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 41. 6.2 152 Most of the SWMFs will be located either wholly or partially within the NHS. The cumulative impact of the type and location of SWM facilities on the NHS needs to be understood by calculating the area of NHS land base that will be lost to the facilities. 42. 6.2 152 SWMFs within the NHS cannot be fenced, particularly those within the corridors. 43. 6.2 152 The SWMF sizing may need to increase as part of refined modeling. This could have implications on natural features where sites are constrained. 44. 6.2 152 SWMFs are proposed within thicket communities in some instances. During the staking exercise for Seaton, TRCA and MNR stated that these communities needed to be included in the NHS. As a result of further discussions, they were included without buffers, e.g. in the area of SWMFs #12 and #16. Provide an analysis of the total reduction in NHS area proportionally within Seaton, i.e. it was originally 53% and what will it be when all of the infrastructure is in place? Provide confirmation. Provide confirmation that any SWMF size increase resulting from further detailed analysis will respect the required buffers such that the increases will be accommodated on the development side, or that the SWMF will be relocated. Relocate SMWFs to avoid thicket communities. Acknowledged. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 The need for and location of fences is sitespecific and will be determined at the NFSSR stage. Acknowledged. Any increased in SWMF block will occur on development land and there will be no additional intrusion into the NHS. The .team is investigating each of these locations in detail and will confirm the suitability of each SWMF location. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 In principle, we do not accept that up to 50% use of the NHS linkage is too much, and considering that this criterion was accepted in Duffin Heights. Section B6.3 discusses the criteria for SWMFs in linkages. As noted, each location was considered individually and, as discussed in Section B6.3, except for seven SWMFs (18, 20, 22, 35, 44, 49, 50A), the created linkage areas between natural features (i.e. across agricultural land) and along stream corridors were affected by a facility by less than 25% of their width. For two of the seven, the extent into the linkage/connectivity is either just slightly greater than 25% (#49) or only greater than 25% for a short distance (#18 and 35). The extent of the seven SWMFs into the linkage/connectivity may be reduced through detailed design. In all locations, the existing and anticipated corridor linkage/connectivity functions will not be negatively impacted by the locations of the SWMFs. Section B6.2 notes that approximately 26% of required SWMF area is in the NHS, representing 1.3% of the NHS area. No action required. In Section B6.2 and Table B6.1 it clearly states that although modifications can be made to the configuration of SWMFs, such modification must take into consideration the policies of the City of Pickering Seaton Conformity Amendment, and explicitly the minimum buffer requirements of policy 7.17. SWMF matrices are revised to address each location. There are no SWMFs located in thickets. TRCA Comment on MESPA driven by changes in the school block and was only the result of 1 pond, not 60+. There are policies in the CPDP that strive to maintain corridor functions that need to be upheld. Seaton is striving for something better than what was intended to be achieved through Duffin Heights. Based on this, Duffin Heights is not an appropriate model for Seaton. SWM ponds are not the only infrastructure proposed within the NHS. There will be roads, servicing, municipal infrastructure, utilities, outfalls, garden plots, etc. TRCA is concerned about the total cumulative impact on the NHS, especially given that the municipal SWMF outfall access road and overland flow requirements. While we understand that it is difficult to calculate an area or percentage of NHS that will be impacted by this infrastructure, we would like to have further dialog with the City of Pickering and MNR to determine how to minimize the impacts and compensate for losses to the NHS. For example, we would like to solidify scenarios where access roads are or are not required. This should be referenced in the MESP. Action was required, confirming that SWMFs within the NHS will not be fenced unless where public safety is paramount. To be addressed at the NFSSR stage. Comment addressed through Conformity OP. Noted. Team Response February 2013 that the 25% maximum intrusion requested by TRCA is not a CPDP mandate, these seven (of 57) SWMFs continue to extend to lesser and greater amounts into the linkage, while maintaining linkage function. The intrusions into the NHS are those directed or allowed by the CPDP. Therefore compensation for these intrusions is not required. Notwithstanding this, the MESPA either examined the locations of these intrusions to minimize impacts to the NHS or directed that the design should minimize the impacts to features and functions of the NHS. With regard to access roads and overland flow route requirements, on-going dialogue is occurring with the City and TRCA. Chapter B6.4 directs that the access road and overland flow route locations be confirmed in the field to minimize impacts to the NHS. These actions would occur at NFSSRs and detailed design. Comment acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSRs. PAGE 11 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 45. 6.2 152 Some parts of the Iroquois Shoreline were not The Province needs to resolve this as prohibiting included in the NHS, and are therefore SWMFs in the Iroquois Shoreline may be developable; however, the CPDP policy does not counterproductive for water balance purposes as allow SWMFs in these areas. these may be the best opportunities to infiltrate. 46. 6.2 152 How will erosion be prevented where SWMFs outlet to sandy soils? 47. 6.2 152 The SWMF matrices often indicate that a water balance is not required for forest communities as the forest is supported by precipitation. However, this is not the case in many instances as it appears from the contours that forests are downgradient so they could be affected by changes in drainage. 48. 6.2 153 This section includes the statement that “Minor modifications to the extent of these buffers may be acceptable, as determined through detailed, site specific investigations at the EIS/FSS stage of development, although any reductions may necessitate the need for a permit from TRCA (Ontario Regulation 166/06).” The section needs to be revised to reflect the policies in the City’s Conformity Amendment with respect to uses and grading permitted in the NHS. Remove the reference to O. Reg. 166/06 as it will not be relevant in many cases. 49. Table B6.1 154 There are concerns with the 7% preliminary pond sizing criterion. Given the uncertainty with the hydrologic model, the Regional assessment, and the erosion assessment, the 7% assumption may not be appropriate, and at a minimum should be verified with actual data. 50. Table B6.1 154 The SWM plan details further study requirements in relation to the location of SWMFs. Illustrating exact SWMF locations at this time may be premature as specific studies (e.g. geotechnical, Hydro G, fluvial), are required to finalize the SWMF locations. 51. Table B6.1 154 In addition to the above please note that the meander belt assessment discussed in Table 6.1 is not appropriate in all circumstances. A detailed assessment using the appropriate methodology will be required at the subsequent phase. 52. 6.3 158 One of the criteria used for determining the location of SWMFs included restricting encroachment to half the width of the linkage, or a minimum of 50 m. This is not in keeping with the NHS principles. There is no consideration of the cumulative impact of these facilities on the NHS. Provide an explanation and assessment. Provide water balance assessments for forest communities as necessary. Revise to reflect the policies in the City’s Conformity Amendment Complete a “test” using conservative assumptions (i.e. Regional control requirements) to verify this criterion. Update relevant sections of the MESP, and include in the ToR for the NFSSRs. Include in the ToR for the NFSSRs. As discussed at the meetings, the facilities should be located so as to limit their encroachment to a minimum of 25% of the corridor width. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Further discussion required. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 As detailed in Section B6.2, discussions with agencies clarified the use of the Iroquois Shoreline for SWMFs. The direction provided is that justification and geotechnical support is required for locating SWMFs on the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. There are two SWMFs that are located completely or partially on the Lake Iroquois Shoreline: SWMFs 14 and 30. The justification and support for these SWMFs to be located on the Shoreline will be discussed in more detail at the NFSSR stage. No action required. The design of outlets is site-specific and will be determined at the NFSSR stage. Acknowledged. Woodland screening and water balance assessments were undertaken and are reported in a new section of the MESPA, Section B9. Acknowledged. This is a standard ‘rule of thumb’ that is considered reasonable for the MESP. The need for a larger or smaller area is determined at the NFSSR stage. If an increase or decrease in area is required, this will occur within the development area. The approach to the SWMF matrices was established through discussions with the agencies and agreed upon in 2008. The matrices identify the general pond locations and not exact configuration. The MESP is clear that additional study will be required to determine the exact SWMF location. The matrices considered topographical, geotechnical, hydrogeological and fluvial information and other data necessary to support the general locations as shown. The table was intended to provide direction for the general location of SWMFs (see comment 50). Section B6.2 makes explicit reference to the City of Pickering Seaton Conformity Amendment and specifically policy 7.17 related to buffers; the reference to Ontario Regulation 166/06 is removed. In Table B6.1, it states that if detailed grading show that larger SWMF blocks are required, revisions may be made to pond locations/ configurations, however, all previously stated criteria and policies must be met. This clarifies the intent of wording in the column to the left in this table. The table of contents for the NFSSRs (Appendix J2) reflects the requirements for specific studies to identify specific pond locations. Table B6.1 has been removed. The table of contents for the NFSSRs requires assessment of meander belts. Noted. TRCA Comment on MESPA Not addressed. See comments related to erosion and small tributaries. Noted. See comments below. The text still states that “Modifications to the extent of these MESPA buffers may be acceptable, if so determined through detailed site specific investigations at the NFSSR stage of development, and must take into consideration the policies of the City of Pickering Seaton Conformity”. We do not support the noted flexibility that is provided in the text to allow for changes to the buffers at the NFSSR stage. This wording needs to be removed. Team Response February 2013 See response to Comment #28 above. Clarification has been provided in Section B6.2. The MESP study level determined the applicable buffer limits, with the exception of for wetlands. For wetlands, additional site-specific examination is required at the NFSSR stage and as such, for the MESPA SWMF matrix analysis, a conservative 30m buffer to wetlands was applied. Noted. To be addressed at the NFSSR stage. Acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSRs. Comment addressed. Comment addressed. See comment 40. See response to comment #40. See response to response to comment #40. See the response to comment #40. PAGE 12 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 75: 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?