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 81. Figure B4.13 228 Figure B4.13 is referenced on page B-53 when discussing changes in recharge. The title block in the lower right hand corner states “Change in Recharge; Post Development (without mitigation) vs. Existing Conditions.” However, the coloured scale bars in the bottom left corner indicate “Increase in Runoff (mm/yr)” and “Decrease in Runoff (mm/yr)”. The labeling is confusing as to what exactly the figure represents. 82. 4.7 230 Figure B4.15 and B4.19 depict simulated water level declines in the Thorncliffe Aquifer (Layer 5) post-development without mitigation and postdevelopment with LIDs, respectively. Significant declines (in the neighbourhood of 2 metres) in the areas of Taunton Road / Sideline 21 and south of Whitevale Road / Sideline 21 are illustrated on Figure B4.15. A decrease in runoff in most of the wetlands (between 25-50 mm/yr minimum) is illustrated in Figure B4.16. Much reduced declines are illustrated on Figure B4.19. Please provide an explanation of this apparent inconsistency Re-model groundwater using infiltration galleries as an input, and provide a map showing the distribution of mitigation measures used. Provide flow changes in groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands. Consider the ORAC (Layer 3) as well. If the drawdown is un-mitigated, then particle tracking needs to be conducted to determine where recharge is occurring, and to identify further mitigation in these areas. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Acknowledged. The groundwater flow modeling is being revised to incorporate infiltration LIDs. A map will be provided showing the distribution of mitigation measures. Changes in groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands will be discussed. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 The title block and legend on Figure B4.13(A) is clarified in the MESPA. The MESPA is updated as required. More detailed analyses have modified the results, as shown on Figure B4.19. The implications (or lack thereof) are discussed in Section B4.7.5. TRCA Comment on MESPA Comment addressed Comment addressed Team Response February 2013 Although a brief description of the contributing causes to the declines was provided, a further clarification of the causes (such as geology, land use, etc) is requested. What impacts are expected on wetlands within these delineated areas? Will modeling of infiltration systems be completed? 83. Figure B4.16 231 Figure B4.16 is labeled as Change in Runoff: Post-Development with LIDs vs. Existing Conditions. However, the polygon colours, locations and dimensions match those in Figure B4.13 mentioned above. 84. Figure B7.8 250 A wetland with high sensitivity is G7, where the proposal is to change the drainage area by 15%. The SWMF will outlet downstream to avoid excess volumes; however, no mitigation is proposed to offset the losses. Amphibians are supported by this wetland. What are the implications in decreased water levels over time? LIDs should be used to provide water balance to this feature. 85. Figure B7.6 254 Wetland WD13 is labeled as a “C” wetland but it should be a “D” wetland as there is development proposed within the catchments. 86. Figure B3-H 383 The groundwater monitoring wells and related hydrographs are referenced by an "MW-" identification as per the SPL Beatty Figure B3.8, Groundwater Monitoring Well Location, and the groundwater monitoring hydrographs in, for example, Figure B3-H. However, individual borehole logs, as presented in Appendix B4, are identified by each geotechnical consultants’ borehole number (i.e. TROW Borehole 1, 6 , VA Please provide an explanation of this apparent inconsistency Provide additional mitigation measures and analysis as required. Please change the designation and complete the appropriate assessments. Please provide the appropriate "MW-" series identifiers on the respective borehole logs. Acknowledged. Figures B4.13(A) and B4.16 illustrate comparisons between existing and different mitigation scenarios, which have been clarified in the titles. The assessment indicated that, with SWMF flow discharging downstream of the wetland, the decrease in runoff volume would result in an average monthly depth decreases of ~10 mm during the spring, the time of breeding amphibians, a change which would not affect breeding populations. Moreover this assessment did not consider runoff from rear yards, which would reduce the projected volume decrease. This wetland was added late in the process and a wetland water balance was completed (refer to Appendix B7-C, Figure 7). Figure B7-6 was simply not updated. Acknowledged. Wetland G7 has been reassessed and the results of the water balance assessment modified (See Appendix B8-C, Figure 17). Drawing B8.5 identifies all Category D wetlands, and includes Wetland WD13. Borehole logs have been labelled with the appropriate designations in the upper right page corner of each log and are provided in Appendix B4. A summary table (Table B4.1) is also included which will help correlate the well logs and monitoring location labels. Comment addressed This level of analysis is sufficient at this planning stage. However, additional detail may be required to confirm assumptions and calculations of predicted changes to water depth at the NFSSR stage. To be addressed at the NFSSR stage. Noted. Comment addressed Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSRs. PAGE 17 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 Woods TW2, Soil Eng 2, etc.) without correlation back to the MW- references. (The AME borehole log sheets did show the MW- designations, in the upper right corner of the page, whenever monitoring well installations were completed. Where no well completions occurred, the log was designated as a "BH-" identifier). A table was not provided that correlated the monitoring well and hydrograph numbering with the borehole log sheets in Appendix B4, where appropriate. 87. Figure B3-H 383 In regard to the groundwater hydrographs presented in Figure B3-H, there appears to be some error / omissions in the well identifiers. For example, two hydrographs provide the same identifier - MW-4-2-4 (pg. 14 and 16 of 21). Figure B3.8 does not show the location for "MW- 4-2-2" but does indicate a nested pair as "MW-4- 2-4s" and "MW-4-2-4d." Which hydrograph applies to which monitoring well is not clear. Also, the ground surface elevation depicted at MW-4-2- 4 on pg. 14 is 161.16 m whereas that for MW-4-2- 4 on pg. 16 is 187.04 m, an almost 26 m elevation difference. NEW 3 S.6.3 294 Please confirm that the OSCA water balances for natural features will take place at the NFSSR stage. The text states that it will take place at the draft plan or site plan stage and we assume this means NFSSR but it is not clear. NEW 4 P157 NEW 5 S.8.3.3.1 323 Please provide a summary of the criteria used to deem certain Category A (riparian) wetlands as Category D wetlands. Drawing B8.5 453 This drawing needs correcting to show the Category A wetlands that were actually reclassed as Category D wetlands. NEW 6 S.8.4 340 This section incorrectly states that 30 wetlands require wetland water balance analyses. It is stated in earlier sections that water balance is required for 32 wetlands. Note that wetlands G4a, b, and c count as 3 separate wetlands. Both well identifiers and elevations should be verified and revisions made where appropriate. Revise text accordingly. Revise accordingly. Revise accordingly. Please correct. Acknowledged. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Action Taken MESPA December 2011 Figures have been corrected and are provided in Appendix B3-H. TRCA Comment on MESPA Comment addressed Team Response February 2013 The text is correct. Water balance for OSCA’s will take place after draft plan approval. This will be done as part of detailed design and submitted in a Design Brief in support of either the site plan application or clearance of draft plan conditions. As discussed in Chapter B8.3.3.1, where Category A wetlands would experience watershed changes of >5% (20 of the 53 Category A wetlands) each wetland was examined to determine the implications, based on: size of upstream drainage area; habitat type; future land use; existing impacts based on beaver activity; and/or water balance assessment to upstream wetland features. As a result of this assessment, five of the Category A wetlands were determined to require further assessment as per Category D wetlands. The wording in Chapter B8.3.3.1 has been clarified. Figure B8.5 has been modified to include those Category A wetlands that were analyzed as Category D wetlands, specifically wetlands on Reaches WA9, W7-3, GB1-2, G19/G20, and UA2. The title has been changed to “Category A and D Wetlands Requiring Water Balance Needs Assessment IDs and Drainage Areas.” The text has been revised and clarified. PAGE 18 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 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32: 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 81: 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?