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 (March-October), not just for spring. NEW 69 General A common issue related to the pond locations is the impact of the major drainage system on proposed arterial/collector roads that are to traverse the development blocks. During a major event, considerable amount of water will likely need to flow across these roads, and in some cases, could result in the need for road closures which is likely unacceptable to the City/Region. The NFSSRs should address the minor/major system flow split that is to occur in this context. The City of Pickering and Region of Durham will need to approve the potential localized flood impacts that this may cause on their roads, which may result in the need for larger storm sewers in some areas. At the MESPA stage, the development team should confirm that this will not impact the pond locations. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Action Taken MESPA December 2011 these were riparian wetlands an analysis of the depth of increase was not undertaken. TRCA Comment on MESPA targets. TRCA staff will be looking for graphs that indicate the weekly changes to the hydroperiod under wet, dry and average years, and a graphed comparison between pre- and post-development conditions, as outlined in our Water Balance for the Protection of Natural Features Guideline. Team Response February 2013 the hydroperiod will not be provided in the NFSSRs. This is beyond the modelling accuracy and weekly variations do not provide meaningful information given the high variability of water levels in response to climatic conditions. It is acknowledge that minor and major system conceptual design will be addressed in the NFSSRs. The design of these systems will be in accordance with City of Pickering and Region of Durham design standards which will address the issue of flood impacts on roads. The MESPA has noted that SWMF locations may need to be adjusted based on design at NFSSR and/or detailed design stage as long as criteria and policies for SMWF locations are met (refer to Chapter B, Section 6.4, and Chapter J, Section 2 and Table B6.1). Chapter C –Transportation 122. 1.0 1107 Only the local roads have been reviewed in detail, the regional roads will be addressed during our review of the Regional EA. 123. 1.3.3 1110 Note that the Brock Road interchange and realignment is subject to an EA amendment to redesign due to the presence of a First Nations site. 124. 1.3.5 1111 The trigger for the construction of the new crossing at Whites Road would occur after 1/3 of Seaton is built (estimated 2017-2018). The EA will be significantly outdated by that time and therefore TRCA will likely ask for a sunset clause to be applied to the EA and the EA would need to be re-evaluated after 10 years. 125. 3.3 1115 Road crossings of NHS will have rural crosssections. Is this the entire road or just the portion in the NHS? How is SWM being handled? 126. 3.4 1117 This section states that “at the time of final design, the locations of all alignments will be investigated to confirm that no SAR (species at risk) species are present”. However, some of this information is known already. If this is not assessed now, then it limits the ability to realign and avoid during permitting stage. How will the Province deal with butternut, redside dace, bobolink and many other SAR identified in the Seaton Study Area? 127. 3.5 1118 Road I is depicted as running parallel to the NHS and encroaches on the NHS. This road needs to For information. No response required. Acknowledged. None required. No response required. Revise text accordingly. Acknowledged. The MESPA is revised. See Section C3.2.3. Noted. For information only. No action required. Acknowledged. None required. No response required. Provide additional information to ensure TRCA SWM criteria are achieved for these areas. The SAR need to be assessed and discussions with MNR need to occur as soon as possible. Revise road location accordingly. Portions within the NHS where appropriate will be rural cross sections. SWM for road runoff through the NHS will be addressed. All NHS crossings have been screened for Butternuts and road alignments modified where appropriate. Red side dace will be addressed through the MESPA. All road alignments within development limits will be screened for all current SAR through the NFSSRs. Actions being investigated as per meeting held April 15, 2011 As determined through discussions with the agencies, the MESPA is revised to indicate that the locations of rural cross-sections will be determined at the NFSSR stage. It was discussed at the meeting with MNR March 16 th that screening has occurred. The MESPA notes in this Chapter and in Chapter E that further screening and inventory will be required as development plans proceed. The road locations are revised as per meetings with MNR, TRCA and the City. Noted. Noted. Noted. PAGE 31 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 be shifted so that it is outside the NHS buffer. 128. 7.1 1123 TRCA will need to view all new crossing locations in the field prior to finalizing the alignments. 129. 7.1 1123 One parcel along the 407 employment lands located west of Brock Road immediately south of the 407 has no road and appears to be landlocked. 130. 7.1 1123 A comprehensive restoration plan should be developed for Seaton to address the impacts due to local road (and infrastructure) crossings. The impacts should be estimated at the MESP stage and clarified in detail at the NFSSR stage. The general location and area of restoration within the Seaton NHS should be identified. In some cases, restoration can take place on site. In others, this may not be possible and a restoration bank should be developed. 131. 7.1.1 1123 Open bottom crossings should be provided for all crossings. If open bottom crossings are not appropriate for certain locations, then perhaps alternative locations should be evaluated. 132. 7.1.1 1124 Please note that the 5 times bank full width approach to sizing water crossings is a planning tool only and only applies to a stable system. The 5 times bank full may not be applicable for the sensitive reaches in Seaton. 133. 7.1.1 1124 The minimum structural requirement from a fluvial perspective is to ensure the abutments of any watercourse crossing are located outside the 100 year erosion limit. For information only. To be addressed at NFSSR stage. Site visit days should be set up well in advance. Provide information on how this parcel will be accessed. The Province as the owner of the NHS needs to be involved in this discussion. Prepare a restoration plan. Refine the plan at the NFSSR stage. Add a recommendation that open bottom culverts should be used for all crossings. Test the 5 times bank full generalization on a sensitive reach within Seaton to determine if it is appropriate to use everywhere. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to remove the 5 times bankfill criteria and focus on ensuring the appropriate criterion is in place for the NFSSRs. Detailed fluvial assessments will be required for all crossings at the NFSSR stage. Please ensure the minimum structural requirements are included in the criteria. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 -requires further discussion Acknowledged. As shown in the Neighbourhood Plan, the parcel will be accessed by a local road from the east, connecting to Old Brock Road. A comprehensive restoration plan will not be prepared. No compensation is proposed for non-Regional roads through the NHS that were in the CPDP. The requirement for open bottom crossings is currently noted is Sections C7.1.1 and C7.1.2. The 5 times bankfull criteria will be removed and the focus will be on ensuring the appropriate criterion is in place for the NFSSR. The minimum structural requirements were mentioned in the text but not explicitly as criteria. This will be added to the criteria. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 Site walks will be coordinated with TRCA through the NFSSRs. No action required. The Roads Checklist indicates where compensation will be required for non-Regional roads. This requirement is provided in the Road Checklist table, detailed in Chapter C, and will be completed at the NFSSR stage. The requirement to determine this is detailed in the Roads Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). The MESPA is revised to include the Roads Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). Noted. TRCA Comment on MESPA An access is now shown in the land use layer on the pmf. Details for this crossing, as with the other crossings, will be required at the NFSSR stage. We need to meet with MNR to discuss comprehensive restoration plan. Noted. Addressed. Addressed. Team Response February 2013 Comments acknowledged. To be addressed in NFSSR for Neighbourhood 20. Comment acknowledged. 134. 7.1.1 1124 A crossing criteria needs to be developed for intermittent channels/swales where the flow regime may change under post development conditions. For example, it is likely that existing intermittent watercourses may flow permanently under post development conditions due to extended inputs from SWMFs. 135. Table C7.1 1125 Figure C3.1 refers to 37 crossings, yet Table C7.1 refers to only 31. 136. 7.1.2 1127 Ecopassages are required for all NHS crossings, not only at the locations where a watercourse exists. No information has been provided for the location and number of ecopassages. Evaluation is required as part of the Terms of Reference. 137. 7.1.2 1127 The crossing criteria for roads need to be outlined at the MESP stage. The design parameters for each structure should be laid out, i.e. what are the factors driving the sizes of the structures? This includes ecopassages where no watercourse exists. Criteria that would apply in the fullness of time as the NHS renaturalizes need to be Please develop crossing criteria for such cases. The required criteria will be indicated in the Roads Checklist, Chapter C. The MESPA is revised to include the Roads Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). Further, it is clarified that any channel that has been identified, regardless of its flow regime, will be addressed. Please document crossings 16-21. Table C7.1 was removed as suggested. The Table is removed from MESPA. Noted. Identify generally where and how many ecopassages are needed, and a framework for how large they should be. Provide this information on a map. Details of the ecopassages can be provided at the NFSSR stage. Provide the criteria that need to be considered for each crossing, including wildlife passage, vegetation communities, aquatic, geomorphic, hydraulics, trails, etc. Details of the crossing design can be provided at the NFSSR stage. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. A new figure, Figure C6.2, is provided showing all NHS crossings. Direction for design of all crossings with regard to wildlife passage is provided in the Road Checklist. See Section C6.4.2, Table C6.13. Details of crossing designs including wildlife passage will be provided in the NFSSRs. There is a Road Checklist for each non-Regional Road NHS crossing which identifies criteria and assessment requirements for design in the NFSSRs. We could not locate the text in this section that speaks to addressing this issue. Please provide additional detail, and clarify what is meant by “formalizing the channel” in regards to channels where is it not possible to avoid fine sediment banks and vegetation control (under Fluvial Geomorphology criteria in Table C6.13). Noted. Noted, however see response to Comment #134. Table C6.13 has been edited to include: references to intermittent channels swales; and, clarification with regard to ‘formalizing the channel’. PAGE 32 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:
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 95: 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?