2. AUDIT
OF CARP RIVER WATERSHED - APPROVAL OF TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A THIRD PARTY
REVIEW VÉRIFICATION DE L’ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN HYDROGRAPHIQUE DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP – APPROBATION DU CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE POUR L’EXAMEN PAR UNE TIERCE PARTIE |
That Council:
1. Approve the amended
draft Terms of Reference for a third party review of the Carp River Restoration
Project as presented on 24 June 2008 and amended by the following:
a.
The third party reviewer consult
with the Auditor General and Parts II Order requesters;
b.
That the two-zone policy be reviewed
as per the Auditor’s General report.
2. Direct
staff to proceed with a Request for Proposals to secure a qualified third party
engineering firm;
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve the selection and hiring of the pre-qualified third party engineering firm to undertake the work outlined in the approved draft Terms of Reference and to approve the funding through delegated authority to an upset limit of $300,000; and
4. Establish a new project authority in the amount of $300,000 to be funded from the Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.
6 Delegate
minor adjustments to the Terms of Reference, as a result of further
consultation with MOE, MNR and the Auditor General (AG), to the City Manager
and that any changes made be communicated to City Council.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité
1. approuve l'ébauche du cadre de
référence modifié en vue de l’examen par une tierce partie du Projet de
restoration de la rivière Carp, tel que présentée le 24 juin 2008 et modifiée en vue d’inclure les points suivants :
a.
que la tierce partie qui assure
l’examen consulte le vérificateur général et les demandeurs de l’Arrêté de la
Partie II;
b.
que la politique relative aux deux
zones soit examinée conformément au rapport du vérificateur général.
2. enjoigne le personnel de procéder à une
demande de propositions afin de s’assurer de retenir les services d’une tierce
firme d’ingénierie qualifiée;
3. autorise le directeur municipal à
approuver la sélection et l’embauche d’une tierce firme d’ingénierie qualifiée
en vue d’entreprendre le travail énoncé dans l'ébauche du cadre de référence
adopté, et le financement par pouvoir délégué jusqu’à une limite maximale de
300 000 $; et
4. établisse une nouvelle autorité de
projet d’un montant de 300 000 $ qui sera financée à partir du Fonds de réserve
en immobilisations des eaux usées.
5. demande
que des lettres soient envoyées au ministère de l’Environnement (MEO) et au
ministère des Richesses naturelles (MRN) en vue d’aborder les questions de
juridiction et les demandes contradictoires concernant les conditions visant la
tierce partie pour ce qui concerne Kanata-Ouest.
6. confie les
rectifications mineures au cadre de référence, découlant des prochaines consultations
avec le MEO, le MRN et le vérificateur général, au directeur municipal, et que
le Conseil municipal soit informé des autres changements apportés.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 16 June 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0018).
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
16 June 2008 / le 16 juin 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the
Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et
Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Rob Mackay
Economic
and Environmental Sustainability/Direction de la viabilité économique et de la
durabilité de l’environnement
(613)
580-2424 x 22632, rob.mackay@ottawa.ca
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the amended draft Terms of Reference for a third party review of the Carp River Restoration Project;
2. Direct staff to proceed with a Request for Proposals to secure a qualified third party engineering firm;
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve the selection and hiring of the pre-qualified third party engineering firm to undertake the work outlined in the approved draft Terms of Reference and to approve the funding through delegated authority to an upset limit of $300,000; and
4. Establish a new project authority in
the amount of $300,000 to be funded from the Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil :
1. d’approuver l'ébauche du cadre de
référence modifié en vue de l’examen par une tierce partie du Projet de
restoration de la rivière Carp;
2. d’enjoindre le personnel de procéder à
une demande de propositions afin de s’assurer de retenir les services d’une
tierce firme d’ingénierie qualifiée;
3. d’autoriser le directeur municipal à
approuver la sélection et l’embauche d’une tierce firme d’ingénierie qualifiée
en vue d’entreprendre le travail énoncé dans l'ébauche du cadre de référence
adopté, et le financement par pouvoir délégué jusqu’à une limite maximale de
300 000 $; et
4. Que
le Conseil établisse une nouvelle autorité de projet d’un montant de 300 000 $
qui sera financée à partir du Fonds de réserve en immobilisations des eaux
usées.
In 2007, in response to a report
to the Fraud and Waste hotline, the Office of the Auditor General (AG)
conducted an audit of the Carp River Restoration projects. At City Council on
April 23, 2008, the Auditor released a report ‘Audit of the Carp River Watershed and Related Projects’ which
contained numerous recommendations along with the City’s Management responses.
As a result of the recommendations 8,9, 10, and 11 and a coding error discovered by staff that lead to missed water volumes in the restoration modelthe
input received from the public and stakeholders, , management
recommended that a third party engineering firm be retained to undertaken
a review of the modeling work and to address the various concerns.
Council Meeting
At the meeting of 14 May 2008, Council approved this recommendation and passed the following motion for staff to:
a) Proceed with a third party review;
b) Post the Terms of Reference on the City’s
website in order to receive public feedback;
c) Address,
as part of a staff report, input and comments from the public for final
approval of the Terms of Reference at the June 24, 2008 Planning and
Environment Committee meeting and the following Council meeting;
d) Respond
to the Inquiry on Hiring of Consultants for Studies in order to discuss at the
same June 24, 2008 meeting.
This report presents the amended Terms of Reference for the third party review with a discussion of the public and agency input received to date and the staff response as directed by Council.
A copy of the public’s comments
can be found in the attached Document 2.
The motion pertaining to the Inquiry of Hiring of Consultants for
Studies has been addressed under a separate report on this agenda.
DISCUSSION
The intent of the Terms of Reference is to engage an engineering firm to conduct a complete, objective third party review and assessment of all aspects of the hydro-technical models for the Carp River Restoration Plan, and the impacts of any changes on the design of the Carp River Restoration Project. The selected firm will be required to review and validate whether the EA documents can still be applied with confidence to implement the Restoration Project.
Scope of Work for the Third
Party Review
The current scope of work includes 3 phases: 1)
a technical phase to review, validate and re-run the models; 2) a review phase
to address other related issues raised in the Auditor General’s report or via
staff and public comments; and 3) if necessary, at the discretion of the City, apply
the recommendations, updates and adjustments to the Carp River Restoration
Plan. Consideration for a Phase 3 will
be dependent upon the recommendations that are proposeds by the consultant
undertaking the review. under this review. Should this step be taken aA
report will be presented to Committee and Council on the recommended next
steps.
The selected firm will be under
the guidance of a technical review team comprised of a City staff team and a
representative from Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA).
Staff are also proposing the creation
of a Project Advisory Committee composed of key agencies and stakeholders who
will receive briefing sessions from the third party consultant. at the end of Phase 1 and 2. A A PPublic
Information session will be held at the end of Phase 2, culminating with a
presentation to Planning
and Environmental Committee. Council. It
is anticipated that the work envisioned for Phase 1 and 2 will take
approximately three to four months to complete, once the 3rd party
consultant new firm isis in place.
Pre-qualification of Short
Listed Firms
Pre-selection criteria was established and Staff
created a screening questionnaire and distributed to a list of
Engineering firms that were referred to the City by several sources including technical
agencies, staff and others. it to engineering firms
potentially capable of conducting the third party review assignment for the
City. Using
the criteria, sStaff
assessed corporate capabilities and experience in order to arrive at a short
list of potential third party firms.
Telephone interviews were then conducted to reconfirm that no conflicts
of interest with the City or land developers existed and that these
companies had the . Staff also sought to
confirm that these firms had the appropriate resources to
undertake the full scope of work. At the end of this
process, Staff
was able tofive engineering firms were pre-qualifiedy 5
engineering firms and all have expressed an that are interested interest in
responding to the a City’s Request for Proposals.
All firms except
Philips Engineering who worked on a workshop in the initial phase of the City’s Storm
Water Management Strategy in Spring 2007 have confirmed that they have
not worked for the City of Ottawa in the past five years. None of these firms have worked or had any affiliation
with any of the
Kanata West land developers. As well all
five firms
have indicated
that they have no No declaration of conflict of interest in undertaking the third party review assignment.
was declared for the land developers.
Staff have reviewed the assignment that was undertaken by Philips Engineering. Given this assignment was completed in May 2007 and is not related to the current review, staff are satisfied that no conflict of interest would exist if this firm competed and won the 3rd party review assignment.
The short
list of five pre-qualified firms is:
1.
Philips
Engineering (Burlington)
2.
Greenland Group of Companies, (Collingwood),
3.
XCG Consultant Ltd. (Cambridge ON),
4.
Coldwater Consulting (Ottawa),
1. SNC
Lavalin, (Toronto). The
final selection of the winning engineering firm/ bid will be made by the City
Manager.
As per the recommendation section of the report, staff are proposing that
the City
Manager select the
winning firm to undertake the review.
Public Input
on the Terms of Reference
As per Council’s 14 May 2008 motion, the Terms of
Reference wereas
posted on the City’s website for public input. They were also circulated to the Province for comment with
a request that an MOE official be available to explain the Province’s position on this matter at the June 24 CSEDC meeting. Several calls and emails were submitted to
MOE requesting their attendance at the June 24 meeting and their written
comments on the Terms of Reference.
Nine responses were received from the public. Several of the
comments received have been previously addressed by the City in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) consultation process and documented in the June
2006 Kanata West EA Consultation Report. The key issues raised included questions
concerning the two-zone flood policy, the designation of the Carp River as a
municipal drain, the lack of calibration of the model and extending the project
to downstream of Richardson Side Road. A summary of the main issues is found outlined
below.
On Friday June 13, prior to tabling the report for printing, staff received MOE’s comments on the third party Terms of Reference. Unfortunately there was not sufficient time to review these comments and take a final position on all the comments received and make the final amendments to the Terms of Reference. As well the Ministry of Transportation contacted staff on June 13, 2008 and advised that their provincial agency would be submitting comments to the City during the week of June 16 These comments would be received after the Committee report is printed and published on the City’s web site. Staff have yet to hear from MNR and at the time of finalizing this report, it was unclear as to whether this ministry will be submitting comments on the Terms of Reference.
A) Two-Zone Floodplain Policy
Respondent:
Several respondents requested that the Terms of Reference include a review of the application of the two-zone floodplain policy to this project.
This review would determine
whether, in this instance, modifying the floodplain to accommodate development
in the flood fringe area was appropriate.
Staff Response:
The two-zone approach was a recommendation of the Watershed/Subwatershed Study, and was addressed during the EA project consultation. The Carp River flood plain can best be described as a wide, flat, unconfined and shallow with extremely slow water flows.
Given these characteristics applying the two-zone concept (i.e. filling and removing any development area from the present flood plain, to provide adequate flood proofing), is an appropriate application of policy and flood plain management. This was confirmed in the “Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limits” (MNR 2002) and later in a letter from the Minster of Natural Resources dated April 26, 2007.
Staff and MVCA believe the
application of the two-zone approach has been sufficiently reviewed and
confirmed by the
Ministry of Natural Resources as an appropriate approach.
This difference of
opinion remains more one of a philosophical approach.
Designating the Carp River as
a Municipal Drain
Respondent:
Several comments were received on the issue of declaring the Carp River as a municipal drain.
Staff Response:
This issue was also addressed during the EA consultations. Although there is some documentation to support that a portion of the Carp River is a Municipal Drain, only through a determination of the Drainage Referee could such a conclusive finding be made. Referring this issue to the third party will provide little value as the final decision remains with another provincial authority, the Drainage Referee.
At present, this watercourse has
no legal status as a municipal drain under the Drainage Act. The Ontario
Ministry of Municipal Affairs also supports this viewpoint. As a side note,
remedies under the Drainage Act are provided to landowners along the Carp River
who wish to challenge this status.
Model Calibration
Respondent:
The lack of calibration of the
modells used was noted as a concern in
several of the responses.
Staff Response:
Staff acknowledges that although desirable, reliable stream gauge data is not usually available for small urbanizing catchments or sub-catchments like the Kanata West area. In fact, there are very few stream gauges installed on similar watersheds across Canada. As a result, a hydrograph simulation model is applied to estimate flood flows from an assumed design storm, relying on similar data from adjacent watersheds, experience and judgement to produce reliable results. This process is considered the best practice available until new data can be reliably collected.
Three monitors are now in place and full data collection is now proceeding. Recognizing it may require many years to establish and measure any significant flow events, the implementation plan does provide for adjustments to be made as data collection becomes available.
In view of the above, staff continue to support the process of adaptive management chosen for the Carp River Restoration Project as it represents best practice. The issue of model calibration is part of the Terms of Reference for the third party review.
Project Extension Downstream of Richardson Side Road
Respondent:
It was requested that the project be extended beyond Richardson Side
Road.
Staff Response:
The project limitation was defined as a result of the urban boundary. The restoration would have provided little or no benefit to the rural/ agricultural landowners. The restoration of the Carp River was therefore limited to the Kanata West lands where financial resources could be generated through the development process to support the restoration plans. Extending the boundary will change the project scope and definition of the EA and would trigger a new EA process.
Fernbank Lands
Respondent:
Fernbank lands should now be included as part of this process.
Staff Response:
At the time of the Carp Water/ Sub-Watershed Study was undertaken, the Fernbank Lands were outside the urban boundary. Due to subsequent changes in the Official Plan, this area is now included. As part of this land development, the Fernbank project must provide their own storm water management within their boundaries in order to ensure they have no impact upon the Carp River throughout the restoration reach and downstream development. To include these lands in the Carp River Restoration Plan now would trigger a new EA process and delay the restoration plan by several years, thereby permitting further degradation of this watercourse.
A table summarizing these comments and staff’s responses are attached in Document 3, “Public Feedback Table on Terms of Reference”.
Timeline and Next Steps
Upon approval of the RFP, respondents will be provided two to three weeks to prepare their bid submission. The selection of the winning firm is anticipated to commence by mid-August with work being completed by the end of November/ early December 2008.
Per Council's direction, the Terms of Reference (ToR) was posted on the City's website for comments from May 27 to June 9. In addition, the posting was advertised in The Citizen and Le Droit as well as in the west end community newspapers: Kanata Kourier, Kanata EMC, West Carleton Weekender, West Carleton EMC, Stittsville News and the Stittsville Weekender.
A Public Service Announcement was
also issued, and interested parties informed by e-mail.
In addition, input was sought
from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) who typically inform the sister provincial
ministries and the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA). At the
time of the authoring this report, no comment had been received from the MOE
MVCA’s comments were incorporated in the posted ToR document.
Funds are available for Transfer from the Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.
Document 1- Public Comments
Staff acknowledges that the provincial comments are important and may
trigger modifications to the position staff have
taken on some
of the matters raised above and the draft terms of reference. Staff proposes that the City Manager
sign off on these final changes and the consulting firm hired to undertake the third party review. Should this process not
be acceptable staff will need to bring the Terms of Reference back to the next Planning and Environment
Committee in July and Council for authority to release the RFP.
Staff
will proceed the release of
the approved draft ToR to the five pre-qualified shortlisted engineering firms.
Upon receipt of the bid submissions from the pre-qualified consultants, the
technical advisory group will undertake an evaluation process and present its
recommendation to the City Manager who will finalize the selection of the
winning firm.
PUBLIC COMMENTS DOCUMENT 1
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ted Cooper
Sent:
June 09,2008 6:44 AM
To:
Carp River Restoration
Subject:
Comments on Terms of Reference
Please
find below my comments on the proposed Terms of Reference for the Third Party
Review.
Comments
on Third Party Review Terms of Reference
I have
prepared these comments with the knowledge of the alternative Terms of
Reference prepared by Darlene Conway, which I take the position are superior to
those offered on the City of Ottawa's website, and should form the basis on
which the Third Party Review should proceed. As a result, I am submitting below
only high-level comments on fundamental requirements of the audit that appeared
to be lacking in the proposed version of the Terms of Reference made available
for comment.
Floodplain Policy
The scope of the terms of reference needs to be expanded to
include examination of floodplain policy.
Given that staff will be required to prepare reports for
consideration by Committee and Council supporting future Rezoning of Hazard
Lands / floodplain overlay in Kanata West, there is a need for an independent
review of natural hazard policy issues.
Given the recent successful outcome of my OMB Appeal of the Jock
River floodplain development - it should be apparent to Council that future
staff reports prepared for PEC need to provide the policy basis on which
development of existing One-Zone floodplain can proceed. In the case of the
Jock River floodplain development proposal, the RVCA would not allow 7 lots to
be developed from the floodplain - yet the MVC appears to be willing to allow
something hundreds of lots to be developed in the 28 Ha of Carp River
floodplain. How can there be such inconsistency in the application of OP
Policies and the PPS within the City of Ottawa? The Third Party Reviewer should
be asked to explain how there could be such a divergence in application of
Natural Hazard Policies in the same municipality, employing the same OP
Policies.
I have an outstanding Appeal of the Richcraft Plan of Subdivision
in Kanata West and it will be necessary for the City to defend the basis on
which that Approval was given based on floodplain policy.
There will be a need for future Zoning Bylaw Amendments and Plans
of Subdivision to be approved that could be subject to Appeals to the OMB.
Unlike the Trinity OMB Hearing, the MVC will be summonsed in future Hearings to
defend its approach to floodplain management, particularly if they continue to
use the 1983 floodline for planning and regulation purposes, given the number
of changes that have occurred in the watershed since 1983. (A Section 43
Request for Review has been filed with the OMB regarding the April 25, 2008
Trinity OMB Decision. A Judicial Review has also not been ruled out).
Carp River as a Municipal Drain
The status of the Carp River as a municipal drain needs to be
resolved - and the sooner the better. The Third Party Review could prove to be
entirely pointless should a determination be made that the Carp River is a
municipal drain. In some ways this should be the first task to be completed in
the review, because it could require a complete shift in the process through
which the Restoration Project must proceed.
There is a lot of evidence available to support the position that
the Carp River has status as a municipal drain. There are engineering drawings,
the 1909 OCA Decision, reference to the Carp River Drain on the OMAF Municipal
Drain Index Mapping, etc. I have recently learned that a Borrowing Bylaw that
was passed by a former municipality has been discovered that adds to the
evidence of the Carp River being a municipal drain.
The Third Party Review should provide recommendations about how to
proceed once a determination is made about the status of the Carp River as a
Municipal Drain. The qualifications of the Consultant to be selected should
include some familiarity with the Drainage Act.
Need to establish definition of Existing Conditions
The Terms of Reference, as proposed, appear to be pre-occupied
with correcting only the deficiencies with the post-development model. There
appears to be no identification that there is a need to first establish a
credible definition of existing conditions from which an impact assessment can
be conducted.
There have been many changes in land use and alterations made to
the Carp River floodplain since 1983 when the floodplain mapping was first
completed on the Carp River. There have even been many changes since 2000, when
the Subwatershed Plan was initiated - and since it was approved in January
2005.
The impact assessment is being conducted on a very loose
definition of "Existing Conditions". In some cases the comparison is
being made between the recent (2006/2007) floodplain modeling work and the 1983
floodplain report findings. In other cases it is between the non-calibrated
existing and future floodplain analysis completed by CH2M Hill.
What is clear is that there is no up-to-date definition of
existing floodplain conditions consistent with the "Technical Guide River
& Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard
Limits (2002)". Furthermore, the "City of Ottawa"
(PWS, presumably) raised a number of concerns with the CH2M Hill existing
conditions study that are included in the Class EA documentation. In
particular, at point 9, the City of Ottawa's position is that "It is
recommended that design not proceed based on flows from this analysis."
Therefore, a fundamental requirement of the Third Party Review is
establishing clarity in the definition of "existing conditions" from
which the impact assessment of the proposed Restoration Plan is to be based.
Apparent Problems with Modeling
There are a number of problems with the modeling that need to be
corrected before any work on model calibration, etc. proceeds. These are
problems whereby there are inconsistencies between what is modeled and what is
actually found in the field. The best examples of this are:
1.. The encroachment of
the Sensplex into the Carp River floodplain during its development;
2.. The encroachment of
the SMART Technologies development in the Carp River floodplain during its
development; and
3.. The actual
topographic conditions that exist north of the future Campeau Drive, between
Didsbury Drive and the Carp River
In the case of the Sensplex and SMART Technologies developments,
because there was never any compensating cut required by the MVC to offset the
impact of the large volumes of fill that were placed during the development of
those sites, when the necessary changes are made to the HECRAS model, the Third
Party Reviewer should comment on whether those changes should be made to the
existing conditions model or the post-development model.
In the case of the area north of the future Campeau Drive a
determination needs to be made by the Third Party Reviewer, from a floodplain
policy perspective, whether those lands will be deemed to be within the
floodplain - as shown in Figure 2 of Appendix E of the Post-Development CH2M
Hill report.
I believe the above issues raise a very important question that
the Third Party Reviewer needs to answer - should the City give any weight to
the 1983 floodplain conditions in it's impact assessment? In other words, while
the 1983 floodplain mapping may be used by the MVC for Regulation under the
Conservation Authorities Act, given the investment the City has made in
updating the hydrologic and hydraulic assessments using more detailed
topographic mapping and up-to-date watershed conditions, once the modeling is
completed to standard, should any consideration be given to the 1983 conditions
while Council is deliberating the approval of applications under the Planning
Act?
Model Calibration vs. Sensitivity Analysis & Adaptive
Management
The Third Party Reviewer should be asked to summarize model
calibration requirements from the "Technical Guide - River & Stream
Systems: Flooding Hazard
Limits (2002)", and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
Technical Guidelines, and to comment on the differences between model
calibration and sensitivity analysis.
Furthermore, given that flooding is a health and safety issue that
also poses risks to property, the Third Party Reviewer should be asked whether
the precautionary principle should be applied given the uncertainty of the
aerial extent and elevation of flood levels. The Third Party Reviewer should be
required to provide a Professional Engineering Opinion on the appropriateness
of employing Adaptive Management on an engineered system where the public's
health and safety are at risk.
Development unaccounted for in Present Impact Assessment
There are at least three major developments unaccounted for in the
impact assessment completed to date:
1.. The expansion works
planned for Highway 417 that will affect the hydrology (expansion of impervious
areas and drainage improvements), and the hydraulics of the Carp River
(lengthening/widening the bridges through which the river must be conveyed);
2.. The Fernbank
Development area that will add 200 Ha of urban area to the watershed; and
3.. The Carp Road
Corridor.
The Third Party Reviewer must provide recommendations about how
the consideration of these development areas are to be factored in the impact
assessment such that future planning approvals that are to be based on the
supporting analysis have been completed using an approach that "is
consistent" with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Interim Development and Identification of Stormwater Management
Criteria
One of the first tasks that the Third Party Reviewer should be
asked to complete is an examination of supporting documentation to determine
whether there is any basis on which to assign stormwater management criteria
(quantity control criteria).
Since the grading plan shown in the Kanata West Infrastructure
Master Plan is based on the assumption that there is no need for quantity
controls above the 10-year event, major system drainage has been directed to
outlet directly to the tributaries and to the Carp River, with no opportunity
for off-line stormwater management.
As a result, the Third Party Reviewer must comment on whether it
is prudent to allow development to continue on the basis of the grading plan
from the Kanata West Infrastructure Master Plan, or if there is a need to
develop a different grading plan that would provide flexibility, in case the
subsequent findings of the Third Party review are such that quantity controls
up to the 100-year event are found to be required.
Steve
Hardaker
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
draft TORs for the Third Party Review of the Carp River Restoration Plan.
First, the Restoration Plan is a very credible
document that puts forward a valid plan for the restoration of a very sick
river system. It is absolutely
necessary to restore this river to a healthy watercourse, regardless of whether
development is occurring in this reach of the river. The partnership between the City, Conservation Authority and land
owners offers a cost sharing opportunity that will benefit the taxpayers of the
city. Without this partnership, the
restoration must be completed. Without
this partnership, the cost would be borne completely by taxpayers.
Some individuals and groups have commented that the
restoration plan does not go far enough down the Carp River. That stopping at Richardson Sideroad will
only push the problems farther downstream.
While this later comment may not be factually correct, not going beyond
Richardson Sideroad is a valid concern.
The current Carp River problems go beyond Richardson Sideroad and these
reaches should also be considered for restoration. This supports an entire watershed approach to the restoration of
the river. Under Review of Other
Related Issues, I would like to see the third party reviewer comment on whether
the city should be considering restoration beyond Richardson Sideroad. These comments should include a number of
cost estimated options for completing the work. As most landowners north of Richardson Sideroad are iprivate
landowners and farmers who do not possess the funds to contribute or can afford
to freely give buffer land for the work, some options for land compensation
should also be explored and provided.
Thanks again for the opportunity.
Steve
Hardaker
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod MacLean
Sent: June 08,2008 11:30 AM
To: Carp River Restoration
Cc: Feltmate, Peggy
Subject: Carp River Restoration Plan 3rd Party TOR
Hello Sandra Stone,
The
following is my concern for the Terms of Reference for Third Party Review of
the Carp River Restoration Plan.
Should
engaging external independent groups from outside Eastern Ontario and Western
Quebec to conduct a quality control assessment of studies so as to vet
reliability and validity a) the hydrological, geological and climatology
assumptions and b) test the program variables and models for not just internal
logic and coherence under not only normal but also reasonably possible
circumstances – become a normal practice?
Yours,
Rod MacLean
From: Jimjlougheed
Sent:
June 02,2008 8:30 PM
To:
Christensen, Carol
Cc:
Schepers, Nancy; Stone, Sandra; Mackay, Rob
Subject:
Lougheed Comments Posting of Terms of Reference for Third Party Review
Dear Ms. Christensen, I am replying to your email with my comments
on the Terms of Reference because the address provided was returned as unknown.
I would like to comment on the Terms of Reference proposed for the
third party review of the Carp River Restoration Plan.
Previous Technical Models have failed to include chemical and
biological contaminant estimates or the downstream impact of such
material. Stormwater from any extensive
development can reasonably be expected to contain significant quantities of
dissolved road salt, automotive residues, pet droppings, lawn & garden
products, spills etc. that may not be mitigated by sedimentation and will be
passed along to the Carp River. This is
a major change to the current state and utilization of the river and its
effects should be modeled.
I request that the Terms of Reference include Technical Models of
the stormwater chemical and biological loads and analyses of their impact on
the Carp River Watershed / subwatershed.
Thank
you,
Jim
Lougheed
-----Original
Message-----
From: Coolican,Joscelyn
Sent: June 09,2008 2:48 PM
To: Carp River Restoration
Subject: Public Consultation- ToR for 3rd Party Review
Attn: Sharon Stone,
I am currently on maternity
leave from my position as environmental analyst with the federal government and
have had some time to follow local issues in the media. The Carp River
Restoration Project is of interest to me given that my education is in urban
planning, my position is in the field of water management- and it has truly
become an interesting story to follow! As a concerned citizen, I have
provided a few general comments based on a quick review of the Terms of
Reference.
Sincerely,
Joscelyn Coolican
-----Original
Message-----
From: Pam Cain
Sent: June 09,2008 4:33 PM
To: Carp River Restoration
Cc: 'Jim Cain'
Subject: Carp River Development Plan
To
the attention of: Project contact:
Sandra Stone, Planning, Transit and the Environment
From: Pam and Jim Cain
As someone who lived for many years
adjacent to homes which were built on the Mississippi River flood plain, and
watching the consequences of that every spring, I wish to express my interest
in the Carp River Restoration Plan. While neither I nor my husband is qualified
to assess the Terms of Reference which are guiding current discussions about
flood plain development, we do wish, as responsible taxpayers, to lend our
voice of support to those who have the expertise to thoughtfully consider the
most responsible use of the Carp River watershed.
By way of guiding principles, we ask
that a transparent and inclusive communication plan be followed. In our
experience, much time can be wasted when participants in a debate conduct their
business in a way which leaves room for concern and perhaps suspicion. It is
possible to lose sight of the key issues when the credibility of the key
players takes precedence in the public's mind. To an observer, it appears that
the Carp River project has been the victim of misunderstanding and mistrust.
Clarification of terms and definitive answers to long-standing questions should
alleviate most of this confusion.
At the risk of stating the obvious,
we ask that residential development in potentially fragile natural environments
be held to a much higher standard than might be expected in less sensitive
areas. Should errors occur in the process, as has been documented in the CRRP
case, every effort must be made to correct those errors so that decisions are
based on accurate evidence, notwithstanding the economic implications, both
positive and negative, which must become secondary to environmental concerns.
As a final point, given the price of
gas and the city's stated objective of reducing urban sprawl and populating the
city's core with more residents, perhaps the larger question has to do with
evaluating the need to attract more families to live beyond the green belt, and
potentially compromising a vital habitat for a variety of birds, fish and
animals. Maybe the most important question is the What If? What if the Carp
watershed were left for Nature to manage, and people were encouraged to live in
the heart of the city where services would be maximized, thus reducing the
overall cost? Careful intensification of the city's core may be more beneficial
to our nation's capital than investing in projects that ultimately distress and
sometimes destroy our wetlands.
Do we really need to "pave
paradise" and "put up a parking lot"?
Pam and Jim Cain
TABLE ON PUBLIC
COMMENTS WITH STAFF RESPONSES DOCUMENT
2
Public Feedback
Carp River Restoration Plan
Resident |
Feedback |
Staff Response |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Ted Cooper |
§
Floodplain Policy – The scope of the terms of reference needs to be
expanded to include examination of floodplain policy |
§
The floodplain policy related to the Carp River Restoration was
recommended in the Watershed/Subwatershed Study, the Project has been
supported and the EA documents
accepted by both the MNR and the MVCA |
|
§
Carp River as a municipal drain – The status of the Carp River as a
municipal drain needs to be resolved |
§
As addressed in the June 2006 EA consultation report, the City’s
position remains that the Carp River has no legal status as a Municipal Drain
under the Drainage Act, and that the EA process followed was appropriate for
developing a plan of restoration for the Carp river. |
||
§
Need to establish definition of existing conditions – There appears
to be no identification that there is a need to first establish a credible
definition of existing conditions from which an impact assessment can be
conducted |
§
Existing conditions in the watershed have been assessed and
documented in the Watershed/Subwatershed and Existing Condition reports,
including 35 years of recorded streamflows on the Carp River and several
recent project related measurements in the Kanata West lands. |
||
§
Apparent problems with modeling – There are a number of problems with
the modeling that need to be corrected before any work on model calibration,
etc. proceeds |
§
See ToR item 4. Identified modeling problems have been addressed by
TSH, and are included in the 3rd Party review scope of work. |
||
§
Model calibration vs. sensitivity analysis and adaptive management – The third party reviewer should be
asked to summarize model calibration requirements from the “Technical Guide –
River & Stream Systems: Flooding
Hazard Limits (2002)”, and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Technical Guidelines,
and to comment on the differences between model calibration and sensitivity
analysis |
§
See Items 8 and 14 of the Terms of Reference. As per June 2006 consultation report,
modeling of the infrastructure will be ongoing and information obtained will
be used to calibrate and update the modeling results as required. This is
known as “adaptive management” and is appropriate for situations like the
Carp River Restoration Plan. Where extensive flow data is not available for
small urban watersheds, as is usually the case, computer simulation models
may be applied to a design storm to estimate the design flows, relying upon
experience and judgement of the modeller as the initial calibration process. |
||
§
Development unaccounted for in Present Impact Assessment – There are
at least three major developments unaccounted for in the impact assessment
completed to date |
§
The information for the existing conditions hydraulic model utilized
field surveys. Therefore any
development in place, at that time, was taken into account. All future encroachments and proposed
changes to the Carp River flood plain are included in the post-development
model and considered in the impact assessment. |
||
§
Interim Development and Identification of Stormwater Management
Criteria – One of the first tasks that the Third Party Reviewer should be
asked to complete is an examination of supporting documentation to determine
whether there is any basis on which to assign stormwater management criteria
(quantity control criteria) |
§
See items 22 and 24 of the Terms of Reference. Interim development is
also included as part of the adaptive management process outlined in the
Project Implementation Plan. |
||
|
|
|
|
2.
Steve Hardaker |
§
Restoration Plan is a very credible document that puts forward a
valid plan |
§
City agrees |
|
§
Absolutely necessary to restore River to a healthy watercourse
regardless of development |
§
City agrees |
||
§
Partnership between the City, Conservation Authority and land owners
offers a cost sharing opportunity that will benefit the taxpayers |
§
City agrees |
||
§
Under Review of Other Related Issues, suggests the third party
reviewer comment of whether the City should be considering restoration beyond
Richardson Side Road. |
§
The EA was not scoped to include this reach, but due to the rural
nature of the area, a less intensive “stewardship” project may be possible in
the future. Items 6, 13 and 25 address downstream impacts. It should be noted
in order to proceed with any works beyond Richardson Side Road, funding would
need to be collected upfront from the current landowners before any work
could be done. |
||
|
|||
3.
Rod MacLean |
§
Should engaging external independent groups from outside Eastern
Ontario and Western Quebec to conduct a quality control assessment of studies
so as to vet reliability and validity a) the hydrological, geological and
climatology assumptions and b) test the program variables and models for not
just internal logic and coherence under not only normal but also reasonably
possible circumstances – become a normal practice? |
§
Pre-qualified firms have been screened for their independence.
Independent reviews are usually used to address specific issues related to
technical, financial or social aspects of a project, such as in this case. |
|
4.
Darlene Conway |
§
Proposes an alternate Terms of Reference |
§
The alternate Terms of Reference will be reviewed in the context of
the recently received ministry comments. A recommendation will be made on the
appropriateness of further modifications to the Terms of reference at that
point. It should be noted that the
policy and regulatory aspects that are suggested for review have to date been
dealt with by the responsible agencies through the EA process. |
|
5.
Jim Lougheed |
§
Terms of Reference should include Technical Models of the stormwater
chemical and biological loads and analyses or their impact on the Carp River
Watershed/Subwatershed |
§
As per June 2006 consultation report, all stormwater controls will be
constructed to meet the standards of the approved Watershed/Subwatershed
study. |
|
6.
Joscelyn Coolican |
§
There should be clarification on whether the River is an official
municipal drain |
§
See T. Cooper comment above. |
|
§
The third party review should include a policy and legislative review |
§
See D. Conway comment above. |
||
§
The recommendations of the Mississippi Valley Conservation should be
reviewed since it is unusual for flood plain development in greenfield
situations to occur these days |
§
MVCA policies regarding development in floodplains are consistent
with the Provincial policy, and have been confirmed to be appropriate by the MNR
and the OMB. |
||
§
The third party needs to outline a planning process for developing an
acceptable River Restoration plan that involves all parties who have
expressed an interest in the project to date. To not do so, runs the risk of more Part II orders and other
blocking strategies |
§
The EA process conducted in 2005 is the appropriate planning process. |
||
§
Hopes that Darlene Conway and Ted Cooper were/are involved in
writing/finalizing the Terms of Reference and are an integral part of the
plan |
§
All interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on
the Terms of Reference. |
||
|
|||
7.
Erwin Dreessen |
§Proposes that the Auditor
General finalize the Terms of Reference and that the AG present them to PEC
on June 24. Further proposes that the
AG’s Office be tasked with being the manager, recipient and rapporteur of the
third party reviewer’s work. Also
suggests that Ted Cooper and/or Darlene Conway be seconded to the AG’s office
for the purpose of this review. |
|
|
§If this third party review
is to “clear” the air”, it should start with taking stock of the positions of
all stakeholders |
|
||
§Totally absent is the
fundamental policy issue: Is defining
a “fringe” and filling it appropriate here? |
|
||
§What the scope should be
of a Restoration Plan for the Carp River is not asked. |
|
||
§Use of an “adaptive
management” approach is not acceptable in this project |
|
||
§The consultant should be
asked to develop conservative conditions under which development of lands
outside the 1983 flood plain could be permitted, including storm water
management criteria |
|
||
§Darlene Conway’s
alternative Terms of Reference are clearly superior to those on the City’s
website. Her draft should be the basis
for final Terms to be recommended to PEC. |
|
||
§Why was the document,
“Implementation Plan Final Draft” by Delcan not shared with the Part II Order
Requesters? What is the status of
this document? |
The
documents indicate that a final IP must be developed
subsequent to the approval of the EA's. A copy of the IP could not have
been provided at the time of the Part II Orders, as one did not exist. In an
effort to be proactive while the EA's were being reviewed, a draft
of the IP was prepared. The IP will be finalized after the outcome of
the EA approval. |
||
|
|
||
8.
John Almstedt |
§
Darlene Conway’s Terms of Reference greatly improves what the City
has provided the public respond to.
Comments are provided on Darlene’s Terms of Reference. |
§
See D. Conway comment above. |
|
§
The first objective to “determine” whether the CRRP, as currently
envisioned, is consistent and complies with all pertinent policies,
procedures, legislation and guidelines” is important in order to gain public
confidence |
§
See ToR Phase 3. The EA process has already established this. |
||
§
To not involve Cooper and Conway in a meaningful and professional
role would do a disservice to the City’s taxpayers and only increase the
public’s suspicion and resistance to just about anything that will eventually
be offered as a river restoration plan |
§
See J Coolican and Erwin Dreessen comment above. |
||
§
Would like to emphasize the importance of correctly modelling the
proposed stormwater management facilities and habitat ponds with respect to
riparian storage calculations, or to put it more simply, should SWF be
allowed on the flood plain? |
§
The City position is that this is acceptable practice as stormwater
management and floodplain storage elements have been integrated fully into
the restoration plan. This issue will also be reviewed by the 3rd
Party consultant. |
||
§
There is a need for an interim development plan |
§
See items 22 and 24 of the Terms of Reference. |
||
§
Is it or is it not a municipal drain? |
§
See T. Cooper comment above. |
||
|
|||
9.
Pam and Jim Cain |
§
Lend their voice of support to those who have the expertise to
thoughtfully consider the most responsible use of the Carp River watershed |
§
Many qualified experts have been involved, and continue to be
involved, in this project. |
|
§
By way of guiding principles, a transparent and inclusive
communication plan be followed |
§
The EA was a fully transparent process, as is the development of
these Terms of Reference. A public meeting on the draft findings from the 3rd
party has been included. |
||
§
Residential development in potentially fragile natural environments
be held to a much higher standard that might be expected in less sensitive
areas |
§
City agrees and has developed a comprehensive restoration plan to
address this. |
||
§
What if the Carp watershed were left for Nature to manage, and people
were encouraged to live in the heart of the city where services would be
maximized, thus reducing the overall cost?
Careful intensification of the City’s core may be more beneficial to
our nation’s capital than investing in projects that ultimately distress and
sometimes destroy our wetlands. |
§
The project recognizes the all of the essential characteristics of
the Carp River and is intended to restore a heavily degraded stream into a
sustainable natural environment to accommodate the City’s needs. If the Carp River were left in its present
state it would continue to deteriorate and fill with sediment. |
AMENDED TERMS OF REFERENCE
DOCUMENT 3
24 June 2008
Terms of Reference - Third Party Review of Carp River Restoration Project
1.
Background
The
Carp River is located in the west end of the City of Ottawa, discharging into
the Ottawa River at Fitzroy Harbour. It has a total watershed area of 306
square kilometres and is predominantly rural in character, except for the upper
watershed (approximately 5500 hectares to Richardson Side Road), which is
partly urbanized and subject to considerable urban growth pressure. The upper
reaches of the Carp River have been identified as a heavily degraded stream,
significantly altered and characterized by shallow gradients with limited
baseflow and aggraded conditions. A Restoration Plan has been prepared for the
Carp River in order to mitigate development impacts on the watercourse, improve
the sediment transport and balance, increase fish habitat, and provide
aesthetic and environmental benefits to the community of Kanata West.
The
Carp River Restoration Plan (CRRP) has been under development for approximately
eight years, beginning with the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study (CRWSS,
Robinson Consultants Inc., December 2004), which was undertaken in 2000 and
ultimately approved by City Council in 2005. (available here:
http://www.mvc.on.ca/planning/carpriver.pdf).
A
key recommendation of the CRWSS was the implementation of a two-zone floodplain
policy through a reach of the upper Carp River within a proposed development
area known as Kanata West, a 725 hectare area brought into the urban boundary
in 2000. The Kanata West Concept Plan, outlining general land use and
development principles for this area, was approved by City Council in 2003. The
CRWSS included a preliminary analysis of the
proposed filling of the present flood fringe areas using a conservative
assumption of a minimum 100 metre wide floodway along the entire reach of the
Carp River from Richardson Side Road to Hazeldean Road and the existing channel
configuration. Further assessment of the impact of the specific restoration
design and specific proposed alterations to the flood plain took place during
the EA process.
A
series of Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) studies were
undertaken in support of the CRRP and the servicing and transportation needs
for the Kanata West development area. The Kanata West Landowners’ Group (KWOG)
and the City of Ottawa were co-proponents in the Class EA process. As proposed
in the Class EAs, the CRRP was based on the application of the two-zone concept
and would result in the creation of 28 hectares of developable land from the
regulatory (100-year) floodplain in exchange for the rehabilitation of an upper
reach of the Carp River, to be largely paid for by the Kanata West development
proponents. Through land use changes and re-alignments, the net reduction in
floodplain area is presently estimated to be 14 hectares.
Modeling
completed as part of the CRWSS
indicated that post- to predevelopment peak flow controls were not
required.
The
preliminary restoration design completed in support of the Class EAs, concluded
that pre-development riparian storage within the reach would be matched in the
post-development condition and that flood levels would be reduced in the
post-development condition. The Class
EAs were supported by the City, Mississippi Valley Conservation (MVC), the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). The
Class EA studies and supporting documents included:
i) Flow Characterization and Flood Level
Analysis: Carp River, Feedmill Creek and Poole Creek (CH2MHill, October 2005);
ii) Post-Development Flow Characterization and
Flood Level Analysis for Carp River, Feedmill Creek and Poole Creek (CH2MHill,
June 2006);
iii) Carp River, Poole Creek and Feedmill Creek
Restoration Class Environmental Assessment (Totten Simms Hubicki, June 2006).
iv) Kanata West Master Servicing Study Volumes 1
and 2 (Stantec, June 2006); and
v) Kanata West Transportation Master Plan
(Delcan, June 2006).
A
total of four Part II Order requests were submitted to the Minister of the
Environment for the Kanata West Class EAs.
State of the art
hydrologic and hydraulic models have been applied to define the flows and water
levels along the Carp River within the Restoration Reach (Hazeldean Road to
Richardson Side Road) and downstream under both existing and future development
conditions. The objective was to develop a river restoration plan within a
defined corridor that would not increase flood risk based upon the land use and
development conditions prevailing in 2005, and to minimize any downstream
impacts of development.
The different models
that have been applied include QUALHYMO, HEC-RAS, and several versions of SWMM
/ XP-SWMM. Due to the wide, flat
overbank areas, and the general sluggishness of the upper watershed, the
HEC-RAS dynamic model was used to route the sub-catchment hydrographs along the
river to depict the floodplain storage-flow interactions. This model has been
set up for the project reach in support of the approved EA’s , utilizing about
100 field surveyed cross-sections (from Hazeldean Road downstream to the
Village of Carp).
Since
approval of the Class EAs in 2006, a number of errors in the supporting hydrologic
and hydraulic modeling have been identified. In particular, in early 2008, City
staff identified that hydrographs representing runoff from the 700 ha Kanata
West development area had not been read by the post-development hydraulic
model. In addition, the City of
Ottawa’s Auditor General has investigated the file and recently released
findings that raised a number of other related issues.
(available
here: http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2008/05-
08/Carp%20Audit%20APRIL%2022%2008.htm)
At
the request of the City, the consultants who completed the post-development
hydraulic modeling in support of the Class EAs have corrected the model to read
all flow hydrographs. Adjustments to
the drainage area were also made.
Resulting
flows and water levels have been recalculated and adjustments made to the
restoration plan design in order to minimize any flow and water level
increases.
The
consultants indicate that the revised flows and water levels are very close to
the original targets and within the normal accuracy limits for modeling of this
kind.
The management response to the AG report recommended the following be referred for third party review.
1. Geotechnical hazards - Advise on the appropriate timing within the process for examination of geotechnical hazards.
2. Suspended Solids Criteria - Review the criteria for suspended solids removal.
3. Sediment Balance - Confirm whether a sediment balance was achieved, and for advice on the need for quantitative estimates in regard to the volume of sediment and sediment transport capacity.
4. Drainage Area Error – Review the impacts of the drainage area error on hydrology, hydraulics and other aspects
5. Calibration
– Review the issue of calibration and whether the steps undertaken, including
sensitivity analysis, were reasonable.
City
Council has directed staff to engage a third party consulting firm or firms
with municipal land development and water resources capabilities to undertake
an independent review of the project. These Terms of Reference outline the
objectives, scope of work, and detailed tasks required of the independent
review.
2. Objective
The
objective is to review, validate, re-run and objectively ensure that
appropriate hydro-technical modeling and floodplain management practices have been
incorporated into the design of the Restoration Plan, and that the projected
flows and water levels can be applied with confidence to implement the
Restoration Project and approved development within Kanata West.
3. Scope of Work
The
scope of work includes three phases; 1) review/validate/re-run the hydrologic
and hydraulic models used in order to assess the adequacy of the modeling
results to proceed with the Carp River Restoration Plan; 2) examine the overall
project including a review of other related issues raised in the Auditor
General’s report released 23 April 2008 and public input subsequently received
(Public); and, if the City so decides, 3) updating and adjusting the
Restoration Plan to correct any identified deficiencies.
4. Project Description
The
current assignment is to carry out Phases 1 and 2 of these Terms of Reference.
Phase 1 - Technical Model Review and
Re-Run
Conduct
a complete objective review and re-run
(other source) of the hydrologic and hydraulic models used to establish flows
and water levels for the Carp River Restoration Project, including their design
and setup, calibration and verification, and application to depict existing and
future development conditions.
This review must include as a minimum:
1. Confirmation of the accuracy of the basic data and information used in the models.
2. The models used in the Auditor General’s report and the results obtained.
3. Assess the appropriateness of models used and the application of the design storms used to establish the flows and water levels along the Carp River.
4. The corrected hydrologic and hydraulic models representing the original restoration plan and the corrected models representing the modified Restoration Plan, including all return periods (i.e. 2 year to 100 year flows).
5. The impact of reported drainage area errors.
6. The criteria used in the Hydraulic Design Brief for (Public, other) the allowable increases in upstream and downstream (Public, other) flood levels, flows and velocities.
7. The infiltration and runoff parameters used in the model to estimate surface runoff volumes and how these were accounted for in model calibration (other source).
8. The hydrologic and hydraulic model calibration procedures used, including the sensitivity analyses carried out and potential utilization of available stream flow records on the Carp River, Manning’s “n” factors, etc.
9. The selection and orientation of cross sections used to model the existing and proposed floodplain conditions.
10. The hydraulic routing procedures used to combine the hydrologic inputs and produce the water level estimates, including the steady flow and unsteady flow computations.
11. The appropriateness of the hydraulic model parameters used to establish water flow, volumes and water levels, such as cross-sections, slope, crossing details, existing and proposed fill in the floodplain, and floodplain storage. (other source)
12. The method of demonstrating the maintenance of floodplain storage in the restoration reach for interim and future development conditions, including balancing cut and fill on a range of return period basis for the entire reach (i.e. 2 year to 100 year flows), versus balancing on a 0.30-metre incremental elevation basis for individual applications.
13. The impact of existing and proposed (Public) culverts and bridges on flows and water levels within the restoration reach and downstream and the potential impact of ice and ice jams on water levels through the restoration reach and downstream.
13a. Assess the requirements for flow and water level monitoring for the Carp River to calibrate the models and implement the restoration plan (MOE).
14. The adaptive management (Public) measures established in the draft Implementation Plan for updating the models as development progresses and monitoring data becomes available to assess flows and water levels, and minimize flood risk.
15. The analysis of storm water management facilities, habitat restoration pools and floodway width (MOE) and their impact on flows and water levels.
16. Review the stormwater management criteria and whether additional storm water quantity controls are required to mitigate development impacts.
17. Validate and re-run the models and produce final flows and water levels for the restoration reach and the downstream Carp River. Consider the MNR Technical Guide “River and Stream Systems: Flood Hazard Limits” with regards to how the Restoration Project is designed (MOE).
17a. Comment
on the acceptability of any increases in existing flood levels and/or
velocities for the 2 to 100 year return period events for the restoration reach
and existing upstream and downstream developments (Public).
18. Prepare a Phase 1 report outlining the findings of the model review/validation/re-run in terms of flows and water levels and implications for the Restoration Plan and the other Class EA projects in the Kanata West area (MOE).
19. Briefing and presentation of Phase 1 findings.
Phase 2 – Review of Other Related Issues
Based
on the results of Phase 1, assess the following related issues, as a minimum:
20. The appropriate timing within the process for geotechnical investigations and examination of geotechnical hazards within the floodplain, including slope stability issues, the impact of fill on clay/peat soils, etc.
21. Examine
the Flow Characterization and Flood Level Analysis, Carp River, Feedmill
Creek and Poole Creek (CH2M Hill, October/December 2005) report and advise
on the timing of the requirement for updated floodplain mapping to the MNR
Technical Guide standards (other source).
22.The
measures established by the City for development in Kanata West to proceed in
those areas outside of the flood plain where there are approved EA’s, using
interim servicing facilities and any recommended conditions on such approvals, such as additional SWM criteria (Public), protecting
opportunities for mitigation of runoff (MOE).
21. The need and the timing for incorporating other tributary catchments, such as the upstream Fernbank lands (in the developed condition), into the hydrologic models.
22. The threshold at which the impacts of increased runoff from interim development (i.e. prior to the Restoration Plan being fully implemented) needs to be further mitigated or development staging/phasing (MOE) to be reconsidered.
23. Assess the geomorphology and whether a sediment balance can be achieved, and the need for quantitative estimates of sediment volumes and sediment transport capacity, and the impacts of any erosion and sedimentation within the restoration reach and downstream.
24. The criteria used for storm water quality treatment following the Ministry of Environment Storm Water Management Planning and Design Guidelines, including suspended solids removal.
25. Prepare a summary of all of the work above and its impact on the Carp River Restoration Plan including the implications for all Class EA Projects (MOE).
26. Estimated budget required to complete the revised restoration plan.
27. Briefing and presentation of Phase 2 findings.
Phase 3 – Plan for Adjustments and
Updates
As a
result of the review of Phase 1 and 2, changes, adjustments or updates may be
recommended as it relates to the Restoration Plan. The City may decide to incorporate such changes into the
Carp River Restoration Plan in a subsequent Phase 3.
The
City will review the information provided by the 3rd Party review
and make a determination as to the amendments required, if any, to the EA
documents. (MOE)
5. Project Organization
In order to
facilitate the understanding of the project history, the third party reviewers
will be assisted by an Advisory Committee consisting of:
1.
City project staff
2.
Agency staff from MVC, MTO, MNR
and MOE
3.
Academic
The Advisory Committee will be available on an as
required basis to provide background and clarification. They will receive presentations at the
conclusion of Phases 1 and 2.
Available Resources and Materials (to be added)