This article was downloaded by: [MCYS / MCSS]On: 02 August 2013, At: 15:27Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Water Resources JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THEPLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF URBANWETLANDS: THE CASE OF BECHTEL PARKWETLAND, WATERLOO, ONTARIOC. Hopkinson , K. Horrigan , T. Cane , S. Gaborit , S. McLernon , S.Pennington , S. Quon , L. Woo , G. Mulamoottil , P. Jasinski & M.McTavishPublished online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: C. Hopkinson , K. Horrigan , T. Cane , S. Gaborit , S. McLernon , S. Pennington ,S. Quon , L. Woo , G. Mulamoottil , P. Jasinski & M. McTavish (1997) AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TOTHE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF URBAN WETLANDS: THE CASE OF BECHTEL PARK WETLAND,WATERLOO, ONTARIO , Canadian Water Resources Journal, 22:1, 45-56, DOI: 10.4296/cwrj2201045

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4296/cwrj2201045

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING ANDMANAGEMENT OF URBAN WETLANDS: THE CASE OF

BECHTEL PARK WETLAND, WATERLOO, ONTARIOSubmitted October 1996; accepted January 1997

Written comments on this paper will be accepted until September 1997

C.Hopkinson', T.Cane', S.Gaborit', K.Horrigan', P.Jasinski3, S.McLernont,M.McTavisht, S.Pennington', S.Quon', L.Woo', and G.Mulamoottil'

AbstractThe Bechtel Park Wetland in Waterloo, Ontario was examined in an attempt toprovide an integrated approach to the planning and management of wetlands inurban environments. The Wetland is the result of urban development activity andis of recent origin. A chronology detailing the development stages of the Wetlandover the previous thirty years is presented. Evaluation, functional assessment andpublic consultation processes were carried out to understand the Wetland'secological functions and establish its values. The results of the investigationsraised four issues of concern: 1) urban runoff entering the Wetland is impairingwater quality; 2) invasive plant species are threatening biodiversity; 3) beaversare cutting down trees and; 4) the lack of a delineated trail system is reducing theamenity value of the Wetland and leading to loss of vegetation. Options toaddress these concerns are discussed and the formation of a 'Friends of BechtelPark' volunteer group is suggested. The paper concludes with a recommendationthat pro-active planning of urban wetlands is essential if the functions and valuesof these ecosystems are to be sustained.

R6sum6Le mar6cage du parc Bechtel d Waterloo, en Ontario, fut examin6 pour tenter d'end6gager une d6marche int6gr6e de planification et de gestion des terres humidesen milieu urbain. Le mar6cage r6sulte des activit6s d'urbanisation et est d'originer6cente. Une chronologie faisant 6tat de ses stades de d6veloppement au coursdes trente dernidres ann6es est pr6sent6e. Des processus d'6valuation, d'etudefonctionnelle et de consultation du public furent men6s d bonne fin dans le but desaisir les fonctions 6cologiques du mar6cage et d'6tablir ses valeurs. Les r6sultatsdes 6tudes ont soulev6 quatre sujets de pr6occupation : (1) l'6coulement urbain quip6ndtre les terres humides porte atteinte a la qualit6 de l'eau; (2) des espdces deplantes envahissantes menacent la biodiversit6; les castors rongent les arbres etles font tomber et (4) l'absence d'un reseau de pistes et sentiers d6limit6s faitperdre de sa valeur A l'environnement du mar6cage et entraine une perte deveg6tation. Diverses possibilit6s pour repondre d ces pr6occupations sontenvisag6es et on a sugg6r6 la formation d'un groupe de volontaires "Les amis deBechtel Park". Le document se termine par une recommandation voulant quel'am6nagement proactif des zones humides en milieu urbain est essentiel pour quisouhaite maintenir les fonctions et les valeurs de ces 6cosvstdmes.

1. Department of Geography, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON2. School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON3. Depadment of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

Canadian Water Resources JournalYol.22. No.1.1997

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

IntroductionIn the past. wetlands were considered aswastelands and were frequently drained foragriculture and urbanisation. However, inrecent years, an increasing awareness hasdeveloped of the socio-ecological functionsand values provided by wetlands, Urbanwetlands are particularly valued due totheir location within environments wheresome of these functions are most needed.Unfortunately, land-use changes have ledto a significant loss of wetland ecosystemsand it is estimated that only 0.2"/o oI wel-lands in Canada are found within 40 km ofthe 23 largest metropolitan areas (Rubec,1980). Those wetlands that are locatedwithin urban and urbanising areas are oftenin a degraded state and, therefore, it is im-perative that management strategies aredeveloped to maintain and improve theirfunctional values.

The wetland chosen for this case study(now on referred to as the 'Wetland') is lo-cated within Bechtel Park on the outskirlsof the City of Waterloo in Southern Ontario,and provides a unique natural environmentin an urban selting. The Wetland covers7.25 hectares of the Laurel Creek flood-olain and is near the confluence of LaurelCreek with the Grand River. The area hasbeen traversed by an outfall from theWaterloo sewage treatment plant. Prior tothe construction of Highway 86, the outfallsewer line was in poor repair, and therewere frequent discharges of pafiially treat-ed sewage into the creek (Bauer, personalcommunication, 1996). The parkland alsocontains a sports field, a cemetery and awoodlot. The upland plant communitieswithin the park have been recognised as asignificant natural feature of local value andmuch of the natural area has been desig-nated as an Environmentally SensitivePolicy Area (ESPA) by the City. Housingdevelopments dominate the surroundingarea and Highway 86 is located west of thefloodolain.

Various studies of Bechtel Park havebeen conducted. Tyler et a/. (1990) investi-gated management options for the Park

46

and also documented a few environmentalissues related to the Wetland. A water re-

sources study of Bechtel Park pointed outthe degraded state of the Wetland and aneed for restorative/rehabilitative mea-sures (Mulamoottil ef a/., 1991). Also theCity of Waterloo commissioned an investi-gation into erosion problems in the chan-nel of Laurel Creek adjacent to theWetland (Braun Consulting et al., 1992).However, the functions provided by theWetland and the processes which maynegatively impact the ecology and amenityvalue of the site have not been adequatelyresearched. In addition, there seems to be

no documentation available to guide as-sessments of urban wetland functions and

values for an integrated approach to theplanning and management of urban wet-lands. The objectives of the study are:

1. to document the ecological develop-ment of the Wetland;

2. to evaluate and assess the functionsand values of the Wetland;

3. to identify concerns held by stakehold-ers over the Wetland and its future; and

4. to explore management options whichmay enhance the values of theWetland.

MethodsThe integrated approach to the study wasto conduct several concurrent investiga-tions, all of which derived information froma variety of sources. The ecological devel-opment of the Wetland was investigatedprimarily using aerial photographs andsediment core analysis. lmages were ob-tained for the years 1947,1966, 1969,1971, 1975, 1992 and 1995, and signifi-cant visible changes noted. A develop-ment chronology was established andsequential maps developed using theimage data and supplementary informationsources such as maps, engineering siteplans and previous reports. Two sedimentcores were taken from the Wetland forpollen analysis and an assessment of the

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesYol.22. No. 1. 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

physical characteristics of bulk density, dryweight, organic and inorganic content.

A wetland evaluation was carried outin the fall of 1995 using the most recentversion of the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources Wetland Evaluation Manual(OMNR, 1993). A prior evaluation of theWetland, conducted in 1990 (Mulamoottilet al., 1991), was used as a source of ref-erence. Most of the reouired data werecollected on site or from topographicalmaps. However, liaison with a number oforganisations was also necessary to eval-uate some of the social values and inter-ests in the Wetland. Those contactedinclude: the Six Nations Aboriginal Band,various local community groups, theGrand River Conservation Authority(GRCA), Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources (OMNR), the Waterloo Boardof Education, the City of Waterloo, and theCity of Kitchener.

An assessment of Wetland functionswas carried out following the guidelinesset down in the "Functional Assessment ofFreshwater Wetlands: A Manual andTraining Outline" (Larson ef a/., 1989).Much of the information gathered in theecological development study and theOMNR evaluation were also used in theassessment. However, this procedure en-ables a more qualitative review of wetlandfunctionality than is permitted in the evalu-ation system. Two piezometers were in-stalled near the centre of the Wetland toinvestigate infiltration potential of the site,Water quality data were obtained from pre-vious studies (Tyler et al., 1990,Mulamoottil et al., 1991 and BraunEngineering et al., 1992). Five broad func-tions are identified in the USEPA manual;groundwater discharge and recharge,flood control, water quality improvement,habitat for fish and wildlife, and biomassproduction and export (Larson et a/.,1989). Due to the urban location of thestudy site, it was appropriate to investigatethe amenity value of the Wetland to thelocal population. Thus, a sixth componentof 'values to society'was added.

Canadian Water Resources JournalYol.22. No.1.1997

Following the completion of the eco-logical development study and the OMNRevaluation. a public consultation was heldto identify stakeholder concerns regard-ing the current state and use of theWetland. The public meeting was widelyadvertised in local newspapers andthrough radio announcements. Over4,500 information leaflets were distributedto households within approximately 1.5km of the Wetland, and all interest groupsand official bodies with any connectionwith the Wetland were mailed a copy.Information boards and a twenty minutepresentation were used to present prelim-inary findings of the investigation.Following the presentation, small groupdiscussions were held to identify issuesof concern among stakeholders. A ques-tionnaire was distributed to all oartici-pants and interest groups, so that furtherinformation regarding issues related tothe Wetland could be generated.

Ecological Development ofBechtel Park WetlandDownstream of the current Wetland loca-tion, Laurel Creek was dammed for a millpond around 1829 (Leibbrandt, 1980). Theresulting alteration of the flow regime, cou-pled with nearby road construction, mayhave had some impact on the ecologicalbalance of the site (Bloomfield, 1995).Agriculture was the dominant land-use ofthe surrounding area prior to the 1950s.More recently, however, an increasinglevel of development activity in and aroundthe study site has led to some significantchanges in the flood-plain of Laurel Creek.Some of the more prominent transforma-tions are discernible on aerial imagery. Asummary of the Wetland developmentchronology is presented in Figure 1. Listedbelow are the years when aerial pho-tographs record major changes within andaround the study site.

1947. Three small streams drain intoLaurel Creek from the south-west, with thenorthernmost of the three flowino into ameander bend.

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

Figure 1: Sequential Map of Changes lmpacting on Wetland DevelopmentA=stream input, B=woodland, C-Lau rel Greek, D=Bluevale sub-division'E=sewer-line, F=stormwater culvert, G-open water

1966. The early construction stage ofBluevale sub-division is apparent west of theCreek flood-plain. Another land-use changeadjacent to the Creek is visible on the nofth-west side of the meander bend. This is dueto the use of the site for a sanitary landfillbetween 1957 and 1964 (Tyler et al., 199Q).

1969. Conestoga Parkway (Highway86), between Bluevale and Laurel Creek,is under construction at this time and thenorthernmost stream entering the study

48

site is acting as a stormwater drain for thesub-division. The meander bend has dis-appeared due to a straightening of theCreek. This channelization enabled the in-

stallation of a sewer-line to convey treatedwastewater f rom the Waterloo WaterPollution Control Plant to the Grand River(Braun Consulting et a|..1992).

1971. The construction of ConestogaParkway is complete in the area adjacentto the Wetland.

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesYol.22, No.1,1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

1975. A wetland and small pond arediscernible in the location of the previousmeander bend.

1992. The open water body, nowknown as the 'Beaver Pond' has notice-ably increased in size and the nearbyCreek channel appears to have migratedslightly towards the Wetland. The ob-served lateral shift in Creek alignmentacted to expose landfill materials and thesewer-line (Mulamoottil et al., 1991).Channel reinforcement measures, usingbio-engineering techniques, were under-taken to prevent further bank erosion(Braun Consulting et a\,1992)

.l 995. There are no significant changesdiscernible between the 1992 and 1995rmages.

Additional evidence, indicative ofchanging land uses within the area andsupporting the recent creation of theWetland, was obtained from sediment coreanalysis. The core extracted south of theBeaver Pond displayed a low percentageof organics (3-6% excluding the surfacelayer), with the remainder consisting of al-luvial silts and clays characteristic of afloodplain. A change in stratigraphy, foundnear the top of the core, may be a result ofdepositional changes caused by landclearance and the removal of aggregatenear the three feeder streams. A recon-struction of past vegetation through pollenanalysis was not possible due to low con-centrations of pollen in the cores.

Wetland EvaluationA total score of 546 affords the Wetland aclass 5 status according to the OMNR 1-7classification system. This is an increasef rom the previous class 6 status(Mulamoottil et al., 1991). Changes in thescoring criteria within the evaluation manu-al used in 1995 are the main reason forthe rise in status. The Wetland scoreshighly in the hydrological component dueto flood attenuation and water quality im-provement functions. The evaluation alsorecognizes the value of the Wetland interms of rarity and distinctiveness as a

Canadian Water Resources JournalYol.22. No.1.1997

natural area within an urbanized land-scape. A low score was obtained for biodi-versity and the provision of habitat for rareand significant species, due mainly to thesmall size and developmental stage of theWetland. The scoring process of the eval-uation assisted with the functional assess-ment by providing a quantitative summaryof wetland values. The scores are oresent-ed in Table 1.

Functional Assessment

Groundwater Recharge andDischargeThere is some evidence to suggest that theWetland is an area of groundwaterrecharge, since it is palustrine and locatedon a creek floodplain. Therefore, stormwa-ter entering the site is detained and there isopportunity for infiltration. The general local-ity is considered to be a'potential recharge'site by the Grand River ConservationAuthority (1993). Piezometers located atthe south end of the Beaver Pond orovidedconfirmation of infiltration ootential.However, recharge may be limited, overall,by the low permeability of alluvial sedimentswithin the old meander bend and also theclay capping layers that cover the previouslandfillsite (Tyler etal., 1990).

Well log data of the water table in thevicinity of Bechtel Park indicate depthsgreater than 100 m (MOE, 1976) and theWetland is not expected to receive anygroundwater input. A spring has been lo-cated in the woodlot upstream of theWetland, the result of sub-surface seep-age at the boundary between upper organ-ic layers and underlying glacial tills.

Flood ControlNumerous site visits to the Wetland prior toand following major storm events during thefallof 1995 and the spring of 1996 indicatedthat the water level in the Beaver Pond fluc-tuated by approximately half a metre. Thus,the storage capacity of the wetland/flood-plain is high, considering the small catch-ment size. Large spring melt events lead to

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 1: Results of Wetland Evaluation Conducted in 1996

Biological component Score Out oi Hydrological component Score Out of

Productivity

Biodiversity

Size

Total

Social Component

Economic products

Recreational activities

Landscape aesthetics

Proximity to settlement

Education & public awareness

Ownership

Aboriginal & cultural values

Size

Total

34 50

J3 ICU

75096 250

Flood attenuation

Water quality improvement

Carbon sihk

Shoreline erosion control

Groundwater recharge

Total

Special Features Gomponent

Rarity 100

Significant features/habitat 20

Ecosystem age 2

Total 122

Total

88 100

60 70

050 15

5t ou

205 250

14 50

20 50

5 10

40 40

27 40

8 10

030920

123 250

160

65

25

250

546

over bank flooding of the wetland area fromLaurel Creek. The subsequent slow releaseof water from the Wetland alleviates the im-pact of f urther f looding downstream.However, this function is thought to be oflimited value since there is no developmentin the downstream floodolain.

Water QualityUrban runoff from the Conestoga Parkwayand Bluevale sub-division is the dominanthydrological input to the Wetland. Analysisof water samples from the stormwater cul-vert indicates that copper, iron, zinc, andtotal phosphorus levels significantly exceedMOE limits (Braun Consulting et al.,1992).Chlorides, calcium and nitrogen concentra-tions are also found to be high (Tyler et al.,1990, Mulamoottil et al., 1991). Althoughheavy metals are attenuated and sedimentloads reduced, discirarge out of the

Wetland negatively impacts the waterquality of Laurel Creek (Braun Consultinget a1.,1992).

Habitat for Fish and WildlifeBased on the OMNR evaluation criteria,the biodiversity of Bechtel Park Wetland isfound to be quite low. There are two wet-land types, swamp and marsh (Figure 2),

and a total of ten vegetational communi-ties. These communities are typical ofsouthwestern Ontario, with swamp areascontaining willow, cedar, black ash, aspenand dogwood species. Marshes consistmainly of cattails, sedges, submergent veg-etation and a significant presence of purple

loosestrife. This low species diversity isprobably a reflection of the Wetland's rela-

tively small size, recent origin, poor waterquality and lack of connectivity with otherareas of rich natural habitats. However,

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesYol.22. No. 1,1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

:l, frl.j

II

TEGENT}

| 0pen water

f swamn . a a Houses

@ Piezoueter location

.-rt- Strearn inPuts

ffil Marslrffi

lTl Wettano catchment {80.s4 Hai

m41.:$-1

/yir'' "{,u4ju,

l;it.i'"4)

,"!q.sfq"!d,". -]lr''*a

t.

Figure 2: Bechtel Park Wetland; showing hydrological inputs and wetland cover types

given the surrounding urban environment,the Wetland provides an important and lo-cally unique habitat for wildlife.

Two species of colonial waterbirds, theGreen Heron Butorides virescens and theGreat Blue Heron Andrea herodias havebeen known to use the Wetland for feedino.

Canadian Water Resources JournalVol. 22, No.1 , '1997

if not for breeding. The Wetland also pro-vides a minimal water-fowl habitat. One ani-mal species that is apparently successful in

Bechtel Park Wetland is the beaver. Dataregarding fish species and numbers are notavailable. lt appears that the Wetland doesnot suppoft a fish population.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

Biomass Production and ExportPotentially harvestable products, such asa variety of fur-bearers, snapping turtlesand bull frogs are found in and around theWetland. In addition, fish spawning couldtake place in the marsh areas duringspring flooding. However, although the po-tential for biomass production and exporthas been identified, there is no evidenceto suggest that it is a valued function.

Values to SocietyAlthough there is no delineated trail sys-tem within or around the Wetland, the areais very popular with casual strollers. Theobvious recreational and aesthetic appealof a seemingly natural amenity within anurban setting afford the Wetland a highfunctional value to the local population.Bechtel Park Wetland is also known to beused by school and university groups foreducation and research (Bresnahan, 1995,personal communication).

The PublicGonsultation ProcessThe oublic consultation revealed severalmajor concerns of the attending partici-pants. Pollution from stormwater inputs andpossible landfill leachate contamination wasgenerally regarded as detrimental to theWetland ecosystem. Access was consid-ered an imoortant area of concern for tworeasons: the main route through the site be-tween the Beaver Pond and the Creek isfrequently flooded or iced over from fall tospring, thus inhibiting access; and the lackof a delineated trail system has led to a sig-nificant loss of vegetation due to Wetlandvisitors opening up trails of their own toavoid difficult ground conditions and furtherexplore the site. The padicipants also ex-pressed concern over the possibility of fu-ture local development in the areaintensifying the problems already identified.

Boardwalks were seen as beneficial toimprove and control access, as well as toincrease educational opportunities.Participants also recognised that mainte-nance of biodiversity in the Wetland would

52

require control of invasive and disruptive el-

ements such as purple loosestrife,Eurooean buckthorn as well as beaver.Several participants expressed a willing-ness to take a hands-on approach to thisproblem, and exchanged names and phonenumbers in an effort to initiate a Friends ofBechtel Park advocacy group, modelled onpublic interest groups elsewhere.

Of 24 questionnaires distributed at themeeting and through the mail, 17 were re-

turned; a response rate ol 71ok. Many rea-

sons were given for visiting the Wetland. All

identified walking as a purpose for their vis-its, with 15 pointing out that they had alsogone simply to view the Wetland. Birding,nature study and photography were otherpopular reasons for visiting the site.Respondents agreed on the most importantfunctions and values of the Wetland: oppor-tunities for recreation and nature study, theprovision of natural habitat, and water quali-ty improvement. The issues identified as im-portant by the respondents corroboratedthose expressed in the public meeting. Theywere also comoarable to issues raised inprevious public meetings investigating man-

agement options for Bechtel Park. However,

there appears to be a slight shift in publicopinion regarding access. Previously, localinhabitants exoressed a desire to maintainthe natural state of the Wetland and did notwish access to be controlled or improved.f able 2lists the issues raised at earlier pub-

lic meetings, as well as at the consultationheld for the present study.

DiscussionIt has been shown that Bechtel ParkWetland is a recent and fortuitous outcomeof increasing anthropogenic forces withinits surrounding area. However, intensifyingpressures, largely as a consequence ofnearby urban development, are acting todegrade the Wetland ecosystem and, re-

duce its functional value to both local in-

habitants and the biotic environment. Theresults of site investigations and the publicconsultation process have pointed out fourmain areas of concern: storm water quality

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesYol.22, No.1,1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 2: Results of Public Consultations Regarding lssues Relating to Bechtel ParkWetland

Date Initiators Purpose and format Main issues raised at meetino

November Bechtel Park19Bg Master Plan

Committee(Roth,1991)

Open house andpublic meeting;to determine public

opinion on futuredirection of park

1. Potential for vandalism if access to openpond was increased by use of boardwalks

2. Regular use by school groups, and potential

for damage to natural areas3. Potential contamination from former landfill4. Desire to maintain 'wild,' inaccessible

character of Wetland area5. Maintenance and operation of skating pond

March1 990

Bechtel ParkMaster PlanCommittee(fyler et al.

1 990)

Public workshop,coupled withwalking tours,interpretation ofnatural processes

and discussion ofall natural areaswithin Bechtel Park.

1. "whether or not the Beaver Pond will continueto exist at all." (Tyler et al., 1990)

August1 990

Bechtel ParkMaster PIan

Committee(Roth,1991)

Public meeting;opportunity forresidents toexpress concernsabout the Park

1. Location and extent of observation deckand boardwalks

2. Stream bank erosion3. Future sub-division development on

^ti^^^^+ t^^t^dujquvr rL rdr ruo

January1 996

present study Short presentation

and small-groupworkshops; focuson concerns anoideas for future

of the Bechtel Park

Wetland

1. Pollution of water from stormwater and runoff2. Management of beaver population

3. Boardwalks to control and limit access,yet permit educational and interpretive visits

4. Volunteerism and advocacy; formation of"Friends of Bechtel Park Wetland" group

5. Control of non-native, invasive species

January1 996

presentstudy Questionnairesdistributed toparticipants andmailed to specificinterest groups

1. Water quality; contamination and pollution

from stormwater and runoff2. Control over human access to wetland3. Control of invasive soecies such as

European Buckthorn and Purple Loosestrife

entering the Wetland, reduction of biodiver-sity by invasive species, reduction of habi-tat through beaver activity and lack of adelineated trail system.

Stormwater runoff from Bluevale andConestoga Parkway is increasing the pollu-tant loading to the Beaver Pond, and

Canadian Water Resources JournalYoL22. No.1.1997

discharge from the Wetland to Laurel Creekis of poor water quality. The apparent lownutrient retention and transformation capa-bility of the Wetland may be due to the lowlevel of organics in the substrate. lt is likely,therefore, that the accumulation of pollu-tants will continue and is expected to have

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

a negative impact on plant and animalspecies diversity.

At present the Wetland is not officiallyrecognised as a stormwater treatment fa-cility, even though it is acting as such.Therefore, there is no management plan inplace to monitor water quality and main-tain wetland functions. Such a recognitionand the adoption of a management planwould address the water quality issuemore successfully if appropriate steps areimplemented to reduce pollution inputs tothe Wetland. Construction of an artificialwetland at the outflow of the Bluevalestorm drain would reduce oollutant andsediment levels entering Bechtel ParkWetland. Once the soils within the con-structed wetland are saturated with oollu-tants and unable to retain nutrients, thesubstrate could be removed throughdredging, and replaced with new material.

Plant and animal diversity within creat-ed and somewhat isolated wetlands is ex-oected to be lower than for those that arenaturally occurring and of comparable size(Confer and Niering, 1992; Forman andGodron, 1986). This would largely explainthe low species numbers found in BechtelPark Wetland. However, the current levelof biodiversity within the Wetland may di-minish even more due to the significantpresence of purple loosestrife andEuropean buckthorn. Further proliferationof these pest species could increase com-petition with native vegetation and ulti-mately lead to a loss of habitat and foodsupply (Harker et al., 1993).

Participants at the public consultationexoressed a desire for action to addressthe problems of reducing biodiversity, andvolunteerism was one suggestion put for-ward. Monitoring of the Wetland and im-olementation of restorative measures suchas the cutting, hand pulling and removal ofinvasive plant species could be co-ordinat-ed by the Friends of Bechtel ParkWetland. Temporary control of purpleloosestrife by herbicide application hasbeen recently demonstrated (Gabor et al.,1996). However, it is prudent for the City

54

of Waterloo to consider implementing anintegrated pest management strategyusing biological controls with a minimum ofherbicide applications. Further simplemeasures could be taken to enhancespecies and habitat diversity within theWetland. For example, seed dispersal andplanting of native species and the provi-sion of nesting boxes for birds, ducks andother appropriate animals are some op-tions (Harker et al.,1993).

The beaver colony at the Wetland is

also having an adverse effect upon biodi-versity. Site visits have revealed that thebeavers are actively cutting down trees,particularly around the Beaver Pond. Theirapparent selectivity for Aspens andManitoba maole trees, common around thewetland, is leading to an uneven reductionin habitat. Another concern regardingbeaver activity, brought up at the publicconsultation, is the damming and creationof channels. The beavers are impacting thehydrological flow regime of the Wetland andthe flooding of trails has been a recurringproblem. Although the beavers are a highlyvalued feature of the Wetland, it is felt thataction is needed to minimise the negativeimpacts they have on ceftain componentsof the ecosystem. D'Eon ef a/., (1995) rec-ommend several methods for dealing withbeaver problems. To discourage browsingof individual trees heavy wire mesh or tarpaper can be wrapped around the trunks.Although these methods are inexpensivefor a few trees, they can be impractical if

large numbers are to be protected. In

Bechtel Park Wetland, such measurescould be imolemented with the assistanceof volunteers and/or the suggested Friends

of Bechtel Park Wetland. Beaver-inducedproblems could also be reduced by annualtrapping and selective removal to maintainthe population at a sustainable level.

The flooding of trails adjacent to theWetland is not solely the result of beaveractivity; it is a natural process within wet-land areas and must be accepted.However, the use of the Wetland as a nat-ural amenity by local residents means

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesYol.22. No.1.1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

there is a significant level of pedestriantraffic. In times of high water levels and icyconditions, therefore, visitors to the siteare forced to open new trails. The resultingsoil erosion and trampling of vegetation isfurther exacerbated by minor vandalismand the roam-at-will perception, instilled invisitors due to the lack of a delineated trailsystem. Residents generally agreed thatboardwalks could serve the dual purposeof improving and controlling access.Previous studies, however, have discount-ed boardwalks in and around the Wetlandfor various reasons. The EnvironmentalManagement Report (Tyler et a/., 1990)expressed concern over the possible im-pact of boardwalk construction on thelandfill site which underlies part of thearea. This is a minor problem, since thelandfill only occupies a narrow strip run-ning along the eastern edge of theWetland and could be avoided. The samereport also suggested that boardwalkswould negatively impact wildlife movementby disrupting the spatial configuration ofthe Laurel Creek - Grand River corridorand increase the level of disturbancecaused by people and dogs. From ourstudy, it appears that the implementationof boardwalks would cause no more dis-ruption to the ecosystem than is alreadytaking place as a result of unconfined ac-cess. A further objection was raised basedon the cost of establishing boardwalks(Roth, 1991). However, the responsesfrom local residents indicate that this ex-pense would be a wise investment.

Access to the area around the Wetlandis clearly a sensitive issue and there arestrong arguments for a 'do nothing' policy.However, it is also clear that the lack of astrategy to address access problems willreduce the amenity value of the Wetlandto the public and furlher negatively impactthe vegetation cover and habitat.

Canadian Water Resources JournalYol.22. No.1.'1997

beauty, valued for its recreational opporlu-nities and wildlife habitat within a domi-nantly urban environment. The Wetland isalso valuable as a storm water manage-ment facility. lt is now apparent that in-creasing urban pressures have led to thecreation of the Wetland. The sameprocesses are acting to degrade theWetland and its surrounding areas throughpollution and human trampling. In addition,natural factors are reducing habitat andbiodiversity due to the success of disrup-tive and invasive species. Without theadoption of rehabilitative measures and re-newed management strategies to addressthese threats, the functions and values ofthe Wetland to the ecology of the area andas a recreational and educational resourceto local citizens, will diminish. The casestudy of Bechtel Park Wetland indicatesthat proactive planning is essential if thefunctions and values of urban wetlandsare to be sustained.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to exoress theirappreciation for assistance received fromMr. Art Timmerman, Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources and ProfessorJonathan Price, University of Waterloo.

ReferencesBauer, James. 1996. Waterloo, Ontario,personal communication.

Bloomfield, E. 1995. The History ofWaterloo Township. Department ofGeography, University of GuelphPublication.

Braun Consulting Engineers, Harringtonand Hoyle Ltd. and Ecologistics Ltd. 1992.Erosion Control Project Laurel CreekBechtel Park. Prepared for the City ofWaterloo.

COnCIUSiOn Bresnahan, K. 1995. Watertoo Pubtic

over a 30 year period, Bechtel park school Board' personal communication'

wetland has come into being and devel- confer, s.R. and w.A. Niering, 1992.oped into a locally-unique place of natural "Comparison of Created and Natural

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands inConnecticut (USA)." Wetlands Ecologyand Management. 2: 1 43-1 56.

D'Eon, R.G., R. Lapointe, N. Bosnick, J.C.Davies, B. Maclean, W.R. Watt, and R.G.Wilson. 1995. Ihe Beaver Handbook: AGuide to Understanding Beaver Activity,Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986.Landscape Ecology. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Gabor,T.S., T. Haagsma, and H.R. Murkin.1996. "Wetland Plant Responses toVarying Degrees of Purple Loosestrife in

Southeastern Ontario, Canada." Wetlands,'16: 95-98.

Grand River Conservation Authority. 1993.

Laurel Creek Watershed Studv. FinalRepod.

Harker, D., S.Evans, M.Evans, andK.Harker. 1993. Landscape RestorationHandbook. Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor, Ml.

Larson, J.S., P.R. Adamus, and E.J.Clairain. 1989. Functional Assessment ofFreshwater Wetlands: A Manual andTraining Outline. U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency: Oregon.

Leibbrandt, G. 1980. Little Paradise: The

Saga of the German Canadians ofWaterloo County, Ontario 1800-1975.Kitchener: Allprint ComPanY.

Mulamoottil, G and Plan/Geog 661 gradu-

ate students. 1991 . Plan/Geog 661 WaterResources of The Bechtel Park Area.Submitted to the City of Waterloo,Waterloo, ON.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, WaterResources Branch. 1976. Water WellRecords for Ontario Regional Municipalityof Waterloo, County of Wellington, 1946-

1 976.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System;Southern Manual, NEST Technical ManualTM-002. Third Edition. Toronto, Ontario.

Roth, D. 1991 . Bechtel Park Master Plan.

City of Waterloo, Depadment of Planningand Development.

Rubec, C.D.A. 1980. Wetlands in UrbanCentres in Canada, Environment Canada,Ottawa.

Tyler, M.E. and ES 500 graduate students.1990. ES 500 Environmental ManagementReporl. Submitted to the City of Waterloo,Waterloo.

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesYol.22. No. 1,1997

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

MC

YS

/ MC

SS]

at 1

5:27

02

Aug

ust 2

013