Foster Stormwater Management Facility Environmental Study Report

Final Draft Report

Prepared for City of Ottawa

August 2013

1101 Prince of Wales Drive Suite 330 Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7

Section Page 1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Background ...... 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Objectives ...... 1-2 2. Municipal Class EA Planning Process ...... 2-1 2.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act ...... 2-1 2.2 Municipal Class EA Process ...... 2-1 2.3 Municipal Class EA Schedule ...... 2-4 2.4 Problem Statement ...... 2-4 3. Existing Conditions ...... 3-1 3.1 Study Area...... 3-1 3.2 Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study ...... 3-1 3.3 Geology and Soils ...... 3-3 3.4 Geomorphology ...... 3-3 3.5 Hydrology and Hydraulics ...... 3-4 3.6 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment ...... 3-4 3.7 Aquatic Habitat ...... 3-4 3.8 Archeology ...... 3-5 3.9 Summary of Constraints and Opportunities ...... 3-6 4. Evaluation of SWM Alternatives ...... 4-1 4.1 Preliminary Alternatives ...... 4-1 4.2 Alternative Selection ...... 4-1 5. Recommended Alternative ...... 5-1 5.1 Proposed Foster SWM Facility ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Geotechnical Considerations ...... 5-8 5.1.2 Phase 1 ESA Recommendations ...... 5-9 5.1.3 Fish Habitat Recommendations ...... 5-9 5.1.4 Additional Considerations ...... 5-10 5.2 Existing Foster SWM Facility ...... 5-10 6. Consultation Program ...... 6-1 7. Conclusion ...... 7-1 8. References ...... 8-1

Appendixes A South Nepean Urban Area Master Servicing Study (1997) – Selected Excerpts B Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (2007) – Selected Excerpts C Geotechnical Report D Fluvial Geomorphology Report E Fish Habitat Assessment F Archaeological Assessment G Public Consultation

Section Page Tables 5-1 Foster Pond Water Quality Requirements, based on a Wet Pond with Enhanced 80% Long Term S.S. Removal ...... 5-1 5-2 Foster Pond Preliminary Design Details ...... 5-1 5-3 Foster Pond Diversion Structure Preliminary Details ...... 5-4 5-4 Foster Pond Outlet Control Structure Preliminary Details ...... 5-4

Figures 2-1 Overview of the Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process ...... 2-2 3-1 Foster Drain Catchment Area ...... 3-2 3-2 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Construction Constraints and Opportunities ...... 3-7 4-1 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Footprint Alternatives ...... 4-2 5-1 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Plan ...... 5-2 5-2 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Plan ...... 5-3 5-3a Foster Ditch XP-SWMM Model Photo Overlay ...... 5-6 5-3b Foster Ditch XP-SWMM Model Photo Overlay ...... 5-7

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview The South Nepean Urban Area has been undergoing significant development and urbanization since the mid 1990s. To plan for this the former City of Nepean and the new City of Ottawa has undertaken planning studies to address how the subwatershed will be managed. Two studies that have addressed both Master Servicing and Subwatershed Planning were the South Nepean Urban Area Master Servicing Study – Environmental Study Report (J.L. Richards & Assoc. Ltd., 1997) and the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (Stantec 2007). Both of these studies recommended a stormwater management (SWM) plan to address both the existing and future lands in the South Nepean Urban Area. CH2M HILL was retained by the City of Ottawa (City) to prepare a SWM plan consistent with recommendations from these previous studies. The project initially included both the Foster Ditch catchment area as well as the Kennedy-Burnett SWM Facility catchment area. Generally, the study area encompasses part of the Barrhaven Community north of the Jock River, west of Greenbank Road and east of Highway 416. The study is planned under Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). A Notice of Study Commencement was published on July 24, 2009 and a Public Open House for the project was held on November 18, 2009. The project purpose, background, constraints and opportunities and a summary of ongoing supporting studies were provided. The two areas of proposed construction (i.e. Foster and Kennedy- Burnett SWM facilities) are discontinuous and the requirement for potential property acquisition is different, therefore they were separated in order for design and construction to proceed independently of each other if necessary. Since the November 18, 2009 Open House, the City has decided to advance the Foster SWM Facility independent of the Kennedy-Burnett Facility. As such, this report details the SWM plan for the Foster SWM Facility.

1.2 Background The South Nepean Urban Area Master Servicing Study (MSS) Environmental Study Report (J.L. Richards & Assoc. Ltd., 1997) recommended that an end-of-pipe SWM facility be constructed downstream of McKenna Casey Drive to service both the O’Keefe Drain and Foster Ditch catchment areas. The facility was intended to provide direct disinfection to ensure consistent compliance with then current Ministry of the Environment effluent targets pertaining to E-Coli bacteria. Quantity control was not required as per the MSS. A figure detailing the proposed location of the Foster SWM Pond as well as a table summarizing preliminary quality storage volumes and water levels is included in Appendix A. The Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (Stantec, 2007) further refined on work completed as part of the 1997 MSS and detailed a preferred SWM plan for the Foster Ditch catchment area. The preferred management strategy included recommendations for the area North of Maravista as well as for the area North of McKenna Casey and south of Maravista. The following summarizes key points from the SWM plan: • To service the undeveloped lands north of Maravista Road and existing developments east of Cedarview Road, a centralized stormwater facility should be constructed. Additional footprint (over and above that required to meet SWM criteria) will be required to compensate for the loss of habitat resulting from proposed partial enclosure/ realignment of the Foster Ditch. • A second SWM facility located offline to the Foster Ditch downstream of McKenna Casey Drive is proposed to provide stormwater treatment for the area north of McKenna Casey Drive not serviced by the Maravista Pond. In conjunction with the implementation of this facility, the temporary SWM facility located on park land will be removed and the existing dry pond located at the mouth of Foster Ditch will be decommissioned.

A copy of the proposed condition drainage boundaries including the location of proposed SWM facilities is provided in Appendix B. Also included in this appendix are the Preferred Management Strategy, Implementation Plan and Monitoring Plan for the Foster Ditch catchment area. Note that the proposed location of the Foster SWM Facility as per the Jock River Reach One proposed SWM Plan was situated within the Jock River 100yr-Floodplain. The City’s current Official Plan does not permit site alteration or development in the floodplain. This will be taken into consideration in determination of the preferred location of the SWM Facility. Subsequent to the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (Stantec 2007), the O’Keefe Drain Environmental and Stormwater Management Plan (CH2M HILL 2013) was prepared that included the delineation of the O’Keefe Drain catchment area. As detailed in this report, the catchment area divide between the O’Keefe Drain and Foster Ditch catchments was confirmed to be aligned with Strandherd Drive. As such, runoff from O’Keefe Drain catchment area is conveyed to a proposed SWM facility that is separate from the Foster Ditch catchment.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of the current Foster SWM Facility ESR is to implement two of the SWM plan recommendations from the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (Stantec, 2007) including: • Decommissioning of the existing Foster SWM Facility and possible conversion to provide fish habitat enhancements/compensation; and • Construction of a new offline Foster SWM Facility downstream of McKenna Casey Drive to provide stormwater treatment for the area north of McKenna Casey Drive not serviced by the Maravista Pond. In addition, the ESR will also: • Confirm compliance with Ministry of Environment (MOE) and City standards; and • Confirm that the hydraulics of the conveyance system upstream of the proposed SWM Facility will not be negatively impacted by construction of the new facility Note that the new facility will not increase the capacity of the existing upstream sewer system, nor is it intended to improve flood protection.

2. Municipal Class EA Planning Process

2.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) was passed in 1976 and first applied to municipalities in 1981. The EA Act requires the study, documentation, and examination of the environmental effects that could result from major projects or activities. The objective of the EA Act is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the planning process—when concerns are most easily resolved—and to select a preferred alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. The EA Act defines the environment very broadly as: • Air, land, or water • Plant and animal life, including humans • The social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community • Any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by humans • Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities • Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario. The following two types of EA planning and approval processes are applied to projects to meet requirements of the EA Act: • Individual EAs (Part II of the EA Act): Projects for which a Terms of Reference (TOR) and an individual EA are carried out and submitted to the Minister of the Environment (MOE) for review and approval.

• Class EAs: Projects that are approved subject to compliance with an approved Class EA process with respect to a class of undertakings. Provided that the appropriate Class EA approval process is followed, a proponent will comply with Section 13(3) a, Part II.1 of the EA Act.

2.2 Municipal Class EA Process All municipalities in Ontario are subject to provisions of the EA Act when undertaking public works projects. The MEA’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000 as amended in 2007 and 2011) document provides municipalities with a five-phase planning procedure approved under the EA Act to plan and undertake all municipal sewage, water, stormwater management, and transportation projects that occur frequently, are usually limited in scale, and have a predictable range of environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures. The EA planning process includes the following key components: • Consultation early and throughout the process • Reasonable range of alternatives • Consideration of effects on the environment and ways to avoid/reduce impacts • Systematic evaluation of alternatives • Clear documentation • Traceable decision making Figure 2-1 illustrates the process followed in the planning and design of projects covered by a Municipal Class EA, including the Foster Stormwater Management Facility Design project. The figure incorporates steps summarized in the following sub-sections that are considered essential for compliance with the EA Act.

FIGURE 2-1 Overview of the Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process

Phase 1 Identify the problem (deficiency) or opportunity.

Phase 2 Identify alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity by taking into consideration the existing environment and establish the preferred solution accounting for public and agency review and input. Document the planning process in a Municipal Class EA project file and make such documentation available for scrutiny by review agencies and the public.

Phase 3 For Schedule C projects, examine alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution based on the existing environment, public and government agency input, anticipated environmental effects, and methods of minimizing negative effects and maximizing positive effects.

Phase 4 For Schedule C projects, document in an ESR a summary of the rationale and the planning, design, and project consultation process, and make such documentation available for scrutiny by review agencies and the public.

Phase 5 Complete contract drawings and documents, proceed to construction and operation, and monitor construction for adherence to environmental provisions and commitments. Where special conditions dictate, also monitor the operation of the completed facilities. The MEA Municipal Class EA document also serves as a public statement of the decision making process followed by municipalities in planning and implementing infrastructure. Based on the October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011 MEA Municipal Class EA document, projects are classified as either Schedule A, A+, B, or C projects. Each classification requires a different level of review to satisfy Municipal Class EA requirements and comply with the EA Act.

Schedule A Projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse effects and include the majority of municipal sewage, stormwater management and water operations, and maintenance activities. These projects are approved and may be implemented without following the Class EA planning process. Schedule A projects typically include normal or emergency operational maintenance activities where the environmental effects of these activities are usually minimal. Examples of Schedule A projects include watermain and trunk sewer extensions where all such facilities are located within the municipal road allowance or an existing utility corridor. As such, these projects are pre-approved and subsequently do not require any further planning and public consultation.

Schedule A+ The purpose of this Schedule is to ensure some type of public notification for certain projects that are pre- approved under the Municipal Class EA. However, there would be no ability for the public to request a Part II Order. Examples of Schedule “A+” projects include modifications to a retention/detention facility for the purpose of stormwater quality control or installation of new standby power equipment where new equipment is located in an existing building or structure.

Schedule B Projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. The proponent is required to undertake a screening process involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and relevant review agencies to ensure that they are aware of the project and that their concerns are addressed.

Schedule B projects require that Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process be followed and a project file report be prepared and submitted for review by the public. If there are no outstanding concerns raised by the public and/or review agencies, then the proponent may proceed to project implementation. However, if the screening process raises a concern that cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order procedure (formerly referred to as a “bump-up”) may be invoked. Alternatively, the proponent may voluntarily elect to plan the project as a Schedule C project. Schedule B projects generally include improvements and expansions to existing facilities where there is the potential for some adverse environmental impacts. As a result, the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process including consultation with those who may be affected. Examples of Schedule B projects include activities such as the establishment of new sewage pumping stations and expanding a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to existing rated capacity where new land acquisition is required. As a result, the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process (Phases 1 and 2) including consultation with stakeholders and public who may be affected.

Schedule C Schedule C projects have the potential to significantly affect the environment; therefore, these projects are subjected to the full planning and documentation procedures (Phases 1 to 4) that are specified in the Municipal Class EA document. An ESR must be prepared for Schedule C projects and submitted to the public for review. The Part II Order procedure may be invoked if concerns are raised that cannot be resolved. An example of a Schedule C project is the siting or construction of a new WWTP or expansion of an existing WWTP beyond existing rated capacity, including an outfall to a receiving body of water.

2.3 Municipal Class EA Schedule The project described in this report involves a Schedule C Environmental Assessment. This report provides documentation of a summary of the project as required to satisfy Phase 2 of the Class EA process.

2.4 Problem Statement Phase 1 of the five-phase Municipal Class EA planning process requires proponents of projects to document why infrastructure improvements are needed and to develop a Problem Statement that identifies what is being investigated. A Municipal Class EA begins with a Problem Statement that becomes the central integrating element throughout the course of the project and helps to define the scope of work. For the current study, the problem statement is as follows: • The existing Foster SWM Facility will be decommissioned and a centralized offline SWM Facility is required downstream of McKenna Casey Drive to service the catchment area north of McKenna Casey Drive between Cedarview and Strandherd Drive not serviced by the Maravista Pond as per recommendations from the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study.

3. Existing Conditions

3.1 Study Area The Foster Ditch is a former municipal drain that flows from north to south, collecting urban residential and agricultural drainage which ultimately discharges to the Jock River. The catchment area is approximately 393 ha in area generally includes lands east of Strandherd Drive, south of Fallowfield Road, west of Jockvale and Cedarview Roads and north of the Jock River. A plan that highlights all area tributary to the Foster Ditch is included in Figure 3-1. The portion of the Foster Ditch catchment area north of Strandherd Drive and east of Cedarview Road consists of existing residential development. The area north of Strandherd Drive and west of Cedarview Road is currently being developed with predominantly medium and high density residential units. As per the recommended SWM plan detailed in the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study, a centralized SWM Facility will be constructed to service the undeveloped lands north of Maravista Road and existing developments east of Cedarview Road. The location of the proposed SWM Facility is included on Figure 3-1. Design of this facility has been undertaken as part of the subdivision planning and design process. A temporary SWM facility south of Cobble Hill Drive treats runoff from the West Barrhaven Subdivision which is subsequently conveyed across Strandherd Drive and discharges to the Foster Ditch adjacent to the downstream end of the main Strandherd Drive culvert. Ultimately, this SWM facility will be decommissioned and flows from the WBS will be discharged directly to the Foster Ditch downstream of the Strandherd Drive culvert. Water quality control for runoff from this catchment will be provided by the proposed Foster Ditch SWM facility. The majority of the lands south of Strandherd Drive and McKenna Casey Drive are situated in the Jock River 100yr- Floodplain as discussed later in this report. Downstream of the Strandherd Drive culvert crossing, the Foster Ditch is an open channel with three culvert crossings used for private land access.

3.2 Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study The Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (Stantec, 2007) provides a comprehensive summary of the existing conditions of the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed which includes the Foster Ditch catchment including: • Climate • Land use • Geology and Hydrogeology • Geomorphology • Hydrology and Hydraulics • Water Balance • Water Quality • Natural Environment The focus of the current study is to update existing condition information relevant to the Foster Ditch catchment area that could impact design and construction of the new Foster SWM Facility. Updated information is detailed in the following sections.

FUTURE MARAVISTA SWM FACILITY

HIGHWAY 416

STRANDHERD

FRASER CLARKE DRAIN

MCKENNA CASEY

O’KEEFE DRIAN

HIGHWAY 416

JOCK RIVER

EXISTING FOSTER SWM FACILITY

CITY OF OTTAWA FOSTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY

FOSTER DRAIN CATCHMENT AREA FIGURE 3-1 FOSTER DRAIN CATCHMENT AREA Foster Drain Catchment Area 391871 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.3 Geology and Soils A report titled Soil and Bedrock Inventory and Preliminary Geotechnical Guidelines Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Management Facilities Environmental Assessment, Ottawa, Ontario was prepared by Houle Chevrier Engineering (September, 2009). This report presents an inventory of the soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions for the Foster and Kennedy Burnett stormwater management facilities. Surficial geology maps of Ottawa indicate the most of the Foster Drain catchment area is underlain by deposits of silty clay of marine origin (commonly referred to as Leda Clay). It is expected that the upper part of the silty clay is weathered to a very stiff to stiff, grey brown crust. Below the weathered zone, the available borehole information indicates that the grey silty clay within the study area has a firm consistency. The silty clay deposits are highly sensitive to disturbance, and softer silty clay can compress under excessive stress, which is noted as an aspect to consider in the design of structures and grade raise requirements for any potential embankment filling. Geology maps show that most of the study area is underlain by limestone with interbeds of dolostone of the Gull River formation and sandstone with interbeds of dolostone of the March formation. Drift thickness maps indicate that the bedrock is 5 to 10 metres below ground surface within the southeast part of the study area, increasing to between 10 and 15 metres below ground surface within the remainder of the study area. The groundwater levels in the overburden are expected to be variable. Previous boreholes in the study area have indicated that the groundwater levels in the silty clay overburden deposit typically range from about 0.4 to 2 metres below ground surface. The groundwater levels in the overburden near the Jock River are likely closer to the ground surface. A review of the existing borehole records indicated that the information in the records generally agrees with the overburden soil, drift thickness and bedrock mapping. The full Houle Chevrier report is provided in Appendix C. Note that geotechnical conditions will be reviewed during detailed design to determine if any changes have occurred since preparation of this report.

3.4 Geomorphology A report titled Foster Ditch & Kennedy-Burnett SWMF Geomorphic Assessment (draft 2) Existing Conditions Report was prepared by Parish Geomorphic during August 2009 in order to characterize the existing geomorphic conditions of the Foster Ditch from the Jock River upstream to Maravista Drive which included two rapid assessments (rapid geomorphic assessment, RGA and rapid stream assessment technique, RSAT) serving to identify the active geomorphic processes affecting the system. The results from the RGA test indicate that the channel was in a transitional state from the Jock River to north of McKenna Casey Drive with agradation being the dominant geomorphic process at work downstream of McKenna Casey Drive. Throughout the Foster Ditch, bank heights ranged from 1.4-2.2 m, bankfull channel widths varied from 2.0-5.0 m, and bankfull depths ranged from 0.3-0.8 m. The channel pools, which cover the majority of the channel, were composed primarily of unconsolidated clay, silt and fine sand, while the few riffles that existed contained mostly large riprap material. Riparian vegetation was composed primarily of tall grasses, pond weed, arrowheads, cattails and several trees. Erosion threshold parameters were evaluated, and it was determined that the critical discharge occurs slightly below the bankfull flow; thus, fluctuations in water level do not affect sediment transport and erosion. However, if there were to be an increase in flow above the current bankfull levels, sediment mobility and erosion could increase. Heavy vegetation and controlled flows from the SWM facility have contributed to the stabilization of the channel. The full Parish Geomorphic (2009) report is included in Appendix D. Note that geomorphological conditions will be reviewed during detailed design to determine if any changes have occurred since preparation of this report.

391871A104_WBG070413113303OTT 3-3 COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.5 Hydrology and Hydraulics A report titled “Foster Ditch Consolidated Modelling and Baseline Condition Definition for SWM Facility Design” was prepared by CH2M HILL in 2013. The purpose of this report was to document various hydrologic and hydraulic studies completed within the Foster Ditch catchment area. The intent of the analysis was to consolidate previous models, fill data gaps as necessary, and use this information to prepare and evaluate a baseline hydrologic/hydraulic model for the entire Foster Ditch system. The baseline hydrologic/hydraulic model is therefore considered the baseline to which the impact of SWM facility design scenarios can be compared. A new topographical survey of the Foster Ditch area was undertaken and an updated catchment map created. It is noted that the Foster Ditch catchment area as depicted in the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study (Appendix B) included lands west of Strandherd Drive. As reported in the O’Keefe Drain Environmental and Stormwater Management Plan (CH2M HILL 2013), the catchment area divide between the O’Keefe Drain and Foster Ditch catchments has been confirmed to be aligned with Strandherd Drive. As discussed later in this report, this is the catchment area that is used in the current Foster Drain analysis in this ESR report. A series of conclusions and recommendations were included in the “Foster Ditch Consolidated Modelling and Baseline Condition Definition for SWM Facility Design”. The models and reporting serve as the baseline condition used in the analysis of SWM options detailed in this ESR report.

3.6 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment As part of the current study, CH2M HILL prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report for the Foster and Kennedy-Burnett Stormwater Management Facilities in 2010. The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to assess the general property with respect to potential sources of contamination, and to identify the actual and potential for site contamination through a combination of activities such as records review, site visits, and interviews. Phase I ESAs may assist in reducing uncertainty about potential environmental liabilities and may provide a basis for further property investigations. The available information and findings of this Phase I ESA indicated evidence of potential contamination. Given that the existing Foster SWMF and ditch is the receiving body of water for a significant area of development, there is the potential that contaminants discharged into the sewers, or washed from the street surface (such as petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chloride and metals or other compounds) could accumulate in the sediment of the pond and require remediation. It is expected that O. Reg. 153 Soil Standards, Table 1.2 for Residential/Parkland/Institutional property use would apply for on-site disposal of sediment. As well, given that the Canadian National Rail line runs in close proximity to the Foster Ditch there is the potential for the presence of contamination from preservatives used for rail ties, from defoliants/ herbicides to control vegetation growth, from spill events, and from release from railcars on the railway lands.

3.7 Aquatic Habitat A report titled Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Project - Fish Habitat Assessments – Foster and Fraser Clarke Drains, Barrhaven, City of Ottawa was prepared by Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc. (Muncaster, 2009). The purpose of this assessment was to identify sensitive areas on the receiving watercourse that could potentially be impacted by changes in the characteristics of the outlet from a proposed SWM facility. No fish sampling was completed as part of this report, although existing information was reviewed. Detailed fish habitat information was collected on August 10, 2009. Notes were made on the Foster Ditch from Strandherd Drive downstream to the confluence with the Jock River. In general, habitat along the Foster Ditch was noted to be limited by the straight, ditch-like characteristics of the channel morphology, lack of pool habitat, dominance of fine substrate and minimal canopy cover. Fish habitat has been described as non-critical in tributaries to the Jock River, however, the Foster Ditch supports cool and warmwater fish habitat. Reported densities and diversity of fish in the tributaries of the Jock River are less than

3-4 391871A104_WBG070413113303OTT COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS the Jock River itself however the tributaries still provide a flow, food and nutrient source to the overall Jock River system. It is noted that the confluence of tributaries with the Jock River and related pool habitat provide refuge during drier times. Fish habitat in the tributaries to the Jock River is described as non-critical due to the ephemeral nature of the tributaries. However a diversity of warm and coolwater forage fish along with pumpkinseed and white sucker have been reported in the Foster Ditch. The majority of fish species reported for the watercourse are spring spawners, with some early summer and summer spawners. The in-stream vegetation will provide spawning habitat for many species such as brook stickleback, pumpkinseed, banded killifish, central mudminnow and fathead minnow. Spawning habitat for the other species such as white sucker, common shiner, rock bass, blacknose dace, mottled sculpin and creek chub appeared more limited in the reaches of the watercourses examined. These species likely spawn in portions of the Jock River system that have a greater availability of coarse substrate. In terms of sensitivity to elevated suspended sediment and turbidity levels, many of the fish species observed, such as creek chub, white sucker, blacknose dace and blacknose shiner are considered highly sensitive to sediment and turbidity for respiration activities, while creek chub and rock bass are considered to have a high sensitivity to elevated levels for feeding. Bluntnose minnow, mottled sculpin, banded killifish and central mudminnow are considered to have a moderate sensitivity for reproduction, while brook stickleback, mottled sculpin, banded killifish and central mudminnow have a moderate sensitivity for feeding. A low sensitivity is reported for fathead minnows for respiration, reproduction and feeding functions, with brook stickleback designated a low sensitivity for reproduction and bluntnose minnow has a low sensitivity for feeding. In summary, the aquatic habitat diversity of the Foster Ditch is limited, but still a diverse fish community is reported from the watercourse. This diversity adds to the productivity of the overall Jock River system. The Muncaster (2009) report is included in Appendix E. Note that aquatic habitat conditions will be reviewed during detailed design to determine if any changes have occurred since preparation of this report.

3.8 Archeology A report titled Stage 1 Archeological Assessment (AA) for: Proposed Development Activities for the Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Management Facilities Part of Lots 13 thru 15, Concessions 3 & 4 Rideau Front City of Ottawa Ontario was prepared by Archaeoworks (2009). The purpose of the study was to determine what archeological impacts might occur within both study area to accommodate the proposed construction activities. Detailed background research was conducted to illustrate the specific features contributing to the classification of high archeological potential zones within the limits of the subject lands. This research included a review of the Ministry of Culture archeological site database, which has revealed that no archeological sites have been found in a 2-kilometre radius of the subject lands. However, it was noted that the paucity of archeological sites within proximity to the subject lands is not reflective of the scale of previous inhabitation, but more likely a lack of detailed archeological surveys in the immediate area as there is high potential to encounter Aboriginal material due to the close proximity of Jock River and its tributaries. A review of the 1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Carleton County indicates a low-moderate potential for the location of historical remains within the Foster SWM facility study area, based on the presence of the historic Cedarview Road running adjacent to its northeast limits. Non intrusive field reviews of the Foster Drain area were conducted in order to identify disturbances and physiographic conditions resulting in areas of low archeological potential and those undisturbed areas warranting Stage 2 assessment. Due to the disturbed condition of the study area, further systematic archaeological surveying was not deemed warranted in this specific area. However, as the majority of the study area is comprised of undisturbed open agricultural fields, based on the established potential for recovery of archeological material, further Stage 2 archeological investigations are warranted in all undisturbed locations to be impacted by construction.

The Archaeoworks (2009) report is included in Appendix F.

3.9 Summary of Constraints and Opportunities Figure 3-2 illustrates some of the main physical and environmental constraints associated with the study area under the existing condition. Existing constraints include: • Future widening of Strandherd Drive – affects SWM facility layout • Property – may require acquisition of private lands • Topography – area of very flat which results in hydraulic constraints • Jock River 100yr-Floodplain elevation – extends to just south of McKenna Casey and Strandherd Drives • Senstive marine clays – affects sideslope stability and foundation; high groundwater table • Existing on-line Foster SWM Facility – management of flow and sediment during construction Opportunities for improvements to the natural environment within the study area include: • Water quality – enhanced water quality discharged to Jock River • Water quantity – protection of downstream channels from erosion • Fish habitat creation – conversion of decommissioned SWM facility into wetland/aquatic habitat • Public use and recreation – incorporation of passive and active recreation activities (i.e. pathways, parks, etc.) • Operations – ease of operation and maintenance for City of Ottawa staff

3-6 391871A104_WBG070413113303OTT COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Protect Downstream 100 yr Jock River Property Channels from Strandherd Drive Floodplain Acquisition Erosion Widening

Flat Land

Subsurface Condition - Leda Clay

Public Use & Recreation

LEGEND: Fish Habitat Enhance Water Creation Constraints Quality Discharge to Jock River Opportunities

CITY OF OTTAWA FOSTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY

FIGURE 3-2 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Construction

391871 Constraints and Opportunities

4. Evaluation of SWM Alternatives

The development of a preferred SWM plan for the Foster Ditch Catchment included the assessment of various alternatives. Alternatives were developed in a two stage process. The first stage involved development of a preliminary list of alternatives and a coarse screening process. The second stage involved the selection of a preferred alternative and associated refinement.

4.1 Preliminary Alternatives The preliminary list of alternatives considered for the proposed Foster SWM Facility included: • Do Nothing/Limit Growth • No Stormwater Management • Expand Existing Foster SWM Facility • Construct new Foster SWM Facility The “Do Nothing/Limit Growth” and “No Stormwater Management” alternatives are not considered viable options as they does not meet the City’s Official Plan requirements for development in the study area and are not consistent with recommendations from the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study. The “Expand Existing Foster SWM Facility” alternative is not considered viable as the existing Foster SWM Facility is located within the Jock River 100yr-Floodplain and the City’s current Official Plan does not permit site alteration or development in the floodplain. Constructing a new Foster SWM Facility is the most viable option for treating runoff from the upstream catchment area and is consistent with recommendations in the Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study. However, contrary to the preferred SWM plan presented in the Subwatershed Plan, the SWM facility will have to be located outside of the Jock River 100yr-Floodplain.

4.2 Alternative Selection The area within which a new Foster SWM Facility can be constructed downstream of McKenna Casey Drive is highly constrained due to the location of the proposed Strandherd Drive widening as well as the Jock River 100 yr Floodplain. These constraints are illustrated on Figure 4-1. In order to construct the SWM facility within the available lands, two options exist: • Construct new Foster SWM Facility while maintaining house at 4235 McKenna Casey Drive - Larger Pond Footprint - Existing house completely surrounded by SWM Facility • Construct new Foster SWM Facility while removing house at 4235 McKenna Casey Drive - Smaller Pond Footprint Each of the alternatives are illustrated on Figure 4-1. The preferred alternative involves removing the existing house at 4235 McKenna Casey Drive and locating the SWM Facility between McKenna Casey Drive, the proposed Strandherd Drive widening and the Jock River 100yr- Floodplain.

Pond Footprint Removing House – Preferred Alternative

CITY OF OTTAWA FOSTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY

FIGURE 4-1 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Footprint Alternatives 391871

5. Recommended Alternative

The proposed recommended alternative involves removing the house located at 4235 McKenna Casey Drive and constructing the new Foster SWM Facility offline from the existing Foster Ditch, downstream of McKenna Casey drive, to the west of the proposed Stranderd Drive re-alignment, and to the north of the Jock River 100 yr Floodplain level. The recommended alternative also includes decommissioning of the existing Foster SWM Facility and related environmental restoration including enhancements to both the aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

5.1 Proposed Foster SWM Facility The proposed Foster SWM Facility is to be located on agricultural land to the south of McKenna-Casey Drive and west of Cedarview Road in land currently zoned Development Reserve with areas of community leisure facilities and Minor Industrial to the northeast. Existing development in the area is limited to north and east of Strandherd Drive with residential, commercial and leisure land use with agricultural land use predominating. The current zoning designation for the property is “Development Reserve Zone” which means it is slated for urban development in the future. The sizing of the proposed Foster SWM Facility was based on the water quality storage requirements dictated by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) in the 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. Table 5-1 below summarizes the storage volume requirements, per Table 3.2 from the MOE manual. The imperviousness of the 332 ha catchment area draining to the proposed Foster Pond was estimated at 55%. Based on this imperviousness level, a wet pond facility would require 190 m3 of storage volume, per hectare of catchment area, in order to achieve a level of protection equivalent to 80% long term suspended solids removal. Of this 190 m3/ha, 40 m3/ha is required as extended detention volume while the remaining 150 m3/ha is available as permanent pool. TABLE 5-1 Foster Pond Water Quality Requirements, based on a Wet Pond with Enhanced 80% Long Term S.S. Removal Required Storage Required Extended Required Contributing Imperviousness Volume (m3/ha) for Required Storage Detention Volume Permanent Pool Catchment Area (ha) (%) 55% Impervious Level Volume (m3) (40 m3/ha) Volume (m3)

332 55% 190 63,080 13,280 49,800

The proposed SWM facility footprint is provided in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, and the design details are summarized in Table 5-2 below. A comparison of the required storage volumes from Table 5-1 with the proposed storage volumes in Table 5-2 indicates that the proposed storage facility will achieve the desired 80% Long Term suspended solids removal. TABLE 5-2 Foster Pond Preliminary Design Details Pond Footprint (ha) 5.6

Bottom Elevation (m) 89.11

Permanent Pool Elevation (m) 90.49

Proposed Permanent Pool Volume (m3) 50,936

Extended Detention Elevation (m) 90.79

Proposed Extended Detention Volume (m3) 14,709

Side Slopes Ranging from 5:1 to 3:1

Proposed Foster Pond Footprint

100 yr Jock River Floodplain Pond Outlet Structure (Permanent Pool Elevation 90.49m Outlet Extended Detention Elevation 90.79m) Channel

Removal of existing inlet and outlet structure Restoration of aquatic and terrestrial habitat

Renaturalization of existing Foster Ditch

Reconnection of Existing SWM Facility to Jock River

CITY OF OTTAWA FOSTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY

FIGURE 5-1 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Plan 391871 High Level Diversion Structure (91.6m) S P tra ro nd po Inlet er se Channel d d Dr ive

Foster Pond Footprint

100 yr Jock River Floodplain Pond Outlet Structure (Permanent Pool Elevation 90.49m Outlet Extended Detention Elevation 90.79m) Channel

CITY OF OTTAWA FOSTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY

FIGURE 5-2 Proposed Foster SWM Facility Plan 391871 5 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

A diversion structure will be constructed in the existing Foster Ditch upstream of the proposed SWM facility. The diversion structure will consist of a low-flow orifice that will allow for baseflow maintenance in the Foster Ditch and aquatic linkage upstream of the SWM facility. A high-level diversion weir above the orifice will divert higher flows from the Foster Ditch into the SWM facility. In the 100-year design storm event it is anticipated that approximately one third of the peak flow upstream of the facility will overtop the bypass structure (and will ultimately bypass the new Foster Facility) while the remaining two thirds of the peak flow will enter the facility for treatment. Preliminary details of inlet diversion structure are provided in Table 5-3. Details of the diversion structure will be refined during preliminary and detailed design. Refer to Figure 5-2 which illustrates in plan view the proposed inlet and outlet structures for the proposed Foster SWM Facility. TABLE 5-3 Foster Pond Diversion Structure Preliminary Details Diversion Structure Top Elevation (m) 91.6 m

Top of Ground (m) near Diversion Structure 92.5 m

Diversion Structure Top Width (m) 11.0 m

Low Flow Orifice Elevation (m) 90.0 m

Low Flow Orifice Diameter (m) 0.50 m

Foster Ditch Channel Invert Elevation (m) 89.85

An outlet control structure has been modeled at the downstream end of the proposed Foster SWM Facility. This structure will also have two controlling elevations. The permanent pool in the facility will be controlled to an elevation of 90.49 m using a 0.4 m diameter orifice, which has been sized to convey the extended detention volume flow over a time period of 36 hours. The extended detention volume will occupy a 0.30-metre deep portion of the pond, from elevation 90.49 m to elevation 90.79 m. The second controlling elevation of the outlet structure is a 3.0 m wide weir located at an elevation of 90.79 m. This weir will convey the flow from the active storage portion of the pond to the downstream Foster Ditch. The preliminary details of the outlet structure are summarized in Table 5-4. Details of the outlet structure will be refined during preliminary and detailed design. TABLE 5-4 Foster Pond Outlet Control Structure Preliminary Details Extended Detention Orifice Elevation (m) 90.49m

Extended Detention Orifice Diameter (m) 0.40m

Extended Detention Drawdown Time Approx. 36 hr

Active Storage Weir Elevation (m) 90.79 m

Active Storage Weir Diameter (m) 3 m

Using the consolidated baseline hydrologic and hydraulic model compiled as detailed in the CH2M HILL 2010 Report and discussed in Section 3.5 above, the proposed SWM facility hydraulic model was evaluated under the following two design conditions. • Condition 1 – 5 year flow in the Foster Ditch with a 100 year level of 91.90 m in the Jock River • Condition 2 – 100-year flow in the Foster Ditch with a 5-year level of 91.17 m in the Jock River Each design condition was also evaluated under the following design rainfall events: • 100 year, 24 hr SCS design event, rainfall depth = 106.8 m • 5 year, 24 hr SCS design event, rainfall depth =64.10 m

• 100 year, 3 hr Chicago design event, rainfall depth = 71.50 mm • 5 year, 3 hr Chicago design event, rainfall depth = 42.73 m Of the boundary conditions and design rainfall events that were evaluated, the most conservative model results (highest HGL and peak flow rates) were obtained with Condition 2 and the 100 year, 24 hr SCS design event. Table 5-5 summarizes the HGL results under the existing condition and the proposed condition, with the addition of the proposed Foster SWM Facility, for the 100 year 24 hr SCS design event (i.e. Condition 2). Figure 5-3a and Figure 5-3b include an aerial image of the Foster Ditch catchment area with nodes identified consistent with those included in Table 5-5. Figure 5-3a and Figure 5-3b are taken from the Foster Ditch Consolidated Modelling and Baseline Condition Definition for SWM Facility Design – Draft Report (CH2M HILL, 2010). Table 5-5 Comparison of HGL (m) and Peak Flow (cms) for 100 year 24 hr SCS Design Storm

100-YR Existing 100-YR Proposed NODE ID 24-hr SCS 24-hr SCS Description HGL (m) D/S Flow (m3/s) HGL (m) D/S Flow (m3/s) Node 15 94.13 6.04 94.13 6.04 IBI "Flow Control Point" u/s end of Maravista culvert Node 9 93.78 93.78 D/S end of Maravista culvert Node 33 93.07 93.03 U/S end of Kennevale Drive culverts Node 34 93.02 92.98 D/S end of Kennevale Drive culverts Node 35 92.99 92.96 U/S end of Jenn Scott/Cobble Hill culverts Node 36 92.95 92.92 D/S end of Jenn Scott/Cobble Hill culverts Area C 92.95 9.55 92.92 9.34 Sewer outlet from "Area C" existing development (1,500 x 3,600 box culvert, obvert 92.61± m) Node 38 92.89 92.85 Tie-in of improved ditch section to existing Foster Ditch Area D 92.88 92.85 Sewer outlet from "Area D" existing development (1,500 mm dia. sewer, obvert 92.24m) Node 39 92.86 92.83 U/S end of Rail corridor culvert Node 40 92.57 92.57 D/S end of Rail corridor culvert Node 41 92.50 10.32 92.50 9.82 U/S end of proposed Strandherd culvert Node ST45 92.40 3.51 92.16 3.50 1800 mm dia. storm sewer from WBS as per Delcan design (obvert at 1,650 dia at MH128 in Block 161 = 91.94m) Node ST49 92.37 1.95 92.07 1.95 1,200 mm dia. storm sewer from Strandherd Drive west as per Delcan design drawing

Node ST44 92.27 5.16 92.06 5.14 Confluence of WBS and Strandherd Drive west road drainage Node ST35 92.17 1.34 92.05 1.30 1,650 mm dia. Gorman sewer (Obvert = 91.25m) Node ST29 92.15 1.90 92.05 1.91 1,350 mm dia. storm sewer from Strandherd Drive east as per Delcan design drawing

Node ST30 92.13 3.06 92.05 3.05 Confluence of Gorman sewer and Strandherd Drive east road drainage

Node 42 92.09 15.66 92.05 15.76 D/S end of proposed Strandherd culvert Node 67 N/A N/A 92.04 By-Pass Structure Node 66 N/A N/A 92.04 Proposed Foster Pond Node 43 92.03 15.66 91.88 10.34 Foster Ditch through agricultural land/floodplain Jock River 91.17 91.17 Downstream boundary condition

Model results detailed in Table 5-5 indicate that the proposed Foster SWM Facility will not negatively impact the upstream hydraulics within the Foster Ditch catchment area. This is illustrated by the fact that HGL elevations at key points through the system are equal to or lower than those under the existing condition. Furthermore, peak flows in the Foster Ditch will be reduced due to the attenuation effect of the proposed Foster SWM Facility.

5.1.1 Geotechnical Considerations Geotechncial considerations specific to the proposed SWM facility are detailed in the Soil and Bedrock Inventory and Preliminary Geotechnical Guidelines Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Management Facilities Environmental Assessment, Ottawa, Ontario (Houle Chevrier Engineering, 2009) (Appendix C). The following are key observations and recommendations related to the proposed Foster SWM Facility location: • Excavation of the stormwater management pond will be required through surficial deposits of topsoil/peat, fill, and sensitive silty clay. In some areas weathered silty clay is expected to contain sand seams. Thin surficial deposits of silty sand should also be expected near the Jock River. • For the most part, no unusual constraints are expected in excavating the overburden materials. Groundwater inflow should be expected from the sides and bottom of the excavations, and should be controlled along with surface water by pumping from within the excavations or by draining to a sump pit or outlet. • The main constraint to excavation will be equipment mobility on the sensitive silty clay deposits. The silty clay soils at this site are very sensitive to disturbance and have high water contents. As such, excavation and removal of soil, including trimming to final grade, for the proposed stormwater management cells, should be carried out from existing ground surface. It is recommended that excavation be planned during winter months on frozen haul roads. Recommendations are made in the report regarding the construction of temporary haul roads. • Preliminary slope stability analyses was carried out to assess the long term safe side slopes for the stormwater management cells. Based on the results of the analyses, the cells should be constructed using the following side slopes: Up to 6 metres: 2.5 H to 1V, or flatter, 6.5 to 7.5 metres: 3.0H to 1V, or flatter. • To prevent sloughing/running of the upper sandy deposits due to groundwater inflow, it is recommended that a 300 millimeter thick drainage blanket composed of loosely placed, crushed stone meeting OPSS requirements for Granular B Type II should be installed on the slope where wet sands are encountered above the silty clay. Slopes excavated at 2.5H:1V or flatter should be protected against erosion using topsoil and seed. To reduce erosion during the development of vegetative cover, consideration could be given to temporarily protecting the slopes with a layer of mulch or a photodegradable erosion control blanket. • During excavation of the stormwater management cells, it is expected that groundwater flow will occur, under both short term and long term conditions. Under short term conditions, it is possible that the groundwater inflow rate into the pond exceeds 50,000 litres per day; therefore it is advised that a Permit to Take Water be obtained by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) in advance of the construction. Under long term conditions, based on previous experience at other stormwater management facilities with silty clay deposits in the Ottawa area, it is expected that the groundwater inflow will be small (less than 50,000 litres/day). As a result of the short term and long term groundwater inflow to the proposed stormwater management facility, some minor and localized groundwater level lowering could occur in close proximity to the cells as a result of normal gravity flow of groundwater to the cells. The zone of influence of groundwater lowering should be less than about 15 metres from the edge of the cells constructed in silty clay and less than about 15 to 20 metres for cells constructed where thin deposits of silty sand are encountered above the silty clay. Therefore, it is considered that the effects of the stormwater management facility construction on the existing residential development should be negligible, provided that the crests of the slopes to the cells are located more than 20 metres from the nearest structure or service.

• There are no unusual constraints reported for the excavation of new storm sewer connections to the proposed stormwater management facility through the weathered and grey silty clay overburden deposits, both above or below the groundwater level. • Specific guidelines for other construction considerations such as pipe bedding, trench backfilling, seepage barriers, roadway reinstatement and pavement design are provided in the full report.

5.1.2 Phase 1 ESA Recommendations Recommendations related to design and construction of the proposed Foster Ditch SWM Facility were detailed in the Phase 1 ESA (CH2M HILL, 2010). The following are key observations and recommendations related to the proposed Foster SWM Facility location: • In light of observed potential areas of concern it was recommended that characterization of accumulated sediment be carried out, in order to determine whether sediment requires offsite disposal or can be disposed on site. It was recommended to conduct a sediment survey of the existing facility to determine the chemical characteristics and quantity of sediment. Sediment disposal should be accounted for in construction costs. • Existing sediment disposed along the Foster SWMF access road should be kept separate from sediment or excavation material removed from the pond or from decommissioning / modification, to avoid the potential for cross contamination. • Confirmatory sampling should be conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation in areas near the CNR railway, and dwelling sites if the footprint of the pond is to encroach upon these areas of concern. • Geotechnical investigations for detailed design should include soil analysis and groundwater analysis if applicable/warranted for contaminants of potential concern.

5.1.3 Fish Habitat Recommendations Various mitigation measures were outlined in Muncaster (2009) in order to eliminate or minimize the potential impacts imposed on the fish habitat by any work undertaken in the Fraser Clark or Foster Drains (Appendix E). These measures include: • Limiting all in-water work to the period between July 1 and September 15 which is outside of the sensitive spawning and rearing period • The placement of rock protection in a manner which does not impact fish movement if it is required • Cleaning of all material placed in the watercourse • Minimal removal of woody vegetation along outlets and substitutive planting along riparian corridor when removal is necessary • Stabilization of banks upon completion of work and limitation of exposed soils • Adoption of erosion and sediment control measures • Proper maintenance of construction equipment • Continuous monitoring to assess turbidity levels It was also recommended that the no-mow or maintenance riparian buffer be maintained and expanded where required to reach a width of approximately 15 meters on either side of the watercourse. The importance of monitoring was highlighted in this report, since it is an essential way of verifying whether the recommendations and mitigation measures outlined above are effective at preventing adverse impacts on the environment. In particular, the effectiveness of any sediment and erosion control measures that are undertaken during construction must be monitored by a qualified inspector.

5.1.4 Additional Considerations The layout of the SWM Facility (i.e. shape) and design details are expected to be revised during detailed design to the acceptance of the City of Ottawa and Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Adequate maintenance and public access will also have to be included during detailed design. A sediment disposal area approximately equal to the footprint of the SWM facility’s forebay will also be identified during detailed design. Area outside of the preliminary footprint identified in this report and between the proposed Strandherd Drive widening and Jock River 100yr-Floodplain will be reviewed for this purpose.

5.2 Existing Foster SWM Facility The total area of the existing Foster SWM Facility property is approximately 16.3 ha, with access to the facility from Cedarview Road through a locked facility gate. The stormwater facility has one offline cell, which has inlet flap gates opening based on a rainfall event trigger. Flow discharges through an outlet pipe just upstream of the Jock River after adequate retention time has been achieved. Once the proposed Foster SWM Facility is operational, it is recommended that the inlet and outlet structures at the existing SWM Facility be removed and that the reach of Foster Ditch between the existing inlet structure and the Jock River be re-naturalized. It is also recommended that the aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the existing Foster Pond be enhanced and that a hydraulic connection between the pond and the Jock River be established. Details of habitat enhancement and restoration as well as hydraulic connection of the pond to the River are to be determined during preliminary design.

6. Consultation Program

Public and agency consultation is a key element of the Class EA process. The objectives of public consultation for the Foster SWM Facility EA were as follows: • To conduct a consultation program that is meaningful to those involved • To deliver a program that is accessible, transparent, and traceable • To engage stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process Consultations completed for this project are consistent with the requirements outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). Three mandatory points of consultation are required including: • At the commencement of the EA • At the identification of alternative solutions • At the completion of the ESR A mailing list was developed covering agency contacts based on the Government Review Team (GRT) list issued by the Ministry of the Environment. A letter detailing the purpose of the project was sent to contacts included on the mailing list at the outset of the project. A copy of the mailing list and sample letter are included in Appendix G. A Notice of Study Commencement was published on July 24, 2009 (Appendix G). A Public Open House for the project was held on November 18, 2009. Information on both the Foster and Kennedy-Burnett SWM Facilities was displayed during this meeting. The project purpose, background, constraints and opportunities and a summary of ongoing supporting studies were provided. A copy of the Notice of Open House as well as Open House display materials are included in Appendix G. Approximately 20 people attended the Open House consisting largely of local landowners with representatives of the consulting community and Friends of the Jock River were also in attendance. Questions and comments were mostly related to lands that will be impacted by the proposed SWM Facility design and enhancements. The Friends of the Jock River also requested to be consulted during rehabilitation of the existing Foster SWM Facility. Since the November 18, 2009 Open House, the City has decided to advance the Foster SWM Facility independent of the Kennedy-Burnett Facility. A copy of the Notice detailing advancement of the Foster Pond SWM Facility is included in Appendix G. A Public Open House for the Foster SWM Facility EA was held on June 19, 2013. The project background, constraints and opportunities, a summary of work completed to date and SWM alternative development and selection were provided. A copy of the Notice of Open House as well as Open House display materials are included in Appendix G. There were 6 attendees present at the Open House representing the local landowners. No formal comments were received after the Open House. One comment sheet was submitted to the City by a resident regarding land acquisition considerations to accommodate the proposed SWM facility.

7. Conclusion

Implementation of a stormwater management plan for the Foster Ditch catchment has the potential to affect the surrounding environment. The purpose of this Environmental Study Report is to predict these changes and suggest measures which may be taken to minimize the negative effects and enhance the positive environmental effects. In this report, the project background was provided, the purpose and objectives were identified and the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process was detailed. The existing condition of the Foster Ditch catchment was discussed and opportunities and constraints were identified. Based on this information a list of proposed alternatives was compiled and a preferred alternative was identified that satisfies the project purpose and problem statement. The preferred alternative consists of a new Foster SWM Facility offline from the existing Foster Ditch, downstream of McKenna Casey Drive, to the west of the proposed Stranderd Drive re-alignment, and to the north of the 100 year Jock River 100 yr Floodplain level. The recommended alternative also includes decommissioning of the existing Foster SWM Facility and related environmental restoration including enhancements to both the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The preferred alternative satisfies the goals of the study by providing an enhanced level of water quality control for runoff from the respective catchment area as per MOE guidelines while not negatively impacting the hydraulics of the upstream conveyance system. The preferred alternative also provides for habitat enhancement opportunities through decommissioning of the existing Foster SWM Facility and potential conversion to more diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitat. The project benefited from public and agency participation via the two Public Open Houses that were held and associated opportunities for comment. In accordance with provisions of the Class EA process for Schedule “C” projects, this Environmental Study Report (ESR) will be made available for a 30-day public review period. During this period, there will be an opportunity for an individual to request a Part II Order, which is a request for the project to be “bumped-up” to an Individual Environmental Assessment. Following approval of this EA, the final phases of the project are to be completed including: • Detailed design and contract drawings • Approvals • Construction • Operation • Monitoring

8. References

Archeoworks Inc., 2009. Stage 1 Archeological Assessment (AA) for: Proposed Development Activities for the Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Management Facilities Part of Lots 13 thru 15, Concessions 3 & 4 Rideau Front City of Ottawa Ontario. CH2MHILL, 2010. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for the Proposed Foster Stormwater Management Facility 4235 McKenna Casey Drive, Ottawa, On and the Existing Foster Stormwater Management Facility 3330 Cedarview Road, Ottawa, On. CH2M HILL, 2010. Foster Ditch Consolidated Modelling and Baseline Condition Definition for SWM Facility Design. CH2M HILL, 2013. O’Keefe Drain Environmental and Stormwater Management Plan. Delcan, 2008. Drainage and Stormwater Management -Strandherd Drive Widening – Highway 416 to Jockvale Road. Houle Chevrier Engineering, 2009. Soil and Bedrock Inventory and Preliminary Geotechnical Guidelines Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Management Facilities Environmental Assessment, Ottawa, Ontario. IBI, 2010. Maravista Stormwater Management Report and Design Brief. IBI, 2005. West Barrhaven Stormwater Management System. J.L. Richards & Associates Ltd., 1997. South Nepean Urban Area Master Servicing Study – Environmental Study Report. Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 1997. Drainage Management Manual. Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc, 2009. Foster and Kennedy Burnett Stormwater Project – Fish and Fish Habitat Assessments - Foster and Fraser Clarke Drains, Barrhaven, City of Ottawa. PARISH Geomorphic Ltd., 2009. Foster Ditch & Kennedy-Burnett SWMF Geomorphic Assessment (draft 2) Existing Conditions Report. Stantec, 2007. Jock River Reach One Subwatershed Study Final Report.