By Mark Schadenberg
A vote of 6-1 by Woodstock city council on Nov. 15 essentially indicates that the City will do the remediation work on the Southside Park pond (Cedar Creek eventually drains into Thames River) as recommended by an environmental report written by AECOM consultants.
A guess price tag is $2.2 million, but I’m a member of a long list of people who would have been extremely disappointed to see the Cedar Creek’s pond in the park removed or modified into a river with an adjoining naturalized marsh.
AECOM had created many options, but then described their preferred alternative to include a forebay (the berm would be below water level) at the south end of the pond to allow for future dredging to be much easier, then to have a deeper river (below water level so you wouldn't realize it's actually there) running near the west bank toward where the dam is. The island would stay but other deeper areas would be created (excavated) around it.
As chair of the Woodstock recreation advisory committee I have attended the last two public meetings at the Woodstock Museum. Anytime there is an advertised public meeting on a subject you are interested in, you should attend as they are always informative and they always ask for public comment.
I write hear on my own opinion, but the pond was certainly discussed at the last WRAC meeting on Nov 13.
The Sentinel-Review story is below
Also, check out some of the links below I discovered (on Google), including a report I found online from 1997, and the (famed) drinking water report from December of 2011.
Some links
http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/Portals/15/Documents/Water/WaterReports2011/Woodstock11.pdf
http://www.thamesriver.on.ca/watershed_projects/Cedar_Creek/Images/Cedar_Creek_strategy.pdf
()()()()()()()()
Southside Pond is staying put
By Bruce Urquhart, Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Thursday, November 15, 2012
WOODSTOCK - Southside Pond is staying put.
In a decision that should surprise absolutely no one, city council voted 6-1 to endorse an environmental assessment that recommended the rehabilitation of the existing pond, ending months of speculation, misinformation and misunderstandings.
“The pond is a good compromise,” Coun. Paul Plant said. “One side of the coin may not believe that, but we’re maintaining something the community wants while trying to remedy things as much as possible.
This $2.2-million preference scored high in the study’s heritage category, largely because of the overwhelming public support that gave it an edge over the controversial option of removing the pond and dam structure.
“(This alternative) scored the highest on heritage … based on what is there now as a focal feature of the park,” Aecom consultant Wolfgang Wolters said.. “(The pond removal) did not score well on heritage because it’s completely different than what they have there now.
“Both alternatives do have risks.”
As part of its rehabilitation, Southside Pond will be completely dredged before a sediment forebay is created to trap and settle out sediment and heavy pollutants. The plan, which retains the dam structure, also involves a low-flow channel and the installation of a bottom-draw outlet that “pulls” cooler water from the pond’s deeper bottom for release into the receiving watercourse.
“It’s not a perfect solution but it’s the best solution that can maintain that online pool system,” Wolters said.
This rehabilitation introduces aquatic vegetation – likely lily pads – to help reduce the pond’s surface temperature, and new shrubs around the perimeter to discourage pollution by Canadian geese and other waterfowl.
“In simple terms, geese like to know what’s going on around them,” Wolters said. “When they have a clear sight to water, that’s where they head.”
Along with the pond rehabilitation, council supported the $410,000 rehabilitation of Cedar Creek as a natural channel that would remove the existing – but eroding – “hard bank protection” while reconfiguring the waterway to include terraced banks, a low-flow channel, and pools and riffles. This approach would involve the planting of new vegetation for erosion protection and the implementation of a “subtle meander” as part of the channel.
Coun. Jim Northcott, the only dissenting vote, referred to the Woodstock environmental advisory committee’s October recommendation to remove the dam structure and pond in favour of a natural wetland during his remarks. Also preferred by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority – the group that started this whole process by giving the Cedar Creek watershed a poor grade – this alternative would have potentially done the most to improve the water quality.
The only real worry about the pond rehabilitation was the hefty price tag. Wolters explained the bulk of the cost involved the expensive disposal of the contaminated sediment.
“We’re looking at a really big dollar figure, but that figure has been driven up by the fact that we can’t just dump the sludge … into a farmer’s field or into a landfill,” Coun. Bill Bes said, “It’s not that we’re really interested in really expensive projects. We’re stuck in that we can’t just throw it anywhere.”
The next step in a process that began in December 2011 is a 30-day public comment period that allows Woodstonians to voice their views on the plan. If approved, the city has put the money in its proposed capital budget and anticipates a three-year implementation that would start with designs for both the pond and the creek.
“The public has the opportunity to voice their opinions on what has been recommended tonight,” Plant said. “This just frames what most of council thinks is most appropriate.”
No comments:
Post a Comment