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
94. SWMF #10 846 Erosion implications of outletting a SWMF to a Province to provide direction with regard to species
headwater tributary. This is a redside dace at risk.
tributary.
95. SWMF #11 847 Why does the fisheries setback extend onto the
development lands? What are the erosion
implications of outletting to the intermittent
tributary. This is a redside dace tributary.
96. SWMF #12 848 Encroaches on CUT1-E, which is a thicket
community. Proposing to outlet to small tributary.
Is it better to outlet to larger system and take roof
water to top of tributary? This is a redside dace
tributary.
97. SWMF #13 849 Butternut in vicinity and this is a redside dace
tributary.
98. SWMF #14 850 Issues with SWMF outlet and wetland water
balance.
Provide rationale for fisheries setback and provide
erosion assessment. Province to provide direction
with regard to species at risk.
Relocate SMWF to avoid thicket communities.
Provide analysis for watercourse. Province to
provide direction with regard to species at risk
Province to provide direction with regard to species
at risk.
Consulting Team’s Response
April 27, 2011
An overall benefit plan for redside dace is being
prepared, and a workshop will be held with
TRCA and MNR to discuss.
As the MESP team was not involved in the
establishment of the NHS, we can provide no
insight as to why the 30 m fisheries setback falls
outside the NHS.
An overall benefit plan for redside dace is being
prepared, and a workshop held with TRCA and
MNR.
The erosion assessment will be completed in the
NFSSR.
The natural heritage conditions in the location of
the proposed pond block are being evaluated
further in the MESPA and a headwater feature
water balance is being undertaken.
All areas are being investigated for butternuts in
the NFSSRs. An overall benefit plan for redside
dace is being prepared, and a workshop will be
held with TRCA and MNR to discuss.
Action Taken
MESPA December 2011
The basis for an overall benefit plan and/or
mitigation plan for redside dace and a fisheries
compensation plan are included in the MESPA,
Chapters E and F.
Mitigation is required for all outlets – as required by
the legislation.
The basis for an overall benefit plan and/or
mitigation plan for redside dace and a fisheries
compensation plan are included in the MESPA,
Chapters E and F.
SWMF#12 is relocated and the matrix for this
SWMF is revised.
The basis for an overall benefit plan and/or
mitigation plan for redside dace and a fisheries
compensation plan are included in the MESPA.
Butternut is also addressed. See Chapter E.
See earlier comments regarding G4a, b, and c. Under review. The water balance for Wetlands G4a, G4b, G4c
have been reassessed, and required mitigations
provided.
TRCA Comment on MESPA
Please confirm that the appropriate length to
width ratio can be achieved
The direction of flow in the pond is opposite to
the prevailing grade; please confirm that grading
within the block provided is possible. The
groundwater table is a potential constraint and
must be further investigated at the NFSSR stage
to confirm pond location/site grading. The pond
is not at the bottom end of the site - is it in the
optimal location and can site grading be
completed to make this pond location work?
Please confirm that all drainage can be safely
conveyed across/under Taunton Road to the
pond, in meeting with municipal/regional
standards.
Please confirm that an appropriate length to
width ratio can be achieved. The pond is
expected to be constructed within the GW table
and requires further investigation.
TRCA agrees with the note that a grading
assessment needs to address the 9m elevation
difference within the pond. This is a major issue
impacting this pond location, and it should be
addressed at the MESPA stage.
Please confirm that the entire drainage area can
be directed to the north end of the pond given
the existing topography. Please confirm that all
drainage can be safely conveyed across/under
proposed roadways to the pond (meeting
municipal/regional standards). The pond is
expected to be constructed within the GW table
and requires further investigation.
Noted. Construction impacts associated with the
outfall will need to be minimized by utilizing the
unopened road allowance.
Team Response
February 2013
Comment acknowledged. To be addressed
in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16.
Comments acknowledged. To be
addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood
16.
Comments acknowledged. It is noted that
the elimination of this facility is being
investigated in the NFSSR for
Neighbourhood 16.
The NFSSR has advanced the grading and
has shown that this can be accomplished.
(refer to NFSSR for Neighbourhood 16 for
details on grading and drainage).
The groundwater constraint (high water
table) was identified in the SWM matrix in
the MESPA along with the need for further
investigation at the NFSSR stage.
Comments acknowledged. To be
addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood
16.
99. SWMF #15 851 Forest cover will be lost here. Provide edge management at NFSSR stage. SWMF is located entirely with the development
limits and the existing street precludes the need
for edge management.
100. SWMF #16 852 Impacts to thicket community. Relocate SMWF to avoid thicket communities. The SWMF location with respect to the thicket is
being evaluated.
No action required.
Edge management s not required as the ‘edge’ of
the retained forest cover is to the west of an
existing road (Forbrock Street) and will not be
affected.
SWMF#16 has been moved and no longer impacts
the thicket community. The MESPA matrix for this
SWMF is revised.
The pond is expected to be constructed within
the GW table and requires further investigation.
Confirm that intent of outlet is to discharge
downstream of G4a, which may be hydraulically
connected to wetland area on reach GA7.
Groundwater issues should be investigated as
soon as possible. Grading appears awkward for
this site given the size of the pond, and chosen
location does not appear to be at low point on
site.
Further discussion on this SWM pond location is
needed once the road alignment is finalized.
Confirm that the pond block is 7% of the
drainage area - appears small. Please confirm
that the appropriate length to width ratio can be
achieved. The pond is expected to be
Comments acknowledged. To be
addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood
17.
Comments acknowledged. To be
addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood
18.
PAGE 24 February 2013