HomeMy WebLinkAboutENG 11-20 Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 11-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
-Final Report July 2020
-File: 1440
Recommendation:
1.That the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan, Final Report July
2020, prepared by The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. a T.Y. LIN International Company
be received for information;
2.That Council endorse the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan to be
used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning maintenance projects for
the Stormwater Management Facilities under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering;
3.That staff be authorized to implement the recommendations within the Stormwater
Management Facilities Asset Management Plan, subject to budget and further Council
approval for the individual projects; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan Final
Report July 2020 (SWMF AMP) (Attachment #1) provides a comprehensive review and inspection
of 18 of the 20 existing stormwater management facilities that are owned and operated by the
City. The 2 remaining facilities owned by the City were recently constructed/reconstructed,
therefore, were excluded from the SWMF AMP review scope. The SWMF AMP will comply with
Ontario Regulation 588/17, which requires municipalities to complete asset management plans for
its core infrastructure by July 1, 2021.
The recommended management plan includes a priority list for facility maintenance (cleanout)
projects and recommends a number of reconstruction/retrofit (capital) projects. All maintenance
projects and reconstruction/retrofit projects can proceed directly to detailed design and/or
construction stages. It is recommended that the SWMF AMP be endorsed by Council as a
resource document to be used by staff.
Financial Implications: Council endorsement of the SWMF AMP is a commitment, in principal,
to implement a maintenance program for the City’s existing stormwater management facilities
(SWMFs), in order to meet the level of service required by the Ministry of the Environment,
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 2
Conservation and Parks. The recommended maintenance (cleanout) projects are estimated to
have a total cost of approximately $6.1 million, and the recommended reconstruction/retrofit
projects are estimated to have a total cost of approximately $2.0 million. The 2020 budget
includes an annual contribution of $200,000 .00 to the Stormwater Management Reserve Fund.
These funds can be used to help offset the costs identified above. Council will have to consider
increasing the annual contribution to match the planned expenditure levels. All projects
recommended in the SWMF AMP will need to be included and approved in future capital budgets
in order to be implemented.
Discussion: The City owns and operates 20 SWMFs with the majority of these
facilities being constructed in the 1980’s or 1990’s and in need of major repairs and cleanouts.
Currently, the City does not have a comprehensive SWMFs maintenance program or dedicated
funding program to ensure that proper maintenance is completed in a timely manner.
The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. a T.Y. LIN International Company was retained by the City
of Pickering in June 2019 (Resolution #111/19) to prepare the SWMF AMP. The purpose of the
SWMF AMP was to assess the current condition of the City’s existing SWMFs and determine a
prioritized list of maintenance and reconstruction/retrofit projects to ensure an acceptable level of
service is provided. In addition, the SWMF AMP will comply with Ontario Regulation 588/17, which
requires municipalities to complete asset management plans for its core infrastructure by July 1,
2021.
The SWMF AMP provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of 18 existing SWMFs (12 wet
and 6 dry SWMFs). The 2 remaining facilities owned by the City were recently
constructed/reconstructed, therefore, they were excluded from the SWMF AMP review scope.
The objectives of the SWMF AMP were as follows:
assess current physical conditions of the SWMFs through visual inspections;
quantify sediment volumes in wet ponds through sediment accumulation surveys and assess
the current performance of the SWMFs;
determine sediment quality in each facility to recommend disposal methods;
complete screening of the vegetation level and sensitive species assessment at each facility to
determine vegetation restoration needs and costs associated with environmental requirements
for recommended works;
update and populate the City’s GIS database with information reviewed and collected through
the SWMF AMP process;
identify public safety and regulatory policy concerns;
identify the potential of retrofitting SWMFs for improved performance under a capital works
plan that outlines recommended works, regulatory requirements and estimated costs ; and,
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 3
evaluate the maintenance required at the SWMFs to develop a prioritized list of recommended
works in a SWMFs maintenance plan that outlines sediment cleanout needs, recommended
repairs, ongoing maintenance requirements and estimated costs.
The SWMF AMP provides an overall evaluation of each facility, as well as a short and long term
maintenance and capital projects plan, based on SWMF condition assessments, including a cost
estimate for required maintenance tasks for each facility. The SWMFs were evaluated to establish
a ranking that identifies which SWMFs are most in need of maintenance, and they were also
evaluated for their suitability for retrofit/reconstruction to improve their performance and level of
service.
The recommendations from the SWMFs evaluation included a retrofit of 2 facilities and sediment
cleanout at 12 other facilities with priority ranking and cost estimates as follows:
Recommended SWMF Reconstruction/Retrofit (Capital) Projects
Priority SWMF Name (ID) Estimated Retrofit Cost
1 Lisgoold (C2-08-GC) $716,300.00
2 Rouge (C1-01-ER) 1,287,000.00
Total Estimated Recommended/Retrofit Cost $2,003,300.00
Recommended SWMF Maintenance (Cleanout) Projects
Priority SWMF Name (ID) Estimated Cleanout Cost
1 Rouge (C1-01-ER) $838,500.00
2 Lisgoold (C2-08-GC) 313,300.00
3 Autumn (C1-03-PT) 620,100.00
4 Begley Street (R3-02-AB) 315,900.00
5 Chickadee (C1-05-PT) 297,700.00
6 Dixie Estates 2 (C2-02D-PC) 336,700.00
7 Cognac (C2-01-DN) 412,100.00
8 Valley Farm (C2-06-WD) 347,100.00
9 Durham Woods (R3-04-LD) 1,031,400.00
10 Calvington Trail (C1-04-PT) 370,500.00
T11 Bopa (C1-02-PT) 374,400.00
T11 Mattamy (C3-08-UC) 804,700.00
Total Estimated Maintenance (Cleanout) Cost $6,062,400.00
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 4
The estimated cleanout costs can be used to plan for future capital budgets with an indexing
factor to be applied to reflect the change in construction costs. The actual costs for the
reconstruction/retrofit projects will be updated through the detailed design process. All projects
recommended in the SWMF AMP must be approved in future capital budgets in order to be
implemented.
The SWMF AMP provides the City with a GIS database that gives staff the ability to quickly
access and retrieve information, to promptly respond to inquiries from residents, government
agencies and consultants. Also, the database will be used to effectively communicate internally,
between departments. The database provides a consistent method to enter new information from
new or existing facilities and track inspections and maintenance records. City Staff will update the
database regularly based on projects as they are completed and new SWMFs when they are built.
During the existing conditions assessment of the SWMFs, there were qu ite a number of
encroachments that were found. The most common violations included private structures, such as
fences, furniture, retaining walls and plantings placed on City owned lands. Staff are investigating
the violations, and will focus first on the encroachments that impact (or potentially impact) the
operation and maintenance of the SWMF.
The maintenance and capital projects plan recommended in the SWMF AMP will provide multiple
benefits to the City, such as; helping to safeguard public health, reducing flooding potential for
public and private properties, improving water quality in the receiving creeks and demonstrating
due diligence with respect to good asset management principles and practices.
Attachments:
1.Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan Final Report July 2020
2.Stormwater Management Facilities Location Map
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 5
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Irina Marouchko, P.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng
Senior Water Resources Engineer Director, Engineering Services
Marilee Gadzovski, M. Sc. (Eng), P.Eng.
Division Head, Water Resources &
Development Services
IM:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT ▪ JULY 2020
REPORT PREPARED FOR
CITY OF PICKERING
ONE THE ESPLANADE
PICKERING, ON L1V 6K7
REPORT PREPARED BY
THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.
A T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
8800 DUFFERIN STREET, SUITE 200
VAUGHAN, ON L4K 0C5
(905) 738-5700
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
REPORT PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 11-20
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE i
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................ 1
1.1 Overview and Purpose .................................................................. 1
1.2 Background Review ...................................................................... 4
1.2.1 GIS Database ................................................................................ 4
1.2.2 Design Drawings and SWM Reports ............................................. 4
1.2.3 Facility Inspection Records ............................................................ 5
1.2.4 Other Information ........................................................................... 5
2 FACILITY INSPECTIONS AND SURVEYS ....................................... 6
2.1 Visual Inspection ........................................................................... 6
2.2 Sediment Survey ........................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Sediment Volume .......................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Sediment Quality ........................................................................... 6
2.3 Ecology .......................................................................................... 6
3 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ............................................ 7
3.1 Physical Condition ........................................................................ 7
3.2 Sediment and TSS Removal Efficiency ....................................... 7
3.2.1 Sediment Volumes ........................................................................ 7
3.2.2 TSS Removal Efficiency ................................................................ 8
3.2.3 Sediment Quality and Disposal Methods ..................................... 10
3.3 Ecological Assessment .............................................................. 11
3.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife ................................................................ 11
3.3.2 Fish Management ........................................................................ 11
3.4 Facility Condition Summary ....................................................... 11
4 SWM FACILITY DATABASE .......................................................... 30
4.1 Database Fields ........................................................................... 30
4.2 Database Functionality and Limitations .................................... 31
5 FACILITY EVALUATION ................................................................. 36
5.1 Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 36
5.1.1 Weighted Scoring ........................................................................ 38
5.1.2 Maintenance Evaluation Criteria Interpretation ........................... 38
5.1.3 Retrofit Opportunity Evaluation .................................................... 43
5.2 Evaluation Results ...................................................................... 46
6 CAPITAL PROJECTS PLAN ........................................................... 47
6.1 Priority No. 1: Lisgoold Pond ..................................................... 47
6.1.1 Issues .......................................................................................... 47
6.1.2 Recommended Works ................................................................. 47
6.1.3 Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 48
6.2 Priority No. 2: Rouge Pond ......................................................... 49
6.2.1 Issues .......................................................................................... 49
6.2.2 Recommended Works ................................................................. 49
6.2.3 Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 50
7 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................... 52
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE ii TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
7.1 SWMF Cleanout Priority Ranking ............................................... 52
7.2 Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 54
7.3 SWMF Cleanout Schedule and Checklist .................................. 54
7.4 SWMF Inspections ....................................................................... 56
7.4.1 SWMF Inspections and Minor Maintenance ................................ 56
7.4.2 Sediment Accumulation Assessments ........................................ 57
8 SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 58
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................. 61
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FACILITY INSPECTION FORMS
APPENDIX B SEDIMENT SURVEYS AND CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C ECOLOGY ASSESSMENTS AND SEDIMENT
QUALITY SAMPLING
APPENDIX D EVALUATION MATRICES
APPENDIX E COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX F SWMF INFORMATION FILES (DIGITAL FILES)
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE iii
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 SWM Facility Locations ................................................................ 2
Figure 6-1 Lisgoold Pond Recommended Works ....................................... 48
Figure 6-2 Rouge Pond Recommended Works ........................................... 50
TABLES
Table 1-1 Existing GIS Attribute Table for SWMFs...................................... 4
Table 3-1 SWMF Sediment Volumes............................................................. 8
Table 3-2 Water Quality Storage Relationships (Table 3.2 of MOE
SWM Manual) ................................................................................. 9
Table 3-3 SWMF Sediment Removal Efficiencies ...................................... 10
Table 3-4 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Autumn Pond ....... 12
Table 3-5 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Begley Street
Pond ............................................................................................. 13
Table 3-6 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Bopa Pond ............ 14
Table 3-7 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Calvington Trail
Pond ............................................................................................. 15
Table 3-8 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Chickadee Pond ... 16
Table 3-9 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Cognac Pond ........ 17
Table 3-10 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates
Pond 2 ........................................................................................ 18
Table 3-11 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Durham Woods
Pond ........................................................................................ 19
Table 3-12 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Lisgoold Pond ...... 20
Table 3-13 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Mattamy Pond ...... 21
Table 3-14 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Rouge Pond.......... 22
Table 3-15 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Valley Farm
Pond ........................................................................................ 23
Table 3-16 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Braeburn Pond ..... 24
Table 3-17 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Brock Ridge
Pond ........................................................................................ 25
Table 3-18 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates
Pond 1 ........................................................................................ 26
Table 3-19 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Steeple Hill
Pond ........................................................................................ 27
Table 3-20 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Strathmore
Crescent Pond ............................................................................. 28
Table 3-21 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Pine Ridge High
School Pond ................................................................................. 29
Table 4-1 GIS Database for SWMFs (Main Feature) .................................. 32
Table 4-2 GIS Database for SWMFs (Stormwater Management Pond) .... 33
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE iv TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 4-3 GIS Database for SWMFs (Additional Data) .............................. 33
Table 4-4 GIS Database for SWMFs (Inspection, Operation and
Maintenance) ................................................................................ 34
Table 5-1 SWMF Maintenance Assessment Criteria ................................. 37
Table 5-2 SWMF Retrofit Assessment Criteria .......................................... 38
Table 5-3 Maintenance Questions for Performance / Health and
Safety Issues ................................................................................ 39
Table 5-4 Maintenance Questions for Operations Considerations .......... 40
Table 5-5 Maintenance Questions for Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements ............................................................................... 41
Table 5-6 Maintenance Questions for Environmental Concerns ............. 42
Table 5-7 Maintenance Questions for Community Concerns .................. 42
Table 5-8 Retrofit Questions for Performance / Health and Safety .......... 43
Table 5-9 Retrofit Questions for Operations Considerations ................... 44
Table 5-10 Retrofit Questions for Cost-Benefit Analysis ............................ 44
Table 5-11 Retrofit Questions for Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements ............................................................................... 45
Table 5-12 Retrofit Questions for Environmental Issues ............................ 45
Table 5-13 Retrofit Questions for Community Concerns ........................... 46
Table 7-1 SWMF Maintenance Priority ....................................................... 53
Table 7-2 SWMF Cleanout Schedule .......................................................... 55
Table 8-1 Recommended SWMF Retrofits (Capital Works Plan) ............. 58
Table 8-2 SWMF Maintenance Priority (Maintenance Plan) ...................... 59
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 1
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Overview and Purpose
The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG), in association with Groundwater Environmental
Management Services Inc. (GEMS), was retained by the City of Pickering to complete a Stormwater
Management Facilities Asset Management Plan (SWMF AMP). The SWMF AMP builds upon the City’s
existing facility inspection records and database with a comprehensive review and field program to develop
practical capital works and maintenance plans to manage the City’s SWMFs.
The City of Pickering owns and operates 20 SWM facilities, of which 18 were included in this SWMF AMP. A
total of 12 wet facilities six (6) dry ponds were evaluated in this study and included in the capital works and
maintenance plans. The two remaining facilities owned by the City (Abbott Crescent Pond and Operations
Center Pond) were recently constructed or reconstructed and were therefore excluded from this evaluation.
Several of the SWM facilities have deteriorated physical components and performance due to inconsistent
maintenance over their lifespan. The City required a review of its SWMFs to plan maintenance and retrofit
projects to ensure an acceptable level of service is provided for the foreseeable future.
The purpose of the SWMF AMP is to assess the current conditions of the City of Pickering’s SWMFs and
determine a prioritized list of capital works and maintenance requirements for the short to medium term (up
to 10 years).
The objectives of the SWMF AMP are as follows:
■ Assess the current physical conditions of the SWMFs through visual inspections.
■ Quantify sediment volumes in wet ponds through sediment accumulation surveys and assess the
current performance of the SWMFs.
■ Determine sediment quality in each pond to recommend disposal methods.
■ Complete screening level vegetation and sensitive species assessments at each pond to determine
methods and costs associated with environmental requirements for recommended works.
■ Update and populate the City’s GIS database with information reviewed or collected through the SWMF
AMP.
■ Identify public safety and regulatory policy concerns.
■ Identify the potential for retrofitting SWMFs for improved performance under a capital works plan that
outlines the recommended works, regulatory requirements and estimated costs.
■ Evaluate the maintenance required at the SWMFs to develop a prioritized list of works requirements in a
SWMF maintenance plan that outlines sediment cleanout needs, recommended repairs, ongoing
maintenance requirement, regulatory requirements and estimated costs.
This SWMF AMP report describes the background review of the City’s SWMFs (Section 1.2), outlines the
site inspections completed (Section 2), summarizes current facility conditions and updates to the City’s GIS
database (Sections 3 and 4), and describes the facility evaluation and resulting maintenance and capital
works plans (Sections 5 through 7).
Durham Woods Pond
R3-04-LD
Begley Street Pond
R3-02-AB
Steeple Hill Pond
R3-01D-PT
Autumn Pond
C1-03-PT
Braeburn Pond
C1-06D-PT
Calvington Trail Pond
C1-04-PT
Chickadee Pond
C1-05-PT
Rouge Pond
C1-01-ER
Bopa Pond
C1-02-PT
Cognac Pond
C2-01-DN
Dixie Estates Pond 1
C2-03-PC
Dixie Estates Pond 2
C2-02D-PC Strathmore Crescent Pond
C2-05D-WD
Lisgoold Pond
C2-08-GC
Mattamy Pond
C3-08-UC
Pine Ridge High School
C2-04D-WD
Valley Farm Pond
C2-06-WD
Brock Ridge Park
C2-07D-WD
Highway 4
0
1
Finch Avenue
Whites RoadKingst
o
n
R
o
a
dAltona RoadBayly StreetDixie RoadLiverpool RoadBrock RoadRosebank RoadThird Concession Road
Valley Farm RoadStrouds Lane
Glenanna RoadFairport RoadSheppard Avenue
Pickering Parkway
Church Street SSpruce Hill RoadSideline 34Clements RoadSquires Beach RoadSandy Beach RoadGlendale DriveOklahoma Drive
Aspen Road
Notion RoadTwyn Rivers DrivePine Grove AvenueAmberlea RoadAppleview RoadBowler DriveKellino Street
Modl
in
Road
Granite
C
o
u
r
tRougemount DriveHighview Road
Woodview AvenueWalnut LaneFawndale RoadOld Forest RoadDunbarton R
o
a
d
Dillingham RoadRockwood DriveSalk RoadS
o
u
t
h
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
Marshcourt DriveDouglas AvenueNew Street
Linwood Street
Breezy Drive Glenview RoadAlliance RoadRosefield RoadVicki Drive Longbow DriveCommerce Street
Ba
y
l
a
w
n
D
r
i
v
e
Vistula Drive
Littleford Street Denmar Road
Martins Street
Davidson Street
Huntsmill DriveDarwin Drive
Rossland Road W
Fairview AvenueEagleview DriveSilicone Drive
Post Drive
Lawson Street
Sunbird
Tr
ail
Miriam RoadCraighurst Cou
r
t
Cherrywood Avenue
Charnwood Court
Bonita Avenue
Hoover Drive
The Espl
a
n
a
d
e
NLydia CrescentAnton SquareBrands Court
The Espla
n
a
d
e
S
Falconcrest DriveBurnside DriveBicroft CourtThird Concession RoadRosebank RoadFairport RoadCITY OF PICKERING SWMF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
SWMF LOCATIONSDocument Path: G:\Projects\2019\19163 - Pickering - SWMF Asset Management Plan\4. Drawings\GIS\2020-07-24- Figure 1-1.mxdSCALE
DATE JULY 2020
³
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
FIGURE NO.
1-1
1 :30,000
PROJECT NO.
19163
ID WATERSHED
PT Petticoat CreekAB Armor Business Park (Frenchman's Bay)LD Low Duffins CreekER East Rouge RiverDN Dunbarton CreekPC Pine CreekWD West Duffins CreekED East Duffins CreekGC Ganatsekiagon CreekUC Urfe CreekWV Whitevale Creek
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 4 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
1.2 Background Review
A background review of information available from the City was completed prior to the existing conditions
assessment and development of the AMP. The available background information for the SWMFs in this AMP
included the existing GIS database, 2018 orthophotos, drainage area plans, plan, profile and details
drawings of the SWMFs, SWM reports, and SWMF inspection forms from the last several years. Other
information available for select SWMFs include digital drawing files and Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs). Additional details of the
background information is provided in the following sections.
1.2.1 GIS Database
The City’s existing GIS database includes SWMF information as well as property parcel boundaries, City
owned property, storm sewer information (sewers, maintenance holes, outfalls), and ditches. In particular,
the existing SWMF shapefile contains the facilities as polygons depicting the pond basin and an attribute
table (Table 1-1). Some storm sewers, maintenance holes, and outfalls within the pond blocks are included
with their respective layers in the City’s database and represented by polylines and points. Pond blocks are
represented within the Parcel layer of the database.
Table 1-1 Existing GIS Attribute Table for SWMFs
Field GIS Nomenclature Notes
Object ID OBJECTID
Shape Shape All SWMFs represented by polygons
SWMF ID POND_ID
Common Name for SWMF Assetname
Owner Owner All SWMFs are owned by the City of Pickering
Facility type Type Wet or dry
Project number Project_Num Unknown project number reference
Sort Number Sort_Num
TCA ID TCA_ID
Polygon shape length Shape_Length Length in meters
Polygon shape area Shape_Area Area in meters
1.2.2 Design Drawings and SWM Reports
Design drawings were available for each of the SWMFs, which included at least one or more of the
following: drainage area plans, SWMF plan, profile and details drawings, landscaping plans, and erosion
and sediment control plans. For older SWMFs, digital scans of the drawing in PDF format were available.
Select new facilities had digital (PDF) drawing files or AutoCAD files. The available drawings are organized
under the SWMF information files (digital files) found in Appendix F.
These design drawings and associated SWM reports were reviewed and referenced for their information on
SWMF components, control structures, drainage area, and design specifications, which were used to
complete the facility condition assessments and determine the recommended works in the capital and
maintenance plans.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 5
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
1.2.3 Facility Inspection Records
SWMF inspection reports were available for 2012, and 2015 to 2018 for most SWMFs. The inspections were
completed by City staff and reported in excel files. The inspections include visual observations of key
components at each facility and recommended actions to monitor, clean out or repair concerns.
From the City’s inspections, SWMF inspection memos were completed in 2016, 2017 and 2018 that
highlighted maintenance concerns requiring action at several SWMFs. These memos were addressed to the
City’s operations staff. All previous inspection records are found in the SWMF information files (digital files)
found in Appendix F.
In general, common issues at the SWMFs included excessive vegetation growth and debris at outlet
structures causing blockages, minor damage to fence posts and outlet grates, and beaver activity at select
ponds. Many of these issues had not been rectified and were reviewed ahead of TMIG’s facility inspections.
1.2.4 Other Information
Other information that was reviewed for this AMP include the following:
■ Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) (formerly known as Certificates of Approval – C of As)
were available for:
□ Bopa Pond (ECA no. 9557-4ZZS3D)
□ Calvington Trail Pond (ECA no. 7347-6LRRBE)
□ Durham Woods (ECA no. 7098-5ZKPEP)
□ Lisgoold Pond (ECA no. 3-0348-93-006)
□ Mattamy (ECA no. 0871-89PR2R)
□ Rouge Pond (ECA no. 3-0372-93-006)
■ 2018 City of Pickering Orthophotos
■ Online mapping regarding natural heritage through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Natural Heritage Areas mapping application.
General SWMF asset management and maintenance information from guideline documents and recent
studies at other municipalities and conservation authorities were also reviewed to assist with developing this
AMP, which included the following:
■ Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s report on Stormwater Inspection and Record
Management Best Practices, and Data Model Design (GHD, 2017).
■ Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) Inspection and Maintenance Guide for SWM
Ponds and Constructed Wetlands (TRCA and CH2M, 2016).
■ Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Stormwater Management Planning and
Design Manual (MOE, 2003).
■ City of Pickering Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (July 2019).
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 6 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
2 FACILITY INSPECTIONS AND SURVEYS
SWMF inspections and surveys were completed in the summer and fall of 2019 by TMIG, GEMS, and
GEMS’ Environmental Monitoring and Compliance (EMAC) division. The following sections describe the
work that was completed.
2.1 Visual Inspection
TMIG completed visual inspections of SWMF components between July 18 and July 31, 2019, at the 12 wet
ponds and six (6) dry ponds in this AMP. Follow-up inspections were completed on November 20, 2019 at
select facilities. The inspections involved locating components detailed on design drawings to assess their
condition and function. Maintenance hole covers containing flow splitting weirs or control structures were
opened and visually inspected from ground level where possible. Pond access barriers such as bollards and
gates were inspected and general public safety concerns were noted. Incidences of encroachment on City
property (within the pond block) were also documented.
The inspection results were recorded on a modified version of the City’s pond inspection forms. Photographs
were taken of the SWMFs and items of concern. Inspection forms and photographs are provided in the
SWMF information files (digital files) found in Appendix F.
2.2 Sediment Survey
2.2.1 Sediment Volume
Bathymetric surveys and sediment depth measurements were completed by EMAC between July 23 and
August 31, 2019, at the 12 wet ponds. Both traditional survey methods and echosounder survey equipment
were used depending on the amount of vegetation, debris, and depth of water impacting the equipment.
Results from the sediment volume surveys were summarized in Section 3.2.1 and in Appendix B.
2.2.2 Sediment Quality
GEMS completed sediment quality sampling at the 12 wet ponds between July 18 and August 22, 2019. A
ponar dredge was used to collect the sediment samples at each sampling location. The number of samples
collected at each wet pond varied between one (1) and four (4) depending on the size of the pond and
access restrictions. The sediment samples were analyzed at Bureau Veritas in Mississauga, Ontario. The
sampling results were compared against criteria in Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 153/04. A leachate test
(Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure – TCLP) was also completed and compared against Ontario
Regulation 588/00 to determine whether the sediment is considered hazardous (and cannot be disposed in
a landfill). Sediment sampling results are summarized in Section 3.2.3 and full methodology, sampling
locations and results are found in Appendix C.
2.3 Ecology
GEMS completed ecological assessments between July 18 and September 5, 2019 for the 18 wet and dry
ponds included in this AMP to identify general vegetation communities in and around the pond, incidental
wildlife observations, review adjacent environmental features, and recommend mitigation measures for
future pond works. The vegetation assessment was completed in general accordance with standard
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC) protocols. Recommendations on fish
management during pond retrofits or cleanouts was also provided. Ecologic assessment findings are
summarized in Section 3.2.3 and full results are found in Appendix C.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 7
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
3 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The results of the facility inspections and analysis are described in the following sections. A general
overview of the assessments is provided in Sections 3.1 to 3.3, while summary tables for individual ponds
are found in Section 3.4.
3.1 Physical Condition
Visual inspections were completed for each of the 18 wet and dry ponds in this AMP. In general, there were
no items of concern that require emergency attention and repair for public safety concerns. However,
conditions at several ponds require maintenance to restore the operating functions. In general, the SWMFs
had signs that indicated insufficient routine maintenance such as debris cleanup and minor repairs to outlet
grates, fences, etc.
Common items of concern noted throughout the inspection of the SWMFs are summarized below. Specific
notes on each facility are found on inspections forms in Appendix A and summary tables in Section 3.4.
■ Outlet pipes, catchbasins, and hickenbottoms were blocked by debris and vegetation growth in the
immediate area. As a result, water levels above design were observed and likely decreased extended
detention and active storage volumes.
■ Damage to headwalls such as loose fence posts, missing or damaged fence components, missing or
damaged grates.
■ Scour and erosion around inlet and outlet headwalls.
■ Beaver activity was observed at several ponds, which contribute to the debris and blocked outlets.
■ Invasive phragmite growth at several ponds, which in some instances was contributing to blocked
outlets.
■ Insufficient signage, fence damage, missing gate locks, and other items related to site security.
3.2 Sediment and TSS Removal Efficiency
3.2.1 Sediment Volumes
Sediment volumes were estimated from the sediment surveys for each wet pond. The sediment volumes
ranged from 41 m3 to 1030 m3 (Table 3-1). These volumes consider the top of sediment and an assumed
bottom of the pond, based on field survey rod probes and echosounder survey results. The sediment
volumes were used to further calculate suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiencies and was a key factor to
determining the priority of pond cleanout.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 8 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-1 SWMF Sediment Volumes
SWMF Name SWMF ID Date of Survey Sediment Volume (m3)
Autumn Pond C1-03-PT July 24, 2019 764
Begley Street Pond R3-02-AB August 16, 2019 200
Bopa Pond C1-02-PT July 29, 2019 188
Calvington Trail Pond C1-04-PT July 26, 2019 211
Chickadee Pond C1-05-PT August 22, 2019 155
Cognac Pond C2-01-DN August 9, 2019 441
Dixie Estates Pond 2 C2-02D-PC August 20, 2019 41
Durham Woods Pond R3-04-LD August 1, 2019 1618
Lisgoold Pond C2-08-GC August 22, 2019 119
Mattamy Pond C3-08-UC August 31, 2019 1030
Rouge Pond C1-01-ER August 19, 2019 850
Valley Farm Pond C2-06-WD July 23, 2019 117 (Note 1)
1 The sediment volume surveyed within the pond was 117 m3, however, the total sediment volume surveyed was 293 m3
which accounted for an additional 176 m3 sediment accumulated adjacent to the pond from an external drainage diversion
channel.
3.2.2 TSS Removal Efficiency
The TSS removal efficiency at the wet ponds was assessed using design methods outlined in the
Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (SWM Manual) (MOE, 2003). In particular, Chapter 3
of the SWM Manual provides water quality criteria that are currently used in the design of wet ponds,
recognizing that a number of facilities were designed prior to the standards described in the SWM Manual.
In particular, a number of facilities were not designed with a permanent pool (including Chickadee Pond,
Dixie Estates 2 Pond, Lisgoold Pond, and Rouge Pond). For these facilities, the TSS removal efficiencies
were not calculated, except for Rouge Pond, which was assumed to have an average permanent pool depth
of 0.15 m that is comparable to a wetland facility.
For wet ponds designed with a permanent pool, the as-designed TSS removal efficiency (percentage) was
obtained from SWM reports where available. For many ponds that predate the 2003 SWM Manual, the
removal efficiency was calculated using the as-designed permanent pool volume (from SWM reports or
estimated from design / as-built drawings) and the contributing drainage area / imperviousness. The
relationships presented in Table 3.2 of the SWM Manual were interpolated and extrapolated for the wet
ponds, noting that extrapolations far beyond the lower and upper values presented in the table were viewed
with discretion.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 9
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-2 Water Quality Storage Relationships (Table 3.2 of MOE SWM Manual)
In general, the design TSS removal efficiencies of six (6) of the wet ponds were above Normal Protection
Levels (70% long-term TSS removal). The remainder includes Cognac Pond (65%) and the five (5) ponds
without permanent pools in their design.
The current TSS removal efficiencies were calculated using the same method above, but considered the
surveyed sediment volume, which was assumed to reduce the permanent pool volume and thus reduce the
TSS removal efficiencies. The results of the current TSS removal efficiency calculation help determine the
urgency for sediment cleanout at each facility. As a guide, the SWM Manual recommends sediment cleanout
of the pond when TSS removal efficiencies are reduced by more than 5%. Overall, the reduction in TSS
removal efficiencies at the SWMFs ranged from 1% to 10%, of which, Autumn Pond, Begley Street Pond,
Cognac Pond, and Rouge Pond had TSS removal efficiencies reduced by more than 5% from design and
are below 80% TSS removal efficiency. Results of the calculations are provided in Table 3-3 and
calculations are found in Appendix B.
Of note, the Mattamy Pond had a high sediment accumulation volume that is likely attributable to the
continued construction activity within its contributing drainage area. However, the pond also included a large
permanent pool volume and thus has the capacity to accumulate more sediment before a reduction in
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 10 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
settling efficiency below 80%. A sediment assessment is recommended at the Mattamy Pond once the
contributing drainage area has been fully built out.
Table 3-3 SWMF Sediment Removal Efficiencies
SWMF Name SWMF ID As-designed TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current TSS Removal
Efficiency
Autumn Pond C1-03-PT 81% 71%
Begley Street Pond R3-02-AB 78% 72%
Bopa Pond C1-02-PT 77% 75%
Calvington Trail Pond C1-04-PT >90% 87%
Chickadee Pond C1-05-PT N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
Cognac Pond C2-01-DN 65% 57%
Dixie Estates Pond 2 C2-02D-PC N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
Durham Woods Pond R3-04-LD 87% 82%
Lisgoold Pond C2-08-GC N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
Mattamy Pond C3-08-UC 90% 86%
Rouge Pond C1-01-ER
62% (not designed with
permanent pool, assumed
0.15 m wetland depth)
51%
Valley Farm Pond C2-06-WD N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
3.2.3 Sediment Quality and Disposal Methods
The TCLP (leachate test) analysis (O. Reg. 558/00) results for samples collected during facility inspections
were not considered hazardous and therefore can disposed of in a landfill. The samples were also
compared to Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 153/04 for sediment. Table 1 criteria determine the suitability of
the sediment for reuse at other locations. Ponds that do not exceed Table 1 criteria, with the exception of
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and electrical conductivity (EC), are generally candidates for sediment
reuse at other locations.
However, the presence of phragmites at many of the SWMFs requires the sediment to be disposed at
landfill. This is based on the recommended landfill disposal for phragmites, a highly invasive plant species
which grows in the sediment and would be removed at the same time. In general, sediment reuse for the
relatively small volumes of sediment at the SWMFs do not provide a cost advantage over landfill disposal.
The sediment quality sampling completed for the SWMF AMP was to inform the disposal methods for
planning cleanouts, for example, to estimate costs and identify any potential challenges with sediment
disposal. The testing does not provide sufficient sampling data to proceed with disposal. Additional testing is
required under O. Reg. 406/19: On-site and Excess Soil Management and the sediment disposal testing and
disposal shall refer to the Rules for Soil Management and Excess Soil Quality Standards (Soil Rules)
(MECP, 2019), particularly the sections that refer to stormwater management pond sediment. In general, the
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 11
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
excavation and removal of sediment from SWM ponds will require a sampling and analysis plan with specific
requirements for SWM pond sediment with respect to sampling frequencies and test parameters.
3.3 Ecological Assessment
3.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife
The vegetation assessment covered the stormwater management block for each pond and adjacent areas
where appropriate, such as the outlet areas. The wet pond blocks generally had cultural thicket-type
vegetation communities as well as vegetation consistent with cultural seed mixes that were used at pond
construction. Vegetation communities and species noted at each pond were documented in Appendix C.
Common amongst several wet ponds is the presence of invasive phragmites (Phragmites australis), which
were especially heavy at the Begley Street Pond and Calvington Trail Pond.
Butternut trees were identified at the ponds, with one each at Cognac Pond and Valley Farm Pond. The
butternut trees will require confirmation and guidance from a butternut health assessor to determine the
required protection and/or mitigation requirements of the tree ahead of a sediment cleanout or retrofit
project.
There was also a presence of milkweed at several ponds which is associated with the observations of
Monarch butterflies. While Monarch butterflies are not protected by the Species at Risk Act due to the
ranking as special concern, it is recommended that any vegetation removal should ensure the replacement
of milkweed within the area to maintain Monarch butterfly habitat.
With respect to wildlife, the only Species at Risk observed was Barn Swallow at Calvington Trail Pond,
Durham Woods Pond, Mattamy Pond, and Rouge Pond. Sediment cleanout and/or retrofit works are
required to take measures to not harm the species or its habitat but adhering to the Migratory Birds
Convention Act. Any vegetation removals required within the core breeding bird season (between April 1st
and August 31st) will require clearance surveys for active nesting. The removal or disturbance of active nests
that contain eggs or young birds is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from the MNRF. If any significant
habitat for the barn swallow is altered or destroyed, mitigation measures (such as nest cups or structures)
must be put into place once construction works are complete.
Other incident wildlife observations that were common amongst the ponds include green frog, great blue
heron, red wing blackbird, and dragonfly species. There was also evidence of beaver activity in several
ponds that had caused blockages in outlet structures (or has the potential to cause blockages). If beavers
persistently interfere with the function of a SWMF, the beaver should be relocated to a more suitable habitat.
3.3.2 Fish Management
At many wet ponds, numerous goldfish were observed. Based on the habitat within the pond, it is likely that
other species are also present at all ponds.
A Fish Relocation Program is recommended prior to sediment cleanout works at each SWMF, to be carried
out by a qualified crew, led by an Aquatic/Fisheries Biologist or Technician. The relocation effort should
ensure that all fish and aquatic species are released into a suitable habitat after capture. Rescue efforts
should be undertaken during the pre-drawdown and the drawdown phase. A License to Collect Fish for
Scientific Purposes is required from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to capture and
transport any aquatic wildlife. Fish may also need to be euthanized if deemed necessary by the MNRF.
3.4 Facility Condition Summary
The following tables summarize the facility condition assessment for each of the SWMF in this study. The
tables highlight major findings with respect to the physical condition of the SWMF, sediment volumes and
TSS removal efficiency, sediment quality and disposal methods, and ecological assessment.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 12 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-4 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Autumn Pond
SWMF ID C1-03-PT
SWMF Name Autumn Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Overgrown vegetation along
maintenance access road prevents
vehicle access around pond.
■ Poison ivy observed on trail near
outlet of the facility.
■ Beaver activity noted in the vicinity.
SWMF discharges to ponded area
upstream of railway and outlet pipe is
partially submerged.
■ Informal trails connecting the pond to
Calvington Pond and Altona Forest
Trails.
■ No rip-rap surrounding the outlet CSP
riser and the filter fabric is exposed.
■ Vegetation growth around outlet
structure.
■ The outlet pipe is likely clogged with
debris, which has caused an elevated
water level and partially submerged
inlet.
■ Fence damage at south-east corner of
pond site adjacent the railway.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, remove debris around hickenbottom outlet structure, repair
riprap material around the outlet CSP riser, and repair damaged fence. Add signage noting the presence
of poison ivy.
If present, beaver in the area should be relocated to avoid operational issues associated with debris.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 764 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 71%
Design: 81% (estimated from design drawings)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek tributary with north and south woodlands of unknown
significance.
Additional Mitigation: n.a.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 13
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-5 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Begley Street Pond
SWMF ID R3-02-AB
SWMF Name Begley Street Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Maintenance access road requires
vegetation clearing for vehicle
access.
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Outlet headwall and pipe submerged.
■ Heavy vegetation around outlet area.
■ Overland flow route potentially drains
toward townhouses rather than
overland flow dispersion swale.
■ Overland flow dispersion swale not
well defined.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment and clean out vegetation at outlet area.
Confirm overland flow route by survey and regrade if necessary.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 200 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential for reuse near roadways, subject to geotechnical requirements,
however, phragmite removal (during sediment removal) will require landfill disposal.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 72%
Design: 78% (estimated from design drawings)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Frenchman’s Bay Coastal Wetland Complex (Provincially Significant
Wetland) to the west of the pond.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate Monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 14 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-6 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Bopa Pond
SWMF ID C1-02-PT
SWMF Name Bopa Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Evidence of beaver activity within the
pond.
■ The PVC riser may be partially clogged.
■ CSP riser / protection for PVC outlet
pipe not present.
■ Outlet headwall.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, clean out perforated outlet riser and install CSP riser. Relocate
beaver from pond if present.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 188 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 75%
Design: 77%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek tributary with north and south woodlands.
Additional Mitigation: n.a.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 15
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-7 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Calvington Trail Pond
SWMF ID C1-04-PT
SWMF Name Calvington Trail Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Signage not present at pond.
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Encroachment along north edge of
pond block (plantings by residents).
■ Evidence of beaver activity in vicinity
of the pond.
■ Inlet headwall fence post damaged
(loose fence post).
■ Outlet headwall fence damage
(missing crossbar)
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, repair headwall fencing and install signs. Relocate beaver if
present.
Pond Sediment Volume: 211 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 87%
Design: >90%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 16 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-8 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Chickadee Pond
SWMF ID C1-05-PT
SWMF Name Chickadee Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Heavy vegetation within pond block.
■ No signs at access gate to inlet
(northeast access).
■ Steep maintenance access to inlet
and outlet areas.
■ Evidence of beaver activity within
pond.
■ Outlet hickenbottom submerged and
surrounded by vegetation and
debris.
■ Outlet likely partially blocked
causing elevated water level.
■ Inlet area and pipe submerged.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment and vegetation, clean or replace hickenbottom outlet, and
install signs at northeast access gate. Relocate beaver if present.
Pond Sediment Volume: 155 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek and woodland of unknown significance
Additional Mitigation: n.a.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 17
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-9 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Cognac Pond
SWMF ID C2-01-DN
SWMF Name Cognac Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Phragmite growth within west side of
pond.
■ Fallen tree at east side of pond.
■ Evidence of beaver activity within
pond.
■ Scour pool, deteriorated riprap and
exposed filter fabric at inlet.
■ Minor erosion along south berm.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, repair inlet area, monitor erosion areas on berm and stabilize
if required.
Pond Sediment
Volume: 441 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential reuse subject to further sediment sampling. Phragmites require
landfill disposal.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 57%
Design: 65%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Potential butternut tree, Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Dunbarton Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Butternut health assessment. Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate
Monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 18 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-10 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates Pond 2
SWMF ID C2-02D-PC
SWMF Name Dixie Estates Pond 2
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Facility water level elevated and
inlet pipe partially submerged.
■ Encroachment along west side of
pond block from homeowner
plantings and yard furnishings.
■ Seepage through berm around inlet
headwall.
■ Signs of bank erosion (undercut and
slumping) in downstream
watercourse.
■ Outlet riprap spillway washed out.
Recommendations: Cleanout facility outlet, repair inlet pipe and repair outlet spillway.
Pond Sediment Volume: 41 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Pine Creek tributary and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: N/A
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 19
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-11 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Durham Woods Pond
SWMF ID R3-04-LD
SWMF Name Durham Woods Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ View of pond looking east towards
access gate.
■ Access gate unlocked and
obstructed by brush.
■ Cracks in concrete headwalls at
north and south inlets.
■ Cracks in headwall at fence posts at
north and south inlets.
■ Erosion gullies along berm.
■ Drainage from adjacent vacant
property to the east had causes
erosion gullies (approximately 1.5 m
wide and 0.5 m deep).
Recommendations: Repair headwalls and repair/stabilize erosion rills in berms. Complete maintenance
on access gate.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 1618 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 82%
Design: 87%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Duffins Creek and Duffins Creek Marsh (Provincially significant wetland)
about 500 m downstream of SWMF.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 20 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-12 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Lisgoold Pond
SWMF ID C2-08-GC
SWMF Name Lisgoold Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Outlet clogged with debris causing
elevated water level.
■ Fallen tree in pond.
■ Degraded channel downstream of
west inlet (washed out riprap
spillway, knickpoint, eroded side
slope).
■ Exposed headwall and degraded
riprap at south inlet.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, clean outlet structure, repair inlet channel and repair riprap
around south inlet.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 119 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Ganatsekiagon Creek tributary (occupied or recovery reach for Redside
Dace) and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: In-water works/construction may be limited to the fisheries timing window of July 1
to September 15.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 21
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-13 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Mattamy Pond
SWMF ID C3-08-UC
SWMF Name Mattamy Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Evidence of beaver activity within
pond block.
■ Signage at pond for park rules, does
not provide warnings for SWMF.
■ Wetland flow spreader.
Recommendations: Install signs with SWMF warnings. Relocate beaver if present.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 1030 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential reuse subject to further sampling.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 86%
Design: 90%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Urfe Creek tributary (occupied or recovery reach for Redside Dace),
woodlands of unknown significance, and unevaluated wetland.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
In-water works/construction may be limited to the fisheries timing window of July 1 to September 15.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 22 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-14 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Rouge Pond
SWMF ID C1-01-ER
SWMF Name Rouge Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Outlet from quality pond likely
blocked resulting in high water level.
■ Evidence of beaver activity in vicinity
of pond.
■ Encroachment at along east edge of
pond block (landscaping and
plantings by residents)
■ Outlet from quality pond likely
blocked resulting in high water level.
■ Vegetation surrounding
hickenbottom.
■ Inlet grate at quality pond unhinged.
Recommendations: Cleanout sediment and cleanout outlet from water quality pond. Repair inlet grate.
Relocate beaver if required.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 850 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential reuse where site locations meet the Excess Soil Guidelines.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 51%
Design: 62% (assumes 0.15 m average wetland depth)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Rouge River. Discharge to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
(ANSI), which consists of woodlands of unknown significance and Provincially Significant Wetland
northwest (upstream) of SWMF.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 23
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-15 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Valley Farm Pond
SWMF ID C2-06-WD
SWMF Name Valley Farm Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Debris and vegetation surrounding
hickenbottom outlet.
■ Heavy vegetation within pond.
■ No signage at the pond.
■ Heavy vegetation around outlet
headwall.
■ Water ponded downstream of outlet.
■ Ponded water downstream of outlet
at pedestrian trail.
■ Ponded water and sediment
accumulated adjacent to the pond
berm from an external drainage
channel.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, remove debris around hickenbottom outlet and downstream
headwall. Install signs. Consider installing culvert and grading trail at outlet channel of pond. Consider
removing sediment from adjacent ponded area and restoring the external drainage diversion channel.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 117 m3 within the pond. An additional sediment volume of 176 m3 was surveyed in the area
adjacent to the pond where an external drainage diversion channel is located. The total sediment
volume surveyed was 293 m3.
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Potential butternut tree
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek tributary and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Butternut health assessment and associated recommendations.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 24 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-16 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Braeburn Pond
SWMF ID C1-06D-PT
SWMF Name Braeburn Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Basin is manicured lawn.
■ Minor ponding at inlet channel.
■ Downstream end of culverts near
outlet with small scour pool.
Recommendations: Clear debris to improve drainage at inlet culvert. Repair minor scour pool.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: N/A (storm sewer)
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 25
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-17 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Brock Ridge Pond
SWMF ID C2-07D-WD
SWMF Name Brock Ridge Park
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Outlet pipe is damaged.
■ Spillway and berm have collapsed
above outlet pipe.
■ Ponding at inlet channel to pond
basin and entrance to parking lot
■ Minor ponding and vehicle ruts in
inlet grassed swale.
Recommendations: Repair outlet pipe and spillway berm. Regrade inlet channel to reduce ponding.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 26 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-18 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates Pond 1
SWMF ID C2-03-PC
SWMF Name Dixie Estates Pond 1
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Gravel access road containing control
culvert, view looking west.
■ Erosion at edge of gravel road at
downstream headwall.
■ Upstream side of control culvert
headwall fence damaged (leaning).
■ Debris and vegetation around
upstream grate.
■ Debris at downstream DICB
(downstream of pond).
■ Erosion around headwall and
immediately upstream of DICB.
■ MH at DICB not secured to structure.
■ Pedestrian path downstream of
facility eroded by channel flows
(public safety hazard).
Recommendations: Repair headwall fence damage, clean debris from control culvert. Repair
downstream DICB.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: N.A. (storm sewer at Maple Ridge Park).
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 27
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-19 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Steeple Hill Pond
SWMF ID R3-01D-PT
SWMF Name Steeple Hill Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Main basin of pond well vegetated,
view looking east.
■ Grate at north inlet pipe damaged.
■ Upstream side of outlet culvert across
Kingston Road.
Recommendations: Repair north inlet pipe grate.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek tributary
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 28 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-20 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Strathmore Crescent Pond
SWMF ID C2-05D-WD
SWMF Name Strathmore Crescent Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Main basin of pond well vegetated.
■ Minor debris at inlet pipe grate.
■ Damaged outlet pipe.
■ Approximately 1 m deep scour pool in
creek downstream of outlet pipe.
Recommendations: Monitor low flow channel erosion. Potentially modify outlet culvert to reduce scour
in receiving creek.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 29
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-21 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Pine Ridge High School Pond
SWMF ID C2-04D-WD
SWMF Name Pine Ridge High School
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Ponded water at inlet.
■ Minor sediment noted in basin of
pond.
■ Two (2) outlet pipes located with
small scour pool downstream of
pipes.
Recommendations: Continue monitoring and inspections.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 30 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
4 SWM FACILITY DATABASE
The City’s GIS database information on SWMF was updated to include the information reviewed and
collected as part of this AMP. The database was also set up in anticipation of future data inputs and
information needs.
The GIS database update was based on a best practices review of stormwater management inspection and
record management completed by Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) (GHD, 2017). The
best practices review included surveys and workshops with municipalities within the LSRCA to determine a
data model design, which is a description of the rules by which data is defined, organized, queried and
updated within a database. The TRCA, Region of Durham and MECP also participated in the workshops for
the data model design.
4.1 Database Fields
The LSRCA proposed data model included a comprehensive list of fields pertaining to SWM and LID
facilities. The attributes pertaining to SWMFs were reviewed and it was determined that the list of fields from
the LSRCA data model were generally appropriate for the City’s database, considering future data needs of
the City and the information that would be available from new SWM infrastructure. With respect to the
SWMFs in this AMP, the data fields were populated to the extent possible using information from available
drawings, reports, and the site inspections (Appendix F).
The data model proposes four (4) categories of data, all of which can be stored within the attribute tables for
the ‘Stormwater Management Ponds” layer of the City’s database. The exceptions are SWM facility features
that are represented as a polygon or point within the geodatabase, such as specific control structures within
the pond, the pond block or easements. The main categories are as follows:
■ Main Feature – these fields are applicable to all stormwater management infrastructure such as SWM
Ponds, LID facilities, and oil-grit separators. Fields include the name, ECA, facility location, etc. (Table
4-1). This data is stored under the SWMF layer of the GIS database.
■ Stormwater Management Pond – these fields pertain specifically to SWM ponds to describe their type
and function (Table 4-2). This data is stored under the SWMF layer of the GIS database.
■ Additional Data – the fields are intended to apply to all SWM infrastructure and includes technical
specifications and hyperlinks to SWM reports, drawings, etc. (Table 4-3). The data is to be stored with
the feature that represents the data, for example, specifications for a control structure is to be stored
with a point that represents the structure.
■ Inspection, Operation and Maintenance – the fields include information regarding maintenance and
hyperlinks to inspection reports, monitoring reports, operating manuals, etc. (Table 4-4).
The database fields listed in the tables above are also marked as ‘mandatory’ or ‘optional’. The intent of the
mandatory designation is to define fields that are required for each facility, recognizing that older facilities
may not have the complete information available. New/future facilities are expected to have information for
most, if not all the mandatory fields. The optional fields generally cover information that will be available from
inspections, maintenance and operations of the SWMF, or more detailed information with respect to pond
design specifications. It is recommended that fields be filled out with all available information. New/future
SWMFs will generally include more information in drawings and reports than older facilities and allow the
database to be populated more easily.
To that end, from the background and information review to complete this SWMF AMP, all available
information that fit the database fields were entered. Note that SWMF features recommended to be stored in
the database as point or polygons (such as controls structures) were not entered into the database as these
features did not have available survey data or digital as-built drawings to assist.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 31
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
4.2 Database Functionality and Limitations
The database defines, organizes, and provides the ability to query data for SWMFs, which allows City staff
to access information more quickly and better respond to requests between departments, other government
agencies and public requests. The database provides a consistent method to enter new information from
new or existing facilities and keep track of inspections and maintenance records. Future SWMFs condition
assessments can be completed with less effort with information readily available.
The City is also expecting a large number of SWMFs to enter service from new developments and the
reliance on City staff ‘knowledge’ of specifications to manage the infrastructure will be less feasible moving
forward without tools such as a database. Overall, it allows the City to more effectively manage their SWM
infrastructure.
The database is most valuable if the information is up-to-date, recognizing that maintaining the database
requires regular effort from City staff or retaining a consultant. The database should be reviewed and
updated after site inspections and maintenance works at each facility. It is also important to correct
misinformation where needed. The recommended frequency of review is annual, to coincide with the
recommended minimum SWMF inspection frequency of once per year.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 32 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 4-1 GIS Database for SWMFs (Main Feature)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data is
represented in
attribute table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Common Name FacName Polygon Text Mandatory Common name of
works/facility
Unique ID –
primary key SWMID Polygon Text Mandatory SWM ID
ECA/C of A ID ECAID Polygon Text Mandatory ECA / C of A ID
ECA/C of A Date ECADate Polygon Date Mandatory Date of authorizing letter
ECA/C of A
Description ECADesc Polygon Hyperlink Mandatory Hyperlink to authorizing letter
Cert. of Completion
ID CofCompID Polygon Text Optional Cert. of Completion ID (if
applicable)
Cert. of Completion
Date CofDate Polygon Date Optional Date of authorizing letter
Cert. of Completion
Description CofDesc Polygon Hyperlink Optional Hyperlink to authorizing letter
Facility Location Location Polygon Text Mandatory Intersection/Address
Facility Location II Northing Polygon Double Mandatory Coordinates (UTM) (captured
at outfall)
Facility Location III Easting Polygon Double Mandatory Coordinates (UTM) (captured
at outfall)
Subdivision Name SubName Polygon Text Optional Subdivision name in which
works/facility is located
Parcel ID ParcelID Polygon Text Optional Registered plan (M-Plan)
parcel ID (if applicable)
Municipality MunName Polygon Text Mandatory Municipality name
Conservation
Authority ConsAuth Polygon Text Mandatory Conservation Authority name
Subwatershed Wtrshed Polygon Text Mandatory Subwatershed within
Conservation Authority
Drainage/Catchme
nt Area CatchArea Polygon Double Mandatory
Unique ID of
drainage/catchment area
spatial layer
Ownership Owner Polygon Text Mandatory Includes private land
name/description
Management Mgmt Polygon Text Optional Details/name of management
(if applicable)
Online/Offline OnOffline Polygon Text Mandatory Online/offline
Year Built YrBuilt Polygon Text Mandatory Year facility was constructed
Year Assumed YrAssmd Polygon Text Optional Year facility was assumed
Year Inspected YrInspect Polygon Text Optional Most recent year
works/facility was inspected
Year Cleaned YrCleaned Polygon Text Optional Most recent year
works/facility was cleaned
GIS metadata last
date modified GISDate Polygon Date Optional Most recent date GIS data
was modified
GIS metadata last
editor GISStaff Polygon Text Optional Most recent name of GIS
editor of data
Notes Notes Polygon Text Optional Notes / Important information
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 33
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 4-2 GIS Database for SWMFs (Stormwater Management Pond)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Multi-Stage Facility MSFac Polygon Text Optional Y/N
Facility Draw Down
Method FDDMthd Polygon Text Optional Drawdown method within
facility
Facility Area FacAreaM Polygon Double Optional Area of facility (polygon)
Facility Material FacMat Polygon Text Optional Material contained within
facility
Facility Type FacType Polygon Text Mandatory Wet/Dry/Wetland/Hybrid
/Other
Facility Function FacFunc Polygon Text Optional Water Quality / Erosion /
Quantity
Table 4-3 GIS Database for SWMFs (Additional Data)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Easement Esmt Polygon Text Optional Description of easement
Access FacAccess Polygon Text Optional Y/N
Access Type Access Typ - Text Optional Driveway, Turnaround,
Gate, Lock
Facility Fence and
Type Fence Type Polyline - Optional Chain link, other
Overland Flow
Elevation OvFlElev Polygon Double Optional Overland flow elevation
Overland Flow
Location OvFloc Polygon Text Optional Overland flow location(s)
Emergency Spillway
By-Pass Elevation EmSpElev Polygon Double Optional Emergency spillway
elevation
Emergency Spillway
By-Pass Location EmSpLoc Polygon Text Optional Emergency spillway
location
100 Year Elevation Elev100y Polygon Double Optional 100-year elevation
Permanent Pool
Elevation PoolElev Polygon Double Optional Permanent pool elevation
(as-built)
Permanent Pool
Volume PoolVol Polygon Double Optional Permanent pool volume
(as-built)
Sediment Drying
Area SDADesc Polygon Text Optional Sediment drying area
location description
Utilities Nearby UtilDesc Point/Line/
Polygon Text Optional Description of nearby
utilities
Inlet Pipe size InSize Point Short Integer Optional Inlet pipe size
Inlet Pipe type InType Point Text Optional Inlet pipe type
Inlet Invert Elevation InvtElev Point Double Optional Inlet invert elevation
Outlet Pipe Size OutSize Point Short Integer Optional Outlet pipe size
Outlet Pipe Type OutType Point Text Optional Outlet pipe type
Outlet Invert
Elevation OutElev Point Double Optional Outlet invert elevation
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 34 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Submerged Inlet InSubmerg Point Text Optional Y/N
Control Structure
description CoStDesc Point/
Polygon Text Optional Control structure
description
Control Structure
orifice-type CoStOrif Point/
Polygon Text Optional Plate, pipe, weir, etc.
Control Structure
Size CoStSize Point/
Polygon Short Integer Optional Control structure size
Control Structure
Elevation CoStElev Point/
Polygon Double Optional Control structure
elevation
Control Structure
Quantity CoStQuan Point/
Polygon Double Optional Quantity control volume
(m3)
Control Structure
Quality CoStQual Point/
Polygon Double Optional Quality control volume
(m3)
Safety Features SafeFeat Point/Line/
Polygon Text Optional Lifesaving stations,
grading
Special Features SpecFeat Point/Line/
Polygon Text Optional Clay liner, underdrain,
lined forebay, etc
Retrofits RetDesc Point/
Polygon Text Optional Retrofit description
Table 4-4 GIS Database for SWMFs (Inspection, Operation and Maintenance)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Inspector’s Name InspName Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Name of inspector(s)
Sediment
Accumulation Status
Date
SACDate Polygon –
SWM/LID Date Optional Date of sediment volume
survey
Sediment
Accumulation Status
Volume (m3)
SACVol Polygon –
SWM/LID Double Optional Measured volume of
sediment
Condition FacCond Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Overall facility condition
Sampling Sampling Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Previous sediment survey
records
Cleaning Frequency FreqClean Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Frequency of cleanouts
Inspection
Frequency FreqInsp Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Frequency of inspections
Maintenance Record - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
maintenance records
Complaints - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
complaints records
SWM reports - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with SWM
reports
Inspection Reports - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
inspection forms
Monitoring Reports - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
monitoring reports
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 35
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
O & M Manual - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with O & M
manual
Drawings - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
drawings
Surveys - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with surveys
Costs - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with costs
Site Photos/ Drone
Video - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with photos
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 36 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
5 FACILITY EVALUATION
The SWMFs were evaluated on specific parameters that are based on the current physical condition and
assessed performance, public safety, regulatory compliance, environmental issues and community concerns
related to the SWMFs. The results of the evaluation prioritize the SWMFs for the capital projects and
maintenance plans. The SWMF evaluation is also intended to provide a consistent method to re-evaluate
the SWMFs in later years.
5.1 Evaluation Criteria
The SWMFs were evaluated using a set of criteria developed with the City of Pickering to establish a ranking
that identifies the SWMFs most in need of maintenance. Separately, the SWMFs were also evaluated for
their suitability for retrofit. The SWMFs that were identified as both a high priority for maintenance and highly
suitable retrofit candidate were recommended for inclusion in the City’s capital projects plan (Section 6). Of
the remaining SWMFs, the facilities requiring cleanout or major maintenance were recommended for
placement on the City’s maintenance plan (Section 7).
The general criteria and associated weightings for the maintenance and retrofit assessments are outlined in
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, respectively, and are very similar for both assessments. The rubric questions are
tailored to identify maintenance priorities or retrofit candidacy. The weighting of the criteria were selected to
provide practical differentiation between the SWMFs in the evaluation results. Therefore, the weighting for
‘performance / health and safety’ was (by far) the highest because this category had the greatest variation in
scoring and was expected drive the prioritization of the maintenance and retrofit works. However, this does
not suggest that certain criteria are more important than others with respect to the overall management of
the SWMFs.
It is important to note that the retrofit evaluation is to develop retrofit candidacy, however, the capital works
plan will consider the result of both the maintenance evaluation and retrofit evaluation to determine which
SWMFs are both in need of maintenance and will benefit from a retrofit. The rationale for retrofitting a
SWMF can be varied and requires a case-by-case review of the SWMF. The retrofit evaluation rubric serves
as a guide to begin the discussion.
Both wet ponds and dry ponds were evaluated using the same rubric and ranked through the same
evaluation. The wet ponds were expected to score higher (and be higher priority) for maintenance works due
to the performance aspects and higher complexity of the facilities providing higher scores.
Detailed descriptions of the evaluation criteria and rubric questions are provided in the following sections.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 37
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-1 SWMF Maintenance Assessment Criteria
Criteria Weight
1. Performance / Health and Safety
■ Sediment accumulation and settling efficiency
■ Condition of SWMF structures and berms
■ Erosion and deposition in receiving watercourse
■ Water quantity (flood) control performance
■ Security and public safety hazards
60
2. Construction Considerations
■ Disposal method for removed sediment
■ Complexity of the permitting, approvals for cleanout or retrofit
15
3. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
■ Future level of service according to O. Reg. 588/17
■ Federal and Provincial regulatory requirements (MECP ECAs, TRCA Permitting)
■ Compliance with City policies, by-laws, standards and criteria
10
4. Environmental
■ Environmental benefits/impacts (ecological habitat and sensitive plant and fish
communities)
10
5. Community Concerns
■ Community concerns/complaints (aesthetics and safety1)
■ Recreational use in the area (trails or walkways)
5
TOTAL 100
1 Note that public safety is primarily addressed in Criteria 1: Performance / Health and Safety Issues
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 38 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-2 SWMF Retrofit Assessment Criteria
Criteria Weight
1. Performance / Health and Safety
■ Land area for potential facility expansion
■ Facility structure improvements for performance, functionality or durability
■ Increases in storage volume and associated performance
■ Security and public safety improvements
50
2. Construction Considerations
■ Complexity of the permitting, approvals for cleanout or retrofit 15
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis
■ Cost relative to potential damages related to downstream flooding and erosion
■ Benefitting drainage area
■ Cost effectiveness of the retrofit vs. cleanout
10
4. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
■ Future level of service according to O. Reg. 588/17
■ Federal and Provincial regulatory requirements (MECP ECAs, TRCA Permitting)
■ Compliance with City policies, by-laws, standards and criteria
10
5. Environmental
■ Environmental benefits/impacts (ecological habitat and sensitive plant and fish
communities)
10
6. Community Concerns
■ Community concerns/complaints (aesthetics and safety1)
■ Recreational use in the area (trails or walkways)
5
TOTAL 100
1 Note that public safety is primarily addressed in Criteria 1: Performance / Health and Safety Issues
5.1.1 Weighted Scoring
Each category rubric consists of a number of questions, with a maximum score of 3 per question. The
maximum possible total score for a category such as the Performance/ Health and Safety Issues for
maintenance is 18 points (6 questions x 3 points). This category in particular is the most important and
contained the highest number of questions, therefore it was assigned a value of 60 out of 100. The weighted
score for this category is multiplied by the ratio of the actual score and the criteria weighting, as follows:
𝑊𝑐�ℎ𝑖�𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑐=∑𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑟 × 60
18
For example, if the answers to the six questions in this category total 12 (out of a possible score of 18), the
weighted score would be:
12 × 60
18 =40
This approach is used for each SWMF across all of the evaluation criteria categories.
5.1.2 Maintenance Evaluation Criteria Interpretation
5.1.2.1 Performance / Health and Safety Issues
The performance / health and safety issues with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are
scored according to the rubric in Table 5-3. Each of the six (6) rubric questions in the performance / health
and safety issues category are discussed below.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 39
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-3 Maintenance Questions for Performance / Health and Safety Issues
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
How severe is sediment accumulation in the SWMF? None or n/a Minor Moderate Severe
What is the current TSS removal efficiency of the SWMF? > 80% or
n/a 70-80% 60-70% < 60%
What is the condition of the SWMF inlet/outlet structures
and berms?
Good
Condition
Minor
Concerns
Moderate
Concerns
Poor
Condition
How effective is the erosion control performance of the
SWMF?
As
Designed
Slightly
Ineffective
Moderately
Ineffective
High
Ineffective
How effective is the SWMF in achieving quantity control to
prevent downstream flooding?
As
Designed
Slightly
Ineffective
Moderately
Ineffective
High
Ineffective
Are there security and public safety hazards associated
with the SWMF? None Minor Moderate Severe
1. How severe is sediment accumulation in the SWMF? The accumulation of sediment leads to
clogged outlet structures and decreased sediment removal efficiency in the pond. The approach of the
MOE SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003) to TSS removal efficiency is to estimate the long-term
suspended sediment removal in wet ponds. In this evaluation, the long-term suspended sediment
removal was calculated by determining the current permanent pool volume in the pond (design
permanent pool volume minus accumulated sediment volume determined by survey).
The MOE SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003) recommends that a 5% reduction in removal
efficiency is acceptable from a maintenance frequency perspective. Therefore, removal efficiencies
within 5% of the original design is considered to be within intended operational range (rating = 0).
The remaining scoring is as follows: 5% to 20% below design efficiency is minor severity (rating = 1),
20% to 50% is moderate severity (rating = 2) and greater than 50% is severe (rating = 3). The rating
scale is intended to prioritize the ponds with the greatest sediment accumulation, however, ponds with a
greater than 5% reduction in removal efficiency should be cleaned out. Dry ponds have a rating of 0 for
this question.
2. What is the current TSS removal efficiency of the SWMF? The City’s SWMF have design removal
efficiencies ranging from Enhanced (80% long-term suspended sediment removal) to Basic (60% long-
term suspended sediment removal) or worse. To maintain at least basic levels of treatment, SWMFs
with lower removal efficiencies are prioritized.
3. What is the condition of the SWMF inlet/outlet structures and berms? This criteria is based on a
qualitative risk assessment of the outlet structures and berm. For facilities that require immediate repair,
it is considered to be in poor condition (rating = 3), repairs that need to be completed in the near future
is considered a moderate concern (rating = 2), and if the components have minor signs of damage that
need to be monitored, it is considered a minor concern (rating = 1). SWMFs with components in good
condition were rated 0.
4. How effective is the erosion control performance of the SWMF? For facilities that provide erosion
control, the design erosion control storage is compared with what currently exists on site. Additionally,
the amount of sediment observed downstream and signs of erosion at the receiving watercourse are
also taken into consideration. The rating for this question was assigned based on a qualitative
assessment of whether erosion control is hindered by malfunctioning components (i.e. clogged orifice
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 40 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
controls and high water levels) or if there are observations of the SWMF’s ineffectiveness in providing
erosion control.
5. How effective is the SWMF in achieving quantity control to prevent downstream flooding? For
facilities that provide quantity control, the design storage and outlet structures are qualitatively assessed
for their function. Recorded / anecdotal observations or public complaints of flooding issues are also
considered.
6. Are there security and public safety hazards associated with the SWMF? Each facility should
adhere to City standards for security and public safety, such as adequate signage, fencing and gates.
Additionally, any facility containing hazardous vegetation such as giant hogweed, wild parsnip or poison
ivy would require additional signage. SWMFs that were observed with security and public safety
hazards had higher scores.
5.1.2.2 Construction Considerations
The construction considerations with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are scored
according to the rubric in Table 5-4. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-4 Maintenance Questions for Construction Considerations
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the disposal method for removed sediment? n/a Hazardous
Waste Landfill Other Uses
How complex is permitting, approval and construction of
the recommended maintenance? n/a Major Medium Minor
1. What is the disposal method for removed sediment? The sediment quality sampling completed for
the facility conditions assessment provided insight into the potential disposal methods for removed
sediment at each wet pond facility. Higher scores are assigned to SWMFs where sediment has a
potential for reuse such as off-site fill (score=3). Lower scores are given to facilities where the sediment
requires hazardous waste disposal (score=1). Note that the sediment in the majority of wet pond
facilities requires landfill disposal (score=2), that is typical for pond cleanouts, based on sediment
quality and/or the need to dispose of phragmites with the sediment.
2. How complex is the construction, permitting and approval processes of the recommended
maintenance? Each facility was scored on the difficulty, cost and duration of work required to clean out
the pond and repair the facility. This also considers the complexity of permitting and approvals. For
example, a maintenance recommendation of cleaning out a large amount of sediment, removing and
replanting vegetation and repairing an eroded outlet channel with limited site access will be challenging
and would receive a lower rating. A straight-forward cleanout with good site access was given a higher
rating.
5.1.2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are
scored according to the rubric in Table 5-5. Each of the three (3) rubric questions in this category are
discussed below.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 41
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-5 Maintenance Questions for Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Evaluation Criteria Scoring
0 1 2 3
Is the current Level of Service less than the proposed
Level of Service (under O. Reg. 588/17)? No n/a n/a Yes
Is maintenance required by Federal or Provincial
Agencies or the Conservation Authority? No n/a n/a Yes
Are the site conditions currently in violation of any City
policies or by-laws? No n/a n/a Yes
1. Is the current Level of Service less than the proposed Level of Service under O. Reg. 588/17
Section 6? The question addresses whether the level of service of the SWMF is below the anticipated
level of service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6 (proposed levels of service). If yes, a rating of 3 was
given. Otherwise, the rating for the SWMF was given a rating of 0. The evaluation recognizes that the
‘proposed levels of service’ for stormwater management assets under Section 6 of O. Reg. 588/17 has
not been established by the City.
To that end, the assumption used in this evaluation is that the current level of service for all SWMFs is
equivalent to the proposed level of service. For example, if a SWMF is operating according to its
designed performance, it is assumed to be operating at the current and proposed level of service.
2. Is maintenance required by Federal or Provincial Agencies or the Conservation Authority? A key
regulatory requirement for SWMFs in operation is the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from
the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), which typically include a condition for
maintaining the facility in good operating condition. Through the ECA and the authority of the MECP
through the Water Resources Act (OWRA Section 53), orders can be potentially issued to rectify issues
with SWMFs, which would escalate the priority for maintenance or repair. In general, for the evaluation
scoring, SWMFs were scored a rating of 0 unless a clear and major violation of the SWMF’s ECA was
identified and/or a Provincial Officer’s Order had been issued.
3. Are the site conditions currently in violation of any City policies or by-laws? The most common
violation of City by-law applicable to the SWMF is encroachment, which includes private structures
(fences, furniture, retaining walls, plantings etc.) on City owned lands. A scoring scale from 0 to 3 was
used to rate the severity of City by-law violations, with particular consideration for instances where it has
impacts (or potential impacts) to the operation and maintenance of the SWMF.
5.1.2.4 Environmental Concerns
The environmental concerns with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are scored according
to the rubric in Table 5-6. The three (3) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 42 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-6 Maintenance Questions for Environmental Concerns
Evaluation Criteria Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the current impact of the SWMF on ecological
habitat?
No Impact
or Positive
Slightly
Negative
Moderately
Negative
Significantly
Negative
What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive
plant and fish communities?
No
sensitive
receivers Distant Moderate Near
What is the impact of maintenance on ecological habitat? n/a or
Negative No Impact Moderately
Positive
Significantly
Positive
1. What is the current impact of the SWMF on ecological habitat? A qualitative assessment was
made of the degree of invasive species, presence of Species at Risk, and the temperature and quality
of the SWMF’s discharge water. A higher score indicates that the current condition of a SWMF is
negatively impacting the adjacent natural heritage system.
2. What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive plant and fish communities? The
proximity to sensitive habitat, namely Redside Dace contributing watercourses or Provincially significant
wetlands, are indicative of the potential benefit of cleaning out a SWMF and are thus given priority (with
higher scores).
3. What is the impact of maintenance on ecological habitat? This question evaluates the impact of the
maintenance works (cleanout, repairs, component replacements, etc.) on ecological habitat, with
particular consideration for sensitive plant and fish communities, and the effectiveness of mitigation
measures during the works.
5.1.2.5 Community Concerns
The environmental concerns with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are scored according
to the rubric in Table 5-7. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-7 Maintenance Questions for Community Concerns
Evaluation Criteria Scoring
0 1 2 3
Are there known or potential community concerns with the
SWMF? No Minor Moderate Major
Are there opportunities to repair or enhance public
amenities? No Minor Moderate Major
1. Are there known or potential community concerns with the SWMF? SWMFs that have damaged
physical components and signs of environmental degradation that are visible to the public were given a
score of 3, while SWMFs that are not accessible to the public were given a score of 0. Documented
public complaints for issues such as aesthetics, odours or safety were also considered.
2. Are there opportunities to repair or enhance public amenities? If public amenities such as trails,
look out points or park features can be improved during recommended maintenance works, a score of 3
was given. A score of 0 is given if such improvements are not applicable.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 43
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
5.1.3 Retrofit Opportunity Evaluation
5.1.3.1 Performance / Health and Safety
The potential gain in performance / health and safety with respect to the potential retrofit of SWMFs are
scored according to the rubric in Table 5-8. Each of the four (4) rubric questions in the performance / health
and safety category are discussed below.
Table 5-8 Retrofit Questions for Performance / Health and Safety
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the available land area to expand the SWMF? None Minor Moderate High
What is the potential to replace inlet or outlet structures for
improved performance or functionality? None Minor Moderate High
What is the potential gain in storage volume and
associated performance? None Minor Moderate High
What is the potential to improve public health and safety? None Minor Moderate High
1. What is the available land area to expand the SWMF? The ratio of current SWMF area to available
land area for expanding the SWMF was calculated. In general, the SWMFs with most available land
area to expand could increase their footprint by 50% or more, and thus were given the highest score.
The available land area for expanding a SWMF was measured in GIS, however, it considered a number
of factors determined through the review of background information and field observations to assess the
suitability for expansion. This includes the extent of the City’s parcel for the SWMF, available
topographic information, location of sensitive environment features, and the location of the floodplain.
Specific considerations for each SWMF is outlined in the evaluation results (Section 5.2).
2. What is the potential to replace inlet or the outlet control structure for improved performance,
functionality or durability? This question evaluates the degree to which the SWMF can be improved
by redesigning the inlet or outlet structures without expanding the footprint of the pond. For example,
higher scores were assigned to SWMFs that can provide a larger permanent pool by raising the outlet
invert (if there is available freeboard to maintain erosion control and quantity control volumes). The
question also addresses potential improvements for durability or resilience of the SWMF to
deterioration.
3. What is the potential gain in storage volume and associated performance? Similar to Question 2,
the degree to which the SWMF can be improved by expanding the permanent pool or active storage
volume. This would generally require an expansion of the SWMF’s footprint, or a steepening of s ide
slopes. Higher scores were assigned to SWMFs that have the potential to provide significantly more
storage volume.
4. What is the potential to improve public health and safety? Potential improvements to public health
and safety include measures to restrict access and / or the removal of safety hazards such as steep
slopes. The SWMFs were scored according to the impact of health and safety improvements that could
be incorporated into a retrofit project.
5.1.3.2 Construction Considerations
The construction considerations with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to
the rubric in Table 5-9. The single (1) rubric question in this category is discussed below.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 44 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-9 Retrofit Questions for Construction Considerations
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
How complex is permitting, approval and construction of
the retrofit? n/a Major Medium Minor
1. How complex is the permitting, approval and construction process of the retrofit? Each facility is
scored on difficulty, cost and duration of construction required to implement the retrofit and any
enhancements to the natural environment. This considers the complexity of permitting and approvals in
addition to implementation. For example, completing the works in a site with limited access will be
challenging and would receive a lower score, while sites with good access, staging areas and straight-
forward permitting would score highest.
5.1.3.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
The cost-benefit analysis with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to the
rubric in Table 5-10. The three (3) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-10 Retrofit Questions for Cost-Benefit Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the cost effectiveness of a retrofit relative to
potential damages related to downstream flooding and
erosion?
n/a Low Medium High
What is the drainage area to the SWMF? < 5 ha or
n/a 5 to 10 ha 10 to 20 ha > 20 ha
What is the potential cost efficiency of a retrofit in lieu of a
SWMF cleanout? n/a Low Medium High
1. What is the cost effectiveness of a retrofit relative to potential damages related to downstream
flooding and erosion? The cost of a potential retrofit was compared to the cost the potential gain in
suspended sediment removal, erosion control and peak flow control. Potential retrofits with high costs
but provide major gains in performance were scored the highest. Similarly, low cost retrofits with
performance gains also had high scores.
2. What is the drainage area to the SWMF? The drainage area to a SWMF is representative of the
amount of stormwater runoff and associated pollutant loading that is treated where the larger the
drainage area, the greater the benefit to downstream receivers, and thus a higher score.
3. What is the cost efficiency of a retrofit in lieu of a SWMF cleanout? This question compares the
cost estimates of a potential retrofit to a SWMF cleanout where only sediment is removed and minor
repairs are completed. A higher score is given if there is potential to complete retrofit works without
significant costs beyond a regular SWMF cleanout.
5.1.3.4 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored
according to the rubric in Table 5-11. Each of the three (3) rubric questions in this category are discussed
below.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 45
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-11 Retrofit Questions for Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Evaluation Criteria Scoring
0 1 2 3
Will the potential retrofit achieve the proposed Level of
Service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6? No n/a n/a Yes
Is a retrofit required by Federal or Provincial Agencies or
the Conservation Authority? No n/a n/a Yes
Will a potential retrofit be in violation of any City policies or
by-laws? No n/a n/a Yes
1. Will a retrofit achieve the proposed Level of Service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6? The
question addresses whether the level of service of the SWMF is equivalent to the anticipated level of
service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6 (proposed levels of service). If yes, a rating of 3 was given.
Otherwise, the rating for the SWMF was given a rating of 0. The evaluation recognizes that the
‘proposed levels of service’ for stormwater management assets under Section 6 of O. Reg. 588/17 has
not been established by the City.
To that end, the assumption used in this evaluation is that the current level of service for all SWMFs is
equivalent to the proposed level of service, unless otherwise discussed with the City. For example, if a
SWMF is operating according to its designed performance, it is assumed to be operating at the current
and proposed level of service.
2. Is a retrofit required by Federal or Provincial Agencies of the Conservation Authority? A key
regulatory requirement for SWMFs in operation is the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from
the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), which typically include a condition for
maintaining the facility in good operating condition. To that end, a cleanout and repair of a SWMF would
be sufficient to satisfy ECA conditions and thus, there would be limited instances where a retrofit would
be required by agencies.
3. Will a retrofit be in violation of any City policies or by-laws? With the potential expansion of a
SWMF, the project will need to consider the City’s policies around land use, infrastructure placement,
works within or near the natural heritage system, and parks.
5.1.3.5 Environmental Issues
The environmental issues with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to the
rubric in Table 5-12. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-12 Retrofit Questions for Environmental Issues
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the impact of the retrofit on ecological habitat and
sensitive species?
n/a or
Negative No Impact Moderately
Positive
Significantly
Positive
What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive
plant and fish communities?
No
sensitive
receivers
Distant Moderate Near
1. What is the impact of the retrofit on ecological habitat and sensitive species? This question
evaluates the impact of the retrofit on ecological habitat, with particular consideration for sensitive plant
and fish communities, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures during the works. Examples of
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 46 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
retrofit components that could provide ecological benefit include bottom draw outlets for lower discharge
temperatures to receiving watercourse, reduced sediment loadings in the discharge, and native
vegetation plantings.
2. What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive plant and fish communities? The
proximity to sensitive habitat, namely Redside Dace contributing watercourses or Provincially significant
wetlands, are indicative of the potential benefit of retrofitting a SWMF and are thus given higher scores.
5.1.3.6 Community Concerns
The community concerns with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to the
rubric in Table 5-13. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-13 Retrofit Questions for Community Concerns
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
Are there potential community concerns? No n/a n/a Yes
Are there opportunities to expand or enhance public
amenities? No n/a n/a Yes
1. Are there potential community concerns regarding construction of the retrofit? Retrofit projects
that are in close proximity to residential areas have the potential to concern local residents during
construction, with the increase in noise, vibration, dust and traffic.
2. Are there opportunities to repair or enhance public amenities? If public amenities such as trails,
look out points or park features can be improved or implemented as part of the retrofit project, a score of
3 was given. A score of 0 is given if such improvements are not applicable or feasible.
5.2 Evaluation Results
The evaluation scores for the SWMF maintenance and retrofit opportunities are provided in Appendix D.
The results of both evaluations were reviewed in conjunction to develop the recommended capital projects
plan and maintenance plan for the SWMFs.
The results indicated that there are generally two groupings of SWMFs where the first group consists of
facilities that require cleanout and/or major repairs and a second group consists of ponds that are
recommended for ongoing monitoring and routine maintenance instead of a cleanout. The SWMFs that
require cleanout and major repairs were further separated and ranked in the recommended capital works
plan and maintenance plan with specific recommendations at each facility. Further discussion for these
SWMFs is provided in Sections 6 and 7.
General monitoring and maintenance recommendations are provided for the remaining ponds, which were
determined to be in good operating condition.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 47
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
6 CAPITAL PROJECTS PLAN
The SWMF AMP has been prepared to assist with the development of the City’s capital plan. From the
facility evaluation, two facilities were identified to have retrofit opportunity due to their advanced state of
deterioration and/or the potentially favourable cost-benefit analysis of a retrofit. Each of the identified
facilities, Lisgoold Pond and Rouge Pond, have unique factors that justify their recommendation for the
capital plan, as described in the follow sections. The recommended works at each facility are intended to
provide guidance on the potential improvements at each facility and have not undergone analysis or design
to evaluate its feasibility.
6.1 Priority No. 1: Lisgoold Pond
6.1.1 Issues
As described in Section 3, the facility inspection noted several areas of deterioration at the Lisgoold Pond
(ID C2-08-GC). This included a degraded west inlet channel that receives flow from an 825 mm storm
sewer. The riprap lining the channel has eroded along the entire length to the main pond basin. There was
some bank erosion and a knickpoint along the channel.
The hickenbottom outlet was clogged with debris that prevented the pond from draining to the outlet invert.
The water level was elevated to the top of the riser pipe, where there was additional debris partially blocking
the top of the riser pipe. There was a large amount of vegetation in the pond, including a fallen tree, and
many trees growing on the pond slopes. Accumulated sediment was estimated to be 119 m3 by survey.
The Lisgoold Pond was recommended for the capital works plan because the amount of repair is beyond a
typical facility cleanout scope. There are also opportunities to implement modifications to the pond design
that could provide more resilience to future deterioration and facilitate future maintenance.
A review of potential facility performance improvements was also completed. The current facility was
designed in the early 1990s as a water quality pond that provided extended detention of the 30 mm storm.
The design volume of the 30 mm storm was 1,674 m3 with a provided volume of 2,026 m3 at a depth of 3.8
m (top elevation of 99.8 m) (Paul Wisner & Associates, 1993). The original facility design did not provide a
permanent pool or quantity control beyond the 30 mm storm, however, based on the 3:1 side slopes, the
narrow pond block and small pond base, there is little opportunity to excavate a larger storage volume at
Lisgoold Pond.
6.1.2 Recommended Works
The recommended works are related to the restoration of the existing pond design, with improvements to
structures to provide greater resilience to future deterioration. There are limited opportunities to provide
greater performance for treating runoff. The location of the facility adjacent to the well vegetated creek valley
and the small pond block area limits the ability to expand the pond.
Thus the recommended works focus on reconstructing deteriorated components of the facility, as follows:
■ Reconstruct west inlet channel with channel armouring and a plunge pool or other energy dissipater
downstream of the headwall to mitigate erosion.
■ Repair south inlet spillway and consider implementing more robust energy dissipater downstream of
headwall.
■ Replace outlet structure with a reversed slope outlet pipe. Excavate a deep pool at outlet area to
implement the outlet, which will prevent clogging and lower the temperature of water discharge to the
receiving watercourse, which is an occupied or recovery reach for Redside Dace.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 48 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
There are some challenges to consider in the design and construction of the SWMF retrofit at Lisgoold
Pond:
■ The pond discharges to a tributary of Ganatsekiagon Creek, which is an occupied or recovery reach for
Redside Dace. This requires construction to adhere to the in-water works timing window of July 1 to
September 15.
■ The pond block is small and only has one site entrance for construction. There are limited (if any) areas
for staging and the pond berms are in close proximity to residential properties.
Figure 6-1 Lisgoold Pond Recommended Works
6.1.3 Cost Estimate
A high-level cost estimate for the retrofit was prepared based on the recommended works described in
Section 6.1.2. Without a design for the retrofit, the cost estimate provides general categories of items and
assigns quantities using conservative measurements of available information (such as sediment volume and
pond areas) or assumptions based on past experience with similar projects while considering the
constructability challenges of the site. Unit rates are based on TMIG’s recent project experience with SWMF
retrofits in Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including the City’s Abbott Crescent Pond Reconstruction
project in 2018.
Quantities were estimated for earthworks and landscaping. The quantity (volume) of earthworks was
conservatively estimated by assuming that the entire area of works/disturbance will have an average
earthworks depth of 1 m. The landscape quantity (area) was based on the estimated total area of
disturbance that will require replanting.
The total estimated cost of the Lisgoold Pond retrofit was $716,300, which includes a cost contingency of
30% that accounts for engineering, landscape architecture, environment consultants, permitting, and
Reconstruct west inlet channel
Repair south inlet spillway
Replace outlet structure with
reverse slope pipe
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 49
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
contract administration. This compares to the cost estimate of $313,300 for the cleanout and basic repair of
the facility. The cost estimate breakdown is provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Priority No. 2: Rouge Pond
6.2.1 Issues
As described in Section 3, the facility inspection noted an elevated water level at the water quality (wet cell)
of the facility, likely due to a clogged hickenbottom outlet. The outlet cover was damaged and not accessible
for inspection (which may have also contributed to the lack of cleaning). The elevated water level reduces
the amount of active storage available at the facility. The sediment volume survey results indicated that
estimated accumulated sediment was 850 m3. The high level of sediment also contributes to the reduction in
active storage at the facility, since the design of the facility did not include a permanent pool. Conversely,
with an informal permanent pool volume due to the clogged outlet, there is likely some suspended solids
settling function at the facility in its current condition. Note that the water quantity control cell (dry cell) was
found to be in good condition at the time of inspection, however, the function of the water quantity cell was
not observed or monitored.
Outside of the facility, the overland land flow route from the north was designed as a swale through an
easement between two homes on White Pine Crescent. During recent utilities maintenance in the boulevard
of White Pine Crescent where the easement is located, the curb and boulevard were reconstructed without a
depression (and the addition of a transformer box), which has cut off the overland flow route to the pond
from the north.
There are two additional considerations from a design perspective in a potential retrofit of the Rouge Pond.
First, the inlet for the wet cell discharges into the middle of the basin with the outlet located in one corner.
There is a short circuiting of flows from the inlet to outlet and a ‘dead zone’ at the far eastern corner of the
wet cell. Lengthening the flow path will provide additional settling effectiveness. Secondly, the facility was
designed without a permanent pool in the wet basin, though the size and layout of the facility suggest it will
benefit from adding deeper pockets to establish a permanent pool, similar to a wetland SWM facility. Note
that the facility was designed in the early 1990s and predates more recent SWM facility design guidelines.
6.2.2 Recommended Works
The recommended works include sediment removal from the wet cell. The retrofit will include the addition of
modern wetland facility features:
■ The reconfiguration of the inlet pipe and headwall to be further east towards the eastern corner of the
basin to increase flow path, recognizing the slope of the inlet storm sewer may limit the extension of the
inlet pipe. A berm or silt curtain are also options to lengthen the flow path.
■ Construct a forebay with 1 m depth downstream of the inlet to provide pretreatment. Construct an
access ramp to the forebay to facilitate regular sediment removal without disturbing the main wetland
cell.
■ Replace outlet structure and excavate a deep pool immediately upstream of the outlet with a reverse
sloped pipe to prevent vegetation growth and clogging of the outlet.
■ Excavate the bottom of the pond to create an average permanent pool depth of between 150 mm and
300 mm. Create low flow path and deeper wetland pockets scattered throughout the basin. An average
permanent pool depth of 300 mm across the bottom of the wet basin will allow the facility to achieve
about 70% TSS removal efficiency (Normal protection). This an improvement over the original design
that did not have a permanent pool.
■ Plant appropriate native wetland vegetation.
■ Reconstruct the depressed curb at the north overland flow route to reinstate the drainage path.
In addition, it is recommended that the function of the water quantity cell be monitored to determine if
modifications or repairs are necessary or feasible during the retrofit of the facility.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 50 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
With respect to the retrofit’s constructability, it has the benefit of having a relatively large pond block area
and frontage along Valley Ridge Crescent to facilitate vehicle access and staging. It also has the advantage
of a separate dry cell where flows can be diverted during construction in the wet cell, thus simplifying
dewatering requirements. A temporary sediment basin can be implemented within the dry basin for sediment
control during construction if needed.
Figure 6-2 Rouge Pond Recommended Works
6.2.3 Cost Estimate
A high-level cost estimate for the retrofit was prepared based on the recommended works described in
Section 6.2.2. Without a design for the retrofit, the cost estimate provides general categories of items and
assigns quantities using conservative measurements of available information (such as sediment volume and
pond areas) or assumptions based on past experience with similar projects while considering the
constructability challenges of the site. Unit rates are based on TMIG’s recent project experience with SWMF
retrofits in Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including the City’s Abbott Crescent Pond Reconstruction
project in 2018.
Quantities were estimated for earthworks and landscaping. The quantity (volume) of earthworks was
conservatively estimated by assuming that the entire area of works/disturbance will have an average
earthworks depth of 1 m. The landscape quantity (area) was based on the estimated total area of
disturbance that will require replanting.
The estimated cost of the Rouge Pond retrofit was $1,287,000, which includes soft cost contingency of 30%
that accounts for engineering, landscape architecture, environment consultants, permitting, and contract
administration. This compares to the cost estimate of $838,500 for the cleanout and basic repair of the
Create low flow path and
deeper wetland pockets
Water quality (wet) basin
Water quantity (dry) basin
Construct forebay and
maintenance access for
cleanouts
Replace hickenbottom outlet
with reverse slope pipe and
excavate deep pool
Reconfigure inlet towards
the east side of basin
Reconstruct depressed
curb for overland flow route
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 51
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
facility. The relatively small increase in cost from a cleanout to a retrofit is a cost-benefit advantage of
selecting the Rouge Pond for retrofit. A factor that contributes to this relative small price difference is the
cost of landscaping the entire bottom of the pond, which would be required regardless of a retrofit or a
cleanout. The cost estimate breakdown is provided in Appendix E.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 52 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
7 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The SWMF AMP maintenance plan provides a prioritized list of pond cleanout projects and recommended
procedures. From the facility evaluation, ten facilities were identified to require a cleanout to maintain their
design performance or mitigate risks associated with deteriorated components. Lisgoold Pond and Rouge
Pond were also identified as retrofit candidates as described in Section 6, which not coincidently, are the
top two ranked SWMF for the maintenance plan. Those SWMFs have been included in the maintenance
plan to illustrate the relative priority for maintenance among all the facilities. The City will ultimately decide
what works are to be completed at each facility.
General monitoring and maintenance recommendations are provided for the dry ponds, which were
determined to be in good overall operating condition and are not ranked in the maintenance plan.
7.1 SWMF Cleanout Priority Ranking
The SWMF cleanout priority ranking is summarized in Table 7-1 and includes all the wet ponds evaluated in
this SWMF AMP. However, based on the conditions assessment, the top eight (8) facilities in the ranking are
considered the priority facilities because of observed performance or operational concerns that require a
cleanout or maintenance beyond basic upkeep or monitoring. For the remaining facilities (ranked below no.
8), minor repairs and regular inspections are recommended.
In general, these concerns affect the ability of the SWMFs to mitigate runoff impacts, such as decreased
storage volumes leading to reduced water quantity and quality control. There are also operational and safety
risks associated with deteriorated SWMF components that, if allowed to worsen, may lead to safety
concerns or costly repairs in the future. Note that at the time of inspection, there were no observed concerns
that required emergency action.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 53
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 7-1 SWMF Maintenance Priority
Priority
(Score)
SWMF Name
(ID)
Sediment
Volume (m3) Key Issues Estimated
Cleanout Cost
1
(53.9)
Rouge
(C1-01-ER) 850
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ Outlet from quality pond likely blocked resulting in
elevated water level and reduced active storage.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
■ Encroachment at along east edge of pond block
(landscaping and plantings by residents)
$838,500
2
(48.1)
Lisgoold
(C2-08-GC) 119
■ Outlet blocked resulting in high water level and
reduced active storage.
■ Degraded channel downstream of west inlet (washed
out riprap spillway, knickpoint, eroded side slope).
$313,300
3
(45.3)
Autumn
(C1-03-PT) 764
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ The outlet pipe is likely clogged with debris, which has
caused an elevated water level and partially
submerged inlet.
$620,100
4
(42.5)
Begley Street
(R3-02-AB) 200
■ Heavy phragmite growth and debris in pond and outlet
area.
■ Overland flow route potentially drains toward
townhouses rather than overland flow dispersion
swale.
$315,900
5
(40.3)
Chickadee
(C1-05-PT) 155 ■ Outlet partially blocked causing elevated water level
and reduced active storage. $297,700
6
(38.6)
Dixie Estates 2
(C2-02D-PC) 41
■ Facility water level elevated and inlet pipe partially
submerged.
■ Seepage through berm around inlet headwall.
■ Signs of bank erosion (undercut and slumping) in
downstream watercourse.
■ Encroachment along west side of pond block (resident
plantings and yard furnishings)
$336,700
7
(35.3)
Cognac
(C2-01-DN) 441
■ Scour pool, deteriorated riprap and exposed filter
fabric at inlet.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
$412,100
8
(35.3)
Valley Farm
(C2-06-WD) 117
■ Heavy vegetation growth and debris in pond and
outlet area.
■ Ponded water and sediment adjacent to facility.
$347,100
9
(24.7)
Durham Woods
(R3-04-LD) 1618
■ Access gate unlocked and obstructed by brush.
■ Drainage from adjacent vacant property to the east
had caused erosion gullies
$1,031,400
10
(24.2)
Calvington Trail
(C1-04-PT) 211
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Encroachment along north edge of pond block
(plantings by residents)
$370,500
T11
(23.6)
Bopa
(C1-02-PT) 188 ■ The PVC riser may be partially clogged. $374,400
T11
(23.6)
Mattamy
(C3-08-UC) 1030 ■ Evidence of beaver activity within pond block. $804,700
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 54 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
7.2 Cost Estimate
High-level cost estimates for the SWMF cleanouts were prepared for the ranked facilities (Appendix E).
Without a design for the cleanout, the cost estimate provides general categories of items and assigns
quantities using conservative measurements of available information (such as sediment volume and pond
areas) or assumptions based on past experience with similar projects while considering the constructability
challenges of the site. Unit rates are based on TMIG’s recent project experience with SWMF retrofits in
Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including the City’s Abbott Crescent Pond Reconstruction project in
2018.
A review of SWMF cleanout guidelines and cost estimates from Greater Toronto Area municipalities was
also completed. In general, the cost of SWMF cleanouts is greatly varied:
■ Pond cleaning costs are generally higher per cubic meter of sediment for smaller sediment volumes.
Data collected by the City of Markham suggests that for volumes of sediment under 1,000 m3 (which
was the case for most of the SWMFs surveyed), total project costs can vary between $100 per m3 to
$900 per m3. The median cost is about $550 per m3, noting that these costs exclude engineering,
permitting and contract administration fees.
■ The STEP Inspection and Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed
Wetlands described total project costs for pond cleanouts range from $53 per m3 to $512 per m3 of
sediment removed, from a total of 11 projects. Sediment disposal costs alone ranged from $76 to $112
per m3 from five of those projects.
SWMF cleanout costs have increased in the last several years, in part, due to the timing for cleanouts.
Guidance on mitigation measures from the MNRF notes that most SWMFs support amphibians and reptiles,
as such, cleanouts are likely required to be completed during the active season for those species, which is
generally from April 15 to September 30 (MNRF, 2016). With that, tendering for SWMF cleanout projects
compete with larger scale construction projects for contractor services during the core construction season.
This is in contrast to previous practice where SWMFs were commonly cleaned out during the winter, during
slower construction activity at costs that were more favourable to the municipality.
The cost estimate for the SWMF cleanouts included the following assumptions:
■ The unit cost of the sediment cleanout was assumed to be $300 per m3 of sediment, which is
conservative due to the low total volumes of sediment at all of the City’s facilities (most SWMFs less
than 1,000 m3, with many under 500 m3).
■ Unit costs for earthworks ($20 per m3), landscaping ($30 per m2), and other components such as outlet
structures were estimated based on past project experience. The quantities (volume) for earthworks
was based on an average 0.5 m depth of grading across the permanent pool area. The quantities for
landscaping is based on an estimated disturbed area that requires replanting.
■ General construction costs (mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, erosion and sediment
control, dewatering, topographic survey and other miscellaneous items) were estimated as a lump sump
of $100,000 for each SWMF.
■ Soft costs and contingency (engineering, landscape architecture, environmental, permitting and contract
administration) was estimated as 30% of construction cost.
7.3 SWMF Cleanout Schedule and Checklist
The SWMF cleanout schedule and checklist (Table 7-2) outline the major steps required for a cleanout
project and considered the requirements of the SWMFs reviewed in this AMP. Note that the STEP
Inspection and Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands includes
more detailed guidance on specific tasks outlined on this checklist, or other items that were not anticipated
to be required of the City’s SWMFs.
Preparation for SWMF cleanouts should be initiated the year prior to the scheduled works, recognizing that
specific construction timing windows are likely required and considering the time required for permitting. In
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 55
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
TMIG’s recommended schedule, the cleanout projects are to be initiated in August of the year prior to the
cleanout and begin with retaining the engineering consultant who will prepare the design and tender
package for the project.
Table 7-2 SWMF Cleanout Schedule
Date Task Description Lead
August
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Obtain
Consultants
Obtain engineering consultant (lead consultant) and
subconsultants for surveying, environmental, and others as
required.
City of Pickering
September to
October
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Site Inspection Site inspection to confirm facility condition and determine
required works or repairs during sediment cleanout.
Engineering
Consultant
Ecology and Tree
Survey
Complete ecology and tree surveys for all SWMFs that require
environmental mitigation and tree removals.
Environmental
Consultant
Bathymetric
Survey
A detailed survey is required to obtain an accurate volume of
sediment that has been accumulated.
Surveyor
Sediment
Sampling
Collect sediment samples and submit for laboratory analysis.
Results should be presented in a report.
Environmental
Consultant
November
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Sediment
Disposal and
Removal Method
Based on the sediment quality, determine how to dispose and/
or if it can be reused. Analyze the sediment sample collected
and provide a report on the results.
Engineering
Consultant
Dewatering Plan Determine dewatering plan. Engineering
Consultant
Engineering
Drawings
Prepare engineering drawings for the cleanout, including
erosion and sediment control plan.
Engineering
Consultant
December
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Initiate Tender
Package
Preparation
Begin preparing tender package which includes drawings, cost
and tender documents.
Engineering
Consultant
January Authorization
under
Endangered
Species Act
If potential species at risk (SAR) are on site, the MECP should
be contacted to determine the presence of these at risk species
and direction on mitigation or avoidance strategies. Wet ponds
that have potential SAR include:
■ Begley Street (monarch butterfly)
■ Calvington Trail (Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Cognac (Butternut Tree, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Durham Woods (Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Lisgoold (Redside Dace)
■ Mattamy (Redside Dace, Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Rouge (Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Valley Farm (Butternut Tree)
Environmental
Consultant
DFO Screening /
Fisheries Act
Authorization
Conduct DFO Screening by complying with the fish habitat
protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and incorporating
measures that will avoid the death of fish and any disruptions to
their habitat due to the cleanout work.
Environmental
Consultant
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 56 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Date Task Description Lead
January
(continued)
Development
Interference with
Wetlands and
Alterations to
Shorelines and
Watercourse
Permit or Routine
Infrastructure
Works Permit
Required from TRCA if the SWMF is located within a Regulated
Area or is an online facility. If none of these conditions apply, a
permission for Routine Infrastructure Works (RIW) can be
obtained, subject to qualification criteria. Consultation with the
TRCA is recommended.
■ Facilities that may require a permit: Autumn Pond, Begley
Street Pond, Bopa Pond, Chickadee Pond, Dixie Estates
Pond 2, Lisgoold Pond, Mattamy Pond, Rouge Pond, Valley
Farm Pond
■ Facilities that may qualify for permission for RIW: Calvington
Trail Pond, Cognac Pond, and Durham Woods
Engineering
Consultant
Licence to Collect
Fish for Scientific
Purposes
Issued under O.Reg. 664/98 for the collection, handling and
deposition of fish, which may be required as a result of
dewatering of SWMF.
Environmental
Consultant
Wildlife Scientific
Collector’s
Authorization
Issued under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act for any
collection, handling and deposition of protected wildlife species
Environmental
Consultant
February Finalize and
Release Tender
Release Tender for contractors to bid on. City of Pickering
March Award Tender Award a contractor with tender. City of Pickering
Prior to
Construction
By-Law Permits Any by-law permits required (i.e. any permits required as a
result of the trees being removed, dust and/ or noise being
created)
Engineering
Consultant or
Contractor
Dewatering
Permits
Any required MECP Permit to Take Water or EASR registration
for construction dewatering.
Engineering
Consultant or
Contractor
April to
September
Construction Complete cleanout works within the construction timing window
specific to each facility, as determined through the permitting
and approvals for the cleanout.
City of Pickering
and Engineering
Consultant
(Contract
Administrator)
7.4 SWMF Inspections
7.4.1 SWMF Inspections and Minor Maintenance
Regular inspection and corrective actions for deficiencies at the City’s SWMFs are recommended. The
SWMF cleanout priority ranking recognizes that the cleanouts cannot be completed all at once, therefore, a
number of facilities will not receive major maintenance work for several years. Thus it is important to
complete regular inspections of the facilities and complete minor corrective actions where possible. The
SWMF inspections completed for this AMP noted some relatively minor action items that could be completed
by City staff without retaining a contractor, such as:
■ Unclogging of hickenbottom outlets pipes that are plugged by vegetation. This also includes removal of
vegetation in the vicinity of the outlet structures. This is one of the most common observations amongst
the City’s SWMFs. Completing this work will lower elevated water levels and restore active storage
volumes at many of the SWMFs.
■ Repairing or replacing damaged outfall grates to maintain safety measures at the SWMF.
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 57
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
■Repairing or replacing damaged chain link fencing around headwalls or facility perimeters to maintain
safety measures at the SWMF.
■Ensure that adequate signage is present at all SWMFs.
A complete list of action items for each facility is found on the SWMF inspection forms (Appendix A).
The recommended minimum inspection frequency at each SWMF is once per year under dry weather
conditions and a rainfall event inspection once per year. Note that the STEP Inspection and Maintenance
Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands recommends inspections of major
components four times a year, and increasing the inspection frequency would be beneficial for components
that are showing signs of deterioration.
The rainfall event inspection is intended to observe the SWMF function immediately after a large (>25 mm)
rainfall event that cannot be inspected during dry weather conditions. This includes the operation of orifice
and other flow controls, drawdown times, flow split manholes, water levels and storage volumes, spillways,
among other items.
Inspection forms and other records shall be retained within the City’s electronic filing system and GIS
database.
7.4.2 Sediment Accumulation Assessments
Sediment accumulation and removal efficiency assessments are recommended every three to five years to
establish an accumulation rate for each SWMF. Once the sediment accumulation rate is known for each
SWMF, sediment volumes can be estimated and the frequency of sediment surveys can be decreased,
assuming that the contributing drainage areas do not change. SWMF cleanout frequency for each facility
can also be established.
Section 3 outlines the methods and specifications of the SWMFs designed with permanent pools and
describes the calculation for sediment removal efficiency. Assessing sediment accumulation will require
surveying the sediment.
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 58 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
8 SUMMARY
The City of Pickering owns and operates 20 SWM facilities, of which 18 were included in this SWMF AMP. A
total of 12 wet facilities six (6) dry ponds were evaluated and included in the capital works and maintenance
plans to ensure an acceptable level of service is provided for the foreseeable future. The purpose of the
SWMF AMP is to assess the current conditions of the City of Pickering’s SWMFs and determine a prioritized
list of capital works and maintenance requirements for the short to medium term (up to 10 years).
A background information review, facility inspections, sediment surveys, and conditions assessments were
completed. Available data was also consolidated into a database to be incorporated to the City’s GIS
database and recommendations for future data and upkeep of the information was provided.
The facility conditions assessment provided data and performance analysis to evaluate the SWMFs through
criteria, where the scoring was used to prioritize sediment cleanout and retrofit projects. The
recommendations from the evaluation included the retrofit of two facilities (Table 8-1) and sediment cleanout
at the remaining facilities, with priority for the top 8 in the ranking (Table 8-2).
Table 8-1 Recommended SWMF Retrofits (Capital Works Plan)
Priority SWMF Name
(ID) Proposed Retrofit Works and Rationale Estimated
Retrofit Cost
1 Lisgoold
(C2-08-GC)
■ Reconstruct west inlet channel with channel armouring and a plunge
pool or other energy dissipater downstream of the headwall to
mitigate erosion.
■ Repair south inlet spillway and consider implementing more robust
energy dissipater downstream of headwall.
■ Replace outlet structure with a reversed slope outlet pipe. Excavate
a deep pool at outlet area to implement the outlet, to prevent
clogging and lower the temperature of water discharge to the
receiving watercourse, which is an occupied or recovery reach for
Redside Dace.
$716,300
2 Rouge
(C1-01-ER)
■ The reconfiguration of the inlet pipe and headwall to be further east
towards the eastern corner of the basin to increase flow path,
recognizing the slope of the inlet storm sewer may limit the
extension of the inlet pipe. A berm or silt curtain are also options to
lengthen the flow path.
■ Construct a forebay with 1 m depth downstream of the inlet to
provide pretreatment. Construct an access ramp to the forebay to
facilitate regular sediment removal without disturbing the main
wetland cell.
■ Replace outlet structure and excavate a deep pool immediately
upstream of the outlet with a reverse sloped pipe to prevent
vegetation growth and clogging of the outlet.
■ Excavate the bottom of the pond to create an average permanent
pool depth of between 150 mm and 300 mm. Create low flow path
and deeper wetland pockets scattered throughout the basin. An
average permanent pool depth of 300 mm across the bottom of the
wet basin will allow the wetland facility to achieve about 70% TSS
removal efficiency (Normal protection). This an improvement over
the original design that did not have a permanent pool.
■ Plant appropriate native wetland vegetation.
■ Reconstruct the depressed curb at the north overland flow route to
reinstate the drainage path.
$1,287,000
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 59
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 8-2 SWMF Maintenance Priority (Maintenance Plan)
Priority SWMF Name
(ID)
Sediment
Volume (m3) Key Issues Estimated
Cleanout Cost
1 Rouge
(C1-01-ER) 850
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ Outlet from quality pond likely blocked resulting in
elevated water level and reduced active storage.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
■ Encroachment at along east edge of pond block
(landscaping and plantings by residents)
$838,500
2 Lisgoold
(C2-08-GC) 119
■ Outlet blocked resulting in high water level and
reduced active storage.
■ Degraded channel downstream of west inlet (washed
out riprap spillway, knickpoint, eroded side slope).
$313,300
3 Autumn
(C1-03-PT) 764
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ The outlet pipe is likely clogged with debris, which has
caused an elevated water level and partially
submerged inlet.
$620,100
4 Begley Street
(R3-02-AB) 200
■ Heavy phragmite growth and debris in pond and outlet
area.
■ Overland flow route potentially drains toward
townhouses rather than overland flow dispersion
swale.
$315,900
5 Chickadee
(C1-05-PT) 155 ■ Outlet partially blocked causing elevated water level
and reduced active storage. $297,700
6 Dixie Estates 2
(C2-02D-PC) 41
■ Facility water level elevated and inlet pipe partially
submerged.
■ Seepage through berm around inlet headwall.
■ Signs of bank erosion (undercut and slumping) in
downstream watercourse.
■ Encroachment along west side of pond block (resident
plantings and yard furnishings)
$336,700
7 Cognac
(C2-01-DN) 441
■ Scour pool, deteriorated riprap and exposed filter
fabric at inlet.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
$412,100
8 Valley Farm
(C2-06-WD) 117
■ Heavy vegetation growth and debris in pond and
outlet area.
■ Ponded water and sediment adjacent to facility.
$347,100
9 Durham Woods
(R3-04-LD) 1618
■ Access gate unlocked and obstructed by brush.
■ Drainage from adjacent vacant property to the east
had caused erosion gullies
$1,031,400
10 Calvington Trail
(C1-04-PT) 211
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Encroachment along north edge of pond block
(plantings by residents)
$370,500
T11 Bopa
(C1-02-PT) 188 ■ The PVC riser may be partially clogged. $374,400
T11 Mattamy
(C3-08-UC) 1030 ■ Evidence of beaver activity within pond block. $804,700
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 60 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
We trust that is SWMF AMP report meets the current needs of the City at this time. Please feel free to
contact the undersigned should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.
A T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
Tony Dang, P.Eng. Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng.
Water Resources Engineer Director of Stormwater Management
tdang@tmig.ca shollingworth@tmig.ca
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 61
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
9 REFERENCES
GHD (2017). ‘Stormwater Inspection and Record Management Best Practices, Data Model Design, and
Comprehensive Report’. Prepared for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. February
2017.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) (2019). ‘Rules for Soil Management
and Excess Soil Quality Standards’. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (2003). ‘Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual.’
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) (2016). ‘Stormwater Management Pond Clean-
out Best Management Practices.’
Paul Wisner & Associates. (1993). ‘Addendum to the Storm Water Management Strategy Report for the
Lisgoold Residential Development.’ Letter Report to Ministry of Natural Resources. March 23,
1993.
Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) and CH2M Hill Canada Ltd. (CH2M) (2016). ‘Inspection and
Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands.’ 2016 (revised
April 2018).
/
Ta u nton Road
0
0 =
�
0
L ____ ___::[?:__ ___ ---1f------,---T_h_i
7
r d_C_o_n_c_e_s_s_io_n_R_o_a_d __
1 IIL-------,-�T�h�i r�d�C�o�n c'.:e::s�s�io�n'..'....'.:R�o�a�d'.......,'----------,
;-
""' M
Q) C:
Q) :E II)
0 (J
�
Twyn Riv, rs Drive
0
1 ½ • ;1 •
�
\f • •
Fi
I I J •
Shepp r d Aven u e
"C lt1 &.
.ll: C: lt1 .c Q) II) &.
Granite court /
Toy�ale R oad �
D
... C: :::l
0 E Q) Cl :::l
(;)
0
•
t::
0 e"iij u.
"E
f----�,-� _._______,
:::l f--�-,----L�c:)-ID
...._-+-----+---+--+-+--+�-0 ..c: II) ... rn-
� I--�--�
Frenchman's
Bay
Lake Ontario
-cit! &.
e[ .. Q) > ::i
JJ
e-1----�
0 c.�-� ..
� ::i
Thi r d Con c ession Road
• •
"C lt1 ,------'----, &. �+-___[�,---�e-ltl u.
>, .!!!
•
��
"C lt1 L------,&_-,-�
.ll:
•
(.) e ID
>< ro -�<( ..... 0
C 5
�
•
0
�ayly Str eet =
Clem ents R oad
M ontgo m e ry Pa rk Ro d
"C lt1 &.
..c: (.) lt1 Q) ID
0
Kelli no Str eet
0
I)
•
II) ...
� ... II) ..c:
� :::l ..c:
(.J
B , ly Str eet W
>< ro -�<( ..... 0
C 5
� C)
-�6/P1CKER1NG
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
a
Legend
e SWM Facility
1 :15,000
Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 11-20