Environmental Area evaluation

Carp River Restoration Project (CRRP) Monitoring Evaluation Criteria 2016/03/07

The CRRP was initiated in response to the Kanata West Concept Plan which would develop 725 hectares of land on the west side of the Carp River. The Dec 2004 Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Report (CRWSS) and subsequent CRRP studies proposed restoration of the Carp River through natural channel design and filling 28 hectares of land within the flood plain above the level that would be reached by floodwaters.

The 3 Dec 2004 Report to PEC and Council RE: Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study states:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2005/01-12/pec/ACS2004-DEV-POL-0059.htm

Protection and Rehabilitation of the Carp River Corridor

The Carp River is a significant ecological feature that provides aquatic habitat, aesthetic and social benefits. However, it has been severely degraded by past land use practices and channelization. The subwatershed study and Kanata West Concept plan support the establishment of a riverine wetland system as the most feasible option for rehabilitating this waterway. It is envisioned that the riverine wetland will consist of narrow, meandering, low flow channel, overbank wetlands and off line and on line deep-water areas. A minimum 100 m corridor is proposed to accommodate the rehabilitation of the Carp River and a recreational pathway

Subsequent studies resulted in recommendations for a new meandering channel with riffles and pools and 10 fish habitat ponds in the floodplain. These ponds contained “open water” and also provided storage. The focus was on adding habitat features and public viewing opportunities. In the earlier plans, the existing channel bottom elevation and gradient were to be retained and there was little mention of changes which would be made to the floodplain other than the addition of the habitat ponds. Nine of the fish habitat ponds were subsequently changed to wet meadows, which are to provide flood storage, but not contain persistent standing water. The new channel and floodplain were lowered in the 2015 CRRP Tender and much of the floodplain will be heavily vegetated.

The decisions to change the habitat ponds to wet meadows fundamentally changed the CRRP project by requiring a new ecosystem in 9 locations and by eliminating significant amounts of fish habitat compensation (existing and future) which had been required to mitigate the impact of development, and which were to be an integral part of the aesthetic and recreational experience for the public. The graded areas in the floodplain were then provided with hydroseeding to match the wet meadow vegetation, thereby replacing the existing vegetation (primarily marsh) with new vegetation. The decisions had cumulative impact, resulting in the City now creating a new experimental ecosystem which was not referenced in the planning and approvals documentation.

Some outside observers with related experience feel the City has not done all the studies and planning needed to make this new ecosystem successful. For instance there has been no study of the impact of wiping out most of the existing vegetation or what species the new vegetation and channel will attract. There has been no update to the geotechnical investigation as to the feasibility of the vegetation types in relation to sub-surface soils, or the impact of groundwater on the lowered channel.

A number of documents were reviewed to identify objectives and statements which could be used to determine whether the CRRP experiment in creating a new ecosystem would be successful. Additional criteria were added by consulting other sources. Numbers in brackets refer to References which support the criteria. The criteria may not be exact quotes.

Success of the CRRP will be evaluated using the following criteria:

NEW ECOSYSTEM

• 1. The new ecosystem will provide habitat diversity

  2. The new ecosystem will not adversely impact the upstream and downstream ecosystems

  3. New substrate, soils, trees, shrubs, and vegetation will support the new ecosystem and will not adversely impact the old ecosystem

  4. The new ecosystem will attract desirable and critical species

  5. The species attracted will be well-balanced

  6. The new ecosystem will not adversely impact existing Species At Risk

  7. The new ecosystem will not be adversely impacted by the remnants of the existing ecosystem which are not being changed

  8. The new ecosystem will establish and stabilize within 5 years of completion of the CRRP (5 years is the post-construction period in the MNR Letter 17 Pg 55; 10 years is used by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority TRCA)

  9. The transition to the new ecosystem will be thoroughly studied and documented

  10. The site will be used for environmental events highlighting education on environmental restoration

  11. Mitigation will be funded and provided if required

  12. New and existing species will be evaluated against appropriate species and habitat protection lists and protected, if required (17 Pg 55 MNR Letter)

  13. The CRRP project will re-establish a healthy aquatic ecosystem (7 Pg 183)

  14. The aquatic ecosystem will comply with criteria being used in the MVCA Stream Watch Program and other sources e.g. OSAP, TRCA Protocol for Monitoring Natural Channel Design Projects, Environment Canada How Much Habitat is Enough?, etc.

  15. Selected and attracted species will persist in cooler, warmer, wetter and drier climatic conditions

CRRP CLASS EA PLANS

• 1. The City will comply with the EAA, provisions of the Class EA, or the conditions set out in this decision (11) (30 Mar 2011 MOE Letter)

  2. The City will implement each of the projects in the manner described in the project documentation (11)

  3. The City will ensure that the EAA and Class EA requirements are satisfied (11)

  4. The City will provide opportunities for the public to participate in the construction and monitoring

  5. The City will provide information to the public on the detailed plans and as-built conditions

CORRIDOR

• 1. Linkages between natural heritage features will be restored (1)

  2. Biodiversity will be improved (1)

  3. Flood storage capacity will increase (1)

  4. Wetlands will support fish habitat function (1)

  5. Riverine wetland system will be provided with overbank wetlands, off-line and on-line deep water areas in a 100m corridor (2)

  6. Modifications in the 19 Mar 2014 Design Brief Addendum will preserve the intent of the Class EA (8 Pg 9)

  7. Modifications in the 19 Mar 2014 Design Brief Addendum will respect agency conditions of approval (8 Pg 9)

  8. Tender Documents, Construction Drawings and Engineer’s Estimate will be revised to reflect modifications in the 19 Mar 2014 Design Brief Addendum (8 Pg 9)

  9. Changes to the PARISH Geomorphologic Summary Table in the 25 June 2013 Design Brief will comply with this table OR an explanation will be provided as to the rationale for non-compliance (implied 10b)

  10. All tests and requirements in the MVCA Permit Application Evaluation Criteria table will be met (17 Pg 47)

  11. Turtle habitat will be reshaped with a net increase in habitat space (suitable wetland and category 2 habitat) (17 Pg 51 MNR Letter)

  12. The restoration will improve wetland quality (increase in permanent wet space, wet meadows and permanent marsh) (17 Pg 51 MNR Letter)

  13. The same amount of turtle habitat will exist after restoration with a minor change in footprint shape (17 Pg 51 MNR Letter)

CORRIDOR EXCAVATION

• 1. Net removal of 266,000 m³ of material will be required to construct the new low flow channel and habitat pools (4 Pg 57)

  2. .... excavation and disposal (800,000m3) (5)

  3. Excavation will be reduced (8 Pg 6)

  4. Earth excavation and disposal (400,000m3) (15 Pg 15 CRRP Tender)

  5. Floodplain excavation will offset losses associated with areas being filled (17 Pg 50 MNR)

  6. The widening will provide 21,400 m³ of additional flood volume from the May 2009 Council resolution (Greenland, May 18, 2010) (14 Pg 10)

  7. Corridor excavation will not result in unwanted groundwater becoming surface water

  8. Removal of existing channel sediment for 500m downstream of the corridor will be sufficient

CORRIDOR LIMITS

• 1. Corridor limits will not be narrowed

  2. Corridor limits will not be hardened (e.g. with retaining walls)

  3. Corridor limits will be defined in Zoning By-Law 2008-250 (1)

  4. Developer’s grade will transition to the corridor limit outside the corridor limit (MVCA 25 Sep 2015)

  5. The Corridor will contain future slopes from adjacent properties due to corridor shifting up to 4.5m (10 Pg 13)

  6. If gaps occur between the corridor limit and pathway, the developer will fill the gap and will provide compensation

  7. Non-Kanata West landowners will change their property grades to restrict the Corridor and floodplain

  8. SWM pond berms and elevated parts of spillways will be located outside the Corridor

  9. Corridor compensation will be required if SWM ponds can not meet these criteria

FISH HABITAT

• 1. Fish habitat will be provided (2)

  2. Fish habitat will be improved (1)

  3. Habitat features will focus on species identified in the Class EA process (10 Pg 10)

  4. Fish will survive the restoration works (8 Pg 1)

  5. Fish habitat will provide for overwintering of resident fish (8 Pg 1)

  6. There is no potential for development of pike habitat (8 Pg 7)

  7. Enhanced fish habitat will exceed habitat lost due to the infilling of the old Carp River channel (8 Pg 7)

  8. New habitat (new channel 14,190m2 + HP7 15,000m2) will exceed lost habitat (19,350m2) by a ratio of 1.5 (8 Pg 7)

  9. Previous Habitat Ponds converted to Wet Meadows will maintain floodplain conveyance (8 Pg 7)

  10. Wet meadows and HP7 will maintain the enhanced fisheries habitat developed in the original design (8 Pg 9)

  11. Habitat ponds and pool features will improve conditions for a number of fish species (10 Pg 11)

  12. Modifications will not prevent impacts to fish and fish habitat in the Carp River from being offset (12 Pg 45 Email from DFO 6 May 2014)

  13. The fish habitat compensation calculations in the DFO Permit will be corrected (17 Pg 39 to 42)

  14. Previously approved fish habitat compensation constructed wetlands will not be eliminated from the calculations without providing compensation

  15. Fish habitat compensation will be adequate to mitigate CRRP and development impacts

  16. Fish will not be stranded during periods of low flow (17 Pg 42)

FISH HABITAT PONDS [HP7 is the only habitat remaining - Wet Meadows will also need to meet some of these criteria]

• 1. Fish habitat ponds will support habitat function (1)

  2. Off-line habitat ponds will provide conveyance relief during high flows (6)

  3. 3 additional habitat ponds (which provide 45,000m3 of flood storage), will prevent additional 8.3m corridor widening (3)

  4. Habitat diversity in the June 2013 HP7 design (HF6) will be maintained including rock shoals, rocky habitat areas and scattered logs, both submerged and sunning (8 Pg 7)

  5. HP7 will provide habitat for pike species (10 Pg 10, 10 Pg 11)

  6. Lily pad planting will prevent solar heat gain in habitat ponds (10 Pg 10)

  7. Trees will provide shading (10 Pg 10)

  8. Habitat pond outlet berms will connect impounded water to Carp River flow (10 Pg 10)

  9. Habitat pond outlet elevations will disconnect ponds from the Carp River low flow channel (7 10, 11)

  10. Fish mortality will not occur when the pond is disconnected from the River (10 Pg 10)

  11. Habitat pond outlet berms will discharge flood water without erosion of the separating berm (10 Pg 11)

  12. Reduction of the number of habitat ponds will maintain existing fisheries requirements (8 Pg 7)

  13. Reduction of the number of habitat ponds will not impact flow conveyance requirements (8 Pg 7)

  14. Reduction of the number of habitat ponds will not reduce flood storage (missing from 8 Pg 7)

  15. Redesign of habitat ponds will maintain existing fisheries requirements (8 Pg 7)

  16. Redesign of habitat ponds will not impact flow conveyance requirements (8 Pg 7)

  17. Water levels will change with fewer habitat ponds due to Manning’s n changes (8 Pg 7)

  18. Velocities will change with fewer habitat ponds due to Manning’s n changes (8 Pg 7)

  19. HP7 will be sized and built as stated in the Table and text (8 Pg 7 Table, as modified in 9]

  20. HP7 will be connected to the Carp River upstream of a riffle by small non-perforated tile drain (8 Pg 7; this was replaced by a vegetated swale in the 2015 Tender)

  21. The tile drain will promote summer and winter circulation in HP7 (8 Pg 7; apply to swale)

  22. The tile drain will provide passage for fish (8 Pg 7 not mentioned; apply to swale)

  23. The HP7 cell bottoms will be connected by a small rock-filled French drain to promote winter flow (8 Pg 7-8; was not in the 2015 Tender)

  24. The French drain will provide passage for fish (8 Pg 7-8 not mentioned; applies if provided)

  25. HP7 will have less open water and requires a Manning’s n change for cattails – 50/50 ratio (8 Pg 8)

  26. Changes in roughness will not measurably impact the conveyance capability of the floodplain (8 Pg 8)

  27. Average flow depth for cattails in HP7 will be less than half the height of vegetation (8 Pg 16)

  28. Conversion of 6 habitat ponds to wet meadows will not measurably reduce conveyance (8 Pg 9)

  29. Conversion of 6 habitat ponds to wet meadows will meet MVCA criteria (8 Pg 9)

  30. Ponds will function with water levels in the Carp and maximize their use for ecological diversity (10 Pg 11)

  31. Connections to the Carp River will be monitored to ensure HP7 is functioning as intended (17 Pg 42 also needs to be applied to the wet meadows)

  32. Water quality in HP7 will be maintained (17 Pg 42)

  33. Vegetation in HP7 will include cattails with a 50:50 ratio to open water (8 Pg 8)

WET MEADOWS [see also applicable criteria under Fish Habitat Ponds]

• 1. 3 wet meadows, as an alternative to 3 additional habitat ponds (which provide 45,000m3 of flood storage), will prevent additional 8.3m corridor widening (3)

  2. Wet meadows will provide conveyance relief during high flows (6)

  3. Wet Meadows 4 to 9 will replace Habitat Ponds 1 to 6 (8 Pg 7)

  4. All wet meadows will have no permanent water (8 Pg 7 table)

  5. All wet meadows will be sized and built as stated [8 Pg 7 Table, as modified in 9]

  6. Wet meadow depths will vary (8 Pg 7)

  7. The impact of the additional wet meadows will be identified

  8. The additional wet meadows will not adversely impact conveyance or the corridor width requirement

  9. Changes in roughness will not measurably impact the conveyance capability of the floodplain (8 Pg 8)

  10. Flows from storm sewers which outlet to wet meadows will not be adversely impacted, and vice versa

  11. Flow from storm outfall channels which outlet to wet meadows will not be adversely impacted, and vice versa

  12. Poole Creek flows will not be directed to Wet Meadow 2 or the pathway

  13. Wet meadow outlets will not adversely impact each other’s flow conveyance

  14. No wet meadow will outlet to another wet meadow (e.g. WM2 to WM6)

  15. No tributary or drainage swale will outlet to a wet meadow

  16. Wet meadows will not impact each other’s storage, HP7 storage, or channel water levels

FLOODPLAIN

• 1. 16ha will be removed (1)

  2. Lowering of overbank areas and floodplain due to habitat ponds and wet meadows will have no adverse impact (10 Pg 1)

  3. Floodplain morphology complexity will increase (8 Pg 6)

  4. Under bankfull and flood conditions (greater than bankfull) anticipated velocities in the channel and floodplain should not exceed 1.0 m/s assuming newly constructed conditions. Once vegetative cover is established, channel velocities should not exceed 0.3m/s while velocities for overbank flows in the floodplain should not exceed 0.5m/s (20 Pg 5)

CHANNEL

• 1. Velocities will increase (1)

  2. Sediment transport will be improved (1)

  3. Potential for ice jamming will be removed (1)

  4. Water quality will be improved (1)

  5. Channel will be narrow, meandering and provide for low flow (2)

  6. Armoured low flow channel will confine high velocity flows (6)

  7. Bankfull width will be about 40m wide (6)

  8. Reduction in channel width will improve sediment transport (10 Pg 2)

  9. The low flow channel will be narrow to create increased energy to maintain sediment conveyance (10 Pg 4)

  10. Low flow channel sinuosity increase of 21% (5160m vs 4250m) is sufficient vs the 2007 PARISH Design Brief 6375m and the 2015 PCSWMM Report (4.8m vs 4.3m) (10 Pg 2)

  11. Nested set of channels will improve sediment transport (10 Pg 2)

  12. Carp River low flows will not impede habitat pond connections (10 Pg 11; HP7 or wet meadow connections)

  13. Channel will contain a minimum depth of water at all times (10 Pg 11; will be specified)

  14. Channel water level fluctuations will be minimal (10 Pg 11)

  15. Channel morphology complexity will increase (8 Pg 6)

  16. The channel will meander within its belt width at its current bed gradient (10 Pg 4)

  17. The channel will widen above the low flow level to accommodate flood event flows (10 Pg 4)

  18. Pool/riffles sections will provide energy reflection to increase flow velocities and improve conveyance (10 Pg 4)

  19. Rock structures between pools will facilitate construction vs function as riffles (10 Pg 4)

  20. Velocities across all storm events will be less than 1.0m/s (10 Pg 7)

  21. Sediment particles will be less than 5mm (10 Pg 9)

  22. Sediment material composition will remain suspended in the flow due to quality control provided through SWM in the developments and open field and pasture lands being re-vegetated and stabilized (10 Pg 9)

  23. 2-year flow velocity will remain as per the existing condition approx. 500m downstream of Richardson Side Road due to no channel works being constructed (10 Pg 9)

  24. The low flow channel will improve conveyance through the majority of the reach vs existing conditions flow velocity curves (10 Pg 9)

  25. Bethnic conditions will be improved by preventing fine sediment and organic materials in the streambed (10 Pg 11)

  26. Riffles will extend approx. 300mm above the channel base (10 (Pg 11)

  27. Low flow channel depth will be 400mm or more above the top of riffles (10 Pg 11)

  28. Pool depths will be 700mm below surface (10 Pg 11)

  29. Pools will fill with sediment over time (10 Pg 11)

  30. Pond threshold crests should be a minimum of 200mm above the channel rifle invert as a possible ultimate condition to allow partial continuation of the low flow energy while allowing for a submerged depth of 200mm to provide an egress route avoiding stranded fish (10 Pg 11)

  31. Algae on the surface will only discharge during a storm event (10 Pg 11)

  32. The monitoring program will include water quality testing re how each pond threshold operates (10 Pg 11)

  33. Vegetative treatments and stone lining in the upper terrace meander will provide some potential for long term evolution (10 Pg 14)

  34. 2-year and greater storm events will occupy the upper terrace cross section (10 Pg 14)

  35. Recommended tributary channel widths will not be reduced without providing compensation

  36. Tributary channels will not be impacted by shortening or lenthening to enable connection to the new channel unless there is no adverse impact

  37. Storm outfall channels will not be impacted by shortening or lenthening to enable connection to the new channel unless there is no adverse impact or unless mitigation is provided

  38. The flow trajectory of the HP7 outlet, wet meadow outlets, tributary outlets, SWM Pond outfalls, SWM Pond outfall channels, storm sewer outfall channel outlets, storm sewer outlets, drainage swale outlets, and baseflow outlets will not adversely impact channel flow conveyance, and vice versa

  39. Unnecessary baseflow outlets will not be provided

  40. Vegetation in the channel will have no adverse impacts on flow conveyance

  41. Vegetation will establish in desired portions of the channel i.e. the substrate will support desired vegetation

  42. Vegetation characteristics, such as root mass buildup, will not impact water levels

  43. Manure, fertilizer and tackifier used for vegetation and chemicals used to treat retained soils will have no adverse impact on the Carp River channel or other open water areas

  44. No downstream channel bed elevations will be higher than upstream bed elevations unless a weir is required (applies to all channels, tributaries and outlets)

  45. All low flow channel top-of-bank connections will have no adverse impact on the upstream flows

  46. Vegetation will improve riparian cover on meander bends (8 Pg 8)

  47. Hydroseeding will be used for floodplain areas along riffle sections (8 Pg 9)

  48. The combination of vegetative materials in the channel will provide shading (implied in 8 Pg 8-9)

  49. Material changes from … brush mattresses to live stakes and hydroseeding will maintain the enhanced riverine fish habitat developed in the original design (8 Pg 9)

  50. Poole section second tier side slopes will be protected by hydroseeding and live stakes (8 Pg 9)

  51. Floodplain areas along pool sections will be protected by hydroseeding (8 Pg 9)

  52. Excess sediment will not accumulate at inside bends (8 Pg 8 implied)

  53. Hydroseeded vegetation will protect riffle sections (8 Pg 9)

  54. Pool section bottoms will be protected with native substrate (250mm) (8 Pg 9)

  55. Riparian vegetation will provide channel and bank stabilization (8 Pg 6)

  56. Riparian vegetation will provide shading for the channel (8 Pg 6)

  57. Riparian plantings and sod-blocks/brush mattresses, where necessary, will stabilize channel banks (8 Pg 7)

  58. Live stakes underlain by an erosion control mat (such as a 400 or 700 coir), or hydroseeding will be used to stabilize channel slopes (8 Pg 9)

  59. Bioengineering replaced by live stakes along low amplitude meanders will provide no risk to infrastructure (8 Pg 9)

  60. The treatment change will not impact stability of the channel due to the meander rock toe protection (8 Pg 9)

MATERIALS

• 1. Material costs will be reduced (8 Pg 6)

  2. Channel materials will be more cost-effective (8 Pg 7)

  3. Channel lining materials will be more cost-effective (8 Pg 7)

  4. Channel bed materials (substrate) complexity will increase (8 Pg 6)

  5. Angular rock and pit run for riffles and bank treatments vs river stone and granular B will reduce costs (8 Pg 8)

  6. Angular rock and pit run will not impact the habitat benefit created (8 Pg 8)

  7. Additional blast rock for channel stabilization will be identified during construction, if required (10 Pg 13)

  8. Materials will result in greater bed complexity (8 Pg 8)

  9. Materials will provide improvements in high velocity refugia, cover and spawning opportunities for fish (8 Pg 8)

  10. Angular rock will provide greater stability in bank treatments (8 Pg 8)

  11. Stone will be applied on meander bends where there is a geotechnical need vs on all point bars (inside bends), and on the toe of outside bends (8 Pg 8)

  12. Riffle materials and any rock placed for geotechnical reasons will provide more than adequate variability in channel substrate (8 Pg 8)

  13. The combination of materials in the channel will stabilize the channel (implied in 8 Pg 8-9)

  14. The combination of materials in the channel will prevent erosion (implied in 8 Pg 8-9)

  15. The combination of materials in the channel will not adversely impact conveyance (not in 8 Pg 8-9)

  16. Materials will remain in place and not be transported downstream (omitted in 8 Pg 8-9)

  17. Blast rock/pit run will be used along riffle sections for the bottom (400mm) and for first and second tier slopes (50mm-250mm) (8 Pg 9)

  18. Blast rock/pit run … will protect riffle sections (8 Pg 9)

  19. Pool section first tier side slopes will be protected with blast rock/pit run (400mm of 50-250mm) (8 Pg 9)

  20. Blast rock will reinforce the channel in areas where native material is unstable (8 Pg 9)

  21. Material changes from roundstone to clearstone … will maintain the enhanced riverine fish habitat developed in the original design (8 Pg 9)

  22. Bed material will be installed with a great deal of accuracy due to its low gradient (10 Pg 4)

  23. Bank hardening will facilitate constructability by soil stabilization (10 Pg 8)

  24. Bank hardening will reflect flow energy to focus on conveyance in lieu of migration (10 Pg 8)

  25. Bank hardening will increase flow velocity to support sediment transport (10 Pg 8)

  26. Bank hardening will limit erosion of unprotected banks to limit sedimentation (10 Pg 8)

VEGETATION

• 1. Wattles/fascines or sod mats will replace brush mattresses (8 Pg 9)

  2. Live stakes will provide the same shading benefit as brush mattresses in the long-term (8 Pg 9)

  3. The proposed treatment wIll provide similar riparian cover (8 Pg 9)

  4. The live stakes will not impact conveyance (8 omitted from Pg 9)

  5. Vegetation along river banks will support fish habitat (1)

  6. Average flow depth for sedges in wet meadows and the floodplain will be 1 to 2 times the height of vegetation (8 Pg 16)

  7. Average flow depth for sedges in wet meadows will be 1 to 2 times the height of vegetation (8 Pg 16)

  8. Vegetation will stabilize meander bends vs river stone (8 Pg 8)

  9. Bioengineering stabilization will limit interference with low flow conveyance by being placed in the upper cross section of the channel (10 Pg 5)

  10. Wet meadows will be predominantly planted with low height sedges on clay soils and 100 year levels will be at least twice the height of the sedges (10a)

  11. Manning’s n values used in modelling will be correct for the tendered vegetation types (10a implied)

  12. Any areas where vegetation is to be removed will be replanted and/or reseeded with native species (17 Pg 51 MNR Letter)

  13. Trees and shrubs in the floodplain will not adversely impact hydroseeded vegetation, and vice versa

  14. Trees and shrubs in the floodplain will not adversely impact flow conveyance

  15. Tree progeny and shrub expansion over time will not adversely impact flow conveyance

  16. Trees, shrubs, and vegetation in the corridor will not adversely impact any species

  17. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will not be harvested unless they are accessible without hazards and harvesting has been approved by the City

  18. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will provide a food source for species which rely on them

  19. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will not have social or medical impacts (e.g. Sneezeweed for snuff, poisonous, etc.)

  20. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will not block views of aesthetic features from the pathway

  21. New trees, shrubs and vegetation will not replace existing species unless necessary

  22. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will not attract unwanted species

  23. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will not require pesticides, herbicides and biological agents to control unwanted species

  24. Trees, shrubs and vegetation will not migrate into HP7, wet meadows, outfall channels, storm sewer outlets and the Carp River

  25. Vegetation in wet meadow rings will not migrate into other rings or outside the wet meadow boundary

  26. Selected vegetation will not adversely impact other selected vegetation

  27. Trees, shrubs and vegetation on the west side of the Carp River will be planted by developers or the City (Only HF1 and HF3 have trees and shrubs)

  28. Existing trees, shrubs and vegetation which are being retained will not be adversely impacted by new species

  29. Vegetation applied by hydroseeding will be placed in the following locations (20 Pg 2-4):

  30. Seed Mixture Type 1 – Riparian - from the waters’ edge to top of bank

  31. Seed Mixture Type 2 – Floodplain - flats lands adjacent to bank

  32. Seed Mixture Type 3a – Wetland - depressions in floodplain with standing water

  33. Seed Mixture Type 3b - Wet Meadow - depressions in floodplain with standing water or semi-saturated to saturated soils

  34. Seed Mixture Type 4 - Wet Meadow (Transition) - 10m rings at the edge of wet meadows with varying amounts of moisture depending on fluctuating water levels

  35. Seed Mixture Type 5 - Wet Meadow (Fringe) - 10m rings at the outer edge of wet meadow transition areas

  36. Native aquatic plants and harvested from other areas or acquired from nurseries, and their anchors, will have no adverse impact on the new ecosystem (19 Pg 35)

  37. Herbacious, including emergent aquatic plants, will help maintain the existing genetic makeup in the area (19 Pg 35)

RECREATIONAL PATHWAY

• 1. Public access to the Carp River will be improved (1)

  2. Pathways, pedestrian bridges, observation points and amenities will allow mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities (1)

  3. Aesthetic and social benefits will be provided (2)

  4. The pathway network will be kept at grade to increase conveyance (10 Pg 11-12)

  5. Pathways will be subject to 2 year storm event inundation (10 Pg 12)

  6. Pathway flooding will not be greater than 300mm (10 Pg 12)

  7. Velocity will no greater than 0.3m/s (10 Pg 12)

  8. Pathways will have no high points to trap a user during higher flood levels (10 Pg 12)

  9. Linear (vs ramped) pedestrian bridges will prevent isolation (10 Pg 12)

  10. Flood warning signs will reduce risk (10 Pg 12)

  11. Knee-wall setbacks from viewing stations will be increased (10 Pg 13)

  12. Recreational amenity will be provided (7 Pg 141)

  13. Communities/neighbourhoods will be linked (7 Pg 141)

  14. Access to sensitive features will be controlled (7 Pg 141)

  15. Education/interpretive opportunities will be provided (7 Pg 141)

  16. The City will provide sidewalks to connect to the pathway system

  17. The public will be made aware of all hazards

  18. Flow from tributaries will not be directed towards pathways

  19. Pathways will not cross cut/fill areas

  20. Pathways will not cross SWM pond overflows

  21. Pathways will not go up berms and embankments (impacts accessibility)

  22. If pathways are to go up berms and embankments, handrails will be provided

  23. No waste receptacles, benches, lighting, and other amenities for the public will be placed in the floodplain

  24. Angular pathway connections to roads will not be permitted (affects safety if high traffic volume)

WATER LEVELS

• 1. MVCA 1983 flood level will be adopted as a freeboard elevation (4 Pg 57)

  2. All servicing will account for the 1983 water level (4 Pg 57)

  3. Low flow water level will be below the first tier top-of-bank (bankfull water level)

  4. HP7, wet meadows and other floodplain areas will not overflow into channels in dry conditions and for storm events which are not intended to overtop them

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS [see 14 Pg 180-186]

• 1. Original pond sizing and designs in the KWMSS are valid (4 Pg 57)

  2. SWM ponds will be shifted horizontally (10 Pg 13)

  3. Gaps will not be left between SWM Ponds and adjacent lands, developed or undeveloped

  4. Gaps will not result in water being trapped

  5. Ultimate Pond 1, Pond 2, and Pond 5 will be in their correct location before pathways are constructed

HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES [see 14 Pg 189]

• 1. Maple Grove Bridge will be constructed sooner to remove a 4cm increase (4 Pg 58)

  2. Storm sewer outlets will be modified/extended and/or swales will be constructed to provide adequate conveyance to the new channel with erosion protection to ensure stability of the confluence during high flows (22 Pg 13 PP9, PP10 and swale to HP7)

  3. Bridges (Maple Grove, H417 Widening, Transitway, and Campeau Drive) will have preliminary designs, at minimum, and will be included in the modelling

  4. Confluence modelling will be done where the tributary confluences are close to bridges

  5. No elevated pathway or pedestrian bridge or berm will cross the Carp River or a tributary confluence or any other channel confluence with the Carp River unless floodplain compensation areas and impact on conveyance and maintenance has been identified

  6. Meanders and pathways will not compromise future bridge design or hydraulic structure positioning

  7. Temporary and permanent culverts will not adversely impact conveyance

  8. Temporary and permanent culverts will not adversely impact existing storm outfall channels

  9. Pre-loading berms will not adversely impact conveyance and stream monitors

  10. Riffles will not adversely impact flow conveyance from hydraulic structures

  11. H417 Widening changes will be based on as-built drawings and included in the modelling (21 Pg 2)

SANITARY PUMPING STATIONS AND OVERFLOWS

• 1. Sanitary pumping station and storm/sanitary cross-connection overflow volumes, flow rates and timing will be modelled to determine impact on the Carp River system features, water levels, storage, conveyance, and maintenance

  2. Sanitary pumping station and storm/sanitary cross-connections will not adversely impact SWM ponds, and other Carp River features

  3. The Kanata West Pumping Station (KWPS) Tender works will be properly coordinated with the CRRP Tender works and vice versa

  4. Sanitary sewer catchment area and diversion changes will not adversely impact the CRRP Tender works

CONSTRUCTION

• 1. A compressed sediment control program will prevent suspension of loose material due to excavation of large floodplain areas (10 Pg 14)

  2. Temporary erosion control measures will be on site to respond to unforeseen weather conditions and will include erosion blanket, mulch, temporary gabion rock and interim ponds (habitat ponds can be used as interim ponds) (10 Pg 14)

  3. The normal operation of the existing channel will not be impacted during construction (10 Pg 14)

  4. Construction will be completed by the 31 Oct 2016 (Stage 1 Phase 1) and by 17 Nov 2017 (Stage 2 Phases 2, 3, 4) (15 Pg 13) by 30 Nov 2017 (17 Pg 13)

  5. Construction will be completed without adverse incidents occurring (15 Pg 13 implied)

  6. KWOG and the City funding for Stage 2 will not impact the schedule (15 Pg 14)

  7. Environmental inspection/compliance monitoring will ensure all activities are carried out pursuant to pertinent environmental legislation, regulations and industry standards as well as adhere to mitigation measures (17 Pg 54 MNR Letter)

  8. Construction will be coordinated with development and other projects (17 Pg 2)

  9. Existing trees, shrubs and vegetation which are being retained will not be adversely impacted by construction

  10. SWM and floodplain compensation works on the east and west side of the channel will not be adversely impacted

  11. Construction will not proceed unless all errors and omissions have been corrected (e.g. S series cross section slopes differ from HF series wet meadow boundary elevations)

  12. The CRRP works will be in compliance with all agency permits and requirements:

  13. Permits and Approvals (17 Pg 33)

  14. DFO Permit (17 Pg 36+)

  15. MVCA Permit Application Evaluation Criteria (17 Pg 47)

  16. MNR Permit (17 Pg 49+)

  17. MOECC ECA (17 Pg 58+)

  18. MTO Permit (17 Pg 67+)

  19. MOECC PTTW Permit (17 Pg 76)

  20. MVCA Permits for Corridor (2014) and Phases

  21. Conflicts and duplication in the permits will be identified and reconciled

POST-CONSTRUCTION FOLLOW-UP

• 1. Maintenance costs will be identified and committed

  2. Monitoring, evaluation and mitigation costs will be identified and committed

  3. Follow-up monitoring will ascertain the success of the restoration/mitigation efforts, particularly the river, habitat pond and wet meadows (17 Pg 54 MNR Letter)

  4. Population-level monitoring surveys will occur in the spring and fall when migrations to breeding or wintering sites may be occurring using MNR approved survey protocols (17 Pg 54 MNR Letter)

  5. Annual post-construction and operational monitoring reports will assess the efficacy of the mitigation, wet meadows and habitat pond for a period of 5 calendar years following the completion of the restoration and development project (17 Pg 55 MNR Letter)

  6. Stage 2 permits will be issued by MVCA and MOECC

DEVELOPMENT PHASING, COORDINATION, SERVICING, IMPACT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

• 1. Development application interim analysis will demonstrate any incremental changes to the floodplain/SWM design will not increase water levels upstream or downstream in accordance with the Implementation Plan

  2. Tthere will be no reduction in available flood storage capacity of the corridor as set out in the Implementation Plan and the City’s 15 Oct 2009 response letter (11)

  3. Development will conform with the Kanata West Development Phasing Plan

  4. Upstream and downstream development will be monitored and evaluated for impact and cumulative impact on the CRRP works and vice versa

MODELLING

• 1. The new PCSWMM hydrologic/hydraulic model will replace the XPSWMM/QUALHYMO/HEC-RAS, July 2011 CV model (13 Pg 4)

  2. The AECOM HEC-RAS model used for the CRRP Tender design will be replaced by the PCSWMM Model

  3. The differences between the models and model results will be resolved

  4. Geo-referenced shapefiles for drainage catchments, road segments, manhole locations, pipe diameter and inverts will accompany development applications for these development areas to replace lumped catchments (14 Pg 41)

  5. The City will test the infrastructure with the overall development, determine changing impacts to existing infrastructure and ponds, and any changes to the receiving streams (14 Pg 41)

  6. The City will determine whether there are impacts elsewhere from the proposed development vs have development applications focus solely on proposed streets and sewer infrastructure (14 Pg 41)

  7. Inputs to the model of record will be based on as-built drawings vs after the development application and detailed design have been approved (14 Pg 41 revised)

  8. West end flood mitigation projects will be input to the model of record based on as-built drawings vs when work is completed in the field (14 Pg 41 revised)

  9. Catchment area boundaries will be accurate

  10. Increases in downstream catchment area boundaries will not adversely impact conveyance (14 Appendix 3)

  11. Increases in upstream and downstream catchment are boundaries will not adversely impact flow timing and water levels

  12. The PCSWMM model will be made available to developers for detailed design of SWM and drainage infrastructure (14 Pg 211)

  13. The multiple versions will not result in different standards being applied over time (14 Pg 211 implied)

  14. The models will take into account the effect on down stream flooding during both the spring melt and significant storm events. Ideally the remediation should improve the current situation down stream, but as a minimum it should not exacerbate it (18)

  15. Out-of-date standards will not be used

  16. 1983, 1991, 2015 and post-construction floodplain mapping projects will be reconciled and the correct elevations will be applied (16 implied)

  17. The Corridor will be modelled with the correct post-construction floodplain widths

  18. The PCSWMM modelling will be updated to include all existing as-built developments and infrastructure

  19. (vs SWM reports used as input in Ref 14 Pg 11)

  20. Modelling will simulate appropriate conditions (14 Pg 8)

  21. Modelling will account for climate change, snowmelt, back-to-back events and rain-on-snow events

  22. Flow monitor data will include all upstream sources

  23. Manning’s n values will be correct and consistently applied (e.g. use of 0.04 for Carp River areas with high grassed areas vs 0.075 for Poole Creek high grassed meadow areas in 14 Pg 14 vs 0.075 for Amberwood low grass golf course lands in 14 Pg 15)

  24. All reports and modelling results will be made available to the public

OTHER CARP RIVER RESTORATION AND CHANNELIZATION WORKS

• 1. Upstream and downstream restoration works and channel modifications will not adversely impact conveyance and modelling

  2. Catchment area changes upstream and downstream will not adversely impact

  3. All restoration works and channel modifications and shoreline improvements will be identified, evaluated for impact on conveyance, and monitored

FLOODPLAIN MAPPING

• 1. The City’s November 2015 Official Plan and Zoning Amendments to the Flood Plain Mapping Phase 1 project will not result in unnecessary mapping, or become out-dated quickly due to CRRP as-built drawings being provided

  2. Floodplain mapping will be peer reviewed

  3. A report on the CRRP project will evaluate the use and impact of the 1983 MVCA mapping in the development area

REFERENCES

• 1. Report to PEC and Council [CRRP] Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment 15 June 2012 http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2012/07-11/pec/08%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0047_Var%20Address.pdf

  2. Report to PEC and Council RE: Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study 3 Dec 2004 http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2005/01-12/pec/ACS2004-DEV-POL-0059.htm

  3. CRRP Widening Final Report 18 May 2010 Pg 29

  4. 13 July 2011, Greenland issued the Carp River Model Calibration Validation Exercise Final Report 13 July 2011 http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/air-land-and-water/carp-river-model-calibration-validation-exercise

  5. OCA 13-0281Request for Pre-Qualification – Carp River Restoration Project 22 Feb 2013

  6. Letter from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation 5 Apr 2013

  7. Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study Dec 2004

  8. Carp River Restoration Design Brief Addendum 19 Mar 2014

  9. MOE Environmental Compliance Approval Carp River Corridor 28 Mar 2014 https://www.accessenvironment.ene.gov.on.ca/instruments/8185-9AJRXT-14.pdf

  10. CRRP Design Brief 25 June 2013 [NOTE: refers to page numbers in the original; criteria which overlap the 28 Mar 2014 Design Brief Addendum are not generally duplicated above] 10a. CRRP Design Brief 25 June 2013 Appendix E HEC-RAS Update Correspondence AECOM Memorandum to Greenland 25 Feb 2013 10b. CRRP Design Brief 25 June 2013 Appendix F Geomorphologic Summary Table (PARISH 2007)

  11. MOE Letter to City of Ottawa 30 Mar 2011 RE Class EAs

  12. CRRP 2015 Tender SPECS 04 Section D

  13. Carp River PCSWMM Model Documentation Draft Report 29 July 2015

  14. Carp River PCSWMM Model Documentation Draft Report Appendices 29 July 2015

  15. CRRP Tender Addenda 6 Aug 2015 SPECS 01 Section A Carp River Restoration Tender Documents – Final

  16. Official Plan and Zoning Amendments to the Flood Plain Mapping – Phase 1 Nov 2015 http://ottawa.ca/en/official-plan-and-zoning-amendments

  17. CRRP Tender SPECS 04 Section D Special Provisions – General 6 Aug 2015

  18. Kanata West Development http://www.friendsofthecarpriver.com/?page_id=118

  19. CRRP Tender SPECS 06 Section F 6 Aug 2015 Pg35 F-2015-1-19 Aquatic Plantings

  20. CRRP Tender Addendum 9 21 Aug 2015 SP F2015-1-11 Hydroseeding

  21. CRRP Tender Addendum 7 13 Aug 2015

  22. CRRP Tender SPECS 06 Section F 6 Aug 2015 Pg 13 F-2015-1-06 Storm Sewer Outlet Rock-Lined Swale