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 101. SWMF #17 853 Erosion implications on small stream and water balance. 102. SWMF #18 854 Interception of surface water to headwater drainage feature (HDF) to the south. Provide analysis and additional mitigation to upstream end of watercourse, as needed. Provide mitigation to HDF if possible. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 A headwater drainage feature water balance assessment is being undertaken. An erosion assessment will be completed in the NFSSR. A headwater drainage feature water balance assessment is being undertaken. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 The MESPA is revised to include headwater drainage feature assessments (Section B10). The MESPA is revised to include headwater drainage feature assessments (Section B10). TRCA Comment on MESPA constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. The pond is expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. Please confirm that all drainage can be safely conveyed across/under proposed roadways to the pond. The pond is expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. NEW 36 SWMF #19 855 Please confirm that all drainage can be safely conveyed across/under proposed roadways to the pond (as per Municipal 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. Pond does not appear to be situated in the low point of the site, and could have awkward grading at the inlet in its current location. 103. SWMF #20 856 This pond restricts wildlife movement and the outfall will also be an impediment to movement within the rest of the corridor. Reconfigure pond to achieve no more than ¼ restriction of corridor width. Design outfall to ensure wildlife movement is unimpeded. This location is under review to determine whether the 50% intrusion can be reduced. See response to comment #40, above. Further discussion may be required at later planning stages to ensure wildlife movement is not impeded through design of the pond. The pond may need to shift if this is not adequately considered. The route of the outlet infrastructure should be confirmed with the City of Pickering at detailed design. Please confirm that an appropriate length to width ratio can be achieved. NEW 37 SWMF #21 Please confirm that an appropriate length to width ratio can be achieved NEW 38 SWMF #22 Inlet and outlet is located in the same location, please confirm that no grading issues for the pond exist - a larger block size may be required. It may make more sense to have a clean water collector for HDC25 and direct pond outlet downstream. The pond is expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. NEW 39 SWMF #22A The pond is expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. NEW 40 SWMF #24 Please confirm that all drainage can be safely conveyed across/under proposed Whitevale Road (as per Municipal standards). The pond is expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. NEW 41 SWMF #25 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. Pond grading appears awkward; confirm block size and location is sufficient at NFSSR stage. NEW 42 SWMF #26 Please confirm that an appropriate length to width ratio can be achieved. Can the portion of the site north of Whitevale be graded to the drain to the pond? How is the major/minor system conveyed across the road? The pond is Team Response February 2013 Comment acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 87. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comment acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comment acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. PAGE 25 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 NEW 43 SWMF #27 1327 There are potential issues with this SWMF outlet as the matrix indicates the outlet will be directed to both sandy soils (see comment #46 above) and to a swamp unit. There could be erosion issues associated with outletting to sandy soils and water balance implications with outletting storm runoff to the swamp. 104. SWMF #28 865 Major issue with removal of forest to install the infiltration trench for the wetland water balance. Is Clarify that these flows are not required to meet water balance for the wetland and that the flows can be attenuated and infiltrated without erosion prior to reaching the wetland. Redesign infiltration gallery to avoid impacts to the forest. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 This was a graphical error in the report that will be corrected. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 SWMF#28 has been eliminated; the LIDs in this vicinity have been relocated. TRCA Comment on MESPA expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. Outlet located at the same location as the inlet - u-shaped pond is expected - is pond footprint big enough for this configuration? At current location feeding wetland U2, it appears that providing quality treatment through the pond for this outlet is difficult. More information is required to confirm this configuration and location. Noted. there another design that would work? NEW 44 SWMF #29 Please confirm that an appropriate length to width ratio can be achieved. The pond does not appear to be at the lowest point on the site, 105. SWMF #30 867 Why is this pond being constructed above grade? Are there grading implications on natural features? Provide clarification and rationale. The pond was located to avoid the Iroquois shore and needed to be above grade to accommodate drainage to the feature. Clarification on potential pond construction on the Iroquois shore has been requested from the MNR, and pond will moved if permitted. SWMF #30 has been relocated and is partially on the Lake Iroquois Shoreline (see response to Comment #45, above). confirm location is feasible. The pond is expected to be constructed within the GW table and requires further investigation. Issue with impacts to recharge function will need to be assessed at the NFSSR stage. NEW 45 SWMF #31 How is water to be conveyed from the edge of the development to the pond - major/minor system? Development block is likely impacted by floodplain - should be addressed at NFSSR stage. NEW 46 SWMF #35 The pond is expected to be constructed partly below the GW table and requires further investigation. NEW 47 SWMF #36 Please confirm that all drainage can be safely conveyed across/under proposed roadways to the pond. Please confirm that the entire drainage area can be directed to the pond inlet given the existing topography. Please confirm that an appropriate length to width ratio can be achieved. The pond is expected to be constructed partly below the GW table and requires further investigation. NEW 48 SWMF #37 Please confirm that all drainage can be safely conveyed across/under proposed roadway to the pond. Confirm that the onsite drainage area cannot be conveyed to the pond. Please confirm that an appropriate length to width ratio can be 106. SWMF #38 874 Pond is within the floodplain. Evaluate alternative locations for the pond. SWMF is located between 100 year and regional floodline, outside the NHS. The final location will be based on finalization of modelling. 107. SWMF #40 875 The pond is further constricting an already narrow corridor as it is only ~70 m and not 135 m as illustrated. Reconfigure pond to achieve no more than ¼ restriction of corridor width. This location is under review to determine whether the 50% intrusion can be reduced. The exact location of this SWMF still requires finalization, as all SWMFs do, as part of the NFSSR work. The SWMF has been moved so that it does not extend into the corridor at the north end where the corridor is at its narrowest. achieved. The pond is expected to be constructed below the GW table and requires further investigation. Please confirm that all drainage can be safely conveyed across/under proposed roadways to the pond. Please confirm that the entire drainage area can be directed to the inlet of the pond given the existing topography. The pond is expected to be constructed below the GW table and requires further investigation. Noted. Confirmation that a 10m buffer to the forest to the east is maintained to be made at the NFSSR stage. The pond is expected to be Team Response February 2013 Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 20. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comment acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 18. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 19. PAGE 26 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:
Page 33 and 34:
Area Parks over 4 hectares Parks 4
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: COMMENT MESPA RESPONSE (December 20
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 89: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
Page 103: Comments in white are satisfied. Co
show all

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?