Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COMMENT within an area designated as school/park block by the developers). • Although allowances have been made within the MESPA to accommodate the drainage area (and runoff coefficient) from the regional road network, little to no allowance has been given to how the road will drain to the proposed SWM ponds. The majority of the pond locations are also not located in a suitable location to pick up the runoff from the regional roads. Unless this is addressed it means that separate and independent SWM facilities will be required for the roads and will add a large long term maintenance cost and obligation to the Region. RESPONSE Drainage from Regional roads has been addressed in Chapter D, Section 3.4. Wherever possible, drainage from Regional roads will be directed via storm sewers to SWMFs. Where this is not possible, in-situ SWM controls must be provided for the Regional road drainage to meet the quality, erosion and water balance criteria. The exact drainage areas and outfall locations will be established during the NFSSR and detailed design process. Additionally, direction on this issue and more detailed delineation of drainage areas and pond locations undertaken as part of the NFSSRs was given to the Region, and the Region’s consultant Genivar, in an email from Andrea Keeping at GHD on November 6 th , 2011. This correspondence is included in Appendix H15. REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION Toronto & Region Conservation Authority – October 31, 2012 Ministry of Natural Resources – April 27, 2012 Chapter E – Endangered Species The detailed response to TRCA comments is provided in Appendix A7 Appendix A7 • The project will need to be assessed for the presence of other newly-listed species including Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow. Please note that Atlantic Salmon is no longer considered a species at risk and should be removed from the list. • Regulation 242/08 is the habitat regulation. Section 23.1 is not an exemption provision. It is a transition provision for certain development and infrastructure proposals that have received approval-in-principle. • Please confirm if you are making reference to the Environmental Assessment Act, rather than the Environmental Protection Act. It is acknowledged that additional species have been added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List (SARO List) since the completion of the MESPA. As explained in Section E6.0, changes to the SARO List can be anticipated on an on-going basis. The MESP cannot go back and address additional Listed species as they are added. It will be the responsibility of all proponents to ensure that the ESA and its regulations are met as development proceeds. Atlantic Salmon has been removed from all text in the chapter. Chapter E6.0 Chapter E1.1 The text has been revised accordingly. Chapter E1.2 The correction has been made to refer to the EA Act. Chapter E1.2 • It is premature to comment on the application of the transition provisions in this document. Noted; clarification has been added to the text. Chapter E1.2 • The agricultural exemptions for Bobolink are not relevant to this project as this is a proposal development, not an agricultural use. • Least Bittern is protected as a species however it does not currently have habitat protection under Endangered Species Act; the reference should be removed from the report. • Please note that permits are flexibility tools that allow a proponent to do something negative to a species or its habitat where it can be demonstrated that an overall benefit to a species can be achieved. Clarification has been added to the text. Chapter E1.2 The correction has been made. Chapter E1.2 Acknowledged. No response required. Chapter E1.2 • Reference to Redside Dace should be removed from this section as it does not appear to be relevant. There are least five species which are being considered for permits at this time. Please also note that Butternut Planting plans only apply when there are less than 10 trees being impacted. The reference has been removed. Acknowledged. Chapter E1.2 • Under Section E4, the sentence beginning “Specifically, Reg 242/08, known as the General The text has been revised accordingly. Chapter E1.2 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 35 Amos Environment + Planning
COMMENT Reg”, should be removed. The terminology used should refer to 17(2)(c) permits. RESPONSE REPORT CHAPTER AND SECTION • Please remove references to Reg. 293/11; the correct reference is Ontario Regulation 242/08. The text has been revised accordingly. Chapter E1.2 • The habitat regulation of Redside Dace is 242/08. Please correct this throughout the document. The text has been revised accordingly. Chapter E, throughout • As stated above, Atlantic Salmon is no longer considered a species at risk. Noted, Atlantic Salmon has been removed from all text in the chapter. Chapter E, throughout • It is unlikely that MNR will accept an Overall Benefit Plan (OBP) plan that only includes fish passage improvements and barrier removals. The OBP must be tied to impacts of the project (i.e. stormwater management (SWM) ponds, decreased water quality, and habitat destruction). Attached is the MNR’s draft document “Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat: February 2011”. This document provides guidance to persons interested in developing areas in southern Ontario that have Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongates) habitat. This guidance document identifies best management practices for development activities to avoid or mitigate impacts on Redside Dace and their habitat. It should be used to develop the SWM component of the MESPA as well as the functional servicing reports and SWM plans and will also provide guidance for the preparation of the 17(2)(c) permits relative to Redside Dace habitat. Additional text for clarification has been provided in this section. Chapter E3.5 • Please remove reference to “overall benefit permitting” and replace with “permitting” throughout the document. The text has been revised accordingly. Chapter E, throughout • All properties proposed for Bobolink habitat must be assessed for suitability before being accepted by the MNR. • The monitoring conditions of each permit will be determined in the future through discussions with MNR. Please note that what has been proposed in the MESP may not be sufficient. Noted; clarification has been added. Chapter E4.1 Acknowledged; additional clarification added to text. Chapter E4.1 Region of York – February 28, 2012 Response from Robert Major, Infrastructure Planning Engineer, Environmental Services Department, Capital Planning & Delivery Branch No response required “I work in water and wastewater planning group of York Region. Our team has reviewed the above noted MESPA and we have no concerns with it. However, please keep us updated on the progress of the project.” Metrolinx – March 12, 2012 Chapter C - Transportation Metrolinx: The Big Move • One statement in this section refers incorrectly to The Big Move. Please remove the last sentence in this section: “Recent revisions to the plan include light rail transit (LRT) Noted; text deleted. Chapter C1.3.1 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 36 Amos Environment + Planning
Page 1 and 2:
CHAPTER A - INTRODUCTION 1.0 STUDY
Page 3 and 4:
of alternatives for the arterial an
Page 5 and 6:
These MESP study requirements were
Page 7 and 8: ownership of the Province. Lands ou
Page 9 and 10: Within the MESP Study Area, Ganatse
Page 11 and 12: hydrology for erosion and flood con
Page 13 and 14: It is important to note that the ME
Page 15 and 16: projects are considered pre-approve
Page 17 and 18: Table A9.2 provides a summary of th
Page 19 and 20: the Environment for Part II Order r
Page 21 and 22: • Takes into account externally p
Page 23 and 24: YORK DURHAM LINE SIDELINE 32 NORTH
Page 25 and 26: COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 20
Page 33 and 34: Area Parks over 4 hectares Parks 4
Page 41 and 42: COMMENT It is noted that the first
Page 43 and 44: COMMENT dispersed in terms of date.
Page 45 and 46: COMMENT Staff agrees with this reco
Page 47 and 48: species.” COMMENT GHD should furt
Page 49 and 50: COMMENT RESPONSE REPORT CHAPTER AND
Page 51 and 52: COMMENT was endorsed by City Counci
Page 53 and 54: COMMENT 3. Highway 7 Widening - Thi
Page 55 and 56: COMMENT 4. Section 4.0 - Phase 2 Re
Page 57: COMMENT • Section 3.0, last sente
Page 61 and 62: RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS SWMF LOCA
Page 67 and 68: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
Page 103: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
show all

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?