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
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