11/18/2015 Belfountain Agency & Stakeholder Advisory Committees November 5, 2015 Outline • Management Plan Update • Class Environmental Assessment – Overview of Process to Date – Long-list of Alternatives – Evaluation of Alternatives 1
11/18/2015 Management Plan Update Public Consultation • Public meeting (Sept 22): 46 individuals registered • Onsite Consultation (Sept 26, 27, Oct 2,3): ~70 conversations, 20 email addresses collected • Fourteen completed surveys received • Summary report available 2
11/18/2015 Information Presented • Class EA overview • Concept Plans for four key areas • Addressing feedback received to date (Management Policies) 3
11/18/2015 Key Themes Many participants felt that the traffic caused by the current level of • visitors to Belfountain Conservation Area was creating impacts on the Hamlet of Belfountain and other nearby residential communities. • Some participants indicated confusion over the purpose and use of the proposed visitor centre. Some participants indicated concern over vandalism and after-hours • activities that sometimes take place in Belfountain Conservation Area. 4
11/18/2015 Key Themes • Several participants stated that they were in agreement with many of the projects, in general, but were concerned over increased visitation and traffic . Some participants indicated that they were happy to see effort • going into the management of the Complex. How Comments will be Addressed • Disposition Table – Answer/address all comments and input; identify how/why comments are/are not incorporated • Reflection in Decisions – Where appropriate and possible, feedback will be incorporated into final decisions. 5
11/18/2015 Class EA Process Class Environmental Assessment Process Evaluate Alternative Initiate Class EA We are � � � � Remedial Measures and here Issue Notice of Intent Select Preferred Alternative � � � � Establish Community Conduct Detailed Analysis Liaison Committee of Environmental Impact � � � � Prepare Baseline Environmental Study Environmental Report Inventory 6
11/18/2015 Long-list of Alternatives Long-list of Alternatives • All viable alternatives considered • All alternatives have been characterized such that they strictly achieve two (2) key study objects: • Maintain a fisheries barrier • Reduce/minimize risk to visitors • The other objectives represent ‘competing values’ whereby meeting one has a negative effect on another. • For these alternatives advantages and disadvantages are reviewed 7
11/18/2015 Dam Alternatives Corresponding Headpond Alternatives D1. Do Nothing H1. Do Nothing – Alternatives and combinations for evaluation D2. Rehabilitate the dam H2. Rehabilitate the headpond D3. Replace the dam H3. Expand tableland into the headpond H4. Convert headpond to wetlands D4. Lower the spillway H5. Backfill headpond & construct channel D5. Decommission the dam H6. Restore natural valley and channel D6. Offline Dam H7. Parallel headpond and channel Replace the Dam • Remove the existing dam and reconstruct a new one of the same geometry in the same location that meets the LRIA criteria • Screened : ‘Repair’ is equivalent from a safety perspective while costing less and maintaining built heritage 8
11/18/2015 Do Nothing • Required by the Class EA process • Can be the Preferred Alternative where unacceptable negative effects are anticipated • Viable alternative for the headpond • Not viable alternative for the dam • The Do Nothing alternative for the headpond could be combined with Alternative D2: Rehabilitate the dam Alternative D1/H1: Do Nothing – Do Nothing 9
11/18/2015 Rehabilitate dam and headpond North retaining wall Rehabilitate the dam and headpond Remove sediment and rehabilitate shorelines; retaining walls, riparian plantings, potential for selective tree removals to improve views • Advantages – Greater pond depth improves aesthetics, fish habitat, local thermal regime – No impact to cultural heritage (built or landscape) • Disadvantages – Limited improvement to channel function, thermal impacts, etc. – Liability and operating/maintenance costs of dam persist • Other Considerations – Mitigation of contaminants may be required 10
11/18/2015 Alternative D2/H2: Rehabilitate dam and headpond – Do Nothing Rehabilitate the dam and expand tableland into headpond Generate additional turfed area by constructing new retaining walls and backfilling the area (similar to the historic swimming pool) • Advantages – Overcrowding of north terrace area is reduced • Disadvantages – Cultural heritage landscape; no ecological net gain • Other Considerations – Option to implement on north or south side of the pond – Assumes removal of sediment in the balance of the headpond – Readily combined with other headpond alternatives 11
11/18/2015 Alternative D2/H2: Rehabilitate dam and expand tableland – Do Nothing Rehabilitate the dam and convert portion to wetland Portion of the headpond would be partly backfilled to generate land area that would remain saturated and conducive to wetland vegetation • Advantages – Provides wetland habitat that is scarce in the region • Disadvantages – Cultural heritage landscape; no ecological net gain • Other Considerations – Option to implement on north or south side of the pond – Assumes removal of sediment in the balance of the headpond – Readily combined with other headpond alternatives 12
11/18/2015 Alternative D2/H2: Rehabilitate dam and convert part of headpond to wetlands – Do Nothing Lower the spillway and backfill headpond and construct natural channel • Attempts to provide benefits of a natural channel while maintaining built heritage elements to the extent possible • Backfill the headpond and construct a channel section appropriate to the local reach of the West Credit (17 m +/- bank width) • Lower the dam spillway by 1 m +/- to generate minimum channel gradient (0.5%) 13
11/18/2015 Alternative D4/H5: Lower the spillway and backfill headpond and construct natural channel – Do Nothing Existing Spillway Elev. 359.3 m (4.6 m high) Lowered Spillway Elev. 358.3 (3.6 m high) 14
11/18/2015 Lower the spillway and backfill headpond and construct natural channel • Advantages – Flood risk would be reduced with the elimination of the headpond – Sediment transport achieved; thermal impacts mitigated – Sediment could be mitigated in-place (capping or mixing) • Disadvantages – Reduced drama of waterfall • Other Considerations – Repairs to dam still required – Opportunity to combine with other alternatives Decommission the dam and restore the natural valley and channel • Remove the dam, maintaining only a 2 m +/- high structure as a fish barrier • Remove sediment in the headpond and restore the valley slopes and natural channel 15
11/18/2015 Alternative D5/H6: Decommission the dam and restore the natural valley and river – Do Nothing Decommission the dam and restore the natural valley and channel • Advantages – Liability and operating/maintenance costs – Provides greatest benefit to public/staff safety – Sediment transport and thermal impacts eliminated – Local aquatic habitat improvement – Additional land provides opportunity to re-purpose • Disadvantages – Significant negative effects on cultural heritage (built and landscape) – Visitor experience 16
11/18/2015 Offline dam and parallel headpond and channel • Attempts to provide benefits of a natural channel while maintaining built/landscape heritage elements to the extent possible • Remove the majority of the spillway to accommodate the natural channel • Retain/modify the existing sluiceway, extending it upstream and parallel to the natural channel to create an offline headpond Alternative D5/H6: Decommission the dam and restore the natural valley and river – Do Nothing 17
11/18/2015 Decommission the dam and restore the natural valley and channel • Advantages – Sediment transport restored; thermal impacts reduced – Local aquatic habitat improvement • Disadvantages – Liability and operating/maintenance costs of dam persist – Negative effects on cultural heritage (built and landscape) – Visitor experience Alternative Evaluation 18
11/18/2015 Alternative Evaluation • Evaluation criteria are selected to: • Provide a basis on which to compare alternatives • Measure negative or positive effects (quantitatively or qualitatively) • Help determine whether Study objectives are met • Evaluation criteria are categorized under the broader set of environments assessed as part of the Baseline Inventory, per the CO Class EA process: • Physical Environment • Biological Environment • Cultural Environment • Socioeconomic Environment Evaluation Matrix 19
11/18/2015 Objective Screening 20
Recommend
More recommend
