Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

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
NEW 7 S8.4 340 It is stated that some wetlands require a water Provide a rationale. Is this based on whether the
balance model, while others only require a water wetlands are groundwater fed or not, wetland
augmentation feasibility analysis. However no sensitivity, SWM scheme, etc.?
rationale for the distinction is provided.
Later in the section, it is stated that for some
wetlands, SWMFs are to discharge downstream
of the feature, however no augmentation is
required. What is the rationale for this?
Consulting Team’s Response
April 27, 2011
Action Taken
MESPA December 2011
TRCA Comment on MESPA
Team Response
February 2013
Please refer to the following sections of the
MESPA: B7.3, B7.4, B8.3.1 and B8.3.3.3.
Sections B7.3 and B7.4 provide a general
overview of the feature assessment and
water balance analyses. Section B8.3.1
provides the methodology specific to
wetlands and Section B8.3.3 is the water
balance needs assessment. The last
section, namely Table B8.9 provides the
rationale for whether a water balance
analysis is required and if it is required,
what type of analysis is required.
NEW 8
Appendix
B8-C,
Figure 4
1307 The outfall for WD7 is depicted as cutting through
a wetland and a long stretch of woodland.
NEW 9 Table B9.4 348 FA3 is located in Ganetsekiagon Subwatershed
not West Duffins as noted in the table.
NEW 10 GIS Note that there are some conflicts shown between
SWMF locations and proposed development
fabric e.g. SWMF#3, 4,12, 13, 43, 46B, 29, 26,
etc. In addition, mixed uses are shown at the
preferred GO Station location east of Brock Rd.
north of the rail corridor.
NEW 11 Table B9.5 349 For woodlands (or other features) where open
space uses negates the need for water balance,
we need to ensure that this requirement is
revisited if the land use changes through later
planning phases.
NEW 12 Table B9.5 351 For FB11, water balance is deferred to the EA.
We request a complete listing of all features
where water balance augmentation requirements
need to be considered at the EA stage so that this
information can be carried forward through that
process.
NEW 13 Table B9.5 352 States that FB18 has no development within the
catchment “due to cultural heritage issues”,
however the GIS land use layer “Compiled
Neighbourhood Plan” indicates low density
residential uses within the catchment.
NEW 14 Table B9.6 354 FC1 indicates no water balance required because
of only 0.5 ha of drainage will be diverted away.
However, this is nearly all of the catchment.
NEW 15 Table B9.8 365 There is no explanation in the footnotes for the
“%Roof Area Require 1 ”
NEW 16 TableB9.8 365 The drainage area seems too high given the
existing catchment boundary shown on the pmf
for FC3 and FC17
NEW17 GIS FC20 – the road seems to have been pushed right
up against the hedgerow here instead of
remaining within the development lands or buffer.
This is not appropriate given impacts to butternut
and the north-south corridor. As a result of this,
the LID measures are encroaching on the forest
An alternate outfall location will be required that
minimizes impacts to natural features.
Please correct.
Revise as necessary.
For information purposes.
The analysis and rationale as to whether a
wetland required augmentation is provided
in the individual Wetland Water Balance
Figures provided in Appendix B8-C.
The outfall for this SWMF follows the
proposed Whites Road (Regional) road
extension and thus the impacts to the NHS
are minimized. No action required.
This correction has been made to Table
B9.4.
Please refer to the figures in the MESPA
which are the ones that govern. Note that
the GIS is a tool to inform the MESP that
all layers in GIS may not be as current as
the MESPA figures.
Noted; this is referenced in TOC of
NFSSRs and in Chapter J.
Please provide a summary table. Noted:, this is referenced in Chapter J,
Section 2.0
Please clarify.
Please clarify.
Add missing footnote.
Please double-check the existing drainage areas
for these woodlands.
Once the road location is moved to the west, the
LID will also need to be relocated to avoid
encroachment on the woodland.
Please see the response to New #10. The
Neighbourhood Plan in the GIS was out of
date.
The text has been clarified and corrected.
The footnote has been added.
The areas have been corrected.
The alignment of the Road is being
established through the CPDP Regional
Services Class EA. Since issuance of the
MESPA the road location has been
modified as per the EA. The LID measures
will be located between the road and the
PAGE 19 February 2013