Belfountain Agency & Stakeholder Advisory Committees November - - PDF document
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
November 5, 2015
visitors to Belfountain Conservation Area was creating impacts on the Hamlet of Belfountain and other nearby residential communities.
the proposed visitor centre.
activities that sometimes take place in Belfountain Conservation Area.
We are here
Initiate Class EA Issue Notice of Intent Establish Community Liaison Committee Prepare Baseline Environmental Inventory Evaluate Alternative Remedial Measures and Select Preferred Alternative Conduct Detailed Analysis
Environmental Study Report
achieve two (2) key study objects:
meeting one has a negative effect on another.
reviewed
Dam Alternatives Corresponding Headpond Alternatives
Remove sediment and rehabilitate shorelines; retaining walls, riparian plantings, potential for selective tree removals to improve views
– Greater pond depth improves aesthetics, fish habitat, local thermal regime – No impact to cultural heritage (built or landscape)
– Limited improvement to channel function, thermal impacts, etc. – Liability and operating/maintenance costs of dam persist
– Mitigation of contaminants may be required
Generate additional turfed area by constructing new retaining walls and backfilling the area (similar to the historic swimming pool)
– Overcrowding of north terrace area is reduced
– Cultural heritage landscape; no ecological net gain
– 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
– Provides wetland habitat that is scarce in the region
– Cultural heritage landscape; no ecological net gain
– 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
Existing Spillway Elev. 359.3 m (4.6 m high) Lowered Spillway Elev. 358.3 (3.6 m high)
– 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)
– Reduced drama of waterfall
– Repairs to dam still required – Opportunity to combine with other alternatives
– 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
– Significant negative effects on cultural heritage (built and landscape) – Visitor experience
assessed as part of the Baseline Inventory, per the CO Class EA process:
downstream invasive and non-native species
– Independent of the criteria evaluation and screening – Each alternative has been screened against the seven (7) study objectives – Objectives use language like ‘maintain’, ‘conserve’ or ‘improve’ which, if taken strictly, do not allow for negative effects
– Certain objectives are competing, making it difficult to achieve neutral or positive effects under all objectives – Two objectives are essentially mutually exclusive:
– Objective screening has allowed for minor deviance from the strict language of the objectives (i.e. Pass, Fail, Tolerable)
D1H1 D2H2 D2H3 D2H4 D4H5 D5H6 D6H7 Do Nothing Rehabilitate Dam and Headpond Rehabilitate dam and expand the tableland Rehabilitate the dam and covert headpond to wetlands Lower the spillway and backfill headpond and construct channel Decommission dam and restore natural valley snd maintained channel Offline dam and parallel headpond and channel Maintain fisheries barrier Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Reduce/minimize risk to visitors, d/s properties Risk not reduced Risk Reduced Risk Reduced Risk Reduced Risk Minimized Risk Minimized Risk Reduced Maintain or improve visitor experience Maintained Improved existing features Pond reduced Pond reduced Pond removed, spillway lowered, additional area Loss of unique features Waterfall altered Conserve and enhance cultural heritage Conserved Conserved Pond reduced Pond Reduced Pond removed, dam lowered Pond removed, dam removed Dam altered, landscape altered Promote Natural Stream Function Natural Function non-existing Natural Function non-existing Headpond Reduced Headpond Reduced Stream function improved Stream function improved Stream function improved Strive for long-term sustainability (economic viability) No Change Increased Maintenance Maintained Wetland habitat management Maintained Maintained Headpond Management Conserve and enhance natural heritage No change to degraded system No change to degraded system Limited positive impact to existing features Wetland habitat created Coldwater habitat restored Coldwater habitat restored Coldwater habitat restored
sufficient to balance the negative effect on the cultural heritage landscape and the capital cost.
balance the negative effect on the cultural heritage landscape and the capital cost.
SHORT-LISTED
regime), biologic (aquatic and terrestrial habitat) and socioeconomic (safety,
landscape) may not be mitigatable or acceptable.
SCREENED
cultural heritage) and socioeconomic (visitor experience, capital cost) environments are expected.
cultural heritage) and socioeconomic environments are expected.