Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 2011) CITY RESPONSE (October 2012) RESPONSE
development (LID) measures to reduce the number of end-of-pipe facilities
and minimize the runoff volume from development. A more thorough LID
analysis including integration of the LID measures into the water management
modelling would confirm that using LIDs will certainly not only reduce the
number and size of end-of-pipe facilities, but also the type.
groundwater recharge, etc. As a result, a
comprehensive SWM/LID strategy is provided for
Seaton. In addition and as discussed at the meeting
and incorporated into the agreed-upon Table of
Contents for the NFSSRs, further analyses of LID
measures and options will be undertaken in the
NFSSRs.
REPORT CHAPTER
AND SECTION
The use of dry ponds as well as co-locating dry facilities within park areas or
playing fields as Brockridge Park is a more sustainable approach to
stormwater management and result in dramatically lower future maintenance
requirements and costs for the City. A current example of this can be seen in
the City’s Brockridge Park at the Brock Road and Finch Avenue area.
The potential use of dry ponds and co-locating SWMF
within parks is noted in Section B6.2.
Section B6.2
Following a detailed review of the MESP, 42 of the 69 end-of-pipe facilities
are discharging to intermittent streams. This is of great concern with respect
to erosion and movement of the streams in the future, as they will ultimately
become permanently flowing, with the application of the recommended
erosion criteria (i.e. 25mm for 120 hours). Alternatively, runoff volume control
through the implementation of LID’s may be required in these circumstances
such that post-development runoff volumes are minimized.
Development of a sustainable LID strategy with respect to full life cycle costs,
including long term maintenance and operations, will be required at the
NFSSR stage. The framework or outline for this LID strategy needs to be
approved prior to submitting the NFSSR’s to the City.
Headwater drainage feature water balance assessments
have been complete that, along with the erosion
assessments, address the issue of discharge of flows
into intermittent drainage features. See Section B10.
The MESPA addresses a framework for LID measures
that is to be further assessed at the NFSSR stage. This
requirement is noted in Section B2.3 and the Table of
Contents for the NFSSRs (Appendix J2).
Section B10.0
Section B10.0
Section B2.3 and
Appendix J2
Stormwater Management Alternatives
There seems to be an over reliance on end-of-pipe facilities from the outset to
provide water quality, erosion control and flood control when other
approaches are more environmentally sustainable and appropriate. The
cumulative impact of these end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities
could potentially increase channel erosion and deteriorate aquatic habitats
within the associated watercourses, which is contrary to the principles and
objectives of the CPDP. To offset these impacts, there needs to be greater
emphasis on considering “state-of-the-art” stormwater management
approaches to manage runoff volumes and release rates rather than
conventional stormwater management practices which only manage release
rates. A more thorough discussion of stormwater management alternatives in
the MESP Amendment is required in order to address the water management
criteria and sustainability.
An evaluation of alternatives and a comprehensive
SWM/LID strategy have been prepared. Further,
detailed modelling and analysis, presented in Chapter B
Sections B5 through B9 identified storage and
discharge design criteria, flood control requirements and
erosion control resulting in the reduction of SWMFs to
60. The modelling has confirmed that these end-of-pipe
solutions are required.
In addition and as discussed at various meetings with
the agencies and incorporated into the agreed-upon
Table of Contents for the NFSSRs, further analyses of
site specific alternatives and options will be undertaken
in the NFSSRs.
The City will accept the SWM/LID strategy that
has been presented within the MESPA, so long
as a funding solution can be found with respect
to the operations and maintenance
requirements of the recommended SWM/LID
strategy.
No action required. A funding solution has
been found through the Fiscal Impact Study
for operations and maintenance
requirements for the SWM/LID strategy.
Stormwater Management Plan and Facilities (NEW COMMENT)
Having received Pickering Council endorsement, in December 2011, the City
released its “Stormwater Management Design Guidelines”, which outlines the
design requirements for stormwater management facilities. It is the City’s
expectation that the SLG will meet the objectives and design requirements as
The MESPA references the City’s “Stormwater Management Design Guidelines” in Chapter B Section 6.0 and in Chapter J Section 2.0. Additionally, the
City of Pickering OPA No. 22 is referenced in Chapter A. The City has agreed to conduct a consultation session to review the SMDG with the purpose of
ensuring that the Guidelines are considered appropriate for implementation in Seaton recognizing the significant level of environmental review and
consultation that has been completed as part of the MESPA and the long term operation and maintenance analysis that was completed as part of the City
Fiscal Impact Study.
Chapter A, Section
A8.0; Chapter B,
Section B6.0 and
Chapter J, Section
The Sernas Group Inc., Stonybrook Consulting Inc. December 2011, Revised February 2013 Master Environmental Servicing Plan - Amendment
SPL Beatty, Bird and Hale Limited, Earthfx Inc. 07161 Seaton Community, City of Pickering
AMEC Earth & Environmental, R.J. Burnside Appendix A7 – Page 4
Amos Environment + Planning