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 considered. For example, geomorphic criteria have not been provided for swales because there are no existing erosion issues. However this may change when SWMFs outlet and flows become permanent. Similarly, the wildlife passage criteria need to consider that the valleys and corridors will be the only permeable locations within the landscape matrix. A conservative approach should be taken. 138. 7.1.2 1127 The criteria identified for terrestrial passage only consider small mammals and herptiles. Some crossings may need to accommodate larger animals. This needs to be laid out in the crossing criteria framework. 139. 7.1.2 1127 A 0.4 m minimum width for dry passage is too small and will be affected by the length of the culvert, and the need for human passage (i.e. trails). 140. 7.1.2 1127 Why are steep slopes adjacent to the right-of- way not recommended? Would this not encourage wildlife to funnel through the culvert? 141. 7.1.3 1128 We do not agree with the assumption that a hydraulic assessment could not be completed based on unavailable road profile data. Some very general assumptions could be made for the road profiles and, in fact, the structure size requirements may dictate the road profile at crossings. Where existing roads are to be upgraded to support future development, the assessment can use the existing profiles as a base in the hydraulic model. 142. 7.1.3 1128 From a public safety planning perspective each of the proposed crossings should be assessed to ensure MNR requirements for safe egress is achieved (i.e. ensure road profiles are such that if a structure is overtopped during a Regional event, then the depth of flooding will not impede emergency vehicles). The sizing requirements for watercourse crossings must ensure negligible impacts to adjacent flood levels, regardless of land use. 143. 7.1.3 1128 The MESP states the requirements for crossings, in a general sense, which is appropriate for the MESP level of planning. However the MESP should discuss and provide a commitment to the detailed assessments (i.e. Fluvial G., Hydraulic, Terrestrial, etc.) required at the NFSSR stage. The MESP should include development of a decision matrix to be used at the FSSR stage to demonstrate how structure size meets each criterion. 144. Figure C1.1 1132 The southern-most crossing of West Duffins Creek, which runs parallel with and connects to Rossland Road, is not discussed. Will this road Provide additional criteria for larger animals in the crossing criteria framework. Provide a larger minimum and discussion of the impact on structure sizing as a result of trail crossings. Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 The criteria for various categories of wildlife will be explained in more detail in the Roads Checklist. The 0.4m width is the minimum for locations where only herptiles are present. Action Taken MESPA December 2011 The MESPA is revised to include the Road Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). MESPA text is revised to provide explicit direction for other suites of animals (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). Clarify. Acknowledged. MESPA text is clarified (see Roads Checklist, Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). Include a commitment to further study the road profiles at the NFSSR stage. Ensure MNR requirements are captured in the criteria listed in the MESP, and confirm the size of watercourse crossing through detailed hydraulic assessment at the NFSSR stage. Include a detailed description and commitments to further study at NFSSR stage and develop a decision matrix for the crossings. Clarify the correct process for this road or provide discussion around the need/feasibility. Acknowledged. Noted. Chapter J, Section 2.4 provides an overview of the future study requirements. This includes the requirement for preliminary hydraulic assessments prior to draft plan approval. Refer to Chapter J, Section 2.4. Under review. The Hydraulic Assessment is to be completed at NFSSR stage, as indicated in the MESPA text and the Roads Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13). MESPA text is revised to include MNR requirements for safe egress (Roads Checklist, Section C6.4.2). Text in Chapter C for hydraulic analysis is revised to reference Section J2.0, which is revised to include requirements for the NFSSRs. A Road Design Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13) is provided to demonstrate at the NFSSR stage that structure sizing meets design criteria. This is a Regional Road that is shown in the CPDP. It is not part of the Region’s Class EA study because it is not proposed to be built. Noted. TRCA Comment on MESPA Noted. This reference has been removed. We found no reference to slope embankment design in the criteria. Noted. Noted – The City of Pickering should comment on requirements for passage of emergency vehicles. Addressed. Noted. Team Response February 2013 The text in Table C6.13 (Wildlife Passage) regarding not having steep grades has been modified. The steepness of the slope in the vicinity of an opening has to balance the need to encourage funneling while not discouraging wildlife to descend from level areas to the crossing location. PAGE 33 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 Consulting Team’s Response April 27, 2011 Action Taken MESPA December 2011 be part of the MESP or the EA? TRCA supports the removal of this road from the road network as it will, cumulatively, increase the impacts to West Duffins creek in association with the other two proposed crossings. 145. 1138 Figure C1.7 will need to be revised given the Revise figure as suggested. New Brock Road interchange now finalized. The Figure is revised to show the new Brock road Huron-Wendat village location. interchange. 146. Figure C3.1 1141 There are two missing watercourse crossings. No action required in the MESP, but the EA will Acknowledged. No action required as this is part of the Regional These are on the Whitevale bypass on small need to include these crossings. EA work. headwater drainage features, one each west of crossings G and I. Noted. Noted. TRCA Comment on MESPA Team Response February 2013 147. Table 1 1177 We note that none of the West Duffins crossings are identified in Table 1 or on associated maps. For information. We will ensure that these crossings are addressed through the EA. No response required. Acknowledged. No action required as this is part of the Regional EA work. Noted. Appendix C3-B - Crossing Constraints NOTE: THIS IS APPENDIX C6-A 148. Crossing #3 1181 The location of seeps observed in field should be mapped. Shift alignment to the north to avoid swales and trees and to cross at a narrower location. 149. Crossing #4 1181 Cross further to the north to avoid the diagonal as suggested. 150. Crossing #7 1181 Barrier should be removed as part of road improvements. Butternut identified to south. Revise accordingly. Revise accordingly. Revise accordingly. No specific seeps were identified during either the geomorphological site walks or the crossing investigations. The area where watercress was noted is indicated by the ground photo arrow on the Crossing figure in the Phase 1 Background report. The crossing was diagonal but was realigned as per recommendations prior to MESP issuance. In Table 1, Appendix C3-B, it is noted that the culvert is a barrier to fish movement. An explicit comment can be added in the ‘Implications’ column stating that whenever the road is upgraded, that the barrier should be removed. No action required. The location of the road is based on detailed work related to the Neighbourhood Plans. Final design will be done at the NFSSR stage. Table 1 in Appendix C6-A is revised. Table 1 in Appendix C6-A is revised. The roads checklist shows the road crossing a fairly wide part of the NHS in the wetland. Our comment to try and move it northward to a narrower spot still seems relevant. We expect that the placement of the road bed within the wetland area could be detrimental yet this is not discussed in the checklist. There appears to have been a slight skew of this road on the pmf, however nothing has been revised in the table indicated with regard to Crossing #4. This crossing location should be removed as there is nothing proposed here. A comment re the presence of a butternut, ~60- 70m south of the road, will be added to the table. 151. Crossing #8 1182 There is no ELC for north side. Clarify data gap. Figure will be revised. The Figure for Crossing #8 is revised. This crossing location should be removed as there is nothing proposed here. 152. Crossing #9 1182 Bobolinks noted at this location. What is “edge preparation”? 153. Crossing #10 154. Crossing #11 1182 Widen to west to avoid marsh. What is the eastwest road that is being referenced here? 1182 How will road drainage be treated next to the wetland? Clarify. Edge preparation will be clarified. The Roads Checklist (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13) details edge management requirements. Revise and clarify accordingly. Clarify. Table 1 of Appendix C3-B identifies that Crossing 10 is at North Road, (an existing road). The reference to an east-west road is to an additional local road that may be required and will be investigated at the NFSSR stage. The requirement to address road drainage will be included in the Roads Checklist. Noted. A reference to this wetland and the issues it may present now is included in the Checklist. The final crossing will be determined through the NFSSR, and any ‘skew’ that may show in the pmf is conceptual, and as such no reference should or is made in the table. There is an existing crossing in this location that was required to be examined. Although nothing is proposed at this time, the information in the MESPA remains valid if road improvements are proposed in the future. There is an existing crossing in this location that was required to be examined. Although nothing is proposed at this time, the information in the MESPA remains valid if road improvements are proposed in the future. The MESPA text is clarified. No mention of avoiding marsh. The east-west road is discussed as Crossing #25. The Roads Checklist is included in the MESPA (see Section C6.4.2 and Table C6.13) and the details will be provided in the NFSSRs (see Appendix C6-C). The road checklist speaks to the removal of a dam and existing farm crossing upstream but only speaks to restoration for the crossing itself. Restoration will be needed in the removal areas too. To be implemented at NFSSR stage. PAGE 34 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 97: 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?