Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Comments in white are satisfied. Comments in orange background are not satisfied or are new comments. Comments in blue background can be addressed at the NFSSR stage. Comments in yellow are deferred due to need for hydrology model. APPENDIX A. TRCA COMMENTS ON SEATON MESPA DECEMBER 2011; MESPA TEAM RESPONSE FEBRUARY 2013 # Section # Page # in PDF TRCA Comment Action Required 30. 5.2.4 130 TRCA is concerned with applying a set of Assess and establish independent criteria for thresholds from one watercourse to another (i.e. Whitevale and the West Duffins separately. applying a set of criteria for the West Duffins to the Whitevale Creek. Each watershed is different from the next and has different processes which cause erosion. 31. 5.2.4 130 We are unsure whether the downstream areas (i.e. Duffin Heights) have been included in the erosion assessment. 32. 5.2.4 130 The QUALHYMO model should be calibrated with frequent flows, to ensure the hydrology model used in the assessment is appropriate and reflects watershed conditions. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Under review. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 The erosion assessment is updated (Section B5.9.1), identifying additional sensitive reaches, including site W6 on Whitevale Creek. Additional analysis is provided along Whitevale in Section B5.8.2. Confirm or update the assessment. Under review. As discussed in Section B5.9.1 and shown on Figure B5.7, the Duffin Heights area has been included in the erosion assessment. Please verify if this has been done, if not, please calibrate the QUALHYMO model. Please see Appendix A, Peer Review Comments related to instream erosion, specifically comment 3-7 for further details. Calibration of QUALHYMO model discussed with agencies on April 5, 2011. The QUALHYMO modelling is discussed in detail in Section B5.9.3. Calibration was completed using available streamflow data at the Urfe gauge. TRCA Comment on MESPA Addressed – Erosion Analysis to be revisited when hydrology model has been updated. Addressed – Erosion Analysis to be revisited when hydrology model has been updated. Erosion Analysis to be revisited when hydrology model has been updated. Significantly more data is available for the study area than that used as part of the calibration process of the QUALHYMO model, which is currently using the period of 1998-2003 for calibration. The majority of the gauging in this location (including both precipitation and stream gauging) was installed after 2003. The time period should be expanded to include more recently collected data, or shifted entirely to the 2003-2011 period where more data is available. For instance, the stream gauge on the Ganatsekiagon was installed in 2010. Rain gauges within the watershed would also be available throughout the study period if a more recent time period was selected, rather than the use of the Oshawa Gauge. In all cases, the best available information should be incorporated into the study. If information has not yet been obtained, please contact TRCA. TRCA has also changed the labeling used to identify its rain and stream gauges as follows: Stream Gauges Team Response February 2013 The Erosion Analysis has not been revisited as it has been established that the 2011 MESPA erosion analysis served its purpose to provide direction on the need for SWMFs and LID measures, in addition to confirming the extended detention criteria for SWMFs. Refer to Section B5.2 The Erosion Analysis has not been revisited as it has been established that the 2011 MESPA erosion analysis served its purpose to provide direction on the need for SWMFs and LID measures, in addition to confirming the extended detention criteria for SWMFs. Refer to Section B5.2 The Erosion Analysis has not been revisited as it has been established that the 2011 MESPA erosion analysis served its purpose to provide direction on the need for SWMFs and LID measures, in addition to confirming the extended detention criteria for SWMFs. Refer to Section B5.2 HC019 HC038 HC049 HY065 HY028 HY023 HY010 HY047 Duffins Creek Above Pickering West Duffins Above Green River Duffins Creek At Ajax Urfe Creek Ganatsekiagon Creek East Duffins at Claremont Brougham Creek Mitchell Creek PAGE 7 February 2013
Comments in white are satisfied. Comments in orange background are not satisfied or are new comments. Comments in blue background can be addressed at the NFSSR stage. Comments in yellow are deferred due to need for hydrology model. APPENDIX A. TRCA COMMENTS ON SEATON MESPA DECEMBER 2011; MESPA TEAM RESPONSE FEBRUARY 2013 # Section # Page # in PDF TRCA Comment Action Required Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Action Taken MESPA December 2011 TRCA Comment on MESPA Team Response February 2013 HY066 West Duffins At Highway 7 HY082 Reesor Creek @ 8th Conc. Rain Gauges HY001 Ajax Works Yard HY031 Goodwood Pumping Station HY015 Claremont Shop HY051 Petticoat CA HY043 Reesor Creek near Highway 7 NEW 1 5.9.3.3 111 Section B5.9.3.3 states that LID measures are incorporated into the model by reducing the impervious area to account for the runoff reduction, but section B2.3.2 states that the depression storage was increased. Please provide details on the process of accounting for LIDs in the model in the QUALHYMO section – what % decrease in runoff or depression storage increase was used for each practice. This is not explicit in Section B4.7 and should be clarified. Clarify process. Prepare a table based on land use, LID method and drainage catchment and neighbourhood #. HY009 Brock West Landfill The third paragraph of Section B2.3.2 of the 2011 MESPA states the following: “The percent reduction in surface runoff volume from the PRMS model was then incorporated into the QUALHYMO model.” The PRMS model looked at depression storage for modelling of the LID measures so maybe that is the confusion. A table has been referenced in Section B5.2.3.5 and provided in Appendix B5-B. A tabular format based on land use, LID method and drainage catchment or neighbourhood would be helpful. NEW 2 5.9.3.4 The Whitevale Creek Erosion Assessment states that “there will be minimal change in erosion potential in this location during frequent storm events regardless of whether or not quantity controls are provided on SWMFs within the subwatershed.” (p. 115) Update based on hydrology. Refer to Section B5.3 of the revised MESPA. Given that quantity controls are designed to reduce peak flows during less frequently occurring events, it would follow that the quantity control component of a SWM pond would have little to no impact on frequently occurring events. Thus, this statement is misleading. Even if the analysis for Whitevale Creek can show that flood impacts can be mitigated, the TRCA does not support QUALHYMO as an effective measure for determining the impacts of less frequent storm events on erosion. TRCA has experienced significant creek erosion that has occurred during single large events (August 19, 2005), and are concerned that these impacts are not being properly addressed as part of this analysis. More will be known about the proposed changes in flow when the hydrology model is updated, however, current information shows that the proposed 2 year rainfall event is greater than the pre development 100 year event. TRCA expect PAGE 8 February 2013
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 and 58: COMMENT • Section 3.0, last sente
Page 59 and 60: COMMENT Reg”, should be removed.
Page 61 and 62: RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS SWMF LOCA
Page 67 and 68: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
Page 71: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
Page 103: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
show all

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?