Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 2011) CITY RESPONSE (October 2012) RESPONSE
comment within the MESPA related to potential
conflict between the pond, and Regional
infrastructure. If conflicts are deemed a concern
by City staff, from an operations and
maintenance perspective, and alternative pond
location may be required.
REPORT CHAPTER
AND SECTION
Archaeological Assessment Required
The number of dots in this column indicates the level of archaeological
assessment required for the site. Given that Pond 46B requires a Stage 4
Archaeological Assessment it seems very likely that this will not be a
suitable site for a pond.
The location of SWMF #46B has no implications with
respect to Archaeological Assessment. All
archaeological assessments have been completed with
the exception of SWMF #2, 24 and 30. These
investigations will be completed as part of the NFSSR
work.
No further concerns.
No response required.
Chapter B
Appendix B6
Competing Land Uses for the Pond Block
Sites with known competing land uses, not including those due to the
Region of Durham’s Class Environmental Assessment for Regional
Services in the City of Pickering and the floodplain, should protect for an
alternative pond location. This includes Ponds 2 and 15. Furthermore, as
Pond 1 is not located in Seaton and has extensive issues with respect to
the servicing for this facility and potential groundwater contamination from
the landfill, an alternative location for the pond must be provided.
SWMFs 1 and 2 have been relocated. With respect to
the location for SWMF15, there is adequate space to
accommodate this SWMF and the proposed GO Station
Site. This use will require stormwater treatment and the
proposed SWMF location is appropriate.
No further concerns.
No response required.
Chapter B
Appendix B6
• Stormwater Management Plan (Section 8.0)
A detailed review of the recommended SWM plan in the MESP has
indicated that the type and location of the best management practices
(BMP’s) have not been selected with consideration for the NHS, future
operations and maintenance requirements or safety as required in the
CPDP.
As seen in Appendix A of our letter, there are several issues that have
been identified with respect to the viability of the pond location shown in
the MESP. For example, 59 of the 69 ponds will require a liner due to
high groundwater elevations, 42 of the 69 ponds will outlet to intermittent
streams, 32 of the 69 ponds have grade differences of 5m or greater
across their pond blocks and 59 of the 69 ponds will require special
considerations for a safe and secure outlet. Due to these issues there are
serious concerns around the location, type and feasibility of the BMPs
that are being recommended in the MESP and how the site selection
process conforms with the intent of CPDP.
An evaluation of alternatives and a comprehensive
SWM/LID strategy have been prepared and presented
in the MESPA.
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
LID measures will be undertaken in the NFSSRs.
The Annotated Table of Contents prepared for the
NFSSRs and presented in Chapter J, Appendix J2, of
the MESPA outlines the requirements for a stormwater
cost analysis. No further information is presented in the
MESPA.
No further concerns.
No response required.
Chapter J
Appendix J2
In addition, the preferred stormwater management strategy has not been
selected based on the financial implications of long term maintenance
requirements of these BMPs for the City. Future maintenance costs were
not considered or included in the evaluation of the SWM alternatives, and
there was no discussion or analysis of this in the MESP.
Life cycle costs need to be completed to make the best informed
decisions on the preferred stormwater management strategy. This cradleto-grave
timeframe is warranted because future costs associated with the
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 15
Amos Environment + Planning