parking area which is required for the park facilities, therefore a change in the existing park design or land use would be required for a retrofit facility to be constructed (ref Appendix F).

(ii) Lake Avenue and Huckleberry Drive (Battlefield Creek): This site has been rated

high due to the land availability within Lake Avenue Park. The site has three storm outfalls within the vicinity of Huckleberry Drive. The outfalls are located within Lake Avenue Park on the east side of Lake Avenue. The main outfall located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Battlefield Creek and Lake Avenue would have the potential of being rerouted to a facility (ref. Appendix F).

(iii) Barton Street (Battlefield Creek, Stoney Creek): This site has been rated high due the

large drainage area that could be serviced. Two outfalls are located on the north side of Barton Street at the confluence of Battlefield Creek and Stoney Creek. The outfalls are located within the vicinity of two marsh areas on either side of the watercourse, therefore, the potential exists for two retrofit sites.

(iv) Lake Avenue North and Warrington Street (Battlefield Creek, Stoney Creek): This

site has been rated high due to availability of valley lands. One outfall is located on the east side of Lake Avenue North immediately south of Warrington Street and the railway tracks. The outfall discharges to a marsh area located west of the watercourse, therefore, the potential exists for a retrofit site. It should be noted that an existing sanitary sewer, which parallels the storm sewer would require relocation.

TABLE 6.8

SHORT-LIST OF POTENTIAL STORM OUTFALL RETROFIT SITE RATINGS

Watercourse Facility Location Rating BFC Little League Park, Queenston Rd. Medium BFC Lake Avenue, Huckleberry Drive High

BFC/SC North of Barton Street High BFC/SC Lake Avenue, Warrington Street High


6.2.5 New Facilities

Assessment of new stormwater quality control facility opportunities has been conducted by determining possible future neighbourhood locations which would maximize the tributary drainage area, and would therefore reduce the number of facilities required throughout the former City of Stoney Creek and would reduce the future cost of operation and maintenance to the City of Hamilton. Site 1, Devil’s Punch Bowl (Stoney Creek) Opportunities for stormwater quality management above the Escarpment within the Stoney and Battlefield Creeks watersheds have been considered. The drainage area is predominantly rural with various types of farm applications producing runoff high in nutrients and suspended solids, depending on the season and farming practices. Both rural water quality management practices and provision of a ‘central’ water quality facility would enhance water qua lity above the Escarpment, improving conditions for aquatic resources below the Escarpment. A potential rural runoff management facility would preferably be located on public lands. One such location is north of Powerline Road and west of First Road West, upstream of the Devil’s Punch Bowl. This location would provide water quality treatment to a tributary area of approximately 2000 ha. In addition, the Hamilton Conservation Authority has historically examined the potential for flood control in this area. This may offer a combined opportunity for water quality and quantity management. Sites 2 – 6, Watercourse 9 The following locations have been advanced as potential new facility sites to provide Normal stormwater quality treatment and quantity control for the proposed development located north of Highway 8 and south of the QEW (Ref. Drawing No. 1 and Figure No. 8).

- Site 2, Southwest of Lewis Road and Barton Street, (Area A) - Site 3, Southeast of Lewis Road and Barton Street, (Area B) - Site 4, Southeast of Lewis Road and CNR tracks (Area C/D) - Site 5, Southeast of Winona Road and CNR tracks (Area E)

(Facility location to accommodate existing residential development) - Site 6, Southwest of Lewis Road and South Service Road (Areas F/G)

Each facility has been proposed to treat the planned development within its respective block, except for Sites 4 and 6, which would provide quality treatment for proposed development location both the east and west sides of Lewis Road. The facility conceptually sited for Site 6 could be oversized to also provide treatment for the industrial development located on the east side of Lewis Road; alternatively both areas could be treated with source controls, given the relatively small size and commitment to previous infrastructure.


Site 7, Winona Road and South Service Road, Watercourse 10/11 The planned Fifty Road Business Park, located southeast of Winona Road and the South Service Road, would have a combined quantity/quality wet pond facility with a drainage area of 21.39 ha +/-. The facility has been proposed to provide Basic habitat protection according to the Fifty Road Industrial Business Park Municipal Servicing Preliminary Design Report, 1999, Totten Sims Hubicki. The City of Hamilton recommends a minimum Normal habitat protection; therefore prior to the industrial park development proceeding, the report would require updating. Site 8, Fifty Road and South Service Road, Watercourse 12 To provide Normal habitat protection stormwater quality treatment and quantity control for the proposed commercial development at this site, two stormwater facilities would be required. The facilities would be located on either side of the watercourse and would be designed for their respective drainage area (ref. Drawing No. 1 and Figure No. 8). The total drainage area for both facilities would be approximately 20.8 ha +/-. The Industrial Corridor Master Drainage Study, 1989 has recommended four facilities south of Barton Street as described in Section 6.2.4, which are further evaluated in Section 6.3. 6.3 Short-List of Opportunities Evaluation of the long- list has resulted in a reduced list of opportunities for additional evaluation and analysis. This section describes the process and results of evaluating the opportunities according to the screening factors developed in Section 6.2. The application of each water quality opportunity has been evaluated based on its technical feasibility and ability to meet stormwater management criteria according to the MOE, Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. The stormwater water quality opportunities that have been evaluated further are listed in the following: Direct Opportunities 1. Source and Conveyance Controls (Application to all watersheds)

(i) Reduced lot grading (ii) Roof leader discharge to pervious surfaces (iii) Rural road cross-section (iv) Surface conveyance techniques (v) Water quality inlets

2. End of Pipe Controls (General)

(i) Extended detention facilities (ii) Stormwater retention facilities


3. Management Practices

(i) Rural (ii) Urban

Indirect Opportunities 1. Riparian planting (application to Watercourses 0, 5, 7, 9, 12, SC, BFC) 2. Erosion control (application to Watercourses 5, 7, 12, SC, BFC) 3. Groundwater recharge promoting infrastructure (application to SC) Financial Contributions 1. Infill development (application to Watersheds 0, 1, 2, 3, SC, BFC) Retrofit Opportunities 1. Existing/ planned stormwater quantity facilities

(i) Watercourse 5, located south of Highway 8 (ii) Watercourse 5, located south of Barton (iii) Watercourse 5, located west of Fruitland Road (iv) Watercourse 6, located south of Barton (v) Watercourse 7, located at Arvin. Note facility replaces the existing Glover Industrial Facility which is to be decommissioned (vi) Watercourse 7, located south of Barton (vii) Watercourse 10/11, located east of Fifty Road

2. Storm outfall retrofit sites

(i) Battlefield Creek at Queenston Road, (Potential off- line facility) (ii) Battlefield Creek at Huckleberry Drive, (Potential off- line facility) (iii) Battlefield Creek/Stoney Creek at Barton Street, (Potential off- line facility) (iv) Battlefield Creek/S toney Creek at Warrington Street, (Potential off- line facility)

New Water Quality Facilities 1. Stoney Creek upstream of Devil’s Punch Bowl (On-line facility) 2. Watercourse 9, located southwest of Lewis Road and Barton Street 3. Watercourse 9, located southeast of Lewis Road and Barton Street 4. Watercourse 9, located southeast of Lewis and the CNR tracks 5. Watercourse 9, located southeast of Winona Road and the CNR tracks 6. Watercourse 9, located southwest of Lewis Road and South Service Road 7. Watercourse 10/11, located southeast of Winona Road and South Service Road 8. Watercourse 12, located southeast of Fifty Road and South Service Road


6.4 Quantitative Assessment of Short-list

6.4.1 Performance

An analysis premised on contaminant loading (mass balance) has been performed to determine the performance of the short- listed stormwater quality control facilities upon annual contaminant loadings for existing and future land use conditions. The mass balance has been based on the following: • Average annual precipitation/runoff • Normal habitat contaminant removal rates for SWMP’s • Proposed stormwater control facility drainage area parameters. • MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003 guidelines For each existing and proposed stormwater quality control facility, the drainage area and respective land use has been determined. Retrofit stormwater quality facilities have been analyzed using the future land use conditions impervious coverage. The proposed ‘Greenfield’ facilities have been modelled using the net impervious coverage for future land use conditions versus existing conditions. The average annual precipitation depth for the former City of Stoney Creek has been established as 852 mm, based on the average annual rainfall from 1985 – 1995 at the AES-Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton (ref. Red Hill Creek Watershed Plan Water Quality Report, 1997). This depth of precipitation has been assumed to be uniform over the study area. The percentage of annual precipitation routed through the proposed stormwater quality facilities has been based on providing quality treatment for 13.0 mm rainfall required for warm water watercourses, as per the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. Based on Bloor Street Gauge rainfall records (1967 – 1986), 13.0 mm precipitation would consist of approximately 50% of the total annual precipitation, therefore, days with precipitation greater than the 13.0 mm event would account for approximately 50% of the total annual precipitation depth specified within the MOE Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices, 1991. The runoff volume for each watershed incorporates the contributing land uses within an area and the underlying soil conditions. Impervious levels for each land use have been obtained from the Red Hill Creek Watershed Plan and represent typical land use impervious coverages. The mass balance has been modelled by using Event Mean Concentrations (EMC’s) for a selection of pollutants considered typical indicators of general water quality as specified previously in Section 3.4.1. The EMC’s have been obtained from previous mass balance modelling and calibrations (ref. Red Hill Creek Watershed Plan Water Quality Report, 1997). The mass balance provides an estimate of pollutant loadings for the following parameters:


• Ammonia (AMM) • Total Phosphorus (TP) • Fecal Coliform (F.Col) • Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Copper (CU) • Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) • Zinc (ZINC) • Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) • Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

Contaminant removal rates have been predominantly based on Normal habitat protection, as defined in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. Stormwater quality control facilities previously planned as providing either Enhanced or Basic habitat protection have been modelled accordingly within the mass balance.

The contaminant removal rates have been based on the typical removal rates specified within the local Red Hill Creek Watershed Plan Water Quality Report (ref. Table 6.9). Contaminant removal rates have been specified, based on their relationship to the removal of Total Suspended Solids at Level 2 habitat protection (70%) for a stormwater quality control facility within the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003.

TABLE 6.9 NORMAL HABITAT PROTECTION

CONTAMINANT REMOVAL RATES (%)

TSS TP ZINC TKN BOD5 CU AMM F.COL PAH

70 42 43 19 40 52 42 78 62

Tables 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13, depict the results of the mass balance modelling for future land use conditions both with and without stormwater quality management respectively.

TABLE 6.10 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS (kg/yr)

FOR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS WITH NO STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL

Watercourse AMM BOD5 CU F. Col1. PAH TKN TP TSS ZINC

WC0 296.7 10196.2 37.3 1.31E+14 1.4 1570.2 207.6 152845 199.5

WC1 331.0 10504.9 34.9 1.78E+14 1.3 1907.9 272.6 167419 187.3

WC2 310.7 10305.1 33.7 1.74E+14 1.4 1795.1 248.6 159912 191.8

WC3 243.2 8293.4 30.0 1.14E+14 1.2 1317.1 176.0 125584 160.3

WC4 396.3 12132.2 44.2 1.67E+14 1.6 2109.5 302.8 195647 215.9

WC5 650.7 17075.2 61.2 2.45E+14 2.4 650.7 432.4 309683 322.5

WC6 80.3 3124.7 11.9 4.28E+13 0.4 494.1 71.0 42313 55.2

WC7 444.3 9466.8 34.6 1.26E+14 1.4 1878.3 271.7 198002 174.6

WC9 603.5 14411.0 51.0 2.12E+14 2.0 2788.8 399.2 279197 264.4

WC10/11 223.7 8735.0 32.4 1.28E+14 1.1 223.7 207.2 118316 151.1

WC12 537.2 6354.1 21.9 1.04E+14 0.9 1970.0 313.6 215969 94.0

SC & BFC 2994.1 30703.8 96.4 5.45E+14 5.3 10011.4 1572.2 1167300 515.2

TOTALS 7111.7 141302.5 489.5 2.17E+15 20.5 26716.8 4474.9 3132188 2531.9 1. Units = Counts/Yr.


TABLE 6.11 PERCENT DIFFERENCE (%) TO EXISTING CONDITIONS

FOR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS WITH NO STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL

Watercourse AMM BOD5 CU F. Col PAH TKN TP TSS ZINC

WC0 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.1 3.7 2.4 2.0 3.1 3.6

WC1 3.5 3.3 2.9 4.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.7

WC2 4.9 4.5 3.8 5.6 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8

WC3 8.4 7.4 7.9 4.6 9.7 5.6 4.4 7.7 9.2

WC4 9.7 11.7 12.3 8.7 15.7 7.9 5.8 10.1 15.7

WC5 17.0 38.6 34.7 53.3 37.2 17.0 23.7 21.8 44.0

WC6 16.4 21.6 11.9 56.5 18.3 25.9 27.0 17.7 21.6

WC7 24.8 49.0 53.8 34.2 60.5 25.6 17.9 29.5 69.5

WC9 19.4 50.8 49.5 51.2 54.9 28.4 21.5 26.0 66.2

WC10/11 26.0 43.9 37.5 48.1 56.0 29.7 24.7 34.9 59.8

WC12 -0.3 12.5 13.9 16.3 8.3 4.2 4.2 1.9 14.6

SC & BFC 0.0 2.4 1.7 3.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.3 2.6

TABLE 6.12

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS (kg/yr) FOR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS WITH STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL1.

Watercourse AMM BOD5 CU F. Col2. PAH TKN TP TSS ZINC

WC0 296.7 10196.2 37.3 1.31E+14 1.4 1570.2 207.6 152845 199.5

WC1 331.0 10504.9 34.9 1.78E+14 1.3 1907.9 272.6 167419 187.3

WC2 310.7 10305.1 33.7 1.74E+14 1.4 1795.1 248.6 159912 191.8

WC3 243.2 8293.4 30.0 1.14E+14 1.2 1317.1 176.0 125584 160.3

WC4 396.3 12132.2 44.2 1.67E+14 1.6 2109.5 302.8 195647 215.9

WC5 609.0 15913.3 55.2 2.08E+14 1.1 551.2 402.3 275700.2 296.8

WC6 73.4 2928.0 11.3 3.39E+13 0.2 473.7 64.3 36559.6 51.6

WC7 427.4 8984.2 33.0 1.05E+14 1.3 1829.8 256.0 183889.9 165.5

WC9 529.1 12380.9 39.3 1.55E+14 0.6 2640.0 354.2 227724.8 216.9

WC10/11 202.6 8151.8 30.0 1.05E+14 0.6 171.2 189.7 100515.0 138.7

WC12 527.4 6163.7 19.1 1.00E+14 -0.3 1945.5 306.2 207144 85.6

SC & BFC 2943.8 26946.6 84.2 5.09E+14 -3.0 9864.2 1524.4 1121953.0 476.4

TOTALS 6890.7 132900.5 452.1 1.98E+15 7.4 26175.5 4304.7 2954894.1 2386.5 1. Note: Stormwater quality control implies management practices as outlined in Section 6.3 2. Units = Counts/Yr.


TABLE 6.13

PERCENT DIFFERENCE (%) TO EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS WITH STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL


WC0 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.1 3.7 2.4 2.0 3.1 3.6

WC1 3.5 3.3 2.9 4.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.7

WC2 4.9 4.5 3.8 5.6 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8

WC3 8.4 7.4 7.9 4.6 9.7 5.6 4.4 7.7 9.2

WC4 9.7 11.7 12.3 8.7 15.7 7.9 5.8 10.1 15.7

WC5 9.5 29.2 21.5 30.3 -40.0 -0.9 15.1 8.4 32.5

WC6 6.4 14.0 5.8 24.0 -25.2 20.7 15.0 1.7 13.7

WC7 20.1 41.4 46.3 11.4 50.3 22.4 11.1 20.3 60.7

WC9 4.7 29.6 15.1 10.3 -55.5 21.5 7.8 2.7 36.3

WC10/11 14.1 34.3 27.3 21.4 -6.8 -0.7 14.2 14.6 46.6

WC12 -2.1 9.1 -0.6 12.1 -137.7 2.9 1.8 -2.3 4.3

SC & BFC -1.7 -10.2 -11.1 -3.4 -156.7 -0.5 -2.2 -3.6 -5.2

TABLE 6.14

PERCENT DIFFERENCE (%) FOR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS WITH STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL VERSUS NO STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL


WC0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

WC1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

WC2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

WC3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

WC4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

WC5 -7.5 -9.4 -13.2 -23.0 -77.1 -17.9 -8.6 -13.4 -11.4

WC6 -10.0 -7.7 -6.1 -32.5 -43.5 -5.2 -12.0 -16.0 -7.9

WC7 -4.7 -7.6 -7.5 -22.8 -10.2 -3.2 -6.8 -9.2 -8.8

WC9 -14.7 -21.2 -34.4 -40.9 -110.4 -6.8 -13.7 -23.2 -29.8

WC10/11 -11.9 -9.6 -10.2 -26.7 -62.8 -30.4 -10.5 -20.3 -13.2

WC12 -1.8 -3.4 -14.5 -4.3 -146.0 -1.3 -2.5 -4.2 -10.2

SC & BFC -1.7 -12.5 -12.8 -6.9 -158.0 -1.5 -3.1 -3.9 -7.7

Table 6.11 shows that in general, not implementing stormwater quality controls will lead to increased contaminant levels for each watercourse. Table 6.13 shows that stormwater quality controls will reduce this increase in contaminant levels, however, in most cases not to existing levels. The negative percent differences in pollutant loadings for future land use conditions with stormwater quality controls implemented versus existing conditions, present the positive result of using stormwater quality controls (ref. Table 6.14). Watercourses 0 to 4 exhibit a 0% difference for future conditions with and without stormwater management, as there are no proposed stormwater quality facilities for these watercourses. Watercourses 5 to 12 and SC/BFC in Table 6.14 shows the various improvements in the annual loadings when stormwater management is implemented.


TABLE 6.15

TOTAL ANNUAL CONTAMINANT LOADINGS

Status Ammonia BOD5 Copper F. Col1. PAH TKN TP TSS Zinc

Existing Land use (kg/yr.) 6685.8 121012.4 420.2 1.85E+15 17.5 24891.0 4150.0 2885648.9 2100.3

Future Land Use (No SWM) (kg/yr.) 7111.7 141302.5 489.5 2.17E+15 20.5 26716.8 4474.9 3132187.6 2531.9

Percent Difference (%) 6.37 16.77 16.51 17.13 16.97 7.34 7.83 8.54 20.55

Future Land Use (with SWM) (kg/yr.) 6890.7 132900.5 452.1 1.98E+15 7.4 26175.5 4304.7 2954894.1 2386.5

Percent Difference (%)

3.07 9.82 7.60 6.99 -57.55 5.16 3.73 2.40 13.63

1. Units = Counts/Yr. Based on the former City of Stoney Creek municipal boundary, the future total contaminant loading discharging to Lake Ontario would increase due to proposed development. By implementing stormwater quality controls for future development the increase in total contaminant loadings would be marginal in comparison to the significant increase in contaminant loadings for future conditions should stormwater controls not be implemented as seen in Table 6.15.

6.4.2 Economics The short- listed stormwater quality control practices have been evaluated on the basis of capital costs and land requirements. In addition to the capital and land costs for each facility, the facility design parameters have been summarized and presented. Tables 6.16 and 6.17 present the cost analysis for the stormwater retrofit quality facilities and proposed ‘Greenfield’ quality facilities respectively. Costs for ‘Greenfield’ facilities would require funding from the proposed development. When the City of Hamilton and other approval agencies agree that development should use an off-site stormwater solution, development funding would contribute to a possible retrofit site.

June 2004 68 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

TABLE 6.16 STORMWATER QUALITY RETROFIT FACILITIES COST ANALYSIS

Watercourse Reference Drainage Area (ha) Imp. % Facility Type/Protection Level3.

Water Quality Requirements

(m3/ha)

Perm. Pond (m3)

Ext. Det. (m3)

Flood Attenuation

Total Volume (m3)

Approx. Footprint

(ha)

Capital Cost ($)

Land Cost ($)

O & M Cost ($)

Total Present Worth Cost ($)

Cost Efficiency

TSS Removal ($/Kg)

5 Fruitland 10.90 30.4 Wetland 2 69.08 317 436 0 753 0.30 72,482 87,500 47,962 207,943 130 BFC/SC Queenston 27.21 53.3 Wetland 2 88.7 1,325 (600)1. 1,088 0 2,413 (1,688)1. 0.35 166,572 0 113,456 279,028 29 BFC/SC Barton 76.90 51.6 Wetland 2 87.4 3,648 3,076 0 6,724 2.50 512,509 0 332,617 845,126 68 BFC/SC Huckleberry 32.70 40.3 Wetland 2 79.0 1,274 1,308 0 2,582 0.46 146,055 0 117,064 263,119 32 BFC/SC Warrington 20.50 58.8 Wetland 2 93.8 1,103 820 0 1,923 0.30 179,436 0 71,738 251,177 37

TABLE 6.17 PROPOSED STORMWATER QUALITY FACILITIES COST ANALYSIS

Watercourse Reference Drainage Area (ha)

Imp. % Facility Type/Protection Level3. Water Quality Requirements

(m3/ha)

Perm. Pond (m3)

Ext. Det. (m3)

Flood Attenuation

(m3)

Total Volume (m3)

Approx. Footprint

(ha)

Capital Cost ($)

Land Cost ($)

O & M Cost ($)

Total Present Worth Cost ($)

Cost Efficiency

TSS Removal ($/Kg)

5 Barton (SWM 5) 85.05 29.6 Wetland 2 67.9 2,373 3,402 20,395 26,170 3.30 850,457 825,000 355,167 2,030,625 110 5 Barton (SWM 6) 69.53 (32.63) 35.0 Wetland 2 75.0 1,142 1,305 18,515 20,962 2.50 686,940 625,000 202,530 1,514,470 131

5.1 Trillium 15.29 40.0 Wet pond 2 62.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.60 225,137 150,000 58,913 434,049 184 6.1 Bridgeport 10.86 52.1 Wetland 2 68.0 304 434 0 739 0.30 122,712 75,000 57,221 254,933 133 6.3 Bridgeport/ Cloverdale 17.06 46.3 Wet pond 2 101.5 1,049.1 682.4 0 1,731.5 0.32 124,805 80,000 58,123 262,928 95 6.4 Trillium Estates 5.60 (4.69)

4 50.0 Wetland 2 65 117 188 2,552 2,857 0.30 108,909 75,000 57,221 241,130 225

7 Barton (SWM 7) 72.94 22.4 Wetland 2 56.8 1,226 2,918 26,200 30,344 4.00 930,001 1,000,000 230,436 2,160,437 180 7 Arvin (SWM 8) 8.20 off-line 26.9 Wetland 2 64.0 197 328 11,800 12,325 N/A 43,372 0 37,701 80,073 39 9 Area A 53.47 (23.71) 35.0 Wetland 2 75.0 830 948 4,000 5,779 1.00 224,347 250,000 100,742 575,119 65 9 Area B 34.01 (16.29) 35.0 Wetland 2 75.0 570 652 1,300 2,522 0.50 112,632 125,000 63,423 301,055 77 9 Areas C/D 74.61 57.6 Wetland 2 City 92.6 3,925 2,984 13,250 20,159 2.75 628,646 687,500 315,000 1,631,146 71 9 Area E 22 (17.97) 35.0 Wetland 2 75.0 629 719 3,000 4,348 1.00 191,188 250,000 100,772 541,959 147 9 Areas F/G 63.28 38.6 Wetland 2 77.7 2,386 2,531 8,150 13,067 1.50 386,099 375,000 123,322 884,421 43

10/11 Fifty Road Business (Totten) 21.39 70.0 Wet pond 3 (City Recommends 2) 85.0 856 963 2,841 4,660 1.70 170,823 425,000 57,433 653,256 106 10/11 Lake Vista Estates 18.60 35.0 Wetland 2 60.0 372 744 0 1,116 0.86 190,841 215,000 82,478 488,319 162

12 Fifty Road/QEW 20.77 70.0 Wetland 2 105.0 1,350 831 4,236 6,417 1.00 232,372 250,000 103,590 585,962 87 BFC/SC Nash ‘A’ 30.93 39.3 Wet pond 2 71.1 1,250 950 (1,450)2. 3,650 1.75 90,483 437,500 113,456 641,800 152

1. Bracketed volumes represent the maximum attainable volume based on site specific constraints 2. Nash ‘A’ SWM facility flood attenuation volume represents the supplemental volume for the 24hr detainment of the 4hr 25mm storm event for erosion control 3. Level 2 = Normal protect ion, Level 3 = Basic protection 4. Facility designed at 4.69 ha at 50 % impervious, actual drainage area is 5.60 ha

N/A Data not available due to only preliminary reporting of facility requirements The capital costs for both the retrofit and ‘Greenfield’ stormwater quality facilities have been based on the following assumptions:

• Wetland/Wet Pond is rectangular • Length/width ratio 5:1 • 5:1 side slopes in permanent pond • 5:1 side slopes in extended detention storage • Permanent pond depth is 0.15 m to 0.30 m +/- • Flood control/extended detention depth = 1.0 m +/- • The land cost for the ‘Greenfield’ stormwater quality facilities has been determined using $250,000.00/ha for developable land The O & M costs for both the retrofit and ‘Greenfield’ stormwater quality facilities have been based on the following assumptions:

• Clean out forebay and disposal of sediment occurs once every 4 years • Clean out wetland revegetation occurs once every 25 years • Forebay inspection occurs monthly


Cost for each facility has been based on the volume requirements and an additional 0.3 m excavation above the flood attenuation volume or extended detention storage. The preliminary cost estimates have not accounted for the individual ‘Greenfield’ stormwater quality facilities site characteristics, as these are to be determined once development plans have been established. The ‘Greenfield’ stormwater quality control facilities cost estimates are, therefore, for generic stormwater quality control facilities, to be finalized upon development. In addition to the preliminary layout for the retrofit facilities (ref. Appendix F), the preliminary facility layouts have been established for the Nash ‘A’ and Fifty Road Business Park and Fifty Road Joint Venture Facilities (ref. Appendix G). Fifty Road Joint Venture is currently being implemented as of January 2003. For these facilities, cost estimates have been based on the preliminary facility layout.

6.4.3 Facility Priority Ratings Evaluation of the stormwater retrofit and ‘Greenfield’ quality facilities has been conducted using mass balance modelling and cost estimates to provide the general operating parameters and cost analysis respectively. Further evaluation of the retrofit and ‘Greenfield’ facilities has been conducted in Tables 6.18 and 6.19 respectively, to establish the priority ratings as a guide for developing an implementation strategy and prioritization of the implementation of the proposed quality control facilities. The evaluation of the stormwater quality facilities has been conducted using an evaluation matrix consisting of four categories: Technical, Environmental, Social and Economics. Under each of the four categories, evaluation parameters define the relative ranking for each facility. The evaluation parameters have been given a ranking high, medium or low indicated by a 1, 2 or 3 respectively. The ranking is based on subjective evaluation of the level of significance of each of the stormwater quality control facilities using the results of the mass balance, cost analysis and additional evaluation parameters outlined below. Although ‘Greenfield’ facilities are required to be implemented as per future development conditions, the ‘Greenfield’ stormwater facilities have received a priority rating to define the significance of each facility as it contributes to potentially enhancing the downstream riverine habitat. Depending on the rating of the receiving watercourse, finances proposed to be spent implementing stormwater management for future development could be reallocated to a higher rated watershed for a greater cost benefit ratio. The following is an explanation of the evaluation parameters used in Tables 6.18 and 6.19. Expansion Potential (Retrofit Only): This parameter indicates the potential land availability adjacent to the proposed retrofit facility. A high rating indicates that land is available for facility expansion, while a low rating indicates a lack of land availability for facility expansion.


Controlled Area/Total Area This is the proportion of the total drainage area to the facility that would receive stormwater quality protection. Existing infrastructure could drain to the facility, but would not be controlled. A high rating indicates a high degree of water quality protection for the total drainage area. Future Development Within Drainage Area/Upstream These parameters indicate the potential development lands within the watershed located immediately upstream of the proposed facility’s drainage area, but not included within the facility’s drainage area. A high rating indicates that a large portion of the lands could potentially develop. Water Quality Effectiveness A high rating for this evaluation parameter indicates a high annual removal rate for total suspended solids.


TABLE 6.18 RETROFIT STORMWATER QUALITY FACILITY EVALUATION

Engineering Environmental Social Economics

Watercourse Facility Drainage Area (ha)

Expansion Potential

Future Development

Within Drainage Area

Water Quality

Effectiveness (TSS

Removed)

Watercourse Rating

Downstream Channel Length

(m)

Adjacent Land Use

Total Present

Worth Cost ($)

Cost Efficiency

TSS Removal ($/Kg)

Priority

5 Fruitland 10.9 1 1 3 2 2,600 +/- R 207,943 130 2 BFC/SC Queenston 27.21 3 3 2 1 2,600 +/- O 279,028 29 1 BFC/SC Barton 76.90 3 3 1 1 1,500 +/- O 845,126 68 1 BFC/SC Huckleberry 32.70 3 3 2 1 2,000 +/- O 263,119 32 1 BFC/SC Warrington 20.50 3 3 2 1 1,000 +/- O 251,177 37 2

TABLE 6.19 PROPOSED STORMWATER QUALITY FACILITY EVALUATION

Engineering Environmental Social Economics

Watercourse Facility Drainage Area (ha)

Controlled Area/Total

Area

Future Development

Upstream

Water Quality

Effectiveness (TSS

Removed)

Watercourse Rating

Downstream Channel Length

(m)

Proposed Adjacent Land Use

Total Present

Worth Cost ($)

Cost Efficiency

TSS Removal ($/Kg)

Priority

5 Barton (SWM 5) 85.05 1 1 1 2 1,500 +/- C/R 2,030,625 110 2 5 Barton (SWM 6) 69.53 (32.63)1. 1 1 1 2 2,400 +/- R 1,514,470 131 1

5.1 Trillium 15.29 1 3 3 2 150 +/- R 434,049 184 3 6.1 Bridgeport 10.86 1 3 3 3 150 +/- R 254,933 133 3

6.3 Bridgeport/ Cloverdale 17.06 1 3 2 3 150 +/- R 262,928 95 3

6.4 Trillium Estates 5.60 2 3 3 3 150 +/- O/R 241,130 225 3 7 Barton SWM 7) 72.94 1 1 1 1 1,400 +/- R 2,160,437 180 1 7 Arvin (SWM 8) 8.20 off-line2. 1 1 3 1 1,000 +/- I 80,073 39 1 9 Area A 53.47 (23.71) 1 1 1 1 1,300 +/- R 575,119 65 1 9 Area B 34.01 (16.29) 1 1 3 1 1,300 +/- R 301,055 77 1 9 Areas C/D 74.61 2 3 1 1 700 +/- I 1,631,146 71 2 9 Area E 22 (17.97) 1 2 1 1 1,400 +/- C 541,959 147 1 9 Areas F/G 63.30 3 3 1 1 300 +/- I 884,421 43 2

10/11 Fifty Road Business (Totten) 21.39 1 3 2 3 1,700 +/- C 653,256 106 3

10/11 Lake Vista Estates 18.60 1 3 2 3 0 +/- 0/R 488,319 162 3

12 Fifty Road/QEW 20.77 1 1 2 1 1,400 +/- C 585,962 87 1 BFC/SC Nash ‘A’ 30.93 1 1 2 1 5,300 +/- O 641,800 152 1

1. Bracketed number is a reduced drainage area using a standard impervious coverage equivalent to the actual drainage area with an impervious coverage less than 20% 2. Drainage area contributing directly to facility, as facility is on-line within Watercourse 7 and therefore receives all upstream drainage Ranking Legend: Land Use Legend: 1. High I - Industrial 2. Medium R - Residential 3. Low C – Commercial O – Open A – Agriculture


7. PREFERRED SOLUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 7.1 Preferred Solution Previous sections of the report have identified and determined the study area characteristics, defined management policies and objectives, and evaluated opportunities. Section 7 focuses on presenting the proposed stormwater quality management strategy. The strategy emphasizes a series of stormwater quality techniques starting “at source” moving through “conveyance” to end of pipe facilities in addition to encompassing management practices and provides an effective approach to providing stormwater quality treatment. The recommended strategy will provide a high level of environmental protection and address current planning, environmental and engineering requirements. Two important considerations are reflected by this strategy. The first is to ensure that the capabilities of existing stormwater facilities have been maximized. The second is to ensure that a management strategy has been developed to guide future development. The stormwater quality management strategy must ensure that future stormwater quality control facilities can be located in a cost effective manner in conjunction with City of Hamilton planning and policies. The stormwater quality management strategy identifies a broad approach to achieving the objectives and identifies a framework for future decisions. The goal is to ultimately maximize benefits received from the dollars to be spent on the control of stormwater quality within the former City of Stoney Creek. The stormwater quality management plan is based on the three basic techniques: 1. Source controls 2. Management Practices 3. End-of-Pipe Controls

7.1.1 Source Controls For the Stormwater Quality Management Strategy to be considered successful, a comprehensive and balanced approach of combining end-of-pipe and source controls must be developed. Source controls include implementing lot level and conveyance controls, and establishing management practices, policies and bylaws. Subdivision Design Requirements Lot level and conveyance requirements are detailed in the Subdivision Design Requirements for the former City of Stoney Creek. The water quality benefits for lot level and conveyance controls are outlined within the City of Hamilton Storm Drainage Policy, 2004 and Draft Criteria and Guidelines for Stormwater Infrastructure Design, 2004. The City of Hamilton Development Engineering Guidelines, 2003, should be consulted for subdivision design requirements.


Roof Leaders Disconnection Policies The former City of Stoney Creek has a Roof Leader Disconnection Policy which outlines criteria required for disconnecting roof leaders from storm sewer connections. This policy is online with the hydrogeological sensitive area, which allows for increased recharge of groundwater, and with the City of Hamilton Storm Drainage Policy, 2004. Infiltration To reduce runoff volumes, and to maintain baseflows and groundwater levels, infiltration techniques should be encouraged within the determined hydrogeological sensitive areas (ref. Drawings 1 and 5). Due to the Regional nature of the available soils and hydrogeologic information, more detailed site specific assessment would be required at the time of development. The site specific assessments would be required within the former City of Stoney Creek, even in areas which appear to have less infiltration potential on the Regional scale mapping. Infiltration techniques should be applied in the Community of Stoney Creek where soil conditions are suitable. Spill Management Spill prevention and management should be maximized. Commercial and industrial developments susceptible to spills should utilize on-site controls such as oil/grit separators. These controls can be expensive and have limited sediment removal capabilities; their application is generally in the interception of chemical spills. These spill control devices should be located on the property line of the development site, and an easement provided over the control device to allow the City of Hamilton to conduct routine inspections and maintenance. Neighbourhood Stormwater Management Measures For areas with proposed development, but without proposed stormwater management facilities, it could be possible to implement a neighbourhood stormwater management scheme. This could consist of several developments proposing a “central stormwater quality measure” comprised of various quality controls. The neighbourhood scheme would be based on the level of protection required for the respective receiving watercourse and would be operated and managed by the City of Hamilton. The cost for developing and constructing the neighbourhood scheme would be the responsibility of the developers. Other source and conveyance and controls have been outlined within Table 6.1 as follows: 1. Reduced lot grading 2. Rural road cross-section 3. Surface conveyance techniques 4. Pervious pipe system These source controls were considered appropriate for application in the former City of Stoney Creek, but should be reviewed on a site-specific basis for feasibility and functionality.


7.1.2 Management Practices Both urban and rural management practices have been outlined in Section 6.1, which includes a comprehensive list of standards, bylaws, programs and operational procedures to be implemented by the City of Hamilton and Provincial Ministries. Further definition of the Municipal policies and standards is currently being developed and it should incorporate the list of management practices listed under the urban category. Within the rural area of the former City of Stoney Creek land stewardship through the implementation of Provincial programs and land management practices would enhance the water quality within the Battlefield Creek and Stoney Creek watersheds. The Hamilton Conservation Authority has an erosion and sediment control guidelines manual “Keeping Soil on Construction Sites”, which has been referenced within the City of Hamilton’s Draft Criteria and Guidelines for Stormwater Infrastructure Design Manual, 2004. Construction projects are required to follow the guidelines as outlined within the Criteria and Guidelines. The City of Hamilton regulates discharges to the storm sewer system using Sewer and Drain By-law R79-172. The by- law restricts the type of effluents being discharged to the system.

7.1.3 End-of-Pipe Controls To develop the preferred solution for the end-of-pipe controls, evaluation of the potential retrofit sites and ‘Greenfield’ facilities through mass balance modelling, cost analysis and evaluation parameters have been conducted. A priority rating for both the retrofit and ‘Greenfield’ facilities was discussed in Section 6.4, which guides the implementation strategy for the construction of facilities. To develop the strategy for the retrofit facilities, consideration has been given to the facility funding sources. Infill developments which would not provide site stormwater quality controls, (but may be required to provide spill controls depending on land use) are possible funding sources. Spill controls should be provided for land uses with permanent daily parking such as commercial blocks and industrials areas. An estimation of the future infill developments within the former City of Stoney Creek has been provided in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1 ESTIMATED FUTURE INFILL DEVELOPMENTS (ha)

Watercourse Residential High Density Residential

Commercial Industrial Institutional Totals

WC0 0 0 1.4 2.1 3.2 6.7 WC1 0 5.4 0 2.6 0.0 8.0 WC2 0 6.1 2.0 0.7 1.4 10.2 WC3 0 0 5.2 5.6 1.7 12.5 WC4 0 0 3.7 19.7 1.3 24.7

SC/BFC 0 0 2.0 0 0.5 2.5 Totals 0.0 11.5 14.3 30.7 8.1 64.6


The total proposed infill development within Watersheds 0 to 4 and SC/BFC is 64.6 ha +/-. The proposed infill development could contribute financially to the proposed stormwater quality retrofit facilities on the basis of the priority ratings. For each watershed in which the watercourse has not received a medium or high rating, future development should contribute financially through development charges to the proposed retrofit opportunities. A second source of funding would have been those funds allocated for future stormwater management facilities which have received a low priority rating due to the potential in habitat enhancement. Six facilities listed in Table 6.19 which are either approaching or are in the implementation stage, have received a low rating as follows: • Watercourse 5.1, Trillium Facility, Rated 3 • Watercourse 6.1, Bridgeport Facility, Rated 3 • Watercourse 6.3, Bridgeport/ Cloverdale Facility, Rated 3 • Watercourse 6.4, Trillium Estates, Rated 3 • Watercourse 10/11, Fifty Road Business Park, Rated 3 • Watercourse 10/11, Lake Vista Estates, Rated 3 Out of the six facilities, only the future quantity/quality control facility for the Fifty Road Business Park could be selected as a potential source of funds, as the remaining facilities are in various stages of being implemented. The preliminary cost estimate for this facility is approximately $650,000 as provided in Table 6.19, although only the funds for the water quality portion of the facility could be used for retrofit sites. The facilities that have been rated medium or high have been incorporated into the proposed stormwater controls for each watershed (ref. Appendix E). The watershed summary sheets outline the general watershed characteristics for existing and future land use conditions and describe the quality control measures that have been proposed (ref Appendix G). 7.2 Implementation Strategy This section outlines the specifics associated with the implementation of the Master Plan for Stormwater Quality including: (i) Environmental Assessment and Planning Acts (ii) Phasing Plan (iii) Financing/Cost Sharing Plan (iv) Monitoring Plan (v) Future Study Requirements


7.2.1 Environmental Assessment and Planning Acts

7.2.1.1 Environmental Assessment Act This report and its associated process has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EA Act, as a Master Plan for Storm Drainage. The master planning concept has been recognized in current guidelines including the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003 and the MEA’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document, 2000. In essence, the Master Plan’s approach represents the integration of long-range planning and environmental assessment incorporating the following environmental planning principles:

• Consultation with affected parties early and throughout the process • Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives • Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the

environment • Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages to

determine their net environmental effects • Provision of clear, complete documentation of the planning process to allow for traceability of

the proponent's decision making process

The Master Plan will follow the requirements of Section A.2.7 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document, 2000, and will fulfill Phase 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process. In order to ensure that Phases 1 and 2 of the MEA, Class EA Planning and Design process are properly documented, the following information is required to be compiled as a Project File: • Background to the project and earlier studies • The nature and extent of the problem or deficiency, to explain the source of the concern and the

need for a solution • Description/inventory of the environment • The alternative solutions considered and the evaluation process followed to select the preferred

solution • Follow-up commitments, including any monitoring necessary • The public consultation program employed and how concerns raised have been addressed The Project File should also contain a complete record of all activities associated with the planning of the project including: • Correspondence • Copies of notices, letters, bulletins relating to public consultation (ref. Appendix H) • Memoranda to file explaining the proponent’s rationale in developing stages of the project • Copies of reports prepared by consultants and others


Essentially, when a specific watershed management project recommended within this document is advanced to the next level of design, the proponent must determine the applicable schedule. Where the activity/project falls under a Schedule 'A' designation, the proponent can proceed on the basis of pre-approval. For a Schedule 'B' activity/project, the Master Planning procedure should satisfy the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Planning and Design Process. As such, the proponent (i.e. the City of Hamilton) will only need to fulfill the Public Consultation and Documentation requirements of Phase 1 and 2, including the issuance of a Notice of Completion. Following a minimum 30 day period, during which Agencies and Public alike are provided the opportunity for a Part II Order (formerly 'bump-up') request to the Minister, the project can proceed directly to the point of final design and contract package preparation, and subsequent construction. Where a Part II Order is granted by the Minister, it must be determined whether to proceed with an individual EA or abandon the project. Finally, where a project falls within a Schedule 'C' classification, the additional requirements of Phases 3 and 4 of the MEA Class EA, will need to be fulfilled. This will entail additional assessment of alternative design concepts for preferred solutions, Public consultation and Environmental Study Report filing. The completion of this Master Plan does not require approval under the EA Act, however as noted previously, any specific projects identified within it must fulfill all appropriate Class EA requirements. The City of Hamilton will be issuing Notification of Study Completion. On May 26, 2004, Council endorsed this Master Plan and directed the Plan to be made available for review by the Public for a minimum of 30 days. This can be accommodated through a Notification of Study Completion.

7.2.1.2 Planning Act The approval of this document will establish the guidelines for future development within the lower former City of Stoney Creek lands. The result of this Master Plan will provide the direction within the Secondary Planning exercise to properly review and implement the neighbourhood designs that will accommodate stormwater facilities. Neighbourhood Plans are implemented through Official Plan Amendments which provide the certainty for land uses within a neighbourhood. Any change to approved Secondary Plans will require the submission of a new application and that justification is provided for any changes, including locations of stormwater facilities.

7.2.2 Phasing Plan The purpose of a Phasing Plan is to identify inter-development timing dependencies for construction of stormwater and environmental management infrastructure, which would serve to: • Minimize overall cost • Minimize environmental impacts due to repeated construction disturbance • Minimize requirements for temporary works • Avoid liability associated impacts of out-of-phase works


New development does not always proceed in a sequence which is compatible with the timing, and need for major infrastructure projects due to possible infrastructure budgets or the unknown impacts of staged future development projects dependent on downstream infrastructure capacity. When this occurs, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the dynamics of the proposed system along with all of its interdependencies. Usually where ultimate infrastructure works are too costly for any single proponent, temporary works are installed which address potential impacts in the short term. This scenario would also require the same proponent to fund a component share of the ultimate infrastructure works. At some point in the financial assessment though, it is preferable to complete the ultimate works immediately, rather than the temporary "throw-away" works, plus the component share; this is usually dependent on the size and timing of the project, as well as the land use. Environmental compatibility and sensitivity are also factors that should be considered in the determination of a staging plan or critical path. There are direct and quantifiable benefits to constructing a stormwater management basin in its entirety prior to ultimate upstream development. Massive local disturbances would occur only once and as a result, the revegetation would have an enhanced opportunity to stabilize and mature; this point is particularly salient as it relates to water quality facilities which depend to a certain degree on biologic interaction with vegetation, as well as those areas which may require shading for thermal enhancement. Ultimate stormwater facility works could be temporarily configured to provide treatment to phased development, by providing outlet controls, which can be revised according to development phases. Should ultimate stormwater facilities be constructed, with phased water quality storage requirements based on phased development, temporary retaining berms could allow a facility to incorporate additional storage cells as development proceeds. Minimal operational impacts to a facility could be realized using this process, and this process would still allow for the ultimate facility to be constructed upon the first phase of contributing development proceeding. Centralization and consolidation is a key overall objective of the Municipality in terms of reducing long-term maintenance liability for stormwater management facilities. Notwithstanding, it is recognized that private developers typically prefer to minimize dependency on adjacent development initiatives due to timing and cost sharing issues. In order to resolve the apparent conflict between these competing objectives, it is recommended that the Municipality consider a tertiary-level planning and design initiative based on the Master Strategy outlined herein, potentially combining the interests of several land developers and the City of Hamilton. Such a planning exercise would allow for the consideration of local stormwater servicing issues integrated into the environmental constraints and objectives outlined in this study.


Stormwater quality management is required for all new development as part of Provincial policy. Notwithstanding, in accordance with the principles outlined herein, some development areas, particularly those of an ‘infill’ nature and those on low value watercourses may be able to proceed without stormwater quality management. Rather, these areas may need to make financial contributions to other higher benefitting facilities and retrofits located within high valued systems (i.e. cash-in-lieu). The phased implementation of these systems can be problematic, as normally the implementation of this off-site facility relates to the collection of sufficient funds from targeted development areas, which may or may not proceed in an orderly or timely manner. This leads to the situation whereby some areas may not receive treatment for an extended timeframe. While not without precedent, this perspective needs to be understood and accepted by the Regulatory agencies.

7.2.3 Financing/Cost Sharing Plan The purpose of a financing/cost sharing plan is to:

(i) Identify and evaluate alternative models for financing and cost sharing for capital and program works.

(ii) Evaluate and select methods of cost apportionment for capital and program works.

In assessing the most appropriate approach for the former City of Stoney Creek, the City of Mississauga was contacted to provide a historical perspective on this matter. The City of Mississauga collects monies from new developments using the Development Charges Act (DCA) process. Depending on the scale of the development (small, moderate or large) and the sensitivity of the receiving environment (low, medium, or high) a stormwater quality facility may or may not need to be constructed concurrent with the development in question. Rather in some cases (i.e. where development is small and/or receiving environment is not sensitive) monies only would be collected, generally proportional to the size of development using an overall mean or normalized estimate for stormwater quality management. This approach is similar to that advocated for the former City of Stoney Creek. The City of Mississauga has also established an Implementation Committee, whose mandate is to establish and monitor the respective criteria, as well manage the monies collected; this would seem appropriate in this case as well. Similar to this study, the City of Mississauga has undertaken a Municipality-wide assessment of potential water quality retrofits and prioritized/ranked each potential site. Generally, where new development is of the infill type, non-contiguous with sensitive receivers, the Municipality would follow the foregoing approach. In many instances, this may result in no treatment for currently proposed development, however elsewhere in the Municipality, compensatory treatment would be provided in accordance with the overall program for water quality enhancement. Notwithstanding, as outlined in the phasing section, this may lead to periods of no treatment for new development. Where development is of the ‘Greenfields’ type or contiguous with a sensitive receiver, the more conventional approach, whereby each development treats its own runoff, would be adopted subject to input from watershed or master plans. This is also the case for the former City of Stoney Creek, advocated within this document. In terms of a legislative vehicle to implement the works, the City of Hamilton has several available including:


• Front-Ending Agreements • Development Charges Act • Drainage Act • Municipal Act Depending on the will of the potentially affected landowners, as well as Municipal Council, there may be a preference for one of the foregoing, however, selection of the preferred approach is considered beyond the scope of this study. Notwithstanding, it would seem appropriate that this Master Plan can form the basis of a new Development Charge. A cost basis for a future Development Charge could relate to the area of infill and new development with the potential of providing increased habitat enhancement with an offsite water quality treatment versus onsite and an allowance for redevelopment. This land base and the required treatment volume (compensatory) can then be used to generate the revenue for future implementation of retrofit sites. The City would have to develop the development charge process upon the results of the Master Plan. A sample calculator sheet for development charges has been advanced for consideration as follows:


FORMER CITY OF STONEY CREEK

COST CALCUALTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Estimated Development Land Base Infill _________ ha (Not proposed to be treated) New (Greenfields) _______ ha Redevelopment _________ ha (15% of New Development) Total _________ ha _______ ha Industrial/Employment _______ ha Residential Volumetric Treatment Requirement Assume Normal Protection Wetland Storage Volumes (MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003 Draft) ___________ Industrial @ 75%1. Impervious x 110.0 m3/ha =_________ m3

___________ Residential @ 35% Impervious x 75 m3/ha =_________ m3

Cost of Priority Retrofits Capital $_________ Total Volume of Treatment: _______ m3

Engineering $_________ Total $_________ $/m3 __________

1. Industrial impervious % based on Mass Balance as per Red Hill Creek Watershed Plan Water Quality Report, 1997


7.2.4 Monitoring Plan

As part of Phase 5 for the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class EA, Planning and Design Process (2000), there is a requirement to monitor for environmental provisions and commitments associated with the preferred solution. All land use change causes an impact on the runoff regime, with and without mitigation works, therefore, there is a need to monitor the surface water, groundwater and receiving systems that would be affected by proposed development. The monitoring would offer input to the periodic (annual) review of the stormwater quality management strategy, in order to afford opportunities for adjustment as necessary (Adaptive Management).

A monitoring program should be implemented for each facility to assist in determining whether the objectives of the stormwater quality management strategy are being achieved. At the detailed design stage of each facility, the proponent should prepare a monitoring program. As a minimum, it should include the following: 1. Identification of baseline sections to be used for monitoring water quality and erosion,

including parameters to be monitored as determined by the City and review agencies. A list of baseline conditions has been provided as a guide in the Draft City of Hamilton Criteria and Guidelines for Stormwater Infrastructure Design, 2004. Contaminant loadings and benthic monitoring results for existing conditions provide a reference point for further conditions assessment;

2. Seasonal inspection of monitoring stations and documentation of changes;

3. Annual inspection of all stormwater quality control facilities to determine if they are operating as designed.

If the monitoring program identifies that the objectives of the stormwater quality management strategy are not being met, then contingency measures would be implemented.

7.2.5 Future Study Requirements

The proposed stormwater quality management strategy is currently at a conceptual engineering and planning perspective. All of the facilities proposed will require further detailed engineering assessment to refine their location and configuration. The Municipal Class EA categorizes the establishment of a new stormwater management facility as a Schedule B project. However, where stormwater management facilities are required as a condition of approval on a consent, site plan, plan of subdivision or condominium which will come into effect under the Planning Act prior to construction of the facility, the facility may be categorized as a Schedule A project. Schedule A projects are pre-approved and may proceed to implementation, without a formal Class EA planning process (e.g. phase 1 to 4 of the planning and design process). Table 8.1 identifies those facilities that are expected to advance through a draft plan of subdivision and which, therefore, may be categorized as Schedule A. The City of Hamilton will have to satisfy the requirements of the Class EA for the schedules identified within Table 8.1.

Implementation of any of the identified control facilities will require study on a local watershed basis. This level of study would focus on integrating servicing and stormwater management of adjacent development to a greater level of detail than is normally achieved through high level studies such as this. The objectives of the local level of study would be:


• Integration of stormwater management facilities • Opportunities to integrate passive recreation opportunities with stormwater management in

accordance with the current Parkland Dedication Policy • Phasing and cost sharing in areas of multiple ownership • Local ecosystem monitoring program In addition to stormwater servicing, due to the presence of potentially sensitive soils in some areas of the former City of Stoney Creek, a detailed site-specific hydrogeologic investigation in support of development applications should also be prepared to consider measures to gain a better understanding of groundwater flow systems, as follows: • Investigation at the subdivision level provides opportunities to obtain details regarding soil

and groundwater conditions on a local scale, which may be necessary to evaluate options for enhancing infiltration and/or aquifer/groundwater protection.

• Initially, the investigation should include surficial soil/geologic mapping of soil exposures,

soil sampling from test pits (possibly hand dug or backhoe), and analysis of several soil samples for grain size distribution.

• Depending on soil conditions and sensitivity of site, an assessment of hydraulic heads,

gradients and conductivity of the soil may be necessary. This could include borehole drilling/well installation. Investigation should include measurement of groundwater levels in wells or mini-piezometers in stream (if present).

• Analysis and field investigations should focus on defining local flow paths within the

system.


8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Conclusions Study Purpose 1. To develop a Master Plan for stormwater quality management for the former City of

Stoney Creek that ensures no net loss of aquatic habitat and addresses social, physical, and economic constraints and opportunities.

2. To mitigate the impacts of development on the existing stream system water quality through the implementation of appropriate stormwater management practices.

3. To develop an “Implementation Strategy” which establishes guidelines and protocol for future development within the former City of Stoney Creek.

Study Constraints and Opportunities (Based on Study Area Inventory) 1. Residential development would occur primarily within the drainage areas of

Watercourses 6, 10 and 12, while industrial development would occur primarily within the drainage areas of Watercourses 5, 7, and 9.

2. Development within the drainage areas of Watercourses 0, 1, 2, 3, Stoney and Battlefield Creeks would consist primarily of infill development.

3. Watercourse habitats, which would have a higher priority for improvements in water quality, include Stoney and Battlefield Creeks, Community Beach Pond, Watercourses 7 and 9, and Fifty Creek (Watercourse 12).

4. Although the majority of the study area soils have a relative low infiltration potential, areas with a hydrogeological sensitivity exist where overburden depths are less than 8 metres and below the Escarpment where permeable sands are found.

5. Only stormwater quantity controls had been proposed previously for development within the drainage areas of Watercourses 5, 6, 7, and 9. Consideration should be given to the incorporation of water quality controls in addition to the quantity controls.

Opportunities Assessment

1. The long- list of stormwater quality management opportunities have been evaluated and

screened using general screening factors to compile a short- list of opportunities. 2. The short- list of opportunities includes source and conveyance controls, management

practices, indirect opportunities, financial contributions, retrofit opportunities and new stormwater quality facilities as outlined herein.

3. A quantitative contaminant loading analysis (mass balance) has been performed to determine the performance of the short- listed opportunities. Further assessment of the opportunities has been performed using an economic analysis.

4. Based on the study area inventory, mass balance and economic analysis, the 16 planned stormwater quality facilities and 5 retrofit facilities have received a priority rating to be used in the implementation strategy.


8.2 Recommendations Recommendations have been established as per the following: Source Controls and Management Practices

1. Lot level and conveyance controls as outlined in the Development Engineering Guidelines for the City of Hamilton should incorporate water quality benefits.

2. Roof leader disconnection for new development within the study area should be adopted as per the Development Engineering Guidelines.

3. A policy should be adopted by the City of Hamilton to require future development on a site-specific basis to assess the potential of implementing infiltration techniques to maintain baseflows and groundwater levels.

4. For proposed developments without on-site stormwater management facilities, neighbourhood stormwater management plans are required to provide the protection as determined for the receiving watercourse.

5. An Erosion and Sediment Control By- law for new development as discussed herein, should be considered.

6. Implement spill controls for specific Industrial land uses susceptible to spills. 7. Municipal policies and standards should incorporate the management practices as

outlined herein.

End-of-Pipe Controls 1. The proposed stormwater quality controls and retrofit facilities should be implemented

based on the priority rating established. 2. Infill development and development tributary to low value systems should contribute

financially to the retrofit opportunities based on the priority ratings. 3. The possibility of placing a stormwater management facility above the Escarpment

within the Stoney Creek Watershed, upstream of the Devil’s Punch Bowl should be considered for future study.

Implementation Strategy 1. The proposed stormwater quality facility and retrofit facility process should be

incorporated into the Official Plan for the City of Hamilton. 2. Each stormwater quality control facility would require preliminary and detailed design

studies. 3. The City of Hamilton should implement a phasing plan to identify inter-development

timing dependencies for construction of stormwater and environmental management infrastructure.

4. A financing/cost-sharing plan should be developed to identify, evaluate and select methods of cost apportionment for capital and program works. This could include using this study as the basis for a new Development Charge.

5. A long-term monitoring plan to evaluate the future quality of stormwater discharges and their impact on the ecosystem within the former City of Stoney Creek should be implemented by the City of Hamilton.


The specific stormwater quality and retrofit management opportunities recommended within this study (ref. Figure 9) have been outlined within Table 8.1, with specific reference to the MEA Class EA Schedule(s) required to be adhered to.

TABLE 8.1 RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE AND EA SCHEDULE AND PUBLIC PROCESS

Watercourse

Reference

Quantity/Quality

Status

Type / Level

Schedule

Public Notification

Barton (SWM 5)

Both

Planned/ Greenfield

Wetland/2

B

Notice of Completion

Barton (SWM 6) Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion Trillium 5.1 Quality Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 A/B1 None/ Notice of Completion1

5

Fruitland Retrofit Quality Quantity Retrofit Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion Bridgeport 6.1

Quality

Planned/ Greenfield

Wetland/2

A/B1

None/ Notice of Completion1

Bridgeport/ Cloverdale 6.3 Quality Planned/ Greenfield Wet pond/2 A/B1 None/ Notice of Completion1

6

Trillium Estates 6.4 Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 A/B1 None/ Notice of Completion1 Barton (SWM 7)

Both

Planned/ Greenfield

Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion

7

Arvin (SWM 8) Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion S. W. of Lewis Rd. and Barton St. (SWM 9A)

Both

Planned/ Greenfield

Wetland/2

B


S.E. of Lewis Rd. and Barton St. (SWM 9B) Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion S.E. of Lewis Rd. and CNR (SWM 9C/D) Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion S.E. of Winona Rd. and CNR (SWM 9E) Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion

9

S.W. of Lewis & S. Service Rd. (SWM 9F/G) Both Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion Fifty Business Park (Totten)

Both

Planned/Greenfield

Wet Pond/3 A/B1 None/ Notice of Completion1

10/11

Lake Vista Estates Quality Planned/ Greenfield Wetland/2 A/B1 None/ Notice of Completion1 12/Fifty Mile Creek

S.E. Fifty Rd and S. Service Rd. (SWM 12)

Both

Planned/ Greenfield

Wetland/2

B Notice of Completion

Nash ‘A’

Quality

Planned/ Greenfield

Wet Pond/2

B


Queenston Rd. Quality Storm Outfall Retrofit Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion Barton St. Quality Storm Outfall Retrofit Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion Lake Ave. N. and Huckleberry Dr. Quality Storm Outfall Retrofit Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion

Stoney Creek/

Battlefield Creek

Lake Ave. N. and Warrington St. Quality Storm Outfall Retrofit Wetland/2 B Notice of Completion 1. Recommended infrastructure would require Schedule A or Schedule B based on the Planning Act (ref. Section 7.2.5). Schedule A does not require public notification, while Schedule B requires Notice of Completion.


Respectfully submitted, Per: Steven Chipps, P. Eng Per: Ronald B. Scheckenberger, M. Eng., P. Eng.


REFERENCES Anderson, A and K. Danell, 1982. Response of freshwater macroinvertebrates to addition of terrestrial plant litter. Journal of Applied Ecology, 19:319-325. Barbour, M.T., J.L. Plafkin, B.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves and R.W. Wisseman. 1992. Evaluation of EPAs rapid bio-assessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and variability among reference streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 11:437-449. Barton, D.R. 1996. The use of percent model affinity to assess the effects of agriculture on benthic invertebrate communities in headwater streams of southern Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biology, 36:397-410. Barton, D.R. and M.E.D. Farmer. 1997. The effects of conservation tillage practices on benthic invertebrate communities in headwater streams in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Environmental Pollution, 96:207-215. Barton, D.R. and B.W. Kilgour. 1999. A preliminary evaluation of the behaviour of the BioMAP water quality index. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 24:139-146. Bode, R.W. 1988. Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State. Stream Bio-monitoring Unit, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division of Water, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. Carr, J.F. and J.K. Hiltunen. 1965. Changes in the bottom fauna of Western Lake Erie from 1930 to 1961. Limnology and Oceanography, 10:551-569. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1984, The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Special Volume 2. Prepared for Ontario Geological Survey. Credit Valley Conservation, Environmental Water Resources Group, Ortech Corporation, Terraqua Investigations Ltd., Water Systems Analysts. 1997. Caledon Creek and Credit River subwatershed study: characterization report. Prepared for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Free, B.M. and G.G. Mulamoottil. 1983. The limnology of Lake Wabukayne, a storm-water impoundment. Water Resources Bulletin, 19:821-827. Gibbs, K.E., T.M. Mingo and D.L. Courtemanch. 1984. Persistence of carbaryl (Sevin-4-oil) in woodland ponds and its effect on pond macroinvertebrates following forest spraying. The Canadian Entomologist, 116:203-213. Griffiths, R.W. 1998. Sampling and evaluating the water quality of streams in southern Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Planning Policy Branch, Toronto, Ontario.


Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist, 20:31-39. Hodkinson, I.D. 1975. A community analysis of the benthic insect fauna of an abandoned beaver pond. Journal of Animal Ecology, 44:533-551. Hubbs, C.L., and G.P. Cooper. 1936. Minnows of Michigan. Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 8. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool University Press. 555 p. Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 p. Johnson, M.G. and D.H. Matheson. 1968. Macroinvertebrate communities of the sediments of Hamilton Bay and adjacent Lake Ontario. Limnology and Oceanography, 13:99-111. Johnson, R.K., T. Wiederholm and D.M. Rosenberg. 1993. Freshwater bio-monitoring using individual organisms, populations, and species assemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates. In, D.M. Rosenberg and V.H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Bio-monitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York. Kilgour, B.W. 1999. Using benthic macroinvertebrate communities to monitor stream quality with reference to approaches in Ontario. Prepared by Water Systems Analysts for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Kilgour, B.W. and D.R. Barton. 1998. Associations between stream fish and benthos across environmental gradients in southern Ontario. Accepted for publication in Freshwater Biology. Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7:222-233. Reynoldson, T.B. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1996. Sampling strategies and practical considerations in building reference databases for the prediction of invertebrate community structure. In, R.C. Bailey, R.H. Norris and T.B. Reynoldson (eds), Study design and data analysis in benthic macroinvertebrate assessments of freshwater ecosystems using a reference site approach. Technical Information Workshop, North American Bentho logical Society, 44th Annual Meeting, Kalispell, Montana. Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184 of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 966 p. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Tech. J., 27:379-429.


Stanfield, L., M. Jones, M. Stoneman, B. Kilgour, J. Parish and G. Wichert. 1998. Stream Assessment Protocol for Ontario. V.2.1. Training Manual, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Starrett, W.C. 1950. Distribution of the fishes of Boone County, Iowa, with special reference to the minnows and darters. American Midland Naturalist 43: 112-127. Trautman, M.B. 1981. Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. 782 p. Voshell, J.R., Jr. and G.M. Simmons, Jr. 1984. Colonization and succession of benthic macroinvertebrates in a new reservoir. Hydrobiologia, 112:27-39. Wayland, M. 1991. Effect of carbofuran on selected macroinvertebrates in a prairie parkland pond: an enclosure approach. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 21:270-280. Wilm, J.L and T.C. Dorris. 1968. Biological parameters for water quality criteria. Bioscience, 18:477-481. Ministry of Environment, 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. Ministry of Environment, 2000, Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (Draft) Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1994, Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual.

June 2004 i 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘A’

BACKGROUND REPORTS

June 2004 ii 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘B’

BENTHIC INVENTORY

June 2004 iii 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘C’

POND SIZING AND COST ESTIMATES

June 2004 iv 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘D’

LAND USE CONDITIONS (AREAS)

June 2004 v 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘E’

MASS BALANCE EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

June 2004 vi 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘F’

RETROFIT OPPORTUNITY DRAWINGS

June 2004 vii 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘G’

WATERCOURSE SUMMARY SHEETS

June 2004 viii 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

APPENDIX ‘H’

PUBLIC CONSULTATION RECORD

June 2004 ix 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

AGENCY COMMENTS

June 2004 x 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE AREAS

June 2004 xi 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

EXISTING LAND USE MASS BALANCE ANNUAL CONTAMINANT LOADINGS

June 2004 xii 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

FUTURE LAND USE MASS BALANCE ANNUAL CONTAMINANT LOADINGS

June 2004 xiii 98040A – Final Report – June 2004

FUTURE LAND USE MASS BALANCE ANNUAL CONTAMINANT LOADINGS

(WITH STORMWATER QUALITY MEASURES)

STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY …...infill developments, small-scale development or areas...

Documents

Transcript of STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY …...infill developments, small-scale development or areas...