Greg Nancekivell and Jeremy Taylor, with R.J. Burnside and associates presented the Black Creek Municipal Drain Report. This fulfills the statutory Public Meeting requirements of the Drainage Act.
The acceptance of the report was considered with item 6.1 Drainage Report DRA-2025-12.
Presentations from the Engineer
The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Engineer's Drainage Report. The meeting is held to consider the design and location of the system, specifications in the report. This meeting does not address distributions of costs, as this is done during the Court of Revision process.
Greg Nancekivell provided a detailed overview of the Engineer’s Report, which included:
- Historical context of the Black Creek drain
- Description of the watershed and impacted areas
- Outline of proposed works
- Anticipated outcomes of the project
The report is designed to restore the Black Creek Municipal Drain to the standards set in the original 1920s design, while aligning with current engineering and environmental regulations. The proposed works include a private bridge reconstruction, as requested by the landowner under provisions of the Drainage Act.
Key points presented:
- Project Cost: $1,715,000 (excluding the private bridge cost of $350,000)
- Appendix B (Page 2): Summary of costs
- Agency Timing Constraints: Construction timing will be impacted by regulatory agency requirements, including Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) timing windows.
Following the filing of the report, Council requested the Engineer to:
- Investigate the use of new technology or equipment
- Explore the feasibility of utilizing the existing 1987 Z Branch instead of constructing a new channel
As a result:
- The Engineers attended a technology demonstration at Clam Lake
- It was determined the equipment would not be suitable for the proposed project but may be appropriate for annual maintenance
- A new channel, as outlined in the report, is still recommended due to:
- Improved visual inspection capabilities
- Simplified beaver monitoring
- Avoidance of fish habitat disruption under (Department of Oceans and Fisheries) DFO regulations
Environmental & Regulatory Considerations:
DFO: Any work in Branch Z would be classified as fish habitat destruction, requiring a full permit process. A Letter of Advice would only require adherence to best management practices, which could be obtained for works within the proposed new channel. The fact that destruction of habitat may restore itself is not considered by the DFO in these types of permitting decisions.
SVCA: Expressed concern about spoil leveling. The Engineer’s arborist advised spoil depth should ideally not exceed 6 inches to ensure effective regeneration. The Conservation authority has been amendable to the plan to clear a working corridor for equipment, and to enable visual inspections of the drainage system.
Presentations from the Public
All property owners affected by the drain had the opportunity to influence Council's decision.
Rob Morris (1200 Concession 14): Asked for details on flooding impact and value of affected lands. The Engineer responded that properties impacted by flooding include Silver Lake, agricultural land, and areas along the South Branch, but the value of the impact of this flooding was not part of the report. Nancekivell reported that spring run-off and heavy rainfall events have been causing the majority of flooding.
Dave Rushton (Concession 14): Asked if a hydrologist was involved. Burnside confirmed they use internal modeling. Nancekivell is not anticipating any potential backflow effects south of Concession 14.
Ron Wilson (Concession 14): Questioned the inclusion of the private bridge in the project. Burnside clarified this was requested by the landowner, as it is used by farming equipment and permitted under the Drainage Act. Landowners are entitled to a crossing where a drain cuts off access on their lands.
Jeremy McQuinn (Concession 14): Noted that 30 beavers had been removed in the area.
Kevin Kuntz (has property owned by a Numbered Company, bordering Clam and Silver Lake): Asked about anticipated lake level changes. Burnside explained:
- No structures are included in the report for lake level control
- A difference of 18 inches exists between the lakes
- Maintaining the connecting channel could reduce Silver Lake’s level by 18 inches; additional reduction could result from downstream cleanout
- There is no prediction on how the clam lake levels will be lowered based on downstream cleanouts, but the intention is to return the levels to as close to the original 1920's design as practicable.
Kuntz additionally inquired about the height of the dams between the two lakes. This information was not available at the meeting.
Rob Morris requested more information on the working corridors. Nancekivell explained that the works were not expected to raise the bank on the north side, but would include brushing the trees back from the bank.
Rick McArthur (13th Avenue): Expressed concern that removing 2–4 feet of water from the lake would harm the ecosystem. The engineer clarified that the design elevations of the ditch bottom would be returned to original design, which does not call for specific lake levels, which can fluctuate in a wetland area. The report is not proposing any works or construction through the noted area where McArthur identified the eco-system.
The Engineer is working with the regulatory agencies (DFO and SVCA) to mitigate risks to the eco-system, and parts of clam lake are intended to function as they are currently to further reduce those risks.
Joe Schmitt (Concession 14): Asked about maintenance responsibilities, which were outlined in the report. The Drainage Superintendent is responsible in each municipality to ensure maintenance works are completed. The report provides a mechanism for future assessment of maintenance costs. The Engineer did not have information on assessment costs for maintenance works performed in South Bruce earlier this year.
An unidentified landowner with property on Silver Lake inquired about future maintenance, and whether lake levels had been recorded on both ends of the channel in the same day. The Engineer provided details of these measurements. The landowner expressed concerns that if farmland upstream is tiled, and the work within the report is not completed that it will create additional flooding upstream.
Debbie Hodgins (Southline): Also had questions regarding the private bridge noted in the Engineer's Report. Burnside confirmed landowners are entitled to access under the Act, and upstream properties are assessed accordingly.
Jim Eddyvean (Mouth of Black Creek): Asked if the work would be tendered. Staff confirmed that it will proceed under the Township’s procurement policy.
Rob Morris: Asked if flooding at the culvert on the 25th sideroad had been considered within this report. Burnside confirmed it was included, and replacement of the culverts is recommended. Costs would fall to the road authority under Section 26 of the Drainage Act.
At this time, the Mayor read two letters which were sent to Council.
Robert Johnson's letter included support for keeping the location of the existing interlake channel, and concerns regarding lack of maintenance.
Dave Hanna's letter included support for keeping the location of the existing interlake channel, and provided information on a floating excavator which they own, proposing that this equipment could be used to maintain the existing watercourse. Hanna also noted the lack of maintenance contributing to the drainage issues. The Engineer confirmed this is the same equipment which they referenced in the demonstration they received regarding alternative equipment options.
Cliff Brindley: Inquired about the timber being felled through construction. The practice of the Engineers is to leave the felled timbers for the landowners.
Ron Wilson: Raised concerns about watershed coverage and inquired past maintenance of the South Branch. The Townships Drainage Superintendent, Ben Gowing provided an update on the anticipated maintenance works being conducted in that area this autumn. Gowing expressed concern about outlet capacity, suggesting that Work outlined in the report must be completed before outlets can support additional upstream drainage improvements.
Wilson additionally cited concerns about impacts to the Teeswater River of additional flows. The report does not address the Teeswater river as a natural watercourse, but it does address drainage to the natural outlet of the river.
Additional comments were heard from members of the public regarding concerns with the inclusion of a private bridge crossing, and support for the consideration of using the existing Z branch rather than constructing a new channel.
Questions and Clarifications from Council
Council questioned the rationale for leaving the eastern portion of Clam Lake untouched. The Engineer noted that the proposed alignment follows stable ground and that in-water construction would require increased ongoing maintenance and introduce regulatory challenges.
In discussion on the Interlake Channel. Council considered whether the original alignment could be reconsidered instead of creating a new channel. The Engineer noted that a Council motion would be required to refer the report back for redesign.
The Engineer estimated that if required, a Letter of Credit for DFO would be approximately $10,000, to be issued by the Township.
Council inquired if Cost-Benefit Analysis had been completed. The Engineer noted that it is not required under the Drainage Act and had not been completed. The Engineer clarified that should Council request a Cost-Benefit analysis be done, that Section 7 of the Drainage Act requires costs to be paid from the Township's general funds, and not as part of the watersheds drainage assessments.
The Clerk provided clarity to Council discussions on accepting the report as written and asking for modifications to be brought back. Changes to the report would require the report to be referred back to the Engineer, as the report is accepted as a whole and not in parts.
The Drainage Superintendent recommended a full cleanout along the entire course of the drain to minimize long-term costs and ensure effective flow, noting that partial cleanouts could lead to higher costs over time.
Council discussed Culverts and Bridges proposed in the report. The existing private bridge is not adequate for the crossing, being undersized and creating a restriction to water flow. Replacement is needed to meet current standards and design. Council discussed whether a more cost-effective design could be implemented safely. The Engineer provided information to Council on the entitlement of landowners to a crossing under the Drainage Act, clarifying that if the crossing isn't approved in this report, the landowner can still request that it be done independent of the report with the costs assessed to all upstream landowners.
Final Comments from the Public
Cliff Brindley: Noted that on the Culross (Bunker Hill) ditch, all beaver dams were removed, leaving no water in the creek.
Final Call for Questions: No further questions from the public.