Appendix a Public Consultation Record

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project PROJECT FILE REPORT CITY OF PICKERING ______

Appendix A Public Consultation Record

TMIG | THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

CITY OF PICKERING Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN▪ FEBRUARY 2015

TMIG | The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan ON CA L4K 0C5 t 905.738.5700 f 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

this report has been formatted for double-sided printing

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Mandatory Public Consultation under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment ...... 2 2.1 Notice of Commencement ...... 2 2.2 PIC # 1 ...... 2 2.3 PIC # 2 ...... 3 2.4 Notice of Completion ...... 4 2.5 Tracking ...... 4

3 Committee Meetings ...... 5 3.1 Technical Committee ...... 5 3.2 Steering Committee ...... 6

Appendices

Appendix A: Stakeholder Contact Documentation Appendix B: Notice of Commencement Appendix C: Public Information Centre # 1 Appendix D: Public Information Centre # 2 Appendix E: Notice of Completion Appendix F: Technical Committee Meeting Minutes Appendix G: Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______PAGE i Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015 ______

PAGE ii ______THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015

1 Introduction

This document briefly describes the communications planned throughout the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study. The communications plan covers the required public and agency consultation required for the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, as well as the Technical Committee and Steering Committee meetings planned for the project. This is intended to be a ‘living document’, and will be continuously updated to record all relevant communications delivered and received over the course of the study.

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______PAGE 1 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015 ______

2 Mandatory Public Consultation under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) requires contact with the public at certain points during the EA study. The study was initiated as a Schedule C project under the Class EA, as it was anticipated that the preferred solution could involve a diversion of flow from the Krosno Creek watershed to the Pine Creek watershed. During the evaluation of alternatives, it became apparent that the preferred solution would not involve a diversion of flow between watersheds and would instead have minimal adverse environmental impacts. The study has therefore been completed as a Schedule B project under the Class EA. Regardless, the public consultation program was maintained from the original Schedule C work plan, and therefore two public information centres (PICs) for the project were held. The public was also notified of the project through the notices of commencement and completion.

2.1 Notice of Commencement

The notice of commencement was published in the Pickering News Advertiser for two consecutive weeks starting February 13, 2013, and posted on the City of Pickering website shortly thereafter. Copies of the notice were also distributed to all addresses in the Study Area (Krosno Creek watershed) using the Canada Post flyer service. A copy of the Notice of Commencement is included in Appendix B. In addition, copies of the notice of commencement were mailed to all relevant agencies and key stakeholders that were previously identified through the public consultation for the Pickering City Centre visioning exercise. Copies of the notice letter and fax-back form are included in Appendix B. A number of residents and agency contacts replied to the notice of commencement, requesting to be included on the project mailing list. The full annotated contact list is provided Appendix A. The Federal Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development provided a list of First Nations contacts that may have an interest in the study. A copy of the Notice of Commencement was subsequently mailed to all suggested First Nations contacts. A total of thirteen (13) agency contacts replied to the mailing, indicating their desire to be contacted over the course of the study. Five (5) of the stakeholders from the Downtown Pickering visioning study responded to the notice, and four (4) of the First Nations contacts responded to the subsequent First Nations mailing. In addition, ten (10) residents responded to the Notice of Commencement flyer, primarily via phone and e-mail. The Contact List included in Appendix A is annotated with responses to the notices.

2.2 PIC # 1

The first Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on Wednesday, February 19, 2014. The PIC was first advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser for two consecutive weeks starting February 5, 2014, and flyers with information on the PIC were distributed to all addresses in the Study Area (Krosno Creek watershed). A copy of the Notice of PIC # 1 was also mailed to all of the stakeholders who responded to the Notice of Commencement. A copy of the Notice of PIC # 1 and the letter issued to interested stakeholders are included in Appendix C. One person contacted TMIG in response to the Notice who indicated that they could not attend but requested to be added to the project mailing list.

PAGE 2 ______THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015

The PIC was hosted at the City of Pickering Civic Complex from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. A total of 15 display panels were set up around the lobby outside the Council Chambers, and TMIG delivered a presentation in the Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. Copies of the display panels are included in Appendix C. A total of 17 attendees were recorded on the sign-in sheet. One person completed and deposited a Comment Form at the meeting, and four additional Comment Forms were received via fax, e-mail and traditional mail before the cut-off date of March 1, 2014. Copies of the completed comment forms are included in Appendix C. The following key issues were raised at PIC # 1. . Maintenance: A number of attendees raised concerns regarding debris in the Krosno Creek channel, obstructing flow and potentially blocking culverts. The majority of these concerns related to the more natural sections of Krosno Creek from upstream of Alyssum Street to downstream of the northern Sandy Beach Road culvert. . Complete Elimination of Flooding: Some attendees expressed an interest in ‘making the water go away’, or at least completely containing the flow to the existing channel block. These residents have had their property flooded from Krosno Creek in the past, and are concerned anytime that water levels in Krosno Creek rise. . Flooding at and Downstream of Sandy Beach Road: The owners of the property on the east side of Sandy Beach Road north of Streamside Court were concerned that flooding impacts at and downstream of Sandy Beach Road were not properly addressed, particularly relating to the capacity and potential obstruction of the culverts for the sanitary sewer crossing of Krosno Creek east of Sandy Beach Road. It was acknowledged that the homes on the west side of Sandy Beach Road were not impacted by flooding in the August 2005 storm event, but there was flooding at Streamside and Willowside Courts due to floodwater from Krosno Creek spilling southward down Sandy Beach Road. . Confusion with Study Title: Several attendees suggested that the study name (Krosno Creek Diversion Project) was misleading, as the diversion of flow to Pine Creek is not the recommended solution. These attendees had interests in the impacts of the diversion to Pine Creek. TMIG and City staff committed to providing answers to the first three items listed above at PIC # 2.

2.3 PIC # 2

The second PIC was held on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. The PIC was advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser for two consecutive weeks starting May 14, 2014, and flyers with information on the PIC were distributed to all addresses in the Study Area (Krosno Creek watershed). A copy of the Notice of PIC # 2 was mailed to all of the stakeholders who responded to the Notice of Commencement and those who indicated an interest in the study at PIC # 1. Individual letters were sent to those requesting a written response to their comments from PIC # 1. Copies of the Notice of PIC # 2 and the letters issued to interested stakeholders are included in Appendix D. The PIC was hosted at the City of Pickering Civic Complex from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. A total of 13 display panels were set up around the lobby outside the Council Chambers, and TMIG delivered a presentation in the Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. Copies of the display panels are included in Appendix D. A total of 14 attendees were recorded on the sign-in sheet. Four completed comment forms were submitted at the meeting, and one additional Comment Form was received before the cut-off date of June 19, 2014. Copies of the comment forms are included in Appendix D.

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______PAGE 3 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015 ______

Attendees at the public meeting continued to raise the issues of channel maintenance and flooding at and downstream of Sandy Beach Road, but appeared generally satisfied with the Additional Recommendations put forward through the study to address these concerns. Attendees also continued to express a desire to see the recommended works implemented as soon as possible.

2.4 Notice of Completion

The Notice of Study Completion was issued on February 18th, 2015. The notice was published in the Pickering News Advertiser for two consecutive weeks, and copies of the notice were distributed to all homes and businesses in the study area (Krosno Creek watershed). Notices were also mailed to all stakeholders who indicated interest throughout the study process. Copies of the Project File Report were made available at Pickering City Hall and the Pickering Public Library for a period of 30 calendar days following the notice. The notice provided clear direction for the public to review the Project File Report, provide comments, and instructions to request a Part II Order if concerns cannot be resolved with the City of Pickering. A copy of the Notice of Completion is included in Appendix E. Note also that, as requested through earlier correspondence, copies of the Draft Final PFR were sent to both MOE and TRCA on October 24, 2014. Comments were received from MOE on November 21, 2014 and from TRCA on November 26, 2014. The Final Project File Report was revised to address their comments. The response letters to both MOE and TRCA are included in Appendix E.

2.5 Tracking

All responses to the EA notices and any other feedback received from the public and agencies have been recorded in the stakeholder database (Appendix A). The database includes the date any correspondence was received, the nature of the comments and the response by TMIG and/or City staff. All comments have been responded to as quickly as possible, using the most appropriate form of communication (letter, e-mail or phone).

PAGE 4 ______THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015

3 Committee Meetings

In addition to the mandatory public consultation for the Municipal Class EA process, a series of Technical and Steering Committee Meetings took place with staff from key public agencies.

3.1 Technical Committee

3.1.1 Technical Committee Members Marilee Gadzovski, City of Pickering Tom Dole, City of Pickering Grant McGregor, City of Pickering Richard Holborn, City of Pickering Joe Puopolo, AECOM TMIG Staff

3.1.2 Technical Committee Meetings . December 14, 2012: Project Kick-off meeting and hand-over of relevant background data . April 11, 2013: Reviewed the results of the PC-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic modelling . June 13, 2013: Reviewed City comments on the Draft Interim ESR, documenting existing conditions and the development and evaluation of alternative solutions . June 21, 2013: Continuation of Meeting # 3 . July 25, 2013: Reviewed additional analyses by TMIG to address concerns from June 2013 meetings. . October 11, 2013: Reviewed City comments on the Revised Draft Interim Environmental Study Report . February 28, 2014: Planned responses to issues raised at PIC # 1 . August 14, 2014: Reviewed City comments on the Draft Final Project File Report . January 14, 2015: Reviewed comments from TRCA and MNR on the Draft Final Project File Report Minutes from all Technical Committee Meetings are included in Appendix F.

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______PAGE 5 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ▪ FEBRUARY 2015 ______

3.2 Steering Committee

3.2.1 Committee Members City of Pickering Planning and Engineering staff Joe Puopolo, AECOM David Dunn, Durham Region Margo Sloan / Meredith Crouch, Ontario Power Generation Merek Wiesek, Ontario Ministry of Transportation Sharon Lingertat, Toronto and Region Conservation Chris Jones, Toronto and Region Conservation Rob Grech / Amy Winterhalt, Toronto and Region Conservation TMIG Staff

3.2.2 Steering Committee Meetings . February 19, 2013: Introduced Steering Committee members to the project . December 10, 2013: Met exclusively with TRCA staff to review the interim findings and recommendations relative to TRCA policies and in co-ordination with active development applications along Krosno Creek. . January 29, 2014: Presented draft display materials for Public Information Centre # 1 in advance of the PIC. . November 20, 2014: Reviewed committee member comments on the Draft Final Project File Report Minutes from all Technical Committee Meetings are included in Appendix G.

PAGE 6 ______THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix A Stakeholder Contact Documentation

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Agency Responses to Notice of Commencement

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Municipal Government Contacts Senior Co-ordinator, Landscape & City of Pickering Mr. Arnold Mostert Waterfront Coordinating Committee Pickering ON L1V 6K7 2/22/13 interested in providing input Kept on mailing list Parks Dev't One The Esplanade Mr. Brian Bridgeman Director, Current Planning Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 no response

Mr. Pepe Castellan Works - Development Approvals Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 no response Deputy General Manager of Support Mr. Neil Killens Durham Region Transit 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 no response Services Project Coordinator, Transportation Ms. Lynda Motschenbacher Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 3/12/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Infrastructure Mr. James Garland Project Manager Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 no response

Refer to letter received Mar 4 Kept on mailing list, TRCA, Please keep on mailing list Ms. Kiersten Allore Planning Analyst Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 3/04/13 Durham and OPG represented Suggest involving Durham Region, on project steering committee TRCA, OPG and Ajax Please add to mailing list (in place of Mr. Martin Ward Deputy General Manager, Operations Durham Region Transit 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 2/25/13 Kept on mailing list Neil Killens) Conservation Authority Contacts Refer to letter received Mar 14 Added to mailing list and Provided general information on Steering Committee, areas of TRCA areas of interest Senior Planner, Environmental interest addressed in Project Ms. Sharon Lingertat Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 3/14/13 Requested a meeting prior to Assessment Planning File Report, provided Draft selection of Preferred Alternative PFR for review prior to Notice Requested copies of all notices and of Completion draft and final copies of EA Report

Mr. Chris Jones Senior Planner Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 no response Member of Steering Committee Kept on the mailing list at the Ms. Nancy Gaffney Waterfront Specialist Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 no response request of S. Lingertat, TRCA School Board Contacts Durham Student Transportation Ms. Katie Johnson Manager of Operations 650 Rossland Road West Oshawa ON L1J 7C4 no response Services Durham Catholic District School Mr. Paul Pulla Director of Education 650 Rossland Road West Oshawa ON L1J 7C4 no response Board Ms. Christine Nancekivell Senior Planner Durham District School Board 400 Taunton Road East Whitby ON L1R 2K6 3/05/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Emergency Services Contacts Mr. Bill Douglas Fire Chief Pickering Fire Services 1616 Bayly Street Pickering ON L1W 3N2 no response

Mr. Richard Armstrong Director Durham Region EMS 4040 Anderson Street Whitby ON L1R 3P6 no response Coordinator, Operations & Ms. Valerie Jones City of Pickering 1616 Bayly Street Pickering ON L1W 3N2 no response Emergency Services Provincial Agencies and Elected Officials Member of Provincial Parliament Suite 201A Represents Areas east of Brock and Mr. Joe Dickson Ajax-Pickering Ajax ON L1S 2H5 no response (MPP) 50 Commercial Avenue north of Finch Member of Provincial Parliament Ms. Tracy MacCharles Pickering--Scarborough East 300 Kingston Road Pickering ON L1V 6Z9 3/01/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list (MPP) City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Agency Responses to Notice of Commencement

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Special Assistant, Community Added to mailing list at the request of Ms. Asma Bala Office of MPP Tracy McCharles 300 Kingston Road Pickering ON L1V 6Z9 Added to mailing list Outreach MPP Tracey McCharles Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Ms. Cathy Wilson-Pinkney Manager 1 Stone Road West, 2nd Floor Guelph ON N1G 4Y2 no response Affairs Director - Provincial Planning and Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Ms. Audrey Bennet 14th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto ON M5G 2E5 no response Policy Branch Housing Keep on mailing list Note that study area contains Kept on mailing list 50 Bloomington Road West Frenchman's Bay PSW as well as Ms. Jackie Burkart Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora ON L4G 3G8 3/01/13 PSW and SAR documented in South Tower SAR EA Report Report any SAR encountered in study area to MNR Refer to letter received February 27, 2014 Provided general direction on areas Areas of interest and required Environmental Resource Planner & of interest and required content Ms. Dorthy Moszynski Ministry of the Environment 8th Floor, 5775 Yonge Street North York ON M2M 4J1 2/27/13 content reflected in PFR EA Coordinator Requested Draft ESR 30 days prior Provided Draft Copy of ESR to finalizing study Requested copy of Notice of Completion and Final ESR General Manager, 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Mr. Graham Martin Infrastructure Ontario Toronto ON M7A 1N3 no response Acquisition/Easements 77 Wellesley Street West First Nation Government Agencies Lands & Trusts Services, Aboriginal Manager - Environment & Natural Mr. Glenn Gilbert Affairs and Northern Development 25 St. Clair Avenue East, 8th Floor Toronto ON M4T 1M2 no response Resources Canada Specific Claims Branch, Aboriginal Senior Claims Analysts, Ontario Mr. Don Boswell Affairs and Northern Development 10 Wellington Street - Room 1310 Gatineau QC K1A 0H4 no response Research Team Canada Refer to letter received March 8 Consultation and Accommodation Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Provided information on claims, All suggested aboriginal Ms. Allison Berman 5H - 5th Floor Gatineau QC K1A 0H4 3/08/13 Unit Development Canada treaties and extensive Aboriginal communites contacted Community contacts requested to be removed from the Ms. Wendy Cornet Manager, Consultation Unit Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 9th Floor, 160 Bloor Street Toronto ON M7A 2E6 2/28/13 Removed from the mailing list mailing list Advisor, Strategy Policy & Planning Ms. Ashley Johnson Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 9th Floor, 160 Bloor Street Toronto ON M7A 2E6 no response Division First Nation Community Contacts Project deemed to be Level 3, with minimal potential to impact First 11696 2nd Line Road Mr. Dave Simpson Lands and Resources Alderville First Nation Alderville ON K0K 2X0 7/17/13 Nation's rights Request noted P.O. Box 46 Keep appraised of any achaeological findings or environmental impacts Chippewas of Georgina Island First RR 2 Chief Donna Big Canoe Sutton West ON L0E 1R0 no response Nation PO Box 13 Keep on mailing list, copy Williams 5884 Rama Road Chief Sharon Stinson Henry Chippewas of Rama (Mnjikaning) Rama ON L0K 1T0 3/22/13 Treaty First Nations Co-ordinator on Kept on mailing list Suite 200 all future correspondence Added to mailing list at the Coordinator for Williams Treaties Ms. Karry Sandy-McKenzie Barrister & Solicitor 8 Creswick Court Barrie ON L4M 2J7 request of Chippewas of Rama First Nations & Curve Lake First Nations City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Agency Responses to Notice of Commencement

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Keep appraised of any achaeological findings or environmental impacts Chief Phyllis Williams Curve Lake First Nation 22 Winookeeda Road Curve Lake ON K0L 1R0 4/19/13 Copy Williams Treaty First Nations Request noted Co-ordinator on all future correspondence Hiawatha First Nation (Mississauga Chief Gregory Cowie 123 Paudash Street Keene ON K0L 2G0 no response of Rice Lake) Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Chief Tracy Gauthier 22521 Island Road Port Perry ON L9L 1B6 no response Nation Chief Kris Nahrgang Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation P.O. Box 1432 Lakefield ON K0L 2H0 no response

Consultation Unit Métis Nation of Ontario 500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit 3 Ottawa ON K1N 9G4 no response Utility Contacts Manager, Engineering and Mr. Peter Petriw Veridian Connections 55 Taunton Road East Ajax ON L1T 3V3 no response Construction Scarboroug Mr. Jim Arnott Municipal Coordinator Advisor Enbridge Gas Distribution P.O. Box 650 ON M1K 5E3 no response h System Planner, Outside Plant Mr. Bernie Visser Rogers Communications 301 Marwood Drive Oshawa ON L1H 1J4 2/22/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Engineering Development & Municipal Services Scarboroug M1P Mr. John La Chapelle Bell Canada 100 Borough Drive, Floor 5 - Blue ON no response Control Centre h 4W2 Ms. Laura Giunta Real Estate Assistant Hydro One Networks Inc. P.O. Box 4300 Markham ON L3R 5Z5 no response Manager, Community Planning and CN Business Development and Real Mr. Nick Coleman 1 Administration Road Concord ON L4K 1B9 no response Development Estate Mr. Adam Snow Third Party Projects Officer GO Transit 335 Judson Street Toronto ON M8Z 1B2 no response Manager of Transportation Planning M5J Mr. Daniel Francey GO Transit 20 Bay Street, Suite 600 Toronto ON no response and Development 2W3 Mr. Kevin Paul Real Estate Department (Sales) CP Rail 1290 Central Parkway W, Suite #704 Mississauga ON L5C 4R3 no response Pickering City Centre Intensification Study Stakeholders Pickering East Shores Ratepayers East Shore Community Centre Mr. Keith Falconer President Pickering ON L1W 1S6 no response Association 910 Liverpool Road East Shore Community Centre Mr. Dave Simpson President South Pickering Seniors Club Pickering ON L1W 1S6 no response 910 Liverpool Road Mr. Denis Carrier Commodore Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club 635 Breezy Drive Pickering ON L1W 2X4 no response Planner, Norstar Group of Mr. Rob Freeman Freeman Planning Solutions Inc. 6424 Edenwood Dr. Mississauga ON L5N 3H3 2/21/13 interested in providing input Kept on mailing list Companies 150 Ferrand Dr. Mr. Steven Warsh S & R Development Group Ltd. Toronto ON M3C 3E5 no response Suite 801 2180 Steeles Avenue Mr. Aaron Brown Northstar Group of Companies Toronto ON L4K 2Z5 no response Suite 305 Strategic Policy and Systems 20 Bay St. M5J Ms. Elana Horowitz Senior Advisor Toronto ON no response Planning/Metrolinx Suite 600 2W3 One Queen St. E. M5C Mr. George Buckles 20 Vic Management Toronto ON no response Suite 300, Box 88 2W5 City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Agency Responses to Notice of Commencement

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received One Queen St. E. M5C Mr. Bruno Bartel 20 Vic Management Toronto ON no response Suite 300, Box 88 2W5 Mr. Allen Arsenault General Manager Pickering Town Centre 1355 Kingston Road Pickering ON L1V 1B8 no response 200 King St. W. OPB Reality Inc. Toronto ON M5H 3X6 no response Suite 2000 2104 Highway 7 Mr. Allen Smoskowitz Vice President Steele Valley Developments Ltd. Concord ON L4K 2S9 2/22/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Unit 28 K7K Ms. Kim Donovan 80 Queen St Kingston ON no response 6W7 1550 Kingston Road Mr. Richard Feldman Co-owner First Pickering Place Pickering ON L1V 1C3 2/20/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Suite 300 Ms. Julie Di Lorenzo Diamante Development Corporation 100 Davenport Rd Toronto ON M5R 1H7 no response

Mr. Bob Oldman Pineridge Management Inc. 555 Kingston Road West Ajax ON L1S 6M1 no response

Mr. Ian McCullough Coughlan Homes 2700 Audley Road North Ajax ON L1Z 1T7 no response 11 Church St. M5E Cap REIT Apartments Inc. Toronto ON no response Suite 401 1W1 4950 Yonge St. The Torgan Group Toronto ON M2N 6K1 no response Suite 1010 Mr. Steve Thompson Loblaws Properties Limited 1 President's Choice Circle Brampton ON L6Y 5S5 no response

Pickfair Shopping Centre 7030 Woodbine Avenue Suite 103 Markham ON L3R 6G2 no response 100 Milverton Drive Mr. Ian Maxwell General Manager Chartwell Retirement Residences Mississauga ON L5R 4H1 no response Suite 700 3845 Bathurst St Ms. Monica Dashwood Director of Development V!VA Retirement Communities Toronto ON M3H 3N2 2/26/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Suite 206 Mr. Krikor Nalbandian 120 Midair Court Brampton ON L6T 5V1 no response 500 Sheppard Ave East Ms. Jenny Marsh Executive Assistant Mallpaks Developments Ltd. North York ON M2N 6H7 2/22/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Suite 303 Other Agency Contacts Manager, Resilient Communities & Institute for Catastrophic Loss 20 Richmond Street East, Suite 210 Mr. Dan Sandink Toronto ON M5C 2R9 6/24/13 Please keep on mailing list Kept on mailing list Research Reduction City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Resident Responses to Notice of Commencement

Resident Request to be Added Comment Response (Name and Address Withheld) to Mailing List (Y/N) Resident # 1 Y Added to mailing list

Resident # 2 Y Back yard floods from Krosno Creek Added to mailing list

Resident # 3 Y Added to mailing list Responded directly, confirmed that resident is not affected by flooding Resident # 4 N Not affected by study from Krosno Creek and would not be impacted by any potential solutions Resident # 5 Y Considerable history, would like to meet Met with resident and recorded concerns at both PIC#1 and PIC#2

Resident # 6 Y Added to mailing list

Resident # 7 Y Added to mailing list

Resident # 8 Y Added to mailing list

Resident # 9 Y Added to mailing list

Resident # 10 Y Added to mailing list

City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Distribution List for Public Information Centre # 1

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Municipal Government Contacts Senior Co-ordinator, Landscape & City of Pickering Mr. Arnold Mostert Waterfront Coordinating Committee Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Parks Dev't One The Esplanade Project Coordinator, Transportation Ms. Lynda Motschenbacher Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 Infrastructure

Ms. Kiersten Allore Planning Analyst Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3

Mr. Martin Ward Deputy General Manager, Operations Durham Region Transit 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 Conservation Authority Contacts

Senior Planner, Environmental Ms. Sharon Lingertat Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 Assessment Planning

Mr. Chris Jones Senior Planner Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4

Ms. Nancy Gaffney Waterfront Specialist Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 School Board Contacts Ms. Christine Nancekivell Senior Planner Durham District School Board 400 Taunton Road East Whitby ON L1R 2K6 Emergency Services Contacts

Provincial Agencies and Elected Officials Member of Provincial Parliament Ms. Tracy MacCharles Pickering--Scarborough East 300 Kingston Road Pickering ON L1V 6Z9 (MPP) Special Assistant, Community Ms. Asma Bala Office of MPP Tracy McCharles 300 Kingston Road Pickering ON L1V 6Z9 Outreach

50 Bloomington Road West Ms. Jackie Burkart Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora ON L4G 3G8 South Tower

First Nation Community Contacts 5884 Rama Road Chief Sharon Stinson Henry Chippewas of Rama (Mnjikaning) Rama ON L0K 1T0 Suite 200

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Planner, Norstar Group of Mr. Rob Freeman Freeman Planning Solutions Inc. 6424 Edenwood Dr. Mississauga ON L5N 3H3 Companies 2104 Highway 7 Mr. Allen Smoskowitz Vice President Steele Valley Developments Ltd. Concord ON L4K 2S9 Unit 28 1550 Kingston Road Mr. Richard Feldman Co-owner First Pickering Place Pickering ON L1V 1C3 Suite 300 3845 Bathurst St Ms. Monica Dashwood Director of Development V!VA Retirement Communities Toronto ON M3H 3N2 Suite 206 500 Sheppard Ave East Ms. Jenny Marsh Executive Assistant Mallpaks Developments Ltd. North York ON M2N 6H7 Suite 303 Other Agency Contacts Manager, Resilient Communities & Institute for Catastrophic Loss 20 Richmond Street East, Suite 210 Mr. Dan Sandink Toronto ON M5C 2R9 Research Reduction Study Area Residents Refer to completed comment forms Refer to individual response Letter sent to all ten (10) residents who responded to the Notice of Commencement. Names and addresses withheld. in Appendix C letters in Appendix D City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Distribution List for Public Information Centre # 2

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Municipal Government Contacts Senior Co-ordinator, Landscape & City of Pickering Mr. Arnold Mostert Waterfront Coordinating Committee Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Parks Dev't One The Esplanade Project Coordinator, Transportation Ms. Lynda Motschenbacher Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 Infrastructure

Ms. Kiersten Allore Planning Analyst Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3

Mr. Martin Ward Deputy General Manager, Operations Durham Region Transit 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 Conservation Authority Contacts

Senior Planner, Environmental Ms. Sharon Lingertat Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 Assessment Planning

Mr. Chris Jones Senior Planner Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4

50 Bloomington Road West Ms. Jackie Burkart Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora ON L4G 3G8 South Tower

First Nation Community Contacts 5884 Rama Road Chief Sharon Stinson Henry Chippewas of Rama (Mnjikaning) Rama ON L0K 1T0 Suite 200

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Planner, Norstar Group of Mr. Rob Freeman Freeman Planning Solutions Inc. 6424 Edenwood Dr. Mississauga ON L5N 3H3 Companies 2104 Highway 7 Mr. Allen Smoskowitz Vice President Steele Valley Developments Ltd. Concord ON L4K 2S9 Unit 28 1550 Kingston Road Mr. Richard Feldman Co-owner First Pickering Place Pickering ON L1V 1C3 Suite 300 3845 Bathurst St Ms. Monica Dashwood Director of Development V!VA Retirement Communities Toronto ON M3H 3N2 Suite 206 500 Sheppard Ave East Ms. Jenny Marsh Executive Assistant Mallpaks Developments Ltd. North York ON M2N 6H7 Suite 303 Mr Christopher Tanzola Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto ON M2N 6P4 Other Agency Contacts Manager, Resilient Communities & Institute for Catastrophic Loss 20 Richmond Street East, Suite 210 Mr. Dan Sandink Toronto ON M5C 2R9 Research Reduction Study Area Residents Refer to completed comment forms Letter sent to all ten (10) residents who responded to the Notice of Commencement. Names and addresses withheld. No response required in Appendix D Letters sent to twelve (12) additional residents who registered at PIC # 1. Individual letters sent to five of these who requested a written response to comments on PIC # 1. Names and Refer to completed comment forms No response required addresses withheld. in Appendix D City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Distribution List for Notice of Completion

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received Municipal Government Contacts Senior Co-ordinator, Landscape & City of Pickering Mr. Arnold Mostert Waterfront Coordinating Committee Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Parks Dev't One The Esplanade Project Coordinator, Transportation Ms. Lynda Motschenbacher Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 Infrastructure

Ms. Kiersten Allore Planning Analyst Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3

Mr. Martin Ward Deputy General Manager, Operations Durham Region Transit 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 Conservation Authority Contacts

Senior Planner, Environmental Ms. Sharon Lingertat Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 Assessment Planning

Mr. Chris Jones Senior Planner Toronto Region Conservation 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4

50 Bloomington Road West Ms. Jackie Burkart Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora ON L4G 3G8 South Tower

Central Region, Technical Support Environmental Resource Planner & Ministry of the Environment and Ms. Nisha Shirali Section Toronto ON M2M 4J1 EA Coordinator Climate Change 5775 Yonge Street, 9th Fl City of Pickering Stakeholder Tracking Form TMIG Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Project 12150 Distribution List for Notice of Completion

Postal Date Title First Name Last Name Title Agency Address City Prov. Response Response Action Code Received First Nation Community Contacts 5884 Rama Road Chief Sharon Stinson Henry Chippewas of Rama (Mnjikaning) Rama ON L0K 1T0 Suite 200

Coordinator for Williams Treaties Ms. Karry Sandy-McKenzie Barrister & Solicitor 8 Creswick Court Barrie ON L4M 2J7 First Nations Utility Contacts System Planner, Outside Plant Mr. Bernie Visser Rogers Communications 301 Marwood Drive Oshawa ON L1H 1J4 Engineering Pickering City Centre Intensification Study Stakeholders Planner, Norstar Group of Mr. Rob Freeman Freeman Planning Solutions Inc. 6424 Edenwood Dr. Mississauga ON L5N 3H3 Companies 2104 Highway 7 Mr. Allen Smoskowitz Vice President Steele Valley Developments Ltd. Concord ON L4K 2S9 Unit 28 1550 Kingston Road Mr. Richard Feldman Co-owner First Pickering Place Pickering ON L1V 1C3 Suite 300 3845 Bathurst St Ms. Monica Dashwood Director of Development V!VA Retirement Communities Toronto ON M3H 3N2 Suite 206 500 Sheppard Ave East Ms. Jenny Marsh Executive Assistant Mallpaks Developments Ltd. North York ON M2N 6H7 Suite 303 Mr Christopher Tanzola Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto ON M2N 6P4 Other Agency Contacts Manager, Resilient Communities & Institute for Catastrophic Loss 20 Richmond Street East, Suite 210 Mr. Dan Sandink Toronto ON M5C 2R9 Research Reduction Study Area Residents Letter sent to all ten (10) residents who responded to the Notice of Commencement. Names and addresses withheld.

Letters sent to twelve (12) additional residents who registered at PIC # 1. Names and addresses withheld.

Letters sent to eleven (11) additional residents who registered at PIC # 2. Names and addresses withheld. Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix B Notice of Commencement

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT KROSNO CREEK DIVERSION STUDY CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The City of Pickering is undertaking the Krosno Creek Diversion Study to determine the best means of reducing the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek. The Study Area is shown in the Key Map below. The study will evaluate a range of alternatives for reducing flood risk, including a diversion structure to send flood flows from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek, and will include preliminary design of the recommended works.

The study is being conducted in accordance with the Schedule C process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011).

This Notice of Study Commencement is being issued to notify the public of the project and invite comment. To further facilitate public input, two Public Information Centres (PICs) are proposed as part of the study. The notices of the PICs will be published in the Pickering News Advertiser and will also be available on the City’s website.

Should you have any questions or comments, require further information, or wish to be added to the study mailing list, please contact one of the following Study Team members:

Ms. Marilee Gadzovski, P.Eng. Mr. Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Manager, Water Resources Project Manager City of Pickering The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. One The Esplanade 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7 Vaughan, ON L4K 0C5 tel: 905.420.4660 ext. 2067 tel: 905.738.5700 ext. 359 [email protected] [email protected]

This notice issued February 13, 2013.

February 14, 2013

«Title» «First_Name» «Last_Name» «Title1» «Agency» «Address_Line_1» «Address_Line_2» «City» «Prov» «Postal_Code»

Dear «Title» «Last_Name»

Re: Krosno Creek Diversion Study - Notice of Study Commencement City of Pickering

The City of Pickering is undertaking the Krosno Creek Diversion Study to determine the best means of minimizing the risk of flooding and flood damages to public and private development and infrastructure along Krosno Creek, and to prepare a preliminary design for the recommended works.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the commencement of this Study and to solicit your comments. To this end, your assistance in ensuring that this letter is circulated to the appropriate personnel within your organization or agency is greatly appreciated. A copy of the Notice of Study Commencement as it appeared in the Pickering News Advertiser on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 and Wednesday, February 20, 2013, is attached to this letter showing the location of the Study Area.

The Study is being carried out accordance with the planning and design process for Schedule ‘C’ projects as outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document (October 2000, as amended 2007 and 2011). Phases 1 and 2 of the Study will confirm the extent of flooding problems, review alternatives and identify the preferred solution to address the flooding concerns along Krosno Creek. The alternatives being evaluated will include the diversion of flood flows from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek. Phases 3 and 4 and will address alterative designs for the preferred solution, their impacts and all mitigating measures. The results will be documented in an Environmental Study Report.

Two Public Information Centres (PICs) have been proposed as part of the Study. The first PIC will be held in Spring 2013 to present alternative solutions and receive public input prior to evaluating the alternatives. The PIC will provide an opportunity for agencies and the public to review and comment on the information to date. Notices providing the date, time and location of the PICs will be published in the Pickering News Advertiser and issued to interested agencies and stakeholders prior to the meeting. Upon completion of the Study, the Environmental Study Report will be prepared and made available for public review.

8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan, Ontario Canada L4K 0C5 Tel: 905∙738∙5700 Fax: 905∙738∙0065 1 888∙449∙4430 www.tmig.ca Notice of Study Commencement February 14, 2012 Krosno Creek Diversion Study City of Pickering

We would appreciate receiving any information your agency may have which is relevant to this Study. If your organization or agency has any concerns and/or comments regarding this Study and you wish to provide input, please contact the undersigned using the Reply Form provided. Should the Study have no effect on your organization or agency’s program mandate and/or policies, please advise the undersigned of this fact by returning the Reply Form provided. Your response would be appreciated by March 1, 2013 so that we can meet the Project schedule, and ensure your issues/concerns are addressed in a timely manner.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at (905) 738-5700 ext. 359. Thank you for your assistance with this Study and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Marilee Gadzovski, Manager, Water Resources, City of Pickering

Page 2

REPLY FORM PLEASE REPLY BY MARCH 1, 2013

To: Steve Hollingworth, TMIG Date:

Fax: (905) 738-0065 E-mail: [email protected]

RE: Krosno Creek Diversion Study, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

NAME:

 Use my contact information as the key project contact for future correspondence

TITLE:

ORGANIZATION/AGENCY:

ADDRESS:

POSTAL CODE:

PHONE:

FAX:

E-MAIL:

Please indicate the appropriate response:

 My group/agency is interested in providing input regarding this Study. Please leave me on the Study Mailing List.

 My group/agency is not interested in providing input regarding this Study but would like to be kept informed. Please leave me on the Study Mailing List.

 Please remove my group/agency from Study Mailing List.

Area of interest or concern/preliminary comments:

With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. March 14,2013 CFN 48531

BY E-MAIL ONLY([email protected])

Marilee Gadzovski Manager, Water Resources City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7

Dear Ms. Gadzovski:

Re: Response to Notice of Study Commencement .Krosno Creek Diversion Study Class Environmental Assessment - Schedule C Frenchman's Bay; City of Pickering; Regional Municipality of Durham

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff received the Notice of Commencement for the above noted Environmental Assessment (EA) on February 20, 2013. TRCA staff also attended Steering Committee Meeting #1 on February 19, 2013. It is our understanding that the purpose of this undertaking is to determine the best means of reducing the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek. Alternatives will be examined as part of the EA including a diversion structure to send flood flows from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek.

TRCA Areas of Interest

Staff has identified the following Areas of Interest within the study area:

Regulated Areas TRCA Program and Policy Areas • Regulation Limit • Aquatic Species and Habitat • Crest of Slope • Aquifers and Hydrogeological Features • Lake Ontario Shoreline • Environmentally Significant Areas • Meander Belt • Habitat Implementation Plans • Regulatory Flood Plain • Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy • Wetlands • Terrestrial Species and Habitat • Watercourses Provincial Program Areas • Provincially Significant Wetlands

Available mapping and program information regarding these Areas of Interest were sent for your reference on February 8, 2013 to the attention of Steve Hollingworth. Please ensure that the status, potential impacts and opportunities for enhancement related to these Areas of Interest are documented and assessed through a review of background material, technical study, field assessment and detailed evaluation, as appropriate.

Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 I Fax. 416.661.6898 I [email protected],ca I 5 Shofeh •.Hn Drive, Dovmsview. ON M3N J 54

www.trca.on.ca Ms. Gadzovski - 2 - March 14, 2013

Selection of Alternatives In consideration of TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, Ontario Regulation 166/06, and TRCA's other programs and policies, staff requires that the preferred alternative meets the following criteria:

1. Prevents the risk associated with flooding, erosion or slope instability. 2. Protects and:rehabilitates existing landforms, features and functions. 3. Provides for aquatic, terrestrial and human access. 4. Minimizes water/energy consumption and pollution. 5. Addresses !RCA property and heritage resource concerns.

TRCA staff recommends that a summary of detailed design commitments be included in the EA as a Pre- design Brief. This summary should include, but not be limited to: .

a. An aerial photo indicating the study area, regulated area, existing conditions and preferred solution/design; b. Text indicating the preferred alternative -solution/design; c. A Reference list of alternative solutions and designs considered; d. A synopsis of all TRCA requirements and technical commitments.

It is intended that the proponent and their consultants, as well as TRCA, would use the Pre-design Brief during the preliminary stages of detailed design. In the Pre-design Brief, commitments made during the EA would be clearly articulated in order to facilitate a 90 % detailed design submission to TRCA for all required permits. TRCA staff would then be able to review the required studies, reports or plans; and confirm any additional study requirements or revisions to the submitted materials. Ideally, the completion of the Pre-Design Brief will result in a more timely and streamlined permit approval process in the future.

TRCA Review Prior to selecting the preferred alternative solution and design, please arrange a meeting to discuss issues that relate to our program and policy concerns. In addition, please add TRCA's Waterfront Specialist, Nancy Gaffney, to the project mailing list to receive any public information updates.

In addition, please be advised that the Authority adopted a new fee schedule on January 2,2012. As a result, the fee for reviewing this Schedule C project is $11,500. Please forward this amount to my attention for processing.

Please also provide the following submissions to expedite TRCA review: • Notices of public meetings and display material and handouts • Four hard copies of the Phases 1 and 2 Report • Four hard copies of the Phase 3 Report • Four hard copies of the Draft EA Document • One hard copy of the Final EA Document.

Please include a digital copy of all submitted material. Materials must be submitted in PDF format, with drawings pre-scaled to print on 11"x17" pages. Materials may be submitted on discs, via e-mail (if less than 2.5 MB), or through file transfer protocol (FTP) sites (if posted for a minimu m of two weeks).

Should you have any questio~s, please contact me at extension 5717 or at [email protected].

Yours truly,

Sharon Lingertat Senior Planner, Environmental Assessment Planning Planning and Development

Encl.: TRCA Areas of Interest Summary Table Ms. Gadzovski - 3 - March 14, 2013

BY E-MAIL cc: TMIG: Steve Hollingworth ([email protected]) TRCA: Beth Williston, Senior Manager, Environmental Assessment Planning Nancy Gaffney, Waterfront Specialist Gord MacPherson, Senior Manager, Restoration Services

'C:\Documents And Settings\TRCA\Desktop\A File\48531 - Notice Of Commencement.Docx e(Conse;~ation for The Living City' TRCA AREAS OF INTEREST Page 1 of 2

EA Requirements Document and assess the status, potential impacts and opportunities for enhancement that relate to the following Areas of Interest through a review of background material, technical study, field assessment and detailed evaluation, as appropriate. Make reference to the applicable Program and Policy documents. Include in the EA Document appendices any minutes, structure summary sheets for watercourses or wetlanas, or other material collected through meetings with TRCA staff. Natural features may need to be confirmed on site by TRCA staff.

Area of Interest! Program and Policy Concerns DataAvaihibility .. ' . »< ... .;' '. TRCA REGULATED AREAS

Regulation Limit In accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 (Deyelopment, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), a permit is required from the TRCA prior to any development (e.g. construction) if, in the opinion of TRCA, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected. The Regulation Limit defines the greater of the natural hazards associated with Ontario Regulation 166/06 (listed below).

NOTE: The Regulation Limit provides a geographical screening tool for determining if Ontario Regulation 166/06 will apply to a given proposal. Through site assessment or other investigation, it may be determined that areas outside of the defined Regulation Limit require permits under Ontario Regulation 166/06. In these instances, it is the text of the.regulation that will prevail; modifications to the regulation line may be required.

Any development within the Regulation Limit must comply with the applicable 'sections of TRCA's Valley and

Stream Corridor Management Program. (

Crest of Slope Valley and stream corridors are dynamic systems that provide important natural functions and linkages for the physical, chemical and biological processes of wildlife, wC:ltercourses, and other natural features. The Crest of Slope identifies the physical limit of these corridors; however, due to ecological sensitivities, development restrictions typically extend beyond the actual Crest of Slope.

Lake Ontario The Lake Ontario Shoreline consists of sensitive bluffs and dynamic beach systems. Any development near Shoreline the Lake Ontario Shoreline may impact these sensitive natural features, or may be impacted by associated flooding or erosion hazards.

Applicable programs and strategies for work near the Lake Ontario Shoreline may include: The Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program; The Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (TWAHRS); The Integrated Shoreline Management Plan: Tommy Thompson Pari< To Frenchman's Bay.

Meander Belt Channel migration has a significant impact on infrastructure, structures and p~operty located near river systems. Determining channel stability is importanfto ensure that damage from erosion, down-cutting or other natural channel processes is avoided.

TRCA may require a meander belt delineation study or fluvial geomorphology analysis to confirm that any development does not conflict with natural channel processes.

Regulatory Flood Plain The Regulatory Flood Plain is the approved standard used in a particular watershed to define the limit of the flood plain for regulatory purposes. Within TRCA's jurisdiction, the Regulatory Flood Plain is based on the greater of the regional storm, Hurricane Hazel, and the 100 year flood.

. , Any development or alterations to existing structures within the Regulatory Flood Plain may introduce risk to life or property, and may not be compatible with existing natural features. TRCA's framework for Flood Plain Management is the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program.

TRCA may require a flood study or hydraulic update to confirm that there will be no impacts to the storage or conveyance of flood waters. -- Wetlands Wetlands are sensitive natural habitats that play an important role in numerous physical, chemical and biological processes, including storm water control, natural habitat and water quality improvement. Most wetlands are designated by the Ministry of Natural Resources as Provincially Significant or Locally Significant. Other wetlands have also been identified on a site specific basis by TRCA. All of these are regulated under Ontario Regulation 166/06. TRCA may require an environmental study or site confirmation of wetlands locations.

Watercourses Typically, watercourses are associated with aquatic species and habitat. Any alteration or interference to a watercourse (e.g. straightening, diverting, realigning, altering baseflow) has the potential to impact fish. communities, but may also affect the Regulatory Flood Plain, erosion or other natural channel processes. 4l!\~ ~ cToronto and Region • - . ~l onservallon for The Living City' TRCA AREAS OF INTEREST Page 2 of 2

- TRCA may require an environmental study or site confirmation of watercourse locations.

TRCA PROGRAM AND POLICY AREAS /vote: Additional program and policy information may be available at www.trca.on.ca, or by request.

Aquatic Species and Under the Fisheries Act, the Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HAD D) of fish habitat is prohibited, Habitat unless authorized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). TRCA reviews projects under the Fisheries Act based on our Level III Agreement with DFO to ensure that any potential impacts to fish habitat are appropriately mitigated, or that adequate compensation is provided where a HADD is unavoidable. Alternatives should be designed with appropriate mitigation measures to avoid a HADD. If a HADD is unavoidable, a suitable compensation plan must be developed, and Authorization from DFO will be required.

TRCA may require a quantification and assessment of existing conditions and proposed changes to fish habitat and communities to confirm impacts to these resources.

Aquifers and The extraction and discharge of groundwater has the potential to negatively impact surrounding natural Hydrogeological features. Even small amounts of groundwater extraction may reduce contributions to groundwater dependent Features features such as wetlands, springs, or fish spawning habitat. In addition, the discharge of groundwater must be controlled to avoid impacts to watercourses and fish habitat from erosion, sedimentation and water quality concerns.

TRCA may require geotechnical or hydrogeological investigations to confirm dewatering and discharge requirements, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures with respect to potential impacts to natural features (Le., wetlands, watercourses, natural features and aquatic habitat).

Environmentally Environmentally Significant Areas have been identified by TRCA based on a set of ecological criteria regarding Significant Areas the function, significance and rarity of the features or species found in the area.

Habitat TRCA staff has identified management opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement on TRCA Implementation Plans property and some privately owned lands. The Habitat Implementation Plans target priority sites to improve natural form and function based on targets in the watershed strategies.

Detailed plans have been developed or implemented for certain sites, while other locations have been identified for future work. Consultation with TRCA should take place to ensure that impacts to priority areas are avoided, or tha! opportunities to implement restoration plans are identified.

Terrestrial Natural TRCA has identified the need to improve both the quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat. TRCA's Terrestrial Heritage System Natural Heritage System Strategy sets measurable targets for attaining a healthier natural system by creating Strategy an expanded and targeted land base. It includes strategic directions for stewardship and securement of the land base, a land use policy framework to help achieve the target system, and other implementation mechanisms.

Terrestrial Species The terrestrial system includes landscape features, vegetation communities and flora and fauna species. and Habitat Terrestrial species and habitat should be assessed based on their conservation status according to sensitivity to disturbance and specialized ecological needs, as well as rarity.

TRCA may require a site assessment and terrestrial inventory to confirm impacts to these resources. TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy may be applicable to any work that impacts terrestrial species and habitat. In addition, relevant legislation (e.g. Migratory Bird Convention Act, Species at Risk Act) should be applied.

/ PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL PROGRAM AREAS .

Provincially Significant Provincially Significant Wetlands are identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) according to a Wetlands provincial evaluation guide that considers soil composition, hydrology and plant species. The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that development and site alteration shall not be perl't;litted in these areas. Contact MNR for more details. I

March 8, 2013

Steve Hollingworth Consultant Project Manager The Infrastructure Group 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan, ON L4K 0C5 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Hollingworth,

Thank you for your letter of February 14, 2013 regarding your request for information held by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) on established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in the vicinity of the Krosno Creek diversion project, in Pickering, Ontario.

Consulting with Canadians on matters of interest or concern to them is an important part of good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. In addition to good governance objectives, there may be statutory or contractual reasons for consulting, as well as the common law duty to consult with First Nations, Métis and Inuit when conduct that might adversely impact rights Aboriginal or treaty rights (established or potential) is contemplated.

It is important to note that the information held by AANDC is provided as contextual information and may or may not pertain directly to Aboriginal or treaty rights. In most cases, the Aboriginal community remains best positioned to explain their traditional use of land, their practices or claims that may fall under section 35, including claims they may have put before the courts.

AANDC has developed the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), which brings together information regarding Aboriginal groups such as their location, related treaty information, claims (specific, comprehensive and special) and litigation data.

The Consultation Information Service (CIS) response The CIS has prepared the attached response which combines the resources of ATRIS and the support of sectors and regions within the AANDC. Using a 100 km radius surrounding the project location, information regarding potentially affected Aboriginal communities is presented in the attached report in the following sections for each community:

Aboriginal Community Information includes key contact information and any other information such as Tribal Council affiliation.

Treaties includes information on historic and modern treaties.

Claims includes specific, comprehensive and special claims.

Self-Government Agreements and other negotiations may be part of comprehensive claims or stand-alone negotiations.

Litigation usually refers to litigation between the Aboriginal Group and the Crown, often pertaining to section 35 rights assertions or consultation matters.

Also included, where available, is a section entitled Other Considerations. This may include information on Métis rights or information on the assertions of other Aboriginal groups, consultation-related protocols or agreements and other relevant information.

Should you require further assistance regarding the information provided, or if you have any questions and/or comments about the enclosed response, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 5H- 5th Floor, Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Tel: 819-934-1873

Disclaimer This information is provided as a public service by the Government of Canada. All of the information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties as to the accuracy or reliability of any of the information provided, its fitness for a particular purpose or use, or non- infringement, which implied warranties are hereby expressly disclaimed. References to any website are provided for information only shall not be taken as endorsement of any kind. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the content or reliability of any referenced website and does not endorse the content, products, services or views expressed within them.

Limitation of Liabilities Under no circumstances will the Government of Canada be liable to any person or business entity for any reliance on the completeness or accuracy of this information or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other damages based on any use of this information including, without limitation, any lost profits, business interruption, or loss of programs or information, even if the Government of Canada has been specifically advised of the possibility of such damages.

Consultation Information Service Response - 2013 Krosno Creek diversion project, Pickering, ON

Within a 100 km radius of the project are Bands whose reserves and/or band offices are located within the yellow circle. These First Nation communities are noted by orange pegs. The following information should assist you in planning any consultation that may be required.

First Nation/Aboriginal Community Information

Alderville First Nation James (Jim Bob) Marsden (tenure expires July 22, 2013) 11696 2nd Line Road P.O. Box 46 Alderville, Ontario, K0K 2X0 Phone: (905) 352-2011 Fax: (905) 352-3242 www.aldervillefirstnation.ca

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership: Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims: Name: 1923 Williams Treaty Status: active litigation Description: The First Nation alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and inadequate compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississauga of the Credit and Moose Deer Point.

Legal Procedings: Name: Alderville Indian Band v. Attorney General of Canada Status: active Court File No.: CV-11-417797 Description: The Plaintiffs claim irregularities with the surveys on township and country roads running through the Alderville Indian Reserve No. 37.

Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court File No.: T-195-92 (Superior Court File No. 92-CU-55061) Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.

Agreement negotiations: Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chief Donna Big Canoe (tenure expires March, 2013) RR 2, PO Box 13 Sutton West, Ontario, L0E 1R0 Phone: (705) 437-1337 Fax: (705) 437-4597 www.georginaisland.com

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership: Chippewa Tri-Council Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims: Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: active litigation Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the Credit and Moose Deer Point.

Legal Proceedings: Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court File No.: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.

Agreement negotiations Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Chippewas of Rama (Mnjikaning) Chief Sharon Stinson Henry (tenure expires 2014) 5884 Rama Road, Suite 200 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0 Phone: (705) 325-3611 Fax: (705) 325-0879 www.mnjikaning.ca

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership: Chippewa Tri-Council Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims: Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: active litigation Description: The United Indian Council alleges that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and inadequate compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Moose Deer Point.

Curve Lake First Nation Chief Phyllis Williams (tenure expires June 25, 2014) General Delivery Curve Lake, Ontario, K0L 1R0 Phone: (705) 657-8045 Fax: (705) 657-8708 www.curvelakefn.com

Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership: Union of Ontario Indians Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims: Name: Flooding of IR 35 Status: active negotiations

Description: The First Nation alleges that between 300-600 acres of reserve land, set aside in 1837 for the Mud Lake Indian Band (now Curve Lake), were flooded when dams constructed for the Trent-Severn Waterway raised water levels in the Buckhorn section of the TSW in 1838.

Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: active litigation Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Moose Deer Point.

Legal Proceedings: Name: Alderville Indian Band v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court File No.: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.

Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: closed due to lack of activity on the case Court Number: T-1358-99 Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs to hold the reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.

Agreement Negotiations: Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” for more details.

Hiawatha First Nation (Mississauga of Rice Lake) Chief Gregory Cowie (tenure expires January 31, 2015) 123 Paudash Street Keene, Ontario, K0L 2G0 Phone: (705) 295-4421 Fax: (705) 295-4424 www.hiawathafirstnation.com

Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties for settlement: 1783 to 1815 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership: Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Chiefs of Ontario For more information, see “Other Considerations” below.

Specific Claims: Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: active litigation Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Moose Deer Point.

Legal Proceedings: Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.

Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: closed due to inactivity Court Number: T-1358-99 Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.

Name: R. v. George Henry Howard Status: closed Court File No.: 22999 Description: This case involved an Ontario fishing prosecution of an alleged breach of federal fisheries regulations. The courts ruled that the Williams Treaties of 1923 extinguished the First Nation’s treaty fishing rights previously granted under the Treaty of 1818. The SCC dismissed Howard’s appeal on May 12, 1994.

Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Nation Chief Tracy Gauthier (tenure expires June 27, 2013) 22521 Island Road Port Perry, Ontario L9L 1B6 Phone (905) 985-3337 Fax (905) 985-8828 http://www.scugogfirstnation.com/

Treaty Area - Southern Ontario treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership: Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims: Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: active litigation Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Moose Deer Point.

Legal Proceedings: Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in right of Canada Status: active Court File No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.

Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: closed due to inactivity Court File No. : T-1358-99 Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.

Land Management: The Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Nation is party to the First Nation Land Management Regime. This Agreement was signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1996, and is an initiative allowing signatory First Nations the ability to take over management and control of their lands and resources outside of the Indian Act. For more information, visit: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1327090675492/1327090738973

Agreement negotiations Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Other Considerations Non-status Aboriginal groups are not recognized as “Indian Bands” under the Indian Act. However, the communities can be engaged in active litigation that may or may not intersect with specific Section 35 right (s).

Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation Chief Kris Nahrgang (as of 2009) P.O. Box 1432 Lakefield, Ontario KOL 2H0 Phone: (705) 654-4661

Membership: This community traces its ancestry back to a Mississauga Band originally consisting of what are now called the Beausoleil, and the Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) and Georgina Island.

Location: The Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation (KNFN) community is located in and around the Burleigh Falls area of Ontario. This area is located south of the Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park, in the counties of Durham and Kawartha Lakes.

This community is located outside the boundaries of the Williams Treaties of 1923, and they maintain that they were not a party to these Treaties. They state that they retain their treaty rights to hunt and fish which were assured them under the Rice Lake Treaty (Treaty no. 20) of 1818.

Court decision: In the case R v. Johnson (2002), the Court confirmed the existence of an Indian community existing in the Burleigh Falls area, now known as the Kawartha Nishnawbe. The Court also confirmed that members of the community are descendants of the Chippewa and Mississauga who signed Treaty number 20 in 1818, and who were a separate community from Curve Lake First Nation prior to 1923, when the William’s Treaty was signed.

Asserted Rights and Harvesting Area: The Kawartha Nishnawbe assert that they exercise Treaty and Aboriginal rights including hunting and fishing rights over a territory extending from Kingston to the Georgian Bay area. This assertion was submitted in a letter to the Simcoe County Council in August of 2009. The letter was sent in protest of proposed Dump site 41 in Tiny Township, which KNFN argued would have the potential to affect a large portion of water and land which they consider their traditional territory. In their statement they note:

“following the Johnson decision, the Government of Ontario negotiated an agreement with Kawartha Nishnawbe which recognizes that our members continue to hold constitutionally protected harvesting rights throughout the traditional territory of the Mississauga Nation”.

The link to the letter is: http://stopdumpsite41.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/KN.ltr.DS41.Aug.20.09.pdf

In the R v. Johnson court record it is noted that the Williams Treaty is very specific as to who was included, stating that the signatories were “the undersigned chiefs and headsmen on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians they represent.” The Court agreed that records

10 showed that the Kawartha Nishnawbe Chief of the time, Jack Jacobs was not allowed to participate in the negotiations in 1923, nor is he listed as a signatory to the Treaties. Therefore, their Aboriginal right to fish should not have been restricted without consultation.

Aboriginal Rights Assertions: the Métis The inclusion of the Métis in s.35 represents Canada’s commitment to recognize and value their distinctive cultures, which can only survive if they are protected along with other Aboriginal communities. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Métis rights under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in the Sault St. Marie area, in the Powley decision. For more information on the Powley decision visit the following link: www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014419

The Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians (OFI) is aware that the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), its regional and community councils, have asserted a Métis right to harvest in a large section of the province.

The provincial government has accommodated Métis rights on a regional basis within Métis harvesting territories identified by the MNO. These accommodations are based on credible Métis rights assertions. An interim agreement (2004) between the MNO and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) recognizes the MNO’s Harvest Card system. This means that Harvester’s Certificate holders engage in traditional Métis harvest activities within identified Métis traditional territories across the province. For a map of Métis traditional harvesting territories visit the MNO website at: http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/harvesting-map.aspx

The MNO maintains that Aboriginal ‘rights-holders’ are Métis communities which are collectively represented through the MNO and its community councils. In partnership with community councils, MNO has established a consultation process. The MNO has published regional consultation protocols on their website which offer pre-consultation stage instructions on engaging the Métis through their community councils (via the consultation committee made up of an MNO regional councilor, a community councilor representative and a Captain of the Hunt). Please note however, that this organization does not represent all Métis in Ontario.

Métis Nation of Ontario Métis Consultation Unit is located within the MNO head office. 500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit 3 Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 9G4 Phone: (613) 798-1488 Fax: (613) 725-4225 www.metisnation.org/home.aspx

Métis National Council 4-340 MacLaren Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 0M6 Phone: (613) 232-3216 Fax: (613) 232-4262 www.metisnation.ca

For an indication of the population in Ontario who self-identify as Métis, visit the Statistics Canada website. The Ontario map indicates populations as small as 250 up to over 2,000 within its borders. http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/13011619/200805130120090313011619/16181522091403090112_13011619 /151401021518090709140112_201520011213052009190904161516_0503-eng.pdf

Legal Proceedings concering the Métis in Ontario Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada v. Michel Blais Status: active Court File No.: 08-213 Description: The Applicant is charged with unlawfully harvesting forest resources in a Crown forest without a license contrary to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994. The Applicant, a Métis, asserts that he is an Aboriginal person within the meaning of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and that the alleged harvesting occurred in lands set apart for the Batchewana Band pursuant to the Robinson Treaty of 1850. He claims that the Batchewana First Nation may permit Métis persons to exercise the same Aboriginal and treaty rights as its members pursuant to this treaty.

Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada, Laurie Desautels v. Henry Wetelainen Jr. Status: active Court File No.: CV-08-151 Description: The defendant, Henry Wetelainen Jr., intends to question the constitutional validity of sections 28, 31 and 40 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994), S.O. 1994, c. 25 and Ontario Regulation 167/95, as amended, in relation to an act or omission of the government of Ontario. The defendant claims that he was exercising Aboriginal and treaty rights afforded by the Adhesion to Treaty 3, by harvesting wood within his traditional territory. He claims that he is a Métis/Non-Status Indian and that the imposition of payment for harvesting or use of the forest resource is an infringement and violates his constitutional rights.

Name: Ministry of Natural Resources v. Kenneth Sr. Paquette Status: active Court File No.: to be determined Description: This Notice of Constitutional Question relates to a provincial prosecution involving a charge pertaining to hunting moose. The Defendant intends to assert his s. 35 right as a Métis person to hunt moose, and he also intends to seek a Charter remedy under s. 15 of the Charter.

Court Decisions concerning the Métis in Ontario R. v. Laurin, Lemieux, Lemieux - 2007 Court No.: ONCJ 265

Three Métis defendants were charged with fishing violations and claimed that the decision of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to prosecute them violated the terms of the Interim Agreement (2004) between the MNR and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO). As the defendants were indeed Harvester Card holders authorized to fish in the Mattawa/Nipissing territory, therefore, they were entitled to the exemption in the agreement.

The Court concluded that laying of charges against any valid Harvester Card holder who is harvesting in the territory designated on the card within 2 years of the 2004 agreement was a breach. The Interim Agreement itself was silent as to any geographic limitations. There was no mention of the Agreement only applying north and east of Sudbury. Further, the reliance on Harvester Cards, which explicitly contained the territorial designation of the cardholder, signified that the MNR accepted such designations for the purpose of the agreement. The Court was clear to note that this case did not make any ruling regarding the merits of any claim that the Mattawa/Nipissing area contains section 35 rights bearing Métis communities.

Membership

First Nations may or may not delegate certain authority and/or powers to tribal councils to administer programs, funding and/or services on their behalf. The best source of information with respect to consultation is though individual First Nations themselves.

Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians This is a political organization which advocates the interests of its eight members. Using political lines the members form a collective to protect their Aboriginal and treaty rights. www.aiai.on.ca 387 Princess Avenue London, Ontario, N6B 2A7 Phone: (519) 434-2761

Chippewa Tri-Council This council is an alliance of three First Nation communities composed of the: Beausoleil First Nation- located on Christina Island in Georgian Bay Georgina Island First Nation- located on Georgina Island in Lake Simcoe Rama Mnjikanning First Nation-located near Orillia There is not an official location for this council. Please contact the Chief of each First Nation individually.

Chiefs of Ontario The Chiefs of Ontario is a coordinating body for 133 First Nation communities in Ontario. The main objective of this body is to facilitate the discussion, planning, implementation and evaluation of all local, regional and national matters affecting its members. www.chiefs-of-ontario.org

Administrative Office: Political Office: 111 Peter Street, Suite 804 109 Mission Road Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2H1 Fort William First Nation Ontario, P7J 1L3 Phone: (416) 597-1266 Phone: (807) 626-9339 Fax: (416) 597-8365 Fax: (807) 626-9404

The Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) The UOI is a political advocate for approximately 40 member First Nations across Ontario. Its headquarters is located on Nipissing First Nation, just outside of North Bay Ontario, and has satellite offices in Thunder Bay, Curve Lake First Nation and Munsee-Delaware First Nation. The UOI delivers a variety of programs and services. The Anishinabek Nation incorporated the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) as its secretariat in 1949. www.anishinabek.ca Head Office: 1 Miigizi Mikan Regional Office North Bay, Ontario, P1B 8J8 300 Anemki Place Phone: (705) 497-9127 Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7J 1H9 Fax: (705) 497-9135 Phone: (807) 623-8887

Ogemawahj Tribal Council The Council provides professional services through the pooling of six First Nation member’s resources. www.ogemawahj.on.ca 5984 Rama Road P.O. Box 46 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0

Phone: (705) 329-2511 Fax: (705) 329-2509

Treaty Area In general, where historic treaties have been signed, the rights of signatory First Nation’s are defined by the terms of the Treaty. In many cases, however, there are divergent views between First Nations and the Crown as to what the treaty provisions imply or signify.

In areas where no historic treaty exists or where such treaties were limited in scope (i.e. where only certain rights were addressed by the treaty, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties), there may be comprehensive claims that are asserted or being negotiated. Comprehensive claim negotiations are the means by which modern treaties are achieved.

Treaties of Southern Ontario- The Upper Canada Treaties There are several treaty making eras which impact the province of Ontario. These eras are known as the Upper Canada Land Surrenders from 1764 to 1862. These surrenders are seen as treaties which transfer all Aboriginal rights and title to the Crown in exchange for one-time payments or annuities. They tended to be made with individual First Nation groups for tracts of land.

*Atlas of Canada

1764-1782 – Early Land Surrenders The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established the protection from encroachment of an Aboriginal territory outside of the colonial boundaries. Rules and protocols for the acquisition of Aboriginal lands by Crown officials were set out and became the basis for all future land treaties. In response to military and defensive needs around the Great Lakes, the Indian Department negotiated several land surrender treaties in the Niagara region.

1783-1815- Treaties for Settlement As part of the plan to resettle some 30,000 United Empire Loyalists who refused to accept American rule, and fled to Montreal, the Indian Department undertook a series of land

14 surrenders west of the Ottawa River with the Mississauga and the Chippewa of the southern Great Lakes. These tended to be uncomplicated arrangements whereby for a particular Aboriginal group was paid a specific sum paid in trade goods, to surrender a stated amount of land.

1815-1862- Treaties to Open the Interior After the war of 1812, the colonial administration of Upper Canada focused on greater settlement of the colony. The Indian Department completed the last of the over 30 Upper Canada Land Surrenders around the Kawartha, Georgian Bay, and the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers. All of this land which today is known as Southern Ontario, was ceded to the Crown.

Southern Ontario Treaty Making after the Upper Canada Land Surrenders While the protocols for surrenders established in 1763 by the Royal Proclamation, were largely followed by the Indian Department, complaints and petitions to the Crown were submitted by First Nation signatories regarding these surrenders as early as 1866. They claimed they had an unsurrendered interest in the so-called “northern hunting grounds”. In response, the province of Ontario and Canada enlisted a Commission in 1916 to investigate the veracity of these claims once and for all. If the claims were found to be valid, the Commission was to negotiate a treaty. The Commission’s investigation found a number of places where the certainty of the validity of the surrenders was questionable, and recommended that new treaties be made. They appointed A.S. Williams to negotiate with the Ojibway in 1923. The areas of uncertainty were brought into the boundaries of the Williams Treaties to achieve certainty.

Unlike the terms of the Robinson Treaties in Ontario (1850) and the more recent numbered treaties in the west, the Williams Treaties were cash for land deals. Aboriginal (Ojibway) signatories surrendered all of their rights and benefits to the Crown on lands in central Ontario and the northern shore of Lake Ontario. The Potawatomi and the Mississaugas of the New Credit were not involved in these negotiations.

*Atlas of Canada Map: Treaty boundaries on the above maps are approximate. The treaty areas listed for Aboriginal communities are based on the

geographic location of each First Nation.

Since the signing of these treaties, there have been questions as to whether the signatory First Nations had surrendered all of their rights to hunt and fish. In 1994, this debate was ended by the Supreme Court of Canada, when in R. v. Howard, the Court decided that the seven First Nations Georgina Island, Mnjikaning and Beausoleil, Curve Lake, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha by way of the Williams Treaties “basket clause”, had knowingly surrendered all of their hunting, fishing and trapping rights (whether they be Aboriginal rights or treaty rights) outside of their existing reserves.

Litigation to resolve the allegations that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations. A trial in this matter is scheduled to resume on October 22, 2012.

Specific claims Specific claims refer to claims made by a First Nation against the federal government related to outstanding lawful obligations, such as the administration of land and other First Nation assets, and to the fulfillment of Indian treaties, although the treaties themselves are not open to re- negotiation. This response provides summaries of active and relevant claims that are current to the date of the response. Claims that have been settled or closed may also be included to give a sense of the First Nation’s claims history with the Crown.

As the claims progress regularly, it is recommended that the status of each claim be reviewed through the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims. A listing of concluded claims is also available through the Reporting Centre at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx

Self Government Agreement Negotiations Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Aboriginal groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their communities. Many comprehensive claims settlements also include various self-government arrangements. Self-government agreements address: the structure and accountability of Aboriginal governments, their law-making powers, financial arrangements and their responsibilities for providing programs and services to their members. Self-government enables Aboriginal governments to work in partnership with other governments and the private sector to promote economic development and improve social conditions.

Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) negotiations on Governance and Education In 1995, the Anishinabek Nation’s Grand Council authorized its secretariat arm, the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI), to begin self-government negotiations with Canada. Negotiations towards agreements in the areas of education and governance began in 1998.

An agreement-in-principle (AIP) on education was signed in November 2002. In February 2007, the parties signed the AIP with respect to governance. Final agreement negotiations are proceeding in parallel, and together these agreements would mark important steps towards the Anishinabek Nation’s long-term objective of supporting participating First Nations to move out from under the Indian Act.

The governance agreement will provide the establishment of the Anishinabek Nation government and the recognition of participating First Nation lawmaking authority in four core governance areas: leadership selection, citizenship, culture and language, and management and operations of government.

The education AIP authorized the parties to negotiate a final agreement with respect to lawmaking authority for primary, elementary and secondary education for on-reserve members, and to administer AANDC’s post-secondary education assistance program. Negotiations towards a final agreement with respect to education are nearing conclusion. The Province of Ontario is not a party to these negotiations but is engaged in tripartite discussions on particular issues that would assist in the implementation of the final agreement.

To prepare for self-government in member communities, the Union of Ontario Indians has undertaken a range of activities including a Community Engagement Strategy, the development of an appeal and redress process, a constitutional development process and a number of capacity development activities.

Provincial guidelines Under its responsibility to promote stronger Aboriginal relationships, the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has produced Draft Guidelines on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples Related to Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights. These guidelines are for use by ministries who seek input from key First Nations and Métis organizations, all Ontario First Nations and selected non-Aboriginal stakeholders. To review the guidelines, visit: http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/policy/draftconsultjune2006.pdf

Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l’Environnment

Central Region Région du Centre Technical Support Section Section d'appui technique

5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor 5775, rue Yonge, 8ième étage North York, OntarioM2M 4J1 North York, Ontario M2M 4J1

Tel.: (416) 326-6700 Tél. : (416) 326-6700 Fax: (416) 325-6347 Téléc. : (416) 325-6347

February 27, 2013 File: EA01-06-04

Marilee Gadzovski, P. Eng. Manager, Water Resources City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering ON, L1V 6K7

RE: TSS Comments: Krosno Creek Diversion Study City of Pickering Class Environmental Assessment Response to Notice of Commencement

Dear Ms. Gadzovski,

This letter is our response to the Notice of Study Commencement for the above noted project. This response acknowledges that the City of Pickering has indicated that its study is following the approved environmental planning process for a Schedule “C” project under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA).

Based on the information submitted, we have identified the following areas of interest with respect to the proposed undertaking:

• Ecosystem Protection and • Contaminated Soils Restoration • Mitigation and Monitoring • Surface Water • Planning and Policy • Groundwater • Class EA Process • Air Quality, Dust and Noise • Aboriginal Consultation • Servicing and Facilities

We are providing the following general comments to assist you and your project team members in effectively addressing these areas of interest:

Ecosystem Protection and Restoration

• Any impacts to ecosystem form and function must be avoided where possible. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) should describe any proposed mitigation measures and how project planning will protect and enhance the local ecosystem.

• All natural heritage features should be identified and described in detail to assess potential impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures. Our records confirm that the following sensitive environmental features are located within or adjacent to the Study Area:

• Areas of Natural and Scientific • Watercourses Interest (ANSIs) • Wetlands • Environmentally Sensitive Areas • Woodlots (ESAs) • Rare Species of flora or fauna

We recommend consulting with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and your local conservation authority to determine if special measures or additional study will be necessary to preserve and protect these sensitive features.

Surface Water

• The ESR must include a sufficient level of information to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of the watercourses. Measures should be included in the planning and design process to ensure that any impacts to watercourses from construction or operational activities (e.g. spills, erosion, pollution) are mitigated as part of the proposed undertaking.

• The ministry’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) should be referenced in the ESR and utilized when designing stormwater control methods. We recommend that a Stormwater Management Plan should be prepared as part of the Class EA process that includes:

• Strategies to address potential water quantity and erosion impacts related to stormwater draining into streams or other sensitive environmental features, and to ensure that adequate (enhanced) water quality is maintained • Watershed information, drainage conditions, and other relevant background information • Future drainage conditions, stormwater management options, information on erosion and sediment control during construction, and other details of the proposed works • Information on maintenance and monitoring commitments.

Groundwater

• The status of, and potential impacts to any well water supplies should be addressed. Appropriate information to define existing groundwater conditions should be included in the ESR. If the potential construction or decommissioning of water wells is identified as an issue, the ESR should refer to Ontario Regulation 903, Wells, under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

• Potential impacts to groundwater-dependent natural features should be addressed. Any changes to groundwater flow or quality from groundwater taking may interfere with the ecological processes of streams, wetlands or other surficial features. In addition, discharging contaminated or high volumes of groundwater to these features may have direct impacts on their function. Any potential effects should be identified, and appropriate mitigation measures should be recommended. The level of detail required will be dependent on the significance of the potential impacts.

• Any potential approval requirements for groundwater taking or discharge should be identified in the ESR. In particular, a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) under the Ontario Water Resources Act will be required for any water takings that exceed 50,000 litres per day. For more information on the application and approval process, we suggest you refer to the ministry’s Permit to Take Water Manual (April 2005), found at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/st d01_079439.pdf

Air Quality, Dust and Noise

• Any potential air quality or odour impacts should be assessed and used in the evaluation of alternatives for the proposed project. Appropriate mitigation measures of any potential effects should be identified.

• Dust and noise control measures should be addressed and included in the construction plans to ensure that nearby residential and other sensitive land uses within the Study Area are not adversely affected during construction activities.

Servicing and Facilities

• Any facility that releases emissions to the atmosphere, discharges contaminants to ground or surface water, provides potable water supplies, or stores, transports or disposes of waste must have an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) before it can operate lawfully. Please consult with the Environmental Approvals Branch to determine whether a new or amended ECA will be required for any proposed infrastructure.

Contaminated Soils

• Since the removal or movement of soils may be required, appropriate tests to determine contaminant levels from previous land uses or dumping should be undertaken. If the soils are contaminated, you must determine how and where they are to be disposed of, consistent with Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Ontario Regulation 153/04, Records of Site Condition, which details the new requirements related to site assessment and clean up. We recommend contacting the ministry’s York Durham District Office for further consultation if contaminated sites are present.

• The location of any underground storage tanks should be investigated in the ESR. Measures should be identified to ensure the integrity of these tanks and to ensure an appropriate response in the event of a spill. The ministry’s Spills Action Centre must be contacted in such an event.

• Any current or historical waste disposal sites should be identified in the ESR. The status of these sites should be determined to confirm whether approval pursuant to Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act may be required for land uses on former disposal sites.

• The ESR should identify any underground transmission lines in the Study Area. The owners should be consulted to avoid impacts to this infrastructure, including potential spills.

Mitigation and Monitoring

• Design and construction reports and plans should be based on a best management approach that centres on the prevention of impacts, protection of the existing environment, and opportunities for rehabilitation and enhancement of any impacted areas.

• All waste generated during construction must be disposed of in accordance with ministry requirements.

• Contractors must be made aware of all environmental considerations so that all environmental standards and commitments for both construction and operation are met. Mitigation measures

should be clearly referenced in the ESR and regularly monitored during the construction stage of the project. In addition, we encourage proponents to conduct post-construction monitoring to ensure all mitigation measures have been effective and are functioning properly. The proponent’s construction and post-construction monitoring plans should be documented in the ESR.

Planning and Policy

• The study area is subject to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; and policies within the Provincial Policy Statement. The ESR should demonstrate how the proposed study adheres to the relevant policies in these plans.

Class EA Process

• The ESR should provide clear and complete documentation of the planning process in order to allow for transparency in decision-making. The ESR must also demonstrate how the consultation provisions of the Class EA have been fulfilled, including documentation of all public consultation efforts undertaken during the planning process. Additionally, the ESR should identify all concerns that were raised and how they have been addressed throughout the planning process. The Class EA also directs proponents to include copies of comments submitted on the project by interested stakeholders, and the proponent’s responses to these comments.

• The Class EA requires the consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the environment. The ESR should include a level of detail (e.g. hydrogeological investigations, terrestrial and aquatic assessments) such that all potential impacts can be identified and appropriate mitigation measures can be developed. Any supporting studies conducted during the Class EA process should be referenced and included as part of the ESR.

• Please include in the ESR a list of all subsequent permits or other approvals that may be required for the implementation of the preferred alternative, including Permits to Take Water, Environmental Compliance Approvals, approval under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), and conservation authority permits.

• Please note that ministry guidelines and other information related to the issues noted above are available at www.ene.gov.on.ca under the publications link. We encourage the proponent to review all the available guides and to reference any relevant information in the ESR.

Aboriginal Consultation

• Please note that as part of the required stakeholder and agency consultation, proponents are advised to contact the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to determine potentially affected Aboriginal communities in the project area. Please refer to the website http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/eaab/aboriginal-resources.php for a list of appropriate government contacts.

• Once identified, you are advised to provide notification directly to the Aboriginal communities who may be affected by the project and provide them with an opportunity to participate in any planned public consultation sessions and comment on the project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. A draft copy of the ESR should be sent to this office prior to the filing of the final draft, allowing approximately 30 days review time for the ministry’s technical reviewers to provide comments. Please also forward our office the Notice of

Completion and ESR when completed. Should you or any members of your project team have any questions regarding the above, please contact me at (416) 326-3469.

Yours sincerely,

Dorothy Moszynski Environmental Resource Planner and EA Coordinator Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning c. D. Fumerton, Manager, York Durham District Office, MOE S. Hollingworth, Project Manager, The Municipal Infrastructure Group Central Region EA File A & P File

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix C Public Information Centre # 1

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

Notice of Public Information Centre #1 Krosno Creek Diversion Study Class Environmental Assessment

The City of Pickering is undertaking the Krosno Creek Diversion Study to determine the best means of reducing the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek. The Study Area is shown in the Key Map below.

The study is being conducted in accordance with the Schedule C process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association's Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011).

To facilitate public input, two Public Information Centres (PICs) will be held. The first PIC will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Time: 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm Presentation at 7:00 pm Location: City of Pickering Civic Complex Council Chambers One The Esplanade, Pickering

The purpose of the first PIC is to introduce the project, the goals and objectives of the study and the problems and opportunities to be addressed. Alternative solutions, evaluation criteria, the preliminary preferred solution and the next steps will also be presented. Representatives from the City of Pickering and the consulting team will be available at the PIC to explain the information presented, discuss any issues or concerns you may have, and receive information for consideration in the study.

Mr. Tom Dole, P.Eng. Mr. Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer Project Manager City of Pickering The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. One The Esplanade 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7 Vaughan, ON L4K 0C5 tel: 905.420.4660 ext. 2156 tel: 905.738.5700 ext. 359 [email protected] [email protected]

This notice issued February 5, 2014

February 10, 2014

«AddressBlock»

«GreetingLine»

Re: Krosno Creek Diversion Study – Public Information Centre # 1 City of Pickering The City of Pickering is undertaking the Krosno Creek Diversion Study to determine the best means of minimizing the risk of flooding and flood damages to public and private development and infrastructure along Krosno Creek, and to prepare a preliminary design for the recommended works.

The City has retained The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. to complete the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the study. The study is being conducted in accordance with the process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007).

Enclosed is a notice for the Public Information Centre (PIC) for the project, to be held on Wednesday February 19th, 2014 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the City of Pickering Civic Complex. We will be presenting our assessment of existing conditions in the Krosno Creek watershed, a range of alternatives to mitigate flooding, erosion and water quality issues in Krosno Creek, and our preliminary preferred solution.

The City is inviting comments from the public and review agencies on the planning and design of this project. We look forward to seeing you at the PIC.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the following individuals:

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected] cc: Marilee Gadzovski, Manager, Water Resources, City of Pickering

Krosno Creek Diversion Project Krosno Creek Diversion Project CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Welcome CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Study Overview

The study area covers the entire Krosno Creek PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE # 1 Watershed and a portion of the Pine Creek watershed. Both systems eventually empty into Krosno Creek was replaced by storm sewer systems Frenchman’s Bay KROSNO CREEK DIVERSION PROJECT through development in the watershed north of Highway 401, and is confined to a narrow concrete CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT channel for a considerable distance south of Highway 401 February 19, 2014 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Please sign in on the sheet provided. Then feel free to walk around and view the displays. Mr. Tom Dole, P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer The purpose of this Public Information Centre (PIC) City of Pickering is to introduce you to this project, inform you of our One The Esplanade progress to date, and obtain your comments on the Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 project. Tel: (905) 420-4660 Ext: 2156 Email: [email protected] The major elements presented today are:

Study Overview

Existing Conditions

Alternative Solutions Mr. Steve Hollingworth, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Preliminary Preferred Solution Consultant Project Manager

Next Steps TMIG | The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan, ON L4K 0C5 The Study Team is interested in receiving any Tel: (905) 738-5700 Ext. 359 comments that you may have about the Study. Email: [email protected] In its current form, Krosno Creek cannot convey all of the flow from severe storms. Many properties have If you have any questions, our representatives will been impacted by flooding in the past, particularly be pleased to discuss the project with you. during a severe storm in August 2005. There continue to be risks for flooding and erosion along Should you have any questions, comments, require Krosno Creek further information or wish to be added to the study mailing list, please contact either Steve or Tom. The 2009 Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP) were impacted from flooding recommended a diversion of flow to Pine Creek to reduce the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek

TMIG | The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd

Study Team: Project Management, Environmental 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan ON CA L4K 0C5 Assessment, Stormwater Management t 905.738.5700 f 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

Computational Hydraulics International 147 Wyndham St. N., Suite 202 Hydrologic Modelling Guelph ON CA N1H 4E9 t 519.767.0197 f 519.489.0695 www.chiwater.com

Savanta Inc 37 Bellevue Terrace Natural Heritage St. Catharines ON CA L2S 1P4 t 905.704.4447 f 905.704.4474 www.savanta.ca

GHD 6705 Millcreek Dr., Unit 1 Fluvial Geomorphology Mississauga ON CA L5N 5M4 t416.213.7121 f 905.890.8499 www.ghd.com

T2 Utility Engineers The Krosno Creek Diversion Project was initiated 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower Utility Coordination Whitby ON CA L1N 2L1 by the City of Pickering to examine the causes of t 905.668.8822 www.t2ue.com flooding in more detail, and to determine the most Archeoworks 16715-12 Yonge St. Unit 1029 appropriate means of reducing the risk of flooding Archeology Newmarket ON CA L3X 1X4 t 9416.676.5597 f 416.676.5810 www.archeoworks.com from Krosno Creek.

1 2 Krosno Creek Diversion Project Krosno Creek Diversion Project CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA Process CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Existing Natural Features

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment The City of Pickering retained The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. to complete this Study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. The Study is being conducted as a Schedule C Project, encompassing Phases 1 through Phase 4 as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011).

Fish habitat and vegetation cover The perched culvert outlet at are generally poor along Krosno Alyssum Street may be a barrier Creek west of Sandy Beach Road to fish

We are here

Several protected Species at A number of warmwater fish Risk can potentially be found in species can be found in the lower the Hydro Marsh, near the outlet reaches of Krosno Creek to Frenchman’s Bay

3 4 Krosno Creek Diversion Project Existing Level of Service: Krosno Creek Diversion Project Alternative Solutions CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Flooding CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Channel Improvements

Description New computer models were created, calibrated and used to predict the The existing undersized culverts under Highway 401 flow and depth and extent of flooding along Krosno Creek for a range and the railway tracks restrict flow, significantly of severe storm events. reducing peak flow rates in Krosno Creek downstream of the railway. If these culverts were replaced with much larger structures in the future, peak flow rates in Krosno Creek could increase.

This alternative involves the construction of a naturalized channel corridor that could contain the peak flow in Krosno Creek if the restrictions caused by the existing Highway 401 and railway culverts This area is the subject of were eliminated a more detailed flood study prepared for the proposed development of the Downtown South lands The channel would have a top width of at least 26 m. Construction of the channel would require expropriation and demolition of all of the residential properties on one side of the existing concrete lined The existing small culverts under Highway 401 and channel the railway and the considerable flood storage available on the south parking lot at the Pickering Existing culverts at road crossings would need to be Town Centre significantly reduce the peak flow rates in replaced with large bridges the downstream open sections of Krosno Creek.

Storm Buildings Estimated Flood Benefits Drawbacks Event Impacted Damages* Flood risk would be eliminated, even if the Highway 401 Large social impact associated with the expropriation and 2 4 $130,900 and/or railway culverts were enlarged in the future demolition of up to 46 homes required for the channel corridor A wide, naturalized channel corridor would significantly Very large and challenging construction program, many 5 15 $493,000 improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat utilities (gas, communications, hydro, etc) would need to be 10 56 $1,685,900 Trails and other public amenities could be incorporated into relocated for bridges the reconstructed valley corridor Very high capital cost 25 56 $1,685,900

50 62 $1,866,600 Costs Average Annual Flood Damages Property acquisition Existing: $390,000 100 64 $1,932,700 Channel construction and landscaping Future: $ 0 NOTE: The extent of flooding shown above is distinct from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Average Annual Estimated Regulatory Flood Plain. The TRCA Regulatory Flood Plain adheres to MNR Guidelines which stipulate a number of $390,931 Large bridges at Bayly Street, Morden Lane, Reytan conservative assumptions regarding the effect of existing structures that can reduce flow rates in the system (SWM Damages ponds, restrictive culverts, etc.). For more information on the TRCA’s Regulatory Flood Plain, contact Chris Jones at Boulevard and Alyssum Street (416) 661-6600 ext. 5718 or [email protected] *Damages Estimated as 10% of the MPAC assessed value of all properties where buildings are partially or entirely TOTAL COST: $24.4 Million within the flood plain

5 6 Krosno Creek Diversion Project Alternative Solutions Krosno Creek Diversion Project Alternative Solutions CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Enhanced SWM Controls CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Culvert Improvements

Description Description Planning is underway for significant redevelopment and The existing culverts along Krosno Creek are ‘bottlenecks’ intensification in the Pickering City Centre area in the system and contribute significantly to the current flooding problems Pickering City Centre The planned redevelopment presents an opportunity to incorporate modern, effective stormwater management The existing culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard controls on public and private property and Alyssum Street are corrugated steel pipe-arch structures, each approximately 3 m wide and 2 m high Recommended stormwater management criteria (from a separate study supporting the City Centre Plan) include: These three culverts could potentially be replaced with twin • Enhanced Water Quality Control (80% TSS Removal) 3 m wide concrete box culverts • Retention of the first 5 mm of rainfall on-site • Control post-development peak flow rates to pre- development levels • Sites assumed to be up to a maximum of 50% impervious for calculating pre-development flow rate Alyssum Street Culvert

The full build-out of the Pickering City Centre, with the recommended stormwater management criteria, was simulated in the computer model created for Krosno Creek

Benefits Drawbacks Benefits Drawbacks The existing culverts can be replaced relatively quickly and Water quality and erosion in Krosno Creek will not be Improvements to the health of Krosno Creek, as modern The predicted reductions in flow rates and flooding will not be easily improved stormwater management practices will also improve water realized until full build-out of the City Centre Plan, which may quality and reduce erosion a considerable amount of time The existing culverts are reaching the end of their service life and will require replacement in the near future regardless Limited costs to the City, as the majority of the stormwater There will only be a small reduction in flows and flooding for controls will be implemented in private developments very large storm events The culvert replacements will reduce flooding and flood damages for even the most severe storm events

Costs Average Annual Flood Damages Costs Average Annual Flood Damages Most of the costs will be borne by private developers Existing: $390,000 Replacing the culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Existing: $390,000 Limited costs to the City to incorporate Low Impact Future: $240,000 Alyssum Street with twin 3 m wide x 1.8 m high concrete box Future: $ 46,000 Development practices into road reconstruction and other culverts public infrastructure projects, where feasible TOTAL COST: Negligible TOTAL COST: $1.4 Million

7 8 Krosno Creek Diversion Project Alternative Solutions Krosno Creek Diversion Project Alternative Solutions CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Diversion to Pine Creek CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Krosno Blvd Relief Sewer

Description Description The diversion of flows from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek The existing culverts along Krosno Creek at Morden Lane, was recommended in the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street are ‘bottlenecks’ in Management Master Plan the system and contribute significantly to the current flooding problems When combined with culvert improvements at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street, no buildings The relief sewer on Krosno Boulevard would divert a would be impacted from flooding from Krosno Creek for portion of the flow in Krosno Creek away from these even the most severe storm events culverts and return the flow to Krosno Creek downstream of Alyssum Street A number of additional improvements would be needed to mitigate the potential flooding impacts on Pine Creek A 3 m wide x 1.5 m high concrete box sewer could be installed along Morden Lane, Krosno Boulevard and Alyssum Street

Pickering Parkway

Krosno Boulevard at Morden Lane Pine Creek

Benefits Drawbacks Benefits Drawbacks Flood risk from Krosno Creek would be eliminated, even if the Very large and challenging construction program, many Significant reductions in flooding and flood damages, Potential conflicts with numerous connections from houses to Highway 401 or railway culverts are enlarged in the future utilities (gas, communications, hydro, etc.) would need to be particularly for the small to moderate storms considered the watermains and sanitary sewers adjacent the relief sewer relocated Reduced erosion in Krosno Creek and reduced pollutant Limited reductions in flooding and flood damages for the most loadings to the Hydro Marsh at the outlet of Krosno Creek Potential impacts to flooding and erosion in Pine Creek severe storm events considered Very high capital cost Water quality and erosion in Krosno Creek will not be improved

Costs Average Annual Flood Damages Costs Average Annual Flood Damages Diversion Sewer (Twin 2.4 m diameter pipes) from Krosno Existing: $390,000 3 m wide x 1.5 m high concrete box sewer from Morden Lane Existing: $390,000 Creek to Pine Creek, tunnelled under Liverpool Road and the Future: $ 0 to downstream of Alyssum Street Future: $ 32,000 Highway 401 Ramp Replacement of the Pine Creek culverts under Highway 401 TOTAL COST: $5.8 Million and Radom Street and the Krosno Creek culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street TOTAL COST: $30.4 Million

9 10 Alternative Solutions CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Krosno CreekDiversionProject

Krosno Creek Diversion Project 1 D Flood Proofing Sewer Relief Boulevard Krosno Improvements Culvert KrosnoCreek with Creek toPine Complete Diversion Improvements Culvert Enhanced SWM Flow ConveyRegulatory the to Improvements Creek Do Nothing Alternative A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment would be needed to confirm the presence or absence of archaeological resources in the area in the resources archaeological of orabsence the presence confirm to needed be would Assessment Archaeological 2 Stage A CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Flood Proofing /GreatestBenefit Least Impact and riparian vegetation during during vegetation and riparian Limited, temporary impacts to impacts temporary Limited, creation, increased erosion in erosion increased creation, tempor No impacts, as no works are works no as No impacts, Impacts to open space north north toopenspace Impacts works as impacts, Negligible be within existing residential residential existing within be will works all as No impacts, Creek at the inlet and outlet outlet and inlet atthe Creek Impacts to existing channel toexisting channel Impacts of Highway 401 for storage storage for 401 Highway of Limited impacts to Krosno toKrosno impacts Limited Creek Creek developed sites and roadand developed sites will be located in existing existing in located be will Krosno Creek during Krosno Creek Pine Creek, limited, limited, Creek, Pine ary impacts to ary impacts right-of-ways during construction construction construction proposed locations locations Impacts Impacts ĺ * * Flood Proofing lots Natural Environment Natural Environment * Rather than reducing flow rates or flood levels in Krosno Krosno

Creek, this alternative involves retrofitting flood prone ĺ Replacement of the concrete theconcrete of Replacement channel and wide, vegetated vegetated wide, and channel water quality and erosion in in erosion and water quality in erosion and water quality lined channel with a natural natural a with channel lined perched culvert at Alyssum at perched culvert Potential improvements in improvements Potential in improvements Potential impaired impaired impaired water quality in in quality water impaired impaired water quality in in quality water impaired Fish passage enhanced enhanced passage Fish through through Continued erosion and and erosion Continued buildings to prevent water from entering the building and erosion Continued and erosion Continued valley corridor corridor valley Krosno Creek Krosno Creek Krosno Creek Krosno Creek Krosno Creek

Benefits Benefits replacement of of replacement Street water quality in water quality * Flood proofing measures could include re-grading or

berming to prevent water from reaching buildings, or ĺ installing water-tight doors and windows on buildings

construction, easements may may easements construction, expropriated and demolished demolished and expropriated Negligible additional impacts impacts additional Negligible Approximately 45 homes will 45 homes Approximately likely to be exposed to flood water. are works no as No impacts, be required for inlet, outlet inlet, for be required infrastructure replacement infrastructure Short term impacts during impacts term Short during impacts term Short during impacts term Short to create channel corridor channel to create impacts to archaeological toarchaeological impacts proof doors and windows and doors proof Requires homeowners to to homeowners Requires install and maintain flood flood and maintain install need to be purchased/ be purchased/ to need construction, potential potential construction, redevelopment and and redevelopment anticipated during during anticipated ĺ construction resources proposed Impacts Impacts * Social/Cultural Environment Environment Social/Cultural 1 Greatest Impact / Least Benefit /LeastBenefit GreatestImpact trail system in the Pine Creek Creek Pine inthe trail system No benefits, as no works are works no as No benefits, Promotion of low of Promotion reconstructed valley corridor incorporate a trail system in system trail a incorporate Could incorporate a public public a Could incorporate sustainable development development sustainable east of Pine Creek public open space, could could space, open public Creation of new, natural new, natural of Creation No benefits anticipated No benefits anticipated No benefits anticipated No benefits proposed practices Benefits Benefits valley - impact and and impact

Buildings Currently at Risk of Flooding implement and maintain flood flood andmaintain implement practices, will need to bypass bypass to will need practices, developments, but will take a take will but developments, new into beincorporated Will sanitary service connections, connections, service sanitary Will be challenging to secure secure to bechallenging Will significant construction effort effort construction significant bridges and relocate utilities utilities relocate and bridges to create channel, construct construct to createchannel, No challenges, as no works works as no No challenges, flow around the work areas areas work flowthe around impacts on flooding in Pine Pine in onflooding impacts Liverpool Road, significant Road, Liverpool significant proofing retrofits to private toprivate retrofits proofing Requires tunnelling under under tunnelling Requires long time for widespread widespread for time long Significant Significant Creek (i.e. (i.e. Creek susceptible to freezing susceptible to Potential conflicts with Potential conflicts Standard construction construction Standard challenges to mitigate tomitigate challenges Culvert replacement) property for channel, channel, for property implementation implementation are proposed are proposed Challenges Challenges homes homes * challenges to to challenges Highway 401 401 Highway Technical Environment Environment Technical No reduction in the frequency frequency inthe No reduction flooding, will be considered in considered be will flooding, prevented, but flood levels in in levels flood but prevented, No flood damages in Krosno Krosno in damages No flood Flooding will be contained in in contained be will Flooding downstream of Bayly Street Bayly Street of downstream corridor, no flood damages damages flood no corridor, Significant reduction in the inthe reduction Significant inthe reduction Significant Flood damages should be should damages Flood frequency and severity of of severity and frequency frequency and severity of of severity and frequency even if 401/CNR culverts culverts 401/CNR even if Krosno Creek will not be not will Krosno Creek Creek, even if 401/CNR 401/CNR if even Creek, and severity of flooding of and severity for large storm events largestorm for Small Small Regulation mapping Regulation severity of of flooding severity culverts enlarged culverts Performance Performance 12 reduction in the enlarged reduced flooding * * Significant costs and potential impacts to Pine toPine impacts potential costsand Significant enhance water quality and erosion in Krosno Krosno in erosion and quality water enhance Significant costs to implement, challenges to challenges implement, coststo Significant Impact Cumulative Not Does not reduce flooding, other alternatives alternatives other flooding, reduce Does not impacts, will be recognized by the TRCA in TRCA by the be recognized will impacts, demolished for construction of thechannel of construction for demolished secure property and significant impacts to impacts and significant property secure Cost effective solution, few environmental environmental few solution, Cost effective owners of 45 homes to homes 45 of owners to address flooding, but recommended to recommended but flooding, to address ensuring ensuring Frequency and severity of flooding is is flooding of severity and Frequency reduced, difficulties in Significant reduction in flooding with few with few inflooding reduction Significant environmental impacts, but not as cost not as but impacts, environmental recommended as astand- as recommended future flood plain mapping updates mapping plain flood future effective as Culvert Improvements Culvert as effective exist with acceptable impacts with acceptable exist * * NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED NOT NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED NOT long term effectiveness of flood flood of effectiveness term long proofing measures measures proofing RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED Overall Overall Creek Creek Cumulative Benefit Benefit Cumulative implementing and and implementing be purchased and and be purchased alone solution solution alone *

not damages: damages: damages: damages: damages: damages: damages: Minimal additional direct additional Minimal Financial Environment infrastructure renewal renewal infrastructure Average annual flood flood annual Average Average annual flood flood annual Average Average annual flood flood annual Average Average annual flood flood annual Average Average annual flood flood annual Average flood annual Average Benefits Drawbacks flood annual Average costs to the City for for City costs tothe Evaluation ofAlternatives $660 Thousand Thousand $660 No direct costs No direct costs damages: damages: damages: damages: damages: $30.4 Million Million $30.4 Million $24.4 $1.4 Million $1.4 Million $5.8 Million $5.8 Million projects projects :

Flood proofing can prevent flood damages from future severe Difficulties in ensuring all flood prone buildings are $240 $ $ 390 Thousand 390 $32 Thousand 46 Thousand

storm events appropriately flood proofed Thousand $0 $0 $0 Challenges to ensure the flood proofing is maintained and remains effective following future home renovations buildings and infrastructure during future severe storms. severe storms. buildings during future and infrastructure flood prone acknowledgingpotential damagesto risk andthe and accepting the this case,doingnothing allowingIn would mean and continue, flooding to in resultunacceptable all alternatives impacts other event that Process, inthe Do Nothingoptionis The alwaysinvestigated Environmental in the Assessment No reductions in flooding, no improvements in water quality

and erosion in Krosno Creek Preliminary Preferred Alternative flood risk reduce further development to for future Recommended

Costs Average Annual Flood Damages Approximately $10,000 per flood prone property, on average Existing: $390,000 Future: $ 0 TOTAL COST: $660,000 to protect all 66 flood prone buildings

11 Preliminary Preferred Krosno Creek Diversion Project Krosno Creek Diversion Project Next Steps CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Alternative CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Culvert Improvements

• Replace the existing corrugated steel pipe-arch culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street with twin 3 m wide x 1.8 m high concrete box culverts • TMIG retained to undertake the Krosno Creek Diversion Project Class Environmental Assessment • The combined effect of the preliminary preferred alternative is a reduction in average estimated flood November damages from $390,000 per year to $46,000 per year, to be achieved with a capital cost of approximately 2012 $1.4 Million

• The planned re-development in the Pickering City Centre area, with the recommended stormwater management controls, will further reduce flooding in Krosno Creek

• Up to 8 homes will remain at risk of flooding in a 100 year storm after the culvert replacements are • Notice of Study Commencement published in the Pickering News Advertiser and mailed to residents and constructed. The feasibility of site specific solutions for these homes, such as flood proofing, will be businesses in study area explored during subsequent phases of this study February 2013

This area is the subject of a more detailed flood study prepared for the proposed • Public Information Centre # 1 development of the • Present Study Overview, Existing Conditions, Alternative Solutions and Preliminary Preferred Solution Downtown South lands February 2014

• Public Information Centre # 2 Spring • Present Preliminary Designs for Culvert Replacements and other study updates 2014

• Final Study Posted for 30 Day Public Review Period Summer 2014

• Detailed Design Fall • Funding to be considered in Capital Budget for 2015 Construction 2014

NOTE: The extent of flooding shown above is distinct from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Regulatory Flood Plain. The TRCA Regulatory Flood Plain adheres to MNR Guidelines which stipulate a number of conservative assumptions regarding the effect of existing structures that can reduce flow rates in the system (SWM ponds, restrictive culverts, etc.). For more information on the TRCA’s Regulatory Flood Plain, contact Chris Jones at (416) 661-6600 ext. 5718 or [email protected]

13 14 Krosno Creek Diversion Project Things You Can Do to CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prevent Flooding

Clear the gutters and catchbasins on the street near your house

Don’t blow yard waste (leaves, grass clippings) into the street or creeks

Alert City Staff to debris (garbage, tree branches, ice) that may be blocking the flow in culverts and channels

Call (905) 683-7575 to report debris or obstructions

; :

Keep Debris out of the Creeks

Ensure that your downspouts discharge onto your lawn (at least 1.2 m away from basement walls), and consider installing a rain barrel

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix D Public Information Centre # 2

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

Notice of Public Information Centre #2 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Class Environmental Assessment

The City of Pickering is undertaking the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study (formerly referred to as the Krosno Creek Diversion Study) to determine the best means of reducing the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek. The Study Area is shown in the Key Map below.

The study was initiated as a Schedule C project but is now being conducted in accordance with the Schedule B process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association's Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). To facilitate public input, two Public Information Centres (PICs) will be held. The second PIC will be held as follows: Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 Time: 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm Presentation at 7:00 pm Location: City of Pickering Civic Complex Council Chambers One The Esplanade, Pickering The purpose of the second PIC is to review the information presented at the first PIC, including problems and opportunities to be addressed, alternative solutions and the preliminary preferred solution. Preliminary designs for the recommended culvert improvements will be presented, as well as responses to the comments received at the first PIC. Representatives from the City of Pickering and the consulting team will be available at the PIC to explain the information presented, discuss any issues or concerns you may have, and receive information for consideration in the study.

This notice issued May 14, 2014

May 13, 2014 «AddressBlock»

«GreetingLine»

Re: Krosno Creek Diversion Study – Public Information Centre # 2 City of Pickering The City of Pickering is undertaking the Krosno Creek Diversion Study to determine the best means of minimizing the risk of flooding and flood damages to public and private development and infrastructure along Krosno Creek, and to prepare a preliminary design for the recommended works.

Enclosed is a notice for the Public Information Centre (PIC) for the project, to be held on Wednesday May 28th, 2014 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the City of Pickering Civic Complex. We will be presenting a summary of existing conditions in the Krosno Creek watershed and our previously identified potential solutions, as well as a preliminary design of our preferred solution and additional recommendations.

The City is inviting comments from the public and review agencies on the planning and design of this project. We look forward to seeing you at the PIC.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the following individuals:

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected] cc: Marilee Gadzovski, Manager, Water Resources, City of Pickering

May 16, 2014

Theresa Patterson 840 Reytan Boulevard Pickering, ON L1W 1Y5

Dear Ms. Patterson

Recall that this study was initiated by the City of Pickering to determine the best means of minimizing the risk of flooding and flood damages to public and private development and infrastructure along Krosno Creek, and to prepare a preliminary design for the recommended works. The City has retained The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. to complete the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the study. The study is being conducted in accordance with the process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007).

In your comment form, you expressed concerns regarding the urgency of the study, and concerns regarding the capacity of the catchbasins on Reytan Boulevard.

The Project File Report for this study is still scheduled to be filed before the end of 2014. Detailed design and construction of the culverts can proceed thereafter pending approval in the budget.

The catchbasins at the low point on Reytan Boulevard (north of the Krosno Creek culvert) are connected to a storm sewer that outlets into the culvert, and will continue to drain into the proposed replacement culverts. The capacity of the proposed twin culverts is several times greater than the existing corrugated steel culvert. With lower water levels in the replacement culvert at the outlet of the storm sewer, we expect that the catchbasins at the low point on Reytan Boulevard will back up less frequently.

Enclosed is a notice for the second (PIC) for the project, to be held on Wednesday May 28th, 2014 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the City of Pickering Civic Complex. We will be presenting the preliminary designs for the culvert replacements at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street We look forward to seeing you and discussing your concerns further at the PIC.

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Tom Dole, Water Resources Engineer, City of Pickering

May 16, 2014

Ian Danks 842 Reytan Boulevard Pickering, ON L1W 1Y5

Dear Mr. Danks

In your comment form, you expressed concerns regarding the urgency of the study, and concerns regarding debris in the channel, particularly from the dead and dying trees along the channel. We have considered your suggestion, and agree that regular maintenance and removal of debris from the channel is required to maximize the effectiveness of the proposed replacement culverts.

We have therefore developed a number of Additional Recommendations that will be included in the final study report, which include:

. Channel Maintenance: It is recommended that the City develop and implement a program for regular inspection of the entire length of the Krosno Creek channel, and removal of any debris encountered during the inspections. It is further recommended that the trees encroaching upon the concrete lined channel be removed.

The Project File Report for this study is still scheduled to be filed before the end of 2014. Detailed design and construction of the culverts can proceed thereafter pending approval in the budget.

Enclosed is a notice for the second (PIC) for the project, to be held on Wednesday May 28th, 2014 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the City of Pickering Civic Complex. We will be presenting the preliminary designs for the culvert replacements at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street in addition to the additional recommendations discussed above. We look forward to seeing you and discussing your concerns further at the PIC.

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Tom Dole, Water Resources Engineer, City of Pickering

May 16, 2014

Heather Croll 846 Reytan Boulevard Pickering, ON L1W 1Y5

Dear Ms. Croll

In your comment form, you expressed concerns regarding the urgency of the study, and concerns regarding maintenance and removal of debris from the channel. We have considered your suggestion, and agree that regular maintenance and removal of debris from the channel is required to maximize the effectiveness of the proposed replacement culverts.

We have therefore developed a number of Additional Recommendations that will be included in the final study report, which include:

The Project File Report for this study is still scheduled to be filed before the end of 2014. Detailed design and construction of the culverts can proceed thereafter pending approval in the budget.

Enclosed is a notice for the second (PIC) for the project, to be held on Wednesday May 28th, 2014 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the City of Pickering Civic Complex. We will be presenting the preliminary designs for the culvert replacements at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street in addition to the additional recommendations discussed above. We look forward to seeing you and discussing your concerns further at the PIC.

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Tom Dole, Water Resources Engineer, City of Pickering

May 16, 2014

Karen & Murray Balsdon 825 Sandy Beach Road Pickering, ON L1W 3N6

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Balsdon

Re: Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study– Public Information Centre # 2 City of Pickering Thank you for attending our first Public Information Centre (PIC) for the Krosno Creek Diversion Study, and for completing the questionnaire that was circulated at the PIC. Thank you also for providing your photographs of flooding along Krosno Creek and Sandy Beach Road during the severe storm of August 2005.

In your comment form, you expressed concern that the north culvert under Sandy Beach Road and the culverts for the sanitary sewer crossing east of Sandy Beach Road should also be replaced as part of the preferred solution.

We have considered your suggestion, and agree that the culverts at these two locations are undersized relative to current design standards. However, no buildings are expected to be flooded as a result of the undersized culverts for storm events up to the 100 year return period storm. Note also that the replacement of the south Sandy Beach Road culvert in 2006 has improved flooding in the reach east of Sandy Beach Road relative to flooding that was experienced in August 2005. Therefore, replacements of the culverts at these two locations are not included in our primary preferred solution to reduce flood damages along Krosno Creek.

We have therefore developed a number of Additional Recommendations that will be included in the final study report. These include

. North Sandy Beach Road Culvert: Sandy Beach Road is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2016/2017. It is recommended that the design for the road reconstruction review the condition and capacity of the culvert and consider replacing the culvert. It is further recommended that the Sandy Beach Road profile be adjusted to prevent or minimize the spill of floodwater south to Streamside Court during severe storms that exceed the capacity of the north Sandy Beach Road culvert.

. Sanitary Sewer Crossing: The Region of Durham’s sanitary sewer crossing over Krosno Creek east of Sandy Beach Road is at risk of damage or failure during severe storms, and contributes to flooding over Sandy Beach Road upstream. Our study is recommending that the City work with the Region to investigate the feasibility of reconstructing this sanitary sewer (which conveys sanitary sewage

westward from Dillingham Road and Feldspar Court) to cross under Krosno Creek. If a crossing below the creek is not possible, it is recommended that City work with the Region to replace the three existing corrugated steel culverts with a single large culvert with equivalent or increased capacity to minimize the potential for the culverts to be blocked with branches and debris.

Enclosed is a notice for the second (PIC) for the project, to be held on Wednesday May 28th, 2014 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the City of Pickering Civic Complex. We will be presenting the preliminary designs for the culvert replacements at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street in addition to the additional recommendations discussed above. We look forward to seeing you and discussing your concerns further at the PIC.

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Tom Dole, Water Resources Engineer, City of Pickering

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Welcome CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Study Overview

The study area covers the entire Krosno Creek PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE # 2 Watershed and a portion of the Pine Creek watershed. Both systems eventually empty into Krosno Creek was replaced by storm sewer systems Frenchman’s Bay KROSNO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION PROJECT through development in the watershed north of Highway 401, and is confined to a narrow concrete CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT channel for a considerable distance south of Highway 401 May 28, 2014 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Please sign in on the sheet provided. Then feel free to walk around and view the displays. Mr. Tom Dole, P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer The purpose of this Public Information Centre (PIC) City of Pickering is to review the information presented at the first One The Esplanade PIC, inform you of our progress to date, and obtain Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 your comments on the project. Tel: (905) 420-4660 Ext: 2156 Email: [email protected] The major elements presented today are:

Study Overview

Existing Conditions

Alternative Solutions Mr. Steve Hollingworth, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Preliminary Designs for the Consultant Project Manager Preferred Solution TMIG | The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Additional Recommendations 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200

Next Steps Vaughan, ON L4K 0C5 Tel: (905) 738-5700 Ext. 359 Email: [email protected] In its current form, Krosno Creek cannot convey all of The Study Team is interested in receiving any the flow from severe storms. Many properties have comments that you may have about the Study. been impacted by flooding in the past, particularly during a severe storm in August 2005. There If you have any questions, our representatives will continue to be risks for flooding and erosion along be pleased to discuss the project with you. Krosno Creek

Should you have any questions, comments, require The 2009 Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater further information or wish to be added to the study Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP) were impacted from flooding mailing list, please contact either Steve or Tom. recommended a diversion of flow to Pine Creek to reduce the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek

TMIG | The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd

Study Team: Project Management, Environmental 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan ON CA L4K 0C5 Assessment, Stormwater Management t 905.738.5700 f 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

Computational Hydraulics International 147 Wyndham St. N., Suite 202 Hydrologic Modelling Guelph ON CA N1H 4E9 t 519.767.0197 f 519.489.0695 www.chiwater.com

Savanta Inc 37 Bellevue Terrace Natural Heritage St. Catharines ON CA L2S 1P4 t 905.704.4447 f 905.704.4474 www.savanta.ca

GHD 6705 Millcreek Dr., Unit 1 Fluvial Geomorphology Mississauga ON CA L5N 5M4 t416.213.7121 f 905.890.8499 www.ghd.com

1 2 Existing Level of Service: Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project EA Process Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Flooding

New computer models were created, calibrated and used to predict the flow and depth and extent of flooding along Krosno Creek for a range of severe storm events. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment The City of Pickering retained The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. to complete this Study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. The Study was initiated as a Schedule ‘C’ Project, as per the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). The Study has since determined to be a Schedule ‘B’ Project based on the preliminary preferred solution (Culvert Replacements), encompassing Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process.

This area is the subject of a more detailed flood study prepared for the proposed development of the Downtown South lands

The existing small culverts under Highway 401 and the railway and the considerable flood storage available on the south parking lot at the Pickering Town Centre significantly reduce the peak flow rates in the downstream open sections of Krosno Creek.

We are here

Storm Buildings Estimated Flood Event Impacted Damages*

2 4 $130,900

5 15 $493,000

10 56 $1,685,900

25 56 $1,685,900

50 62 $1,866,600

100 64 $1,932,700

NOTE: The extent of flooding shown above is distinct from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Average Annual Estimated Regulatory Flood Plain. The TRCA Regulatory Flood Plain adheres to MNR Guidelines which stipulate a number of $390,931 conservative assumptions regarding the effect of existing structures that can reduce flow rates in the system (SWM Damages ponds, restrictive culverts, etc.). For more information on the TRCA’s Regulatory Flood Plain, contact Chris Jones at (416) 661-6600 ext. 5718 or [email protected] *Damages Estimated as 10% of the MPAC assessed value of all properties where buildings are partially or entirely within the flood plain

3 4 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Alternative Solutions CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Channel Improvements Enhanced SWM Controls Culvert Improvements Recommended for future riskdevelopment to further reduce flood PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Do Nothing option is always investigated in the Environmental Assessment the in Environmental investigated always The option is Do Nothing Process, in the event that other impactsalternativesall result unacceptable in to flooding continue, and mean In would allowing this case, doing nothing the and accepting risk and the acknowledging potential damages to flood prone and infrastructure during future buildings severe storms. $0 $0 $0 Thousand 46 Thousand $32 Thousand 390 Thousand $ $ $240 : Recommended SWM criteria for projects $5.8 Million $1.4 Million $24.4 Million $30.4 Million damages: damages: damages: No direct costsNo direct $660 Thousand Evaluation of Alternatives

redevelopment in the Pickering City costs to the City for Average annual flood Average annual flood Average annual flood Average annual flood Average annual flood Average annual flood Average annual flood infrastructure renewal Financial Environment Minimal additional direct damages: damages: damages: Centre damages: • Enhanced Water Quality Control

(80% TSS Removal) not • Retention of the first 5 mm of

rainfall on-site alone solution be purchased and implementing and

• Control post-development peak Cumulative Benefit flow rates to pre-development Creek Creek levels Overall RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED proofing measures long term effectiveness of flood NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED • Sites assumed to be up to a NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED

* * existacceptable with impacts

maximum of 50% impervious for effective as Culvert Improvements future flood plain mapping updates recommended as a stand- environmental impacts, but not as cost Significant reduction in flooding fewwith reduced, difficulties in in difficulties reduced, Frequency and severity of flooding is ensuring to address flooding, but recommended to owners of 45 homes to Cost effective solution, few environmental secure property and significant impacts to demolished for construction of the channel impacts, will be recognized theby TRCA in

calculating pre-development flow Does not reduce flooding, other alternatives Not Cumulative Impact Significant costs to implement, challenges to enhance water quality and erosion in Krosno rate Significant and costs potential impacts to Pine * * 6 flooding reduced enlarged reduction in the the in reduction Performance culverts enlarged severityflooding of Regulation mapping Small for large storm events and severity of flooding Creek, even if 401/CNR Krosno Creek will not be even if 401/CNReven culverts frequency and severity of frequency and severity of Flood damages should be Significant reduction in the Significant reduction in the corridor, no flood damages downstream of Street Bayly Flooding will be contained in No flood damages in Krosno prevented, but flood levels in No reduction in the frequency flooding, will be considered in

Diversion to Pine Creek Krosno Blvd Relief Sewer Flood Proofing Technical Environment Highway 401 challenges to

* homes Challenges are proposed implementation property for channel, Culvert replacement)Culvert challenges to mitigate Standard construction Potential conflictsPotential with susceptible to freezing to susceptible Creek (i.e. Significant long time for widespread Requires tunnelling under proofing retrofits to private Liverpool Road,significant impacts on flooding in Pine flow aroundtheflow workareas No challenges, as no works to create channel, construct bridges and relocate utilities significant construction effort Will be challenging to secure sanitary service connections, Will be incorporated into new developments, but will take a practices, will need to bypass practices, will implement and maintain flood impact and - valley Benefits practices proposed No benefits anticipated No benefits anticipated No benefits anticipated Creation of natural new, public open space, could east of Pine Creek sustainable development Could incorporate a public incorporate a system trail in reconstructed valley corridor valley reconstructed Promotion of low No benefits, as no works are trail systemtrail in the Pine Creek Greatest Impact / Least Benefit 1 Social/Cultural Environment * Impacts proposed resources construction ĺ anticipated during redevelopment and construction, potential need to be purchased/ install and maintain flood Requires homeowners to proof doors and windows impacts to archaeological to create channel corridor Short term impacts during Short term impacts during Short term impacts during be required for inlet, outlet infrastructure replacement No impacts, as no works are Approximately 45 homes will Negligible additional impacts expropriated anddemolished construction, easements may

ĺ * water quality in water Street replacement of Benefits

Krosno Creek Krosno Creek Krosno Creek Krosno Creek Krosno Creek valley corridor Continued erosion and Continued erosion and Continued erosion and through Fish passage enhanced impaired qualitywater in impaired qualitywater in impaired the presence or absence of archaeological resources the in area Potential improvements in Potential improvements in perched culvert at Alyssum lined channel with a natural water quality and erosion in water quality and erosion in channel and wide, vegetated Replacement of the concrete ĺ Krosno * Natural Environment lots * * ĺ Impacts locations proposed construction construction during construction right-of-ways right-of-ways ary impactsary to Pine Creek, limited, Krosno Creek during will be located in existing developed sites and road Creek Limited impacts to Krosno of Highway 401 for storage Impacts channel to existing Creek at the inlet and outlet No impacts, as all works will be within existing residential Impacts to open space north Negligible impacts, as works No impacts, as no works are tempor creation, increased erosion in Limited, temporary impacts to and riparian vegetation during Least Impact / Greatest Benefit A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment would be needed to confirm confirm to needed be would Assessment 2 Archaeological A Stage Complete Diversion to Pine Creek with Krosno Creek Culvert Improvements Krosno Boulevard Relief Sewer Flood Proofing Creek Improvements to the RegulatoryConvey Flow Enhanced SWM Culvert Improvements Alternative Do Nothing D 1 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project ASSESSMENT CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL 5 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Preliminary Preferred CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Alternative

Culvert Improvements

• Replace the existing corrugated steel pipe-arch culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street with twin 3 m wide x 1.8 m high concrete box culverts Alyssum Street

• The combined effect of the preliminary preferred alternative is a reduction in average estimated flood – damages from $390,000 per year to $46,000 per year, to be achieved with a capital cost of approximately $1.4 Million

• The planned re-development in the Pickering City Centre area, with the recommended stormwater management controls, will further reduce flooding in Krosno Creek

• Up to 8 homes will remain partially to entirely within the predicted extent of flooding for the 100 year storm after the culvert replacements have been constructed. Surveys have been completed for these homes. The elevation of lowest opening into each of the 8 homes (i.e. side doors, basement windows) is higher than the predicted 100 year storm flood level.

This area is the subject of a more detailed flood study prepared for the proposed development of the Downtown South lands Preliminary Design 8

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Preliminary Design – Morden Lane CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

10 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Additional Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Additional CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Recommendations CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Recommendations

Channel Maintenance Sanitary Sewer Crossing

• The City of Pickering should develop and implement • A 500 mm diameter sanitary sewer owned by the a program for regular inspection of the entire length Region of Durham crosses over Krosno Creek east of of the Krosno Creek channel. Sandy Beach Road. Three 1.8 m wide x 1.1 m high corrugated steel culverts convey the flow in Krosno • Any debris in the channel or obstructing culverts (tree Creek under the elevated sanitary sewer branches, garbage, etc.) encountered during the inspections should be removed as soon as possible • The culverts have limited capacity and are prone to blockage from debris during large storms. This poses • The program should also consider removal of trees a risk for flooding behind the culverts, but no homes encroaching into the concrete lined channel are expected to be impacted if the culverts are overtopped

• There is a risk of damage to the sanitary sewer when the culverts overtop during severe storms.

• It is recommended that the City work with the Region of Durham to investigate the feasibility of reconstructing the sanitary sewer to cross under Krosno Creek. If a crossing under the creek is not feasible, the existing culverts should be replaced by a single large culvert less prone to blockage

Photo courtesy K&M Balsdon

North Sandy Beach Road Culvert

• Replacement of the North Sandy Beach Road culvert is not recommended as part of the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction strategy, as no houses are predicted to be flooded when water overtops the Sandy Beach Road culvert. Photo courtesy K&M Balsdon • The recent replacement of the South Sandy Beach Road Bridge significantly improved flooding conditions through the entire length of Krosno Creek east of Sandy Beach Road

• Reconstruction of Sandy Beach Road is included in the City’s Capital Forecast for 2016/2017. It is recommended that the design for the reconstruction of Sandy Beach Road consider

Photo courtesy K&M Balsdon • Replacement of the existing north Sandy Beach Road culvert to meet current standards (clearance, freeboard, etc.)

• Adjustments to the Sandy Beach Road profile to minimize or eliminate a spill of floodwater southward to Streamside Court if the north Sandy Beach Road culvert overtops

11 12 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Next Steps

• TMIG retained to undertake the Krosno Creek Diversion Project Class Environmental Assessment November 2012

• Notice of Study Commencement published in the Pickering News Advertiser and mailed to residents and February businesses in study area 2013

• Public Information Centre # 1 February • Presented Study Overview, Existing Conditions, Alternative Solutions and Preliminary Preferred Solution 2014

• Public Information Centre # 2 May • Present Preliminary Designs for Culvert Replacements and other study updates 2014

• Final Study Posted for 30 Day Public Review Period Summer 2014

• Detailed Design Fall • Funding to be considered in Capital Budget for 2015 Construction 2014

Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix E Notice of Completion

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

Notice of Study Completion Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Class Environmental Assessment

The City of Pickering has completed the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study to determine the best means of reducing the risk of flooding along Krosno Creek. The Study Area is shown in the Key Map below.

The recommended solution is to replace the existing culverts at Alyssum Street, Reytan Boulevard and Morden Lane, located in the Study Area noted above, with larger concrete box culverts. The Study also includes recommendations for stormwater management for future development in the study area, regular maintenance of the Krosno Creek channel, and future upgrades to other culverts along Krosno Creek.

The study has been conducted in accordance with the Schedule B process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association's Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). A Project File Report (PFR) has been prepared, which documents the development and evaluation of alternative solutions and the preliminary design of the preferred solution. The PFR is available for review on the City’s website and at the following locations:

Pickering City Hall Pickering Public Library Clerk’s Department Main Branch One The Esplanade One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Pickering, ON L1V 6K7

Interested persons may provide written comments to the City of Pickering within 30 calendar days from the date of this notice. Comments should be directed to Marilee Gadzovski, City of Pickering (see contact information at the bottom of this notice).

If concerns regarding the project cannot be resolved in discussion with the City of Pickering, a person or party may request the Minister of the Environment to issue an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests must be received by the Minister at the address below within 30 calendar days of this Notice, with a copy sent to the City’s Project Manager. If there are no requests by this date, the City may proceed with design and construction of the project as per the PFR.

The Honourable Glen R. Marilee Gadzovski, Murray M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng Minister of the Environment Division Head, Water and Climate Change Resources & Development 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor Services North York, ON M2M 4J1 City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Tel: 905.420.4660 ext. 2067 [email protected]

This notice issued February 18, 2015

February 17, 2015 «AddressBlock»

«GreetingLine»

Re: Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study – Notice of Completion City of Pickering The City of Pickering has completed the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study to determine the best means of minimizing the risk of flooding and flood damages to public and private development and infrastructure along Krosno Creek. The City retained The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. to complete the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the study. The study has been conducted in accordance with the process as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011).

The recommended solution is to replace the existing culverts at Alyssum Street, Reytan Boulevard and Morden Lane with larger concrete box culverts. The Study also includes recommendations for stormwater management for future development in the study area, regular maintenance of the Krosno Creek channel, and future upgrades to other culverts along Krosno Creek. A Project File Report (PFR) has been prepared, which documents the development and evaluation of alternative solutions and the preliminary design of the preferred solution. The PFR is available for review on the City’s website and at the following locations:

Pickering City Hall Pickering Public Library Clerk’s Department Main Branch One The Esplanade One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Pickering, ON L1V 6K7

Enclosed is the Notice of Completion for the project. The Notice includes information on how to view a copy of the report, who to contact with any questions or comments on the report, and additional action that can be taken if your concerns cannot be adequately resolved through discussions with the City of Pickering.

Thank you for your ongoing interest in this project.

Sincerely,

The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager [email protected] cc: Marilee Gadzovski, Division Head Water Resources & Development Services, City of Pickering

Notice of Study Completion Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study Class Environmental Assessment

Engineering & Public Works Department February 18, 2015

Study Area

Pickering City Hall Pickering Public Library Clerk’s Department Main Branch One The Esplanade One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Pickering, ON L1V 6K7

If concerns regarding the project cannot be resolved in discussion with the City of Pickering, a person or party may request the Minister of the Environment to issue an order for the project to comply with Part ll of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part ll Order), which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests must be received by the Minister at the address below within 30 calendar days of this Notice, with a copy sent to the City’s Project Manager. If there are no requests by this date, the City may proceed with design and construction of the project as per the PFR.

The Honourable Glen R. Murray Marilee Gadzovski, M. Sc. (Eng.), P. Eng. Minister of the Environment and Division Head Water Resources & Climate Change Development Services 5775 Yong Street, 8th Floor City of Pickering North York, ON M2M 4J1 One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Tel: 905.420.4660 ext. 2067 [email protected]

This notice issued February 18, 2015

Customer Care Centre T.905. 683.7575 TTY 905.420.1739 [email protected] pickering.ca Alternate formats available upon request at 905.683.7575 THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.

8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 T 905.738.5700 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

February 18, 2015 PROJECT NUMBER 12150

Sharon Lingertat, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Environmental Assessment Planning Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Toronto, ON M3N 1S4

Dear Sharon

Re: Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Class EA Study, City of Pickering Response to TRCA Comments on the Draft Project File Report (TRCA File 48531)

Thank you very much for participating in the Steering Committee for the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Municipal Class EA study, and for taking the time to review and provide comments on our Draft Project File Report (PFR) for the study. We have reviewed the comments in your letter of November 26, 2014, many of which were also discussed at the Steering Committee meeting of November 20, 2014. The following table includes the comments from your letter of November 26, along with our responses indicating how the issue has been addressed in the Final PFR.

Reference TRCA Comment (November 26, 2014) TMIG Response (February 18, 2015)

TRCA staff are concerned that the wording in Table 5-2 relating to future TRCA floodplain mapping updates may be confusing to the public. Specifically, we are concerned with the statements that "[culvert improvements] will be considered in Regulation mapping." and "[culvert improvements] will be recognized by the TRCA in future flood plain mapping Table 5-2 has been revised to remove the updates." While these statements are true, in that the 1 reference to potential reductions in the extent of geometry of the culvert improvements will be recognized in the TRCA’s Regulatory Flood Plain future hydraulic modelling updates, the Regulatory floodplain will not be reduced to match the "predicted extent of 100 year floodplain with culvert improvements" as shown on Figure 6-1 as TRCA's Regulatory hydrologic modelling does not account for 'man-made' storage and therefore the Regulatory flows are higher. Please revise.

At the detailed design stage, TRCA staff will require the City to The requirement to update the TRCA’s HEC- 2 update our existing HEC-RAS modelling and mapping to RAS hydraulic model and flood plain mapping reflect the culvert improvement design details. has been added to Section 7.9

a) Twin concrete box culverts are proposed as replacement structures. TRCA staff advocates for improvements in wildlife and fish passage wherever possible when culverts are being replaced or rehabilitated. Generally, TRCA is supportive of the Section 6.2 has been expanded to include a installation of open bottom culverts to ensure a naturalized 3 (a) commitment to explore the feasibility of an stream bed through the structure. However, if a closed bottom open bottom culvert at Alyssum Street culvert is required within the naturalized section of the creek (e.g., Alyssum Street), please clearly provide the rationale. Detailed designs should provide safe fish passage through embedding and provision of permanent, secure substrate.

2015 02 18-12150-L-TRCA-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PFR.DOCX SHARON LINGERTAT, MCIP, RPP FEBRUARY 18, 2015 PAGE 2 of 2

Reference TRCA Comment (November 26, 2014) TMIG Response (February 18, 2015)

Sections 7.3 and 7.9 refer to the project going through DFO's Self-Assessment process at detailed design. Please note that Section 7.9 has been updated to include a culvert replacements require the provision of fish passage in 3 (b) commitment to provide permanent fish passage order to avoid further DFO review. Please provide a through the proposed replacement culverts commitment to provide permanent fish passage at the detailed design stage

Regarding potential vegetation and debris removal referenced in Section 8.1, TRCA permit requirements vary depending on the nature of the work. Please consult with TRCA prior to Section 8.1 has been updated to indicate that works taking place to determine if permits are required. For 4 the City should consult with the TRCA prior to example, small scale woody debris removal from the channel undertaking a tree removal program through existing access may not require a permit. However, large scale removals requiring access roads and concrete repairs will require a permit

It is expected that some local dewatering will be required for construction of all three culvert replacements. However, given that the culvert foundations will be excavated into the relatively Section 7.2 has been updated with the fine grained and slow draining silty clay till, construction of the requirement to develop appropriate plans 5 culvert replacements should not have an adverse impact on during detailed design to minimize, treat and the regional groundwater system. Further details regarding the dispose of any dewatering water treatment of dewatered material and proposed isolation methods during construction will be required at the detailed design stage.

We trust that the above responses and revisions to the Project File Report adequately address your comments of November 26, 2014. Please contact the undersigned if you have any remaining questions or concerns.

Sincerely, THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Marilee Gadzovski, Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services, City of Pickering

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 2015 02 18-12150-L-TRCA-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PFR.DOCX

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.

8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 T 905.738.5700 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

February 18, 2015 PROJECT NUMBER 12150

Nisha Shirali Environmental Resource Planner and EA Coordinator Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Central Region Technical Support Section 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor North York, Ontario M2M 4J1

Dear Nisha

Re: Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Class EA Study, City of Pickering Response to MOE Comments on the Draft Project File Report MOE File EA 01-06-02

Thank you very much for taking the time to review and provide comments on our Draft Project File Report (PFR) for the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Municipal Class EA study. We have reviewed the comments in your letter of November 20, 2014, and have addressed them to the extent possible in our Final PFR. Please refer to the following table, which includes the comments from your letter of November 20, our responses, and references to the revised sections of the PFR.

Reference to MOE Comment (November 20, 2014) TMIG Response (February 18, 2015) PFR

General Comments

Section 1.3 should be modified to increase clarity Section 1.3 has been revised to more clearly Section 1.3 that the project is a Schedule ‘B’ project indicate that the project is a Schedule B activity

In Section 2, Consultation, a summary of comments The Public Consultation sections have been updated Sections 2.2.2 and responses provided by the project team should to include a summary of the comments received and and 2.2.3 be included project team responses

Parts of the study area are subject to the Provincial The study references the Durham and Pickering Policy Statement (2014) and Growth Plan for the Official Plans and the planning documents for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Project File Report Pickering City Centre, all of which have been Section 3.1 should demonstrate how the proposed study prepared or updated to conform to the PPS and adheres to the relevant policies in these plans. Growth Plan

During the detailed design stage, if any wells are discovered to be used domestically please ensure that any affected well owners will continue to have Section 7, Potential Construction Impacts, has been water supplies of appropriate quality and in updated to note the requirement to maintain an Section 7.2 adequate quantities during construction. Please also adequate supply to any owners of domestic wells ensure that any work done on affected wells or any potentially impacted by construction replacement wells is done pursuant to O.Reg. 903, Wells.

2015 02 18 - L - MOE - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PFR.DOCX NISHA SHIRALI FEBRUARY 18, 2015 PAGE 2 of 4

Reference to MOE Comment (November 20, 2014) TMIG Response (February 18, 2015) PFR In Appendix A, Public Consultation Record, “Stakeholder Tracking Form”, please update the The contact information has been updated in Appendix A contact for the Ministry of the Environment from Ms. Appendix A to the Communications Plan (Appendix A) Dorothy Moszynski to Nisha Shirali.

Surface Water Comments

The potential for centralized stormwater management facilities to address both the quantity and quality of storm runoff discharging to Krosno Creek was explored in the Frenchman’s Bay It is understood that culvert replacement would be a Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP), quick and effective solution for flood reduction in this and briefly in Section 4.4 of the PFR. It was area. However, the uncontrolled stormwater runoff concluded that there are no reasonable Section 1.2.1 flowing directly into Krosno Creek remains a opportunities to create new, end-of-pipe stormwater and concern. We recommend that the proponent develop management facilities to treat storm runoff before it Section 8.4 a comprehensive solution to address both the reaches Krosno Creek. surface water flooding and the stormwater The PFR has been revised to expand upon the management for this this area. recommendations of the FBSWMMP to address water quality and erosion in Krosno Creek, and Section 8 has been updated to recommend that the City continues to implement the recommended SWM facilities from the FBSWMMP

Section 1.2, Project Background, indicates that the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan recommended a number of stormwater management measures across all of the watersheds Enhanced SWM has been revised from a draining into Frenchman’s Bay. The report in Section recommendation to a requirement in Section 5.10. 5.10, Preliminary Preferred Solution also The revised section also notes that the enhanced recommends that the City enhance stormwater SWM criteria have been incorporated into the OPA Section 5.10 management for future development as part of the for the Pickering City Centre (City of Pickering preferred solution. This recommendation should be OPA26) worded as a commitment. In addition, more detail Please see the response to the comment above should be provided regarding the City’s plan to regarding SWM for areas outside the City Centre implement these stormwater management controls in order to improve the water quality conditions of the Krosno Creek watershed.

Figure 3-6 compares the observed and simulated water levels for the 10 calibration events, and Figure 3-8 compares the observed and simulated water The difference between Fig. 3-6 and Fig. 3-8 should levels for the 8 additional verification events. More be clarified. It seems that model calibration and information on the calibration and verification Appendix D verification were made using the same storm events. exercise, including storm event selection, can be found in Section 3 of the technical report for the PCSWMM model, included as Appendix D to the PFR

There are some concerns with the accuracy of the stage-discharge relationship for the stream flow gauge, as it is based on measured flows at relatively Model calibration and verification results should be low water levels and extrapolated to estimate the provided to show the goodness of the model fit discharge at higher water levels. Justification for Appendix D between the calculated and measured stream-flow calibration and verification against water levels rate or velocity, in addition to the water level. instead of peak flow rates is provided in Section 3 of the technical report included as Appendix D to the PFR

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 2015 02 18 - L - MOE - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PFR.DOCX NISHA SHIRALI FEBRUARY 18, 2015 PAGE 3 of 4

Reference to MOE Comment (November 20, 2014) TMIG Response (February 18, 2015) PFR The use of the 100 year water level in Lake Ontario as the downstream boundary condition is a The rationale of using 100 year water elevation as conservative assumption, and is consistent with the the model boundary conditions for all storm-event TRCA’s HEC-RAS hydraulic model used to establish Appendix D simulations should be provided. their Regulatory flood plain. This rationale is included in Section 4 of the technical report included as Appendix D to the PFR

Figure 3-6 shows a balance of over- and under- predicting water levels for the calibration events. Fig. 3-7 and Fig. 3-8 show that the model may The verification events in Figure 3-8 suggest a slight consistently over-estimate the peak stream water over-prediction, but not sufficient to warrant re- Appendix D level. If this is the case, further refinement of the calibration of the model. Note that the simulated model would be recommended. peak water level is less than 10 cm higher than the observed peak water level for almost all of the verification events

The increase in the 2 year peak flow rates and Table 4-6 shows that the Pickering Parkway increased frequency of flooding at Alyssum Street is Diversion will increase the flooding frequency at due to reverse flow in the diversion sewer (from Pine Alyssum Street location from the existing 5 year to 2 Creek to Krosno Creek) due to the assumed high year, and Table 4-7 indicates that the Pickering tailwater elevation in Pine Creek at the outlet of the Parkway Diversion will increase peak flow rate of the diversion sewer. Notes have been added to Tables Tables 4-6, 4-7 Krosno Creek at all flow-node locations during a 2- 4-6 and 4-7 in this regard and 4-8 year storm event and at the Confluence with the Eastern Tributary during a 100-year storm event. The slight increase in the 100 year peak flow at the Please explain the projected increase in flooding confluence with the eastern tributary (Node F) is due frequency at these locations. to timing effects, which are explained in the section following Table 4-8

In Table 4-7, Flow Node A represents the flows in The peak flow at Highway 401 under the proposed the Highway 401 culvert, downstream of the conditions (Table 4-7) and the total (peak) flow to proposed diversion. The flows at Node A are intake (Highway 401, Table 4-8) are supposed to be Table 4-8 identical to the ‘Flow Continuing in Krosno Creek’ in identical; however, the tables list different peak flow Table 4-8. The headings in Table 4-8 have been rates. This should be corrected or clarified. revised to clarify the different flow components

It should be noted that house flooding may also be caused by storm sewer backup or surcharge when a house has storm sewer laterals for the purpose of Section 3.4.4 (Flood Damages) has been revised to foundation and downspout drainage. If this is the indicate that the homes in the study area could case, the proposed solution would be unable to fully potentially be at risk of flooding due to sanitary 3.4.3 solve the house flooding problems in this area based sewer back-up, but the analysis of the sanitary on the modeling results. A site investigation is sewer systems is beyond the scope of this study recommended to confirm the sewer connections of the properties concerned

We recommend that a detailed culvert flow analysis be conducted during the design stage to determine the hydraulic performance of the proposed new Acknowledged. Note that this is also a requirement culverts. The analysis should include the culvert of the TRCA in order to secure a permit under their

headwater, outlet velocity and end treatments in regulation for the recommended culvert order to minimize any negative impact of the culvert replacements replacement on the river channel and the natural environment.

Please also be advised that a Permit to Take Water The need to maintain supply to domestic well (PTTW) will be required during construction for any owners and potential requirement for a PTTW have Section 7.2 projects which involves dewatering of over 50,000 been added to Section 7 of the PFR litres of water per day. The application for a PTTW

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 2015 02 18 - L - MOE - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PFR.DOCX NISHA SHIRALI FEBRUARY 18, 2015 PAGE 4 of 4

Reference to MOE Comment (November 20, 2014) TMIG Response (February 18, 2015) PFR should include details of the dewatering/ water taking (rates, amounts, location etc.) and an assessment of the effects of the water taking (a hydrogeological and/ or hydro-ecological evaluation, as necessary). This assessment should consider the potential water quantity as well as water quality effects of the dewatering activities, including the potential short term (during construction) and long term effects on both groundwater and surface water users and uses. The treatment and disposal of the dewatering water should also be included. If the construction includes the discharge of any diverted water from the dewatering activities (or water collected from work areas) into a surface watercourse, appropriate control/ mitigation measures should be included to ensure that the proposed discharge will not result in any undesirable impact on the receiving waters. The ministry’s further detailed reviews of this project will be conducted during the PTTW application process when all the detailed information becomes available.

We trust that the above responses and revisions to the Project File Report adequately address your comments of November 20, 2014. Please contact the undersigned if you have any remaining questions or concerns.

Sincerely, THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.

Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng. Project Manager [email protected]

cc: Marilee Gadzovski, Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services, City of Pickering

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 2015 02 18 - L - MOE - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PFR.DOCX

Ministry of the Environment and Ministère de l’Environnement et de Climate Change l’Action en Matière de Changement Climatique Central Region Technical Support Section Région du Centre 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor Section d'appui technique North York, Ontario M2M 4J1 5775, rue Yonge, 8ième étage Tel.: (416) 326-6700 North York, Ontario M2M 4J1 Fax: (416) 325-6347 Tél.: 416-325-6966 Téléc: 41-325-6347

Tél. : (416) 326-6700

November 20, 2014 File: EA 01-06-02

Mr. Tom Dole, P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7

RE: Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project Class EA Study City of Pickering Municipal Class Environmental Assessment – Schedule B Response to Draft Project File Report, September 2014

We have received the draft Project File report for the above noted environmental assessment. It is our understanding that the preferred solution to mitigate flooding in Krosno Creek includes replacing the existing culverts at Alyssum Street, Reytan Boulevard and Morden Lane with twin concrete box culverts. The preferred solution also includes a recommendation to enhance stormwater management for future development. The ministry’s comments are as follow:

General Comments  Section 1.3 should be modified to increase clarity that the project is a Schedule ‘B’ project.  In Section 2, Consultation, a summary of comments and responses provided by the project team should be included.  Parts of the study area are subject to the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Project File Report should demonstrate how the proposed study adheres to the relevant policies in these plans.  During the detailed design stage, if any wells are discovered to be used domestically please ensure that any affected well owners will continue to have water supplies of appropriate quality and in adequate quantities during construction. Please also ensure that any work done on affected wells or any replacement wells is done pursuant to O. Reg. 903, Wells.  In Appendix A, Public Consultation Record, “Stakeholder Tracking Form”, please update the contact for the Ministry of the Environment from Ms. Dorothy Moszynski to Nisha Shirali.

Surface Water Comments

 It is understood that culvert replacement would be a quick and effective solution for flood reduction in this area. However, the uncontrolled stormwater runoff flowing directly into Krosno Creek remains a concern. We recommend that the proponent develop a comprehensive solution to address both the surface water flooding and the stormwater management for this this area.

 Section 1.2, Project Background, indicates that the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan recommended a number of stormwater management measures across all of the watersheds draining into Frenchman’s Bay. The report in Section 5.10, Preliminary Preferred Solution also recommends that the City enhance stormwater management for future development as part of the preferred solution. This recommendation should be worded as a commitment. In addition, more detail should be provided regarding the City’s plan to implement these stormwater management controls in order to improve the water quality conditions of the Krosno Creek watershed.

 In terms of the SWMM 5 model, it is important to note that as the causes and the solutions for the surface water flooding were simulated based on the model results, the accuracy of the model is one of the key factors in achieving the expected effectiveness of the preferred solution. For this purpose, please further demonstrate that the SWMM model was verified using the measured data before it was applied into the simulations. In particular, please note the following: a. The difference between Fig. 3-6 and Fig. 3-8 should be clarified. It seems that model calibration and verification were made using the same storm events. b. Model calibration and verification results should be provided to show the goodness of the model fit between the calculated and measured stream-flow rate or velocity, in addition to the water level. c. The rationale of using 100 year water elevation as the model boundary conditions for all storm-event simulations should be provided. d. Fig. 3-7 and Fig. 3-8 show that the model may consistently over-estimate the peak stream water level. If this is the case, further refinement of the model would be recommended.

 Table 4-6 shows that the Pickering Parkway Diversion will increase the flooding frequency at Alyssum Street location from the existing 5 year to 2 year, and Table 4-7 indicates that the Pickering Parkway Diversion will increase peak flow rate of the Krosno Creek at all flow-node locations during a 2-year storm event and at the Confluence with the Eastern Tributary during a 100-year storm event. Please explain the projected increase in flooding frequency at these locations.

 The peak flow at Highway 401 under the proposed conditions (Table 4-7) and the total (peak) flow to intake (Highway 401, Table 4-8) are supposed to be identical; however, the tables list different peak flow rates. This should be corrected or clarified.

 It should be noted that house flooding may also be caused by storm sewer backup or surcharge when a house has storm sewer laterals for the purpose of foundation and

Page 2 of 3 downspout drainage. If this is the case, the proposed solution would be unable to fully solve the house flooding problems in this area based on the modeling results. A site investigation is recommended to confirm the sewer connections of the properties concerned.

 We recommend that a detailed culvert flow analysis be conducted during the design stage to determine the hydraulic performance of the proposed new culverts. The analysis should include the culvert headwater, outlet velocity and end treatments in order to minimize any negative impact of the culvert replacement on the river channel and the natural environment.

 Please also be advised that a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required during construction for any projects which involves dewatering of over 50,000 litres of water per day. The application for a PTTW should include details of the dewatering/ water taking (rates, amounts, location etc.) and an assessment of the effects of the water taking (a hydrogeological and/ or hydro-ecological evaluation, as necessary). This assessment should consider the potential water quantity as well as water quality effects of the dewatering activities, including the potential short term (during construction) and long term effects on both groundwater and surface water users and uses. The treatment and disposal of the dewatering water should also be included. If the construction includes the discharge of any diverted water from the dewatering activities (or water collected from work areas) into a surface watercourse, appropriate control/ mitigation measures should be included to ensure that the proposed discharge will not result in any undesirable impact on the receiving waters. The ministry’s further detailed reviews of this project will be conducted during the PTTW application process when all the detailed information becomes available.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Should you or any members of your project team have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 416-326-3469.

Yours sincerely,

Nisha Shirali Environmental Resource Planner and EA Coordinator Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning

Cc: Dave Fumerton, Manager, York Durham District Office, MOECC

Page 3 of 3 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix F Technical Committee Meeting Minutes

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

December 14, 2012 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Project Initiation Meeting

Date: December 14, 2012, 10:00 am Held: City of Pickering

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering AECOM Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Joe Puopolo Abe Khademi Tom Dole Grant McGregor

The following items were discussed:

1. General Administration a. J Puopolo requested that the monthly status report, which is to be included with invoices, include each task from the budget included with the proposal b. Invoices are to be sent to both Joe Puopolo and Marilee Gadzovski c. All work completed in 2012 must be invoiced on or before January 15th d. S Hollingworth agreed to send a draft Communications Plan and an updated schedule along with the first invoice (to be issued before January 15th) e. TMIG agreed to request a licenced copy of PC-SWMM for the City from CHI

2. Communications Plan a. The communications plan is to include a summary of all planned public and agency contact, including dates and format. G McGregor indicated that Canada Post bulk mailings of flyers, electronic billboards (the City has 2) and social media were used for the Intensification Study. Consideration should be given to a newsletter. b. M Gadzovski will send a list of internal City contacts and suggested Durham Region contacts to TMIG, along with the contact list from the Intensification Study.

3. QA/QC Plan a. TMIG circulated draft QA/QC records. J Puopolo and M Gadzovski will review and provide comments to TMIG.

4. Risk Management Plan a. J Puopolo requested a brief document to assess, mitigate and track project risks.

5. City of Pickering Data a. T Dole handed over digital data to TMIG, including all of the background files from the Frenchman’s Bay Master Plan and the City’s relevant GIS databases, including storm

Page 1 of 2

December 14, 2012 Project 12150

sewers (which are not fully annotated), contours, air photos, etc. Plan and profile drawings for all of the roads in the study were also provided. b. TMIG requested MPAC assessment data for the study area to help estimate/quantify flood damages for cost-benefit analyses. c. TMIG will review the digital data and report back on any significant data gaps.

6. Alternative Solutions – Krosno Creek Diversion a. All reasonable alternatives, including a diversion to the hydro corridor, are to be presented and assessed to some degree through the EA. b. T. Dole or M Gadzovski will search for any information on high water marks and claims for flood damages in the study area resulting from the August 2005 storm. c. S. Hollingworth will contact TRCA staff for high water marks from the August 2005 storm. d. No one at the City can recall flooding of the Pickering Town Centre from the Highway 401 culvert. e. T. Dole will contact works staff for any anecdotal information on flooding on Krosno Creek. f. It is possible that some major system drainage from areas north of Kingston Road flows west to Pine Creek. A potential spill to Pine Creek should be reviewed and accounted for when setting up the PC-SWMM hydrology model. g. The Do Nothing alternative should describe all of the key storage and attenuation systems in the Krosno Creek drainage system (Highway 401 culvert, etc.), and document how these systems must be managed to prevent increases in flows in the future.

7. Downtown Intensification Study a. The third and final Public Open House for the Intensification Study is scheduled for late January or early February. b. Deliverables from the study will include the Vision, draft Secondary Plan policies, urban design guidelines, etc. c. It is intended to commence an Official Plan Amendment in March or April, and have the OPA through council by June 2013. d. There is an active development group for the lands between Highway 401 and Bayly Street. They intend to develop as quickly as possible and have engaged Kirkor Architects & Planners to prepare plans for the area. G McGregor will send digital copies of the concept plan to all attendees. e. The owner of the property on the north-west corner of Bayly Street and Liverpool Road is intending to submit an application for a gas station.

8. Schedule a. S. Hollingworth agreed to send out calendar invites for the Technical Committee meetings, based on the updated schedule. The Technical Committee is to include this meeting’s attendees, as well as Richard Holborn. G McGregor will invite Melanie Hare from Urban Strategies (leading the Intensification Study) to up to 2 meetings.

Page 2 of 2

April 11, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Technical Committee Meeting # 2

Date: April 11, 10:00 am Held: City of Pickering

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering CHI (by phone/web) Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Nandana Perera Abe Khademi Tom Dole Mark Randall Karen Finney AECOM Joe Puopolo

The key decision and action items are summarized as follows:

1. PCSWMM Model Development and Calibration a. T. Dole recommended that radar data be used to compare rainfall amounts/intensities over the study area vs. the rain gauge locations to explain the disagreement between the observed and simulated water levels for some calibration events. This should be included in the PCSWMM Technical Memo b. T. Dole requested that the Technical Memo explain the 0.2 m difference between the observed and simulated baseflow levels and the implications on the comparison of peak water levels c. CHI agreed to run several additional ‘verification’ events to further increase confidence in the model results

2. PCSWMM Model Results a. The flood plains for the 100 year and Regional storms were comparable, but slightly smaller than the flood plain on the current TRCA flood plain mapping b. There are existing spills from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek along Kingston Road, and along the south Highway 401 ditch c. The maximum water level on the upstream side of Highway 401 during Hurricane Hazel is approx. 85.3 m. This will flood the south parking lot at the Pickering Town Centre, and both Pickering Parkway and Highway 401 will be overtopped. d. T. Dole will research the first floor elevation of the Pickering Town Centre (The Bay lower level) and report back to TMIG e. CHI will provide a draft Technical Memo documenting the model development, calibration and output to TMIG by the end of next week (April 19). The memo will be forwarded to the City upon completion of QA/QC.

Page 1 of 2

April 11, 2013 Project 12150

3. Alternative Solutions a. S. Hollingworth described the initial alternative solutions. i. Do nothing ii. Master Plan solution (Diversion to Pine Creek north of Highway 401) iii. Improved culverts south of Bayly Street iv. Diversion sewer along Bayly Street to Pine Creek v. Diversion sewer along Bayly Street / Sandy Beach Road b. S. Hollingworth indicated that alternatives iv and v initially appear to be the most viable / effective alternatives c. T. Dole suggested another alternative to capture the flow south of Bayly Street with a diversion sewer along Reytan Blvd. d. T. Dole and M. Gadzovski are to forward any additional alternatives to TMIG for consideration

4. Project Schedule a. Given the considerable lead time needed to advertise for a Public Information Centre, it was agreed to delay PIC # 1 to September 2013 b. The project completion date (Council Presentation November 18, file ESR for public review late Nov 2013) will be maintained. c. M. Gadzovski or T. Dole will report to TMIG within a week regarding an additional PIC to present Existing Conditions to the public in June 2013. d. TMIG will complete Phases 1 and 2 of the EA (Alternative Solutions) for review at the next Technical Committee Meeting (which will be rescheduled for June 5th) e. TMIG will issue a revised schedule, respecting a 2 week review period by the City and the 1 month +/- lead time for PIC notices and council reports. f. S. Hollingworth will reply to J. Puopolo’s e-mail of March 14 with brief responses to the questions raised.

Page 2 of 2

June 13, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Technical Committee Meeting # 3

Date: June 13, 10:30 am Held: Tower Room, City of Pickering

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering AECOM Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Joe Puopolo Abe Khademi Tom Dole Richard Holborn

The key issues, decisions and action items are summarized as follows:

1. Review of Previous Minutes a. The minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed, and it was confirmed that all key action items had been completed.

2. Comments on Draft Interim ESR a. TMIG agreed to log all comments received at the meeting and future written comments from the City in a standard comment / response table. (All minor comments received at the meeting are included in the table attached to these minutes). b. M Gadzovski will contact staff in planning and provide an update on the status of Durham’s ROPA 128. c. M. Gadzovski will get Grant McGregor to review Section 3.1.3 and provide comments.

3. Design Storm Selection a. J. Puopolo requested justification for selection of the 1 hour AES design storm. S. Hollingworth agreed to run the 12 hour AES distribution (from the City’s SWM guidelines) and compare the results to the 1 hour distribution. S. Hollingworth noted that there would be impacts to the project budget and schedule if a different design storm was selected for the evaluation of alternatives. b. J. Puopolo requested that the ESR also reference the TRCA’s selection of the AES distribution for other watershed hydrology models in justifying the use of the AES distribution for this study.

Page 1 of 3

June 13, 2013 Project 12150

4. Comparison with TRCA 2002 Flow Rates a. There was a desire to better understand the reasons for the significant decrease in flow rates from the TRCA’s 2002 hydrology model. S. Hollingworth agreed to prepare a brief technical memo summarizing the results of the following additional model scenarios: i. The current Existing Conditions model with a 4 hour Chicago Storm (as per the TRCA’s 2002 model). ii. Ignoring the storage on the PTC south parking lot and ignoring the spill along Kingston Road to Pine Creek (i.e. compliant with MNR criteria for the regulatory storm). b. It was recommended to bring the TRCA’s current flood plain mapping to the Public Open Houses to help answer questions regarding actual flood risk vs. regulated flood plain.

5. Capacity of Existing Channel a. R Holborn asked about the capacity of the existing trapezoidal concrete channel, ignoring the backwater from the culverts. S. Hollingworth agreed to provide the flow rate(s).

6. Flood Damage Estimates a. The calculation of flood damages as 30% of the MPAC assessed property value was discussed. It was decided to seek input on an appropriate value at the Public Open Houses in the fall. b. S Hollingworth will contact the Insurance Bureau of Canada and seek any input on estimating flood damages from overland flow into a building.

7. Alternative Solutions a. It was requested to change the Pickering Parkway Diversion to Pine Creek alternative from a single to twin 2.4 m diameter pipes to be consistent with the FBSWMMP. b. TMIG / CHI will create an additional model scenario to divert ALL of the water north of Highway 401 to Pine Creek. However, this will not be evaluated as a separate alternative in the ESR. c. It was agreed that no additional alternative solutions were warranted. d. J Puopolo inquired if there were any solutions that would protect all buildings from flooding. S Hollingworth provided output from a scenario that combined the Krosno Boulevard Diversion with the Culvert Improvements, but there was not a significant improvement in flood damages relative to the separate scenarios. S Hollingworth stated that he did not believe there were any feasible alternatives to protect all structures from flooding, other than purchasing the few properties that remain prone

Page 2 of 3

June 13, 2013 Project 12150

to flooding. It was agreed not to mention purchasing flood prone properties as an option in the ESR.

8. Downtown SWM a. S Hollingworth provided some recent model results for different stormwater management scenarios for the Downtown study area. Restricting pre-development conditions to a maximum of 50 % for post-to-pre quantity control results in a noticeable reduction in peak flow rates at Highway 401 and Bayly Street. Increasing the on-site volume retention criterion from the TRCA minimum 5 mm to 10 mm and 15 mm further reduces peak flow rates and runoff volumes, especially for small storm events. b. S Hollingworth agreed to use model to assess the impact of losing the existing flood storage on the PTC south parking lot on flows in Krosno Creek and the hydraulic grade line north of Highway 401.

9. Other Business a. S Hollingworth is to schedule a meeting to go through the remaining sections of the Draft Interim ESR b. S Hollingworth is to provide M Gadzovski the names of the residents that requested a meeting to discuss past flooding problems on Krosno Creek. M Gadzovski will then organize a single meeting with the residents. c. A Khademi is to provide M Gadzovski some recent literature on the range of potential incentives for aspirational stormwater / LID targets.

Page 3 of 3

June 21, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Technical Committee Meeting # 4

Date: June 21, 1:00 pm Held: Tower Room, City of Pickering

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering AECOM Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Joe Puopolo Abe Khademi Tom Dole Richard Holborn

The key issues, decisions and action items are summarized as follows:

1. Review of Previous Minutes a. Items 2(b) and 2(c): M Gadzovski has discussed the draft ESR with planning staff, and will soon circulate the report sections for comment. b. Item 4(b): It was agreed to discuss the merit in having the TRCA (Chris Jones) attend the PICs at the next Steering Committee meeting. c. Comment Table, second last row: Correct to Table 4-2, Section 4.1.1. d. J. Puopolo will issue consolidated comments on the Draft Interim ESR next week (June 24- 28).

2. Fluvial Geomorphology a. J Puopolo indicated that comments on the fluvial geomorphology section will be issued once the full fluvial geomorphology report is submitted as an appendix to the draft final ESR.

3. Do Nothing Solution a. R. Holborn suggested that M Gadzovski forward the sections of the report regarding the ‘Do Nothing’ solution (4.2, 5.2 and Table 5-2) to Stan Karwowski and/or James Halsall to ensure that they are comfortable from a risk and liability perspective.

4. Flood Proofing a. It was agreed to carry flood proofing through the evaluation of alternatives and include it in Table 5-2. b. Flood proofing can be recommended as an alternative to protect the 8 houses that remain at risk of flooding following implementation of the primary solution (Culvert Upgrades, to be confirmed). c. An approximate cost of $40,000 to flood proof each home will be used in the evaluation of alternatives.

Page 1 of 3

June 21, 2013 Project 12150

5. Preferred Solution a. S Hollingworth asked if there was agreement on the preferred solution (Culvert Upgrades) and if the detailed field investigations could be initiated. b. J Puopolo requested additional information before accepting the conclusions of the draft interim ESR. c. It was agreed that S Hollingworth would: i. Run the existing conditions model with the 12 hour AES storm (from the City’s SWM Guidelines) and confirm the preferred design storm distribution; ii. Run both the existing conditions model and culvert improvement models in accordance with the MNR Technical Guidelines (ignoring the spill to Pine Creek on Kingston Road and ignoring the storage on the PTC south parking lot); iii. Issue the results by e-mail to the Technical Committee, and; iv. Convene a conference call to review the results and discuss the next steps.

6. Downtown Intensification Study a. G. McGregor noted that Urban Strategies had completed the visioning and policy recommendations, and that the final report was available on the City’s website. b. G McGregor stated that the report will be going to Committee on July 2, with a recommendation to start the Official Plan Amendment process. Once endorsed by council, there will be a series of meetings with stakeholders through the fall of 2013, with the regulatory planning process commencing in January 2014 and adoption of the OPA in March/April 2014. There will also be Urban Design Guidelines and Zoning by-laws (by precinct) associated with the OPA. c. G McGregor indicated that the Downtown South landowners have already initiated a flood study to modify the Krosno Creek corridor and flood plain north of Bayly Street, and have also initiated a Transportation Study for the anticipated road network through the Downtown South precinct. d. The Downtown Intensification Study is currently recommending 5 mm on-site volume retention, and control of post-development peak flow rates pre-development levels, where pre- development is based on a maximum runoff coefficient of 0.5. e. A Khademi presented the initial outcome of the hydrologic modelling for full implementation of the Downtown Intensification vision. Adopting the maximum pre-development runoff coefficient of 0.5 has a noticeable impact on peak flow rates in Krosno Creek, and increasing the on-site volume retention criterion to 10 mm and 15 mm results in further reductions in downstream runoff volumes and peak flow rates, particularly for smaller storm events. f. A Khademi circulated literature regarding incentives for voluntary adoption of higher SWM standards, such as the 10 mm and 15 mm volume control criteria. A Khademi also reported that Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan are collaborating on Sustainability Metrics. The draft metrics for SWM specify 5 mm as the mandatory requirement, 10 mm as the recommended minimum requirement, and 15 mm as the aspirational target. A points system is associated with the metrics, but the overall program is still evolving and there are no policies being considered yet. More information on the initiative can be found at http://www.richmondhill.ca/subpage.asp?pageid=planning_policy_sustainability.

Page 2 of 3

June 21, 2013 Project 12150

g. A Khademi indicated that the 5 mm on-site volume control criterion can usually be achieved using common LID practices (permeable pavement, green roof, small cisterns for irrigating landscaped areas) for the types of development contemplated in Downtown Pickering. Based on recent experience, greywater plumbing systems are typically needed to achieve 10 mm and 15 mm volume reductions. h. G McGregor indicated that Durham Region has not been supportive of greywater plumbing systems. i. G McGregor requested examples of sites that have achieved 10 mm and 15 mm volume reductions. G McGregor suggested reviewing the architectural plans prepared by Kirkor for the Downtown South precinct for an example of the anticipated development form.

7. 1-Dimensional vs. 2-Dimensional PCSWMM Modelling a. J Puopolo requested documentation of the discussion regarding 1-D vs. 2-D modelling during the June 13 meeting. The discussion is documented below. b. S Hollingworth noted that the only area where there are significant divergent flow paths in Krosno Creek is upstream of Reytan Boulevard, where water can spill eastward from the channel and then continue southward in the Sandy Beach Road ditches. c. S Hollingworth showed that flooding upstream of Reytan Boulevard is ‘contained’, with no spill up to an elevation of more than 79.0 m. Flood damages are sustained when water levels reach an elevation of 78.5 m, and all of the houses currently predicted to be at risk of flooding would be flooded before water levels reach the elevation of the ‘spill crest’ east to Sandy Beach Road. While a 2-D approach could improve the accuracy of the model, it would not result in any change in the number of buildings flooded or anticipated flood damages. d. S Hollingworth stated that he discussed 2-D modelling with CHI, and they estimate that they could prepare 2-D model of Krosno Creek (south of Hwy 401) for approximately $10,000. CHI also indicated that a much more accurate DEM would be required to generate the 2-D grids. CHI further noted that the 2-D model licence is more expensive, and the resulting model would not be compatible with the free EPA SWMM5 model. e. It was agreed that 2-D modelling is not warranted for the Krosno Creek Diversion Study.

8. Other Business a. M Gadzovski provided a ‘postcard’ that was used to advertise a recent PIC for Amberlea Creek. S Hollingworth agreed to provide it to TMIG’s marketing department and develop a similar postcard to advertise the Krosno Creek PICs.

Page 3 of 3

July 25, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Technical Committee Meeting # 5

Date: July 25, 3:30 pm Held: via teleconference

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering AECOM Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Joe Puopolo Tom Dole Richard Holborn

The key issues, decisions and action items are summarized as follows:

1. Design Storm Selection a. M Gadzovski agreed that the 1 hour AES distribution is to be used for the 2 year through 100 year storms in the PCSWMM models.

2. Flood Risk v.s. Regulatory Flood Plain a. It was noted that the difference between the predicted extent of flooding from SWMM5 and the TRCA’s Regulatory Flood plain would need to be carefully explained at the PIC and to Council.

3. Flooding upstream of Highway 401 a. It was agreed to report the depth of flooding upstream of Highway 401 (on the surface of the south PTC parking lot) for all of the alternative solutions. Any reductions in flooding upstream of Highway 401 are to be considered in the evaluation of alternatives (i.e. facilitation of future development).

4. Radom Street Culvert Replacement a. M Gadzovski noted that replacement of the Radom Street culvert on Pine Creek is included in the City’s capital project list and Development Charges (but no timetable for construction). This might reduce flood levels upstream of Highway 401, which could potentially improve the effectiveness of the Pickering Parkway Diversion alternative. (aside – TMIG previously committed to a scenario with ALL of the water from north of Highway 401 diverted to Pine Creek. Pending the result of that scenario, a Diversion + Radom Street culvert improvement scenario may not be warranted) (aside – If this scenario is modelled and considered in the ESR, flood levels upstream of Highway 401 and costs for the Pine Creek culvert improvements will be taken from the report ‘Pine Creek Floodline Analysis (MMM, 2007).

Page 1 of 2

July 25, 2013 Project 12150

5. Selection of Preferred Solution a. City staff stated that Council will need to endorse the preferred solution before proceeding to the alternative design / preliminary design phases of the project. b. TMIG will revise the Draft Interim ESR to address the City’s comments. c. PIC # 1 will be scheduled for early fall 2013. d. A Report to Council will be prepared for council endorsement of the preferred solution following PIC # 1.

6. Schedule a. S Hollingworth agreed to provide a date by which the draft interim ESR will be re-submitted. Follow-up: The Draft Interim ESR is scheduled to be completed and submitted to the City on or before August 20th.

7. Other Business a. The City will provide written comments on the minutes from the June 21 Technical Committee Meeting # 4 and/or Technical Memo of July 2.

Page 2 of 2 From: Puopolo, Joe To: Steve Hollingworth Cc: Gadzovski, Marilee ([email protected]); [email protected]; Abe Khademi; "Holborn, Richard" Subject: City of Pickering | Downtown SWM and Diversion Study - Comments on Minutes for Meeting #5 & # 4 and July Memo Date: August 6, 2013 2:42:18 PM Attachments: image007.png image008.png image009.png

Steve – the following provides a consolidated set of comments regarding the Meeting Notes for Technical Meetings #5 & #4, and the Memorandum of July 20, 2013, entitled Additional SWMM5 Model Scenarios. Please call if any questions arise or further clarification would be helpful.

Joe

i) Meeting Notes - Technical Committee Meeting # 5

Item 2(a) – expand statement to indicate that the discussion on the differences in the extent of flooding will also be carefully and fully documented in the ESR. Item 3(a) – expand statement to indicate that the extent of flooding will also be plotted on a topographic map to present the limits of flooding. Item 5(d) - clarify the statement to indicate that the report will address all City comments received to date. Item 6 (a) – August 20th is acceptable for the updated ESR. The submission should be accompanied with the table outlining the comments that have been provided on the document and the responses from TMIG. Item 7 (a) - Comments regarding the minutes and the memorandum is provided in the following. Additional Issue - The flood storage provided within the Pickering Town Centre comments parking lot has some significance with respect to downstream flooding regarding the in Krosno Creek. The loss or reduction of this storage will have alternatives to downstream impacts. The evaluation of alternatives will need to include be investigated an evaluation of the significance of the storage on flooding upstream of Highway 401. Alternatives which do not need the storage, thus reducing the constraints on the re-development of the mall, should be considered positively.

Alternatives - The RFP document identifies a number of alternatives that are to be assessed to a conceptual level of detail (refer to page 21 of the RFP). This includes alternatives which completely eliminates flood risk on Krosno Creek, such as a diversion plus culvert improvements, and downstream channel and bridge/culvert improvements based on full flow conditions, ie no flow reductions due to the Hwy 401/CNR crossing. The intent of including these alternatives is to cover the full spectrum of options from "Do Nothing" to "Do Everything" in the EA.

Evaluation of the diversion alternative should consider the twin diversion pipe for both of the following conditions: - existing conditions tailwater in Pine Creek - improved conditions tailwater in Pine Creek (ie. Radom Street and Kingston Road culvert improvements and flood storage)

Modelling Questions - where do flood waters go if storage is eliminated upstream of Highway 401 - is the diversion at Highway 401 to Pine Creek sufficient to eliminate downstream flooding, or would culvert improvements still be required even with the diversion? - if the effects of stormwater management controls is not significant, how does it produce such a large reduction in annual flood damages? - do major system flows from north of Kingston Road make it to Krosno Creek? ii) Meeting Notes - Technical Committee Meeting # 4

Item 4 (c) - TMIG should provide some rationale for using $40k for floodproofing of houses. Item 5(c) - it was also agreed that TMIG would re-examine the diversion option to Pine Creek with a twin pipe conveyance system. It was emphasized that this option was identified in the FBSWMMP as the preferred alternative and therefore if this option is now excluded the rationale for doing so should be well documented. Also refer to comments regarding alternatives investigation as noted above. Item (6i) - TMIG to develop concepts to illustrate how the different levels of on- site volume retention could be achieved – what the required measures may look like. The analysis and graphical representation could be based on a unit area – ie., 1 hectare and the architectural plan prepared by Kirkor could be used as the concept plan for the development.

iii) Memorandum of July 2, 2013, Re Additional SWMM5 Model Scenarios

Page 2 – Table include a note/footnote to the table indicating that the results in the 1- first 3 columns include upstream storage in the PTC and the restrictive structures under the 401/CPR crossings. Page 2 – Table include the rainfall depth associated with each storm event in the table. 1- Page 2 – Table include an additional column to include the drainage area at each 1- location. Page 3, third provide upstream flood levels and associated extent of flooding for the paragraph two scenarios discussed in this paragraph. Please clarify how the removal of storage has little effect on flows, but removal of the constriction has a dramatic effect – these two factors are typically inter- dependent. Page 3, fourth this scenario should be clarified now as part of the flood protection paragraph component of the study, as it may affect the selection of the preferred alternative. Page 4, Table 2 - include a note indicating that the current model setup includes the upstream storage and restrictive structures under the Hwy 401/CNR crossings. Page 4, Table 2 - include the rainfall depth for each storm and the drainage area at each flow location. Page 4, Table 2 - in second to last column, the label under the 100 year storm should read 4 hour Chicago, as opposed to 1 hour AES. Page 4, Table 2 - include note/footnote to indicate that the TRCA derived flows are based on unrestricted flow conditions – ie no upstream storage or restrictive culverts. Page 5, Table 3 - include note to clarify that existing conditions flood levels account for upstream storage etc., that proposed conditions are based on unrestricted flow conditions, and that both include the limited downstream culvert improvement option. Page 5, Table 3 - Include additional columns to the table to provide flow value and drainage area at each location. Page 5 - Remove the preferred option label for the limited downstream culvert improvement option – the selection of the preferred option has not been made.

From: Steve Hollingworth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:54 AM To: 'Gadzovski, Marilee'; 'Holborn, Richard'; Puopolo, Joe; 'Dole, Tom' Cc: Abe Khademi Subject: RE: 12150 - Downtown SWM and Diversion Study - Follow-up to Tech Committee Meeting # 4

All

Please find attached some brief minutes from yesterday’s conference call.

Please review the minutes and reply with any corrections or additions.

Marilee – I recall that a very long lead time is needed for PIC planning and advertisement. If we were to hold a PIC in late September, when would you need the notice, and when would you need to see the draft display boards?

Regards

October 11, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Technical Committee Meeting # 6

Date: October 11, 2013, 9:00 am Held: Meeting Room # 4, City of Pickering

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering AECOM Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Joe Puopolo Tom Dole Richard Holborn Grant McGregor

The key issues, decisions and action items are summarized as follows:

1. TMIG agreed to prepare 2 additional scenarios and include them in the evaluation of alternatives a. Complete diversion to Pine Creek + Culvert Upgrades + Flood Proofing remaining buildings. This scenario provides a solution that will not be impacted by any future enlargements of the Hwy 401 and CNR culverts. The culvert improvements will be maintained from the current Culvert Improvements scenario. b. Safe Conveyance of the Regulatory Storm. It was agreed that this would be limited to a simple Manning’s equation calculation of the size of trapezoidal channel that would be needed to convey the Regulatory (100 year) storm, assuming no restriction at the Hwy 401/CNR. 2. It was agreed that Flood Damages would be calculated as 10% of the assessed value of a flooded property. 3. It was confirmed that the 1 hour AES storm will continue to be used in the evaluations, irrespective of the duration of the calibration events. 4. The City will consolidate all comments and provide TMIG with an updated comment log table. However, the following items were discussed: a. T. Dole recommended a section at the front end of the description/evaluation of alternatives defining the Regulatory storm and the challenges in removing all properties/structures from the Regulatory flood plain. This would avoid the need to complicate the report with the difference between flood risk and regulatory flood plain with each alternative. b. It was recommended to exclude the recently constructed office tower from the PTC flood storage area in Figure 3-5. It was also agreed to change the legend / figure title to ‘Potentially Available Storage….’ 5. G McGregor provided an update on the Downtown OPA a. The name of the study area will be changed from “Downtown Pickering” to “Pickering City Centre” b. The OPA is in draft form, and Urban Strategies is now preparing the draft zoning by-laws. c. The flood plain (cut & fill) analysis prepared for the Downtown South area (Krosno Creek between the CNR and Bayly Street) has been accepted by the TRCA

Page 1 of 2

October 11, 2013 Project 12150

d. The surplus MTO properties on the east and west sides of Pine Creek north of Highway 401 will be sold as a single lot. Infrastructure Ontario is completing a flood study for submission to the TRCA to expand the developable area sufficient to support a hotel/convention centre. It was suggested that the City contact I.O. and/or the TRCA to provide input to the Terms of Reference regarding Pine Creek hydrology/hydraulics 6. S Hollingworth summarized the key findings of the draft Stormwater Management Strategy a. There is obvious justification for adopting the City’s currently informal requirement for pre- development conditions to be limited to a maximum runoff coefficient of 0.5 for calculating target pre-development peak flow rates (in addition to the TRCA’s requirement to retain the runoff from up to a 5 mm rainfall on-site) b. The report currently recommends adopting Enhanced water quality control, retention of the first 5 mm of rainfall on-site, and control of post-development peak flow rates to pre- development levels using a maximum pre-development runoff coefficient of 0.5. It further suggests a range of incentives to encourage new development to voluntarily adopt a higher standard of runoff retention. c. The report specifically recommends that new development in the flood storage area in the south parking lot of the Pickering Town Centre maintain the existing flood storage in any redevelopment plan, and that new development in the area be flood proofed (no openings) to the level of the 100 year flood (84.66 m) plus a reasonable freeboard. The 1984 Master Plan (Simcoe Engineering) indicates that there was an agreement between the City and the PTC owners to create approximately 12,500 m3 of flood storage through a re-design of the parking lot. M Gadzovski will review historical planning files and try to find formal documentation to confirm that such an agreement was reached. 7. Next Steps a. S Hollingworth will complete and document the additional scenarios. S Hollingworth indicated that, given current workload and commitments, it will take at least a month to complete the additional work. The City will review the additional scenarios and then begin planning PIC #1 accordingly. b. S Hollingworth noted that the additional analyses are beyond the effort anticipated in the proposal, and TMIG’s budget for the Phase 1 & 2 investigations and draft ESR was exhausted. It was agreed that the budget breakdown from the proposal could be reallocated to balance the additional effort against other tasks (such as prelim design) that should require less effort than was anticipated at the proposal stage. The budget re-allocations will be appropriately documented, and the total budget in the Purchase Order will not be exceeded.

Page 2 of 2

February 28, 2014 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Technical Committee Meeting # 7

Date: February 28, 2014 – 2:00 pm Held: via teleconference

Attendees:

TMIG City of Pickering Steve Hollingworth Marilee Gadzovski Tom Dole

The key issues, decisions and action items are summarized as follows:

1. Municipal Class EA Process a. S Hollingworth will contact Dorthy Moszynski at MOE to determine the procedure to ‘bump down’ from a Schedule C to a Schedule B project, and to confirm the EA Schedule applicable to culvert enlargements to reduce flooding. 2. Schedule a. S Hollingworth will contact T2 Utilities and Retz surveys to get a revised schedule and budget to complete the utility investigation and detailed survey for the three culvert locations b. S Hollingworth will contact SPL and get their recommendations (if any) for geotechnical investigations for the culvert replacements. c. S Hollingworth will prepare a revised schedule and budget to take the project to completion, assuming that the project will follow the Schedule B process. The budget will include purchase of a PCSWMM 2D licence for the City. d. T Dole will begin planning for a second PIC, tentatively scheduled for May 28, 2014 3. Response to PIC # 1 Issues a. An ‘Additional Recommendations’ section will be added to the Project File Report to specifically recommend increased maintenance for the Kronso Creek channel corridor b. The study will note that overtopping of Sandy Beach Road and the spill southward along Sandy Beach Road to Willowside and Streamside Courts will be examined in more detail through the planned 2015 reconstruction of Sandy Beach Road, and will also note that the new bridge at the south Sandy Beach Road crossing has improved conveyance since the August 2005 storm. c. The Additional Recommendations section will also recommend that the Region reconfigure the sanitary sewer east of Sandy Beach Road to eliminate the existing culverts at the current sanitary sewer crossing. d. The project title should be revised to remove the word ‘Diversion’ to avoid confusion.

Page 1 of 1 THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 T 905.738.5700

Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

MEETING MINUTES

PROJECT KROSNO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION STUDY & CITY CENTRE SWM STRATEGY

CLIENT / MUNICIPALITY City of Pickering CLIENT REFERENCE

DATE / TIME August 14, 2014 / 10:30 am

LOCATION City of Pickering

MEETING PURPOSE Review of the Draft Final Project File Report and SWM Strategy Report

ATTENDEES Pickering Tom Dole, Marilee Gadzovski

TMIG Steve Hollingworth

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12105

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

A number of relatively minor comments on the Krosno Creek Flood Reduction 1 Study were discussed and recorded in S Hollingworth’s copy of the report. TMIG TMIG will revise the report as discussed

All drawings showing the extent of flooding should include the note to indicate that 2 TMIG the flood limit is distinct from the TRCA’s Regulatory flood plain

T Dole confirmed that the planned rehabilitation of Sandy Beach Road includes replacement of the Krosno Creek culvert south of Alyssum Street. TMIG will 3 provide a cost estimate for this culvert, assuming it will be the same size as the TMIG culverts proposed at the upstream crossings (twin 3 m wide x 1.8 m high concrete boxes)

4 It was agreed to show all costs in the report as $Millions TMIG

M Gadzovski noted that the City Centre Plan hasn’t been approved by council, 5 pending some appeals

TMIG will undertake additional analyses to justify the recommended staging plan 6 (i.e. replacing Reytan in advance of Alyssum), and document the results in the TMIG Project File Report

Section 6 of the report will be revised to include all potentially required permits and 7 TMIG approvals, as recommended in the initial response letter from MOE

The Communications Plan will be updated to indicated that the study notices were 8 TMIG published in the newspaper for 2 successive weeks

MIN-12150 - REVIEW MEETING FOR DRAFT FINAL PFR AND CITY CENTRE SWM REPORTS - 2014 08 14.DOCX MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 of 2 AUGUST 14, 2014

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

TMIG will revise the report as discussed and circulate the Final Project File Report to TRCA, MOE and Steering Committee members for review in mid-September. 9 The Steering Committee meeting will be scheduled for mid-October. If there are TMIG no major comments received, the report can be finalized and the Notice of Study Completion can be issued in late October.

A few relatively minor comments on the City Centre SWM Strategy were discussed 10 and recorded in S Hollingworth’s copy of the report. TMIG will revise the report as TMIG discussed.

M Gadzovski stated that the SWM Strategy will go to council for endorsement, but 11 not likely until the new council is in place after the 2014 municipal election

PLEASE NOTE: If these minutes do not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise, otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.

DISTRIBUTION All Attendees

MINUTES PREPARED BY ______Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng.

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12105MIN-12150 - REVIEW MEETING FOR DRAFT FINAL PFR AND CITY CENTRE SWM REPORTS - 2014 08 14.DOCX THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 T 905.738.5700

Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

MEETING MINUTES

PROJECT KROSNO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION STUDY

CLIENT / MUNICIPALITY City of Pickering CLIENT REFERENCE

DATE / TIME January 14, 2015 / 10:30 am City of Pickering, 1 The Esplanade LOCATION Meeting Room 4 (Second Floor) MEETING PURPOSE Review Responses to TRCA and MNR Comments and Notice of Completion

ATTENDEES City of Pickering Marilee Gadzovski

TMIG Steve Hollingworth

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

S Hollingworth provided copies of the draft response letters to TRCA and MOE, and copies of the Project File Report sections that have been revised to address 1 TRCA and MOE comments

The report has been revised to recommend investigating the feasibility of an open foot culvert at Alyssum Street during detailed design to address TRCA concerns. M Gadzovski noted that the capital budgets have been prepared on the basis of the recommended twin concrete box culverts. S Hollingworth will provide an 2 estimate for the additional cost for an open foot culvert at Alyssum Street S Hollingworth

UPDATE: The cost premium to go from twin, closed bottom box culverts to a single span culvert at Alyssum Street is between 50% and 100%, depending on the complexity of footing construction

M Gadzovski will discuss the MOE comment regarding adherence to the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater 3 M Gadzovski Horseshoe with Déan Jacobs

S Hollingworth will revise the MOE response letter and relevant sections of the Project File Report to describe why there are no reasonable alternatives for large, 4 S Hollingworth centralized SWM facilities upstream of the flood vulnerable areas of Krosno Creek

M Gadzovski will check with Déan Jacobs to confirm that the SWM criteria from the City Centre SWM Strategy have been incorporated into the final OPA policies 5 M Gadzovski for the Pickering City Centre (OPA 26)

MIN-12150 - REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO TRCA AND MNR COMMENTS - 2015 01 14.DOCX MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 of 2 JANUARY 14, 2015

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

M Gadzovski will review formatting for the Notice of Completion, as a larger format is needed. M Gadzovski will target January 20 to get the Notice finalized, in hopes 6 M Gadzovski of having the Notice published January 29 or February 5

M Gadzovski advised against leaving a copy of the PFR at the East Shore Community Centre for review. M Gadzovski will check the Notice of Completion for the Amberlea Creek study to see if and where there was a second location for 7 M Gadzovski review of the EA report (see http://www.pickering.ca/en/cityhall/resources/AmberleaCreekNoticeAug2013.pdf Copies of the EA Report were left at City Hall, the Central Library and Petticoat Creek Library)

PLEASE NOTE: If these minutes do not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise, otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.

DISTRIBUTION All Attendees

MINUTES PREPARED BY ______Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng.

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 MIN-12150 - REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO TRCA AND MNR COMMENTS - 2015 01 14.DOCX Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Study CITY OF PICKERING ______COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Appendix G Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD ______

February 19, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study Steering Committee Meeting # 1

Date: February 19, 2013 10:30 am Held: City of Pickering

Attendees:

Steve Hollingworth, TMIG Joe Puopolo, AECOM Abe Khademi, TMIG Marek Wiesek, MTO Marilee Gadzovski, City of Pickering David Dunn, Durham Region Tom Dole, City of Pickering Margo Sloan, OPG Grant McGregor, City of Pickering Chris Jones, TRCA

1. Project Overview . Steve H and Abe K provided a brief summary of the previous Frenchman’s Bay SWM Master Plan and current study to reduce the potential for flooding along Krosno Creek and to develop stormwater management recommendations for the planned redevelopment and intensification in the Downtown Pickering area.

2. Downtown Intensification Study . Grant M provided an update on the Downtown Intensification Study. The study is currently a visioning exercise to get public input on the planned intensification of an area roughly bounded by Kingston Road, Bayly Street, Liverpool Road and the Hydro corridor. The intent is to get an Official Plan Amendment and Precinct Plans through Council before the summer break, with final approval by the Region in the fall of 2013. . There are development proposals in the area between Bayly Street and Highway 401. Some of this area is impacted by the existing Krosno Creek flood plain.

3. Potential Solutions . Steve H noted that the range of feasible solutions is dependent on the severity of flooding both north and south of Highway 401. A hydrologic/hydraulic modelling exercise is underway to establish the flows and flood levels for a range of storms. The Frenchman’s Bay SWM Master Plan recommended a diversion from Krosno Creek westward along the north side of Highway 401 to Pine Creek, with a SWM pond west of Liverpool Road to control peak flows from the diversion. . Other solutions could include culvert improvements, diversions on the south side of Highway 401, diversions eastward and then south along Sandy Beach Road or the Hydro Corridor, …

4. MTO Feedback . Marek W stated that MTO generally requires all such infrastructure to be set back 14 m from the Highway 401 right-of-way. Marek W further noted that a diversion pipe under

Page 1 of 2

February 19, 2013 Project 12150

the Liverpool Road interchange would need to be carefully co-ordinated with MTO, but could see no apparent reasons why it would not be permitted if it met MTO requirements. . Grant M confirmed that the MTO property west of Liverpool Road and north of Highway 401 has been declared surplus by the province, and the City is attempting to acquire the property from Infrastructure Ontario.

5. Durham Region Feedback . David D was not aware of any current or planned works along Liverpool Road, Bayly Street or Brock Road that would significantly constrain potential diversion alignments. . David D stated that the Region is undertaking an addendum to the Highway 2 BRT EA to expand the study area to include the CN grade separation west of Pine Creek.

6. OPG Feedback . Margo S did not foresee any concerns, as the potential solutions are not likely to encroach into OPG’s property. Margo S also confirmed that the transmission corridor east of Sandy Beach Road is controlled by Hydro One. Further discussions with OPG may be required if access to OPG property is needed.

7. Next Steps . The first Public Information Centre (PIC) is tentatively scheduled for May 2013. The next Steering Committee meeting will take place 1 to 2 weeks before the PIC to review the alternative solutions and preliminary preferred solution. Invites will be sent out approximately 1 month in advance of the next meeting.

Page 2 of 2

December 10, 2013 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study

Review of Alternatives and Preliminary Preferred Solution

Date/Time: December 10, 2013 / 2:00 pm Held: TRCA, Highland Room

Attendees:

City of Pickering Marilee Gadzovski

AECOM Joe Puopolo

TMIG Steve Hollingworth

TRCA Chris Jones Rob Grech Sharon Lingertat

1. S Hollingworth provided a brief summary of the earlier Frenchman’s Bay SWM Master Plan and purpose of the current Krosno Creek Diversion Study and associated Downtown SWM Strategy. 2. S Hollingworth provided a summary of the existing environmental conditions through the study area (aquatic and terrestrial habitat, archaeology, fluvial geomorphology). Other than the Hydro Marsh, the aquatic and terrestrial habitat associated with Kronso Creek is relatively poor. 3. S Hollingworth described the development of the new, calibrated PCSWMM hydrology/hydraulic model of Krosno Creek. S Hollingworth indicated that the PCSWMM model considered minor and major drainage systems, spills to Pine Creek, storage on the south parking lot at the Pickering Town Centre, and the restrictions in flow caused by culverts along the system, particularly for the Highway 401/CNR culvert. S Hollingworth justified the use of the 1 hour AES design storm for the analyses. S Hollingworth presented the peak flow rates from the model, which are approximately 50% of the flow rates from the TRCA’s 2002 model. The most significant reason for the lower flow rates is the consideration of the restrictions caused by the Highway 401/CNR culvert. 4. R Grech confirmed that the PCSWMM model will not conform to MNR guidelines for calculating the Regulatory flood flow and flood plain mapping, as it considers flow attenuation behind culverts and other ‘man made’ storage. However, R Grech agreed that this was a reasonable approach for the study, which is to evaluate options to reduce the risk / frequency of actual flooding along Krosno Creek. 5. S Hollingworth presented the alternative solutions a. Regulatory Channel: A channel corridor to convey the Regulatory peak flow (ignoring the effect of the 401/CNR culverts) would consume all of the residential properties between the existing channel and Reytan Boulevard. It was generally agreed that the significant costs and social upheaval make this solution unappealing. b. Enhanced SWM: Full buildout of the Downtown Pickering area (north of Bayly, south of Kingston) with reasonable stormwater management criteria could reduce flow rates and flood damages for small storm events (2 year, 5 year), but would not reduce the severity of flooding for larger storm events.

Page 1 of 3

December 10, 2013 Project 12150

c. Diversion to Pine Creek: If ALL of the flow from north of Highway 401 were diverted to Pine Creek and culverts were upgraded along Krosno Creek, no buildings would be flooded for the 100 year and Regional storms. This alternative also includes significant culvert replacements on Pine Creek (Radom Street, Highway 401) to mitigate the impacts of flooding on Pine Creek. R Grech indicated that he was uncomfortable with this solution because of the current issues and development pressures on Pine Creek. R Grech also suggested that, according to the MNR guidelines, the diversion to Pine Creek would be considered a ‘man made’ structure, and as such the diversion might not be considered in calculating the Regulatory flow downstream in Krosno Creek. J Puopolo agreed to disagree on this point. d. Krosno Boulevard Relief Sewer: This sewer would intercept a portion of the flow at Morden Lane and divert it around the most flood prone area, discharging back into Krosno Creek downstream of Alyssum Street. This solution would significantly reduce flood damages for small and moderate storms, but would have a limited reduction in flood damages for the Regional storm. e. Culvert Improvements: Flooding and flood damages could be significantly reduced (but not eliminated) for all storms, up to and including the Regional storm, if the culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street were replaced with twin 3.0 m span concrete boxes. This is the largest size of culvert that could reasonably be integrated with the existing channe). 6. S Hollingworth presented the evaluation matrix, and stated that Culvert Improvements are the preliminary preferred solution but the study is also recommending the enhanced stormwater management controls for redevelopment in the Downtown Pickering area, and flood proofing for the 8 homes that would continue to be at risk of flooding in a 100 year / Regional storm. S Hollingworth also presented a plan showing the extent of flooding for the Regional storm with the culvert improvements in place, and noted that a final model run will be prepared to include culvert improvements in combination with Enhanced SWM controls for Downtown Pickering. 7. R Grech stated that, ideally, the TRCA’s Regulatory flood plain (also shown on the plans) should be revised, using the TRCA 2002 flow rates, based on the culvert improvements. 8. It was agreed by all that it will be critical to clearly distinguish between the TRCA’s Regulatory flood plain and TMIG’s predicted extent of flooding in the Report and PIC materials. R Grech and C Jones also noted that homes currently in the Regulated area have most of their development rights intact – owners can replace and expand their homes (up to 50%) in the TRCA flood plain, subject to flood proofing conditions. Few, if any, of the residential lots in the flood plain could be severed to create 2 building lots (which would not be permitted by the TRCA). 9. Other than the need to distinguish between the Regulatory flood plain and the actual predicted extent of flooding (with the 401/CNR culverts and other flow controlling structures considered), TRCA staff had no significant concerns with the findings and recommendations 10. S Hollingworth stated that the first Public Information Centre is scheduled for February 19, and a Stakeholder meeting (including TRCA, Durham Region, MTO, OPG) will take place in late January. C Jones stated that he would be willing to provide his business cards, and City / TMIG staff could refer residents to him to clarify what they can and can’t do on their property in the TRCA’s Regulatory flood plain. 11. C Jones and R Grech stated that the owners of the Downtown South lands (between Bayly and the CNR) were proceeding with a cut and fill balance to contain the TRCA Regional flood plain in a corridor similar to that shown in TMIG’s Regulatory Conveyance Channel option.

Page 2 of 3

December 10, 2013 Project 12150

12. S Hollingworth provided a brief summary of the findings from the Downtown SWM Strategy study. The PCSWMM model found that adopting the TRCA’s 5 mm on-site retention criterion and formalizing the City’s requirement for a maximum predevelopment runoff coefficient of 0.5 (similar to Toronto’s WWFMMP) would reduce runoff volumes, peak flow rates and pollutant loadings in Krosno Creek, particularly for small storms (< 10 year). Increasing the on-site retention criterion to 10 mm and 15 mm was also explored, which would provide further modest reductions in peak flow rates and runoff volumes. S Hollingworth stated that the preliminary recommendation from the study is 5 mm on site retention and post – to – pre flow control with a maximum predevelopment runoff coefficient of 0.5. The OPA for Downtown Pickering will also recommend incentives to encourage development to exceed the 5 mm minimum on-site retention criterion. However, moving beyond the 5 mm criterion usually requires internal greywater plumbing systems, which are currently not supported by Durham Region. 13. TMIG and the City will provide a further update at subsequent Stakeholder meetings, and will provide TRCA a copy of the Draft EA report will in advance of filing the final report for public review.

Page 3 of 3 January 29, 2014 Project 12150

Meeting Notes Downtown SWM and Diversion Study

Steering Committee Meeting # 2 Review of Alternatives and Preliminary Preferred Solution

Date/Time: January 29, 2014 / 2:30 pm Held: City of Pickering, Meeting Room # 4 Attendees: City of Pickering Marilee Gadzovski, Tom Dole, Grant McGregor

TMIG Steve Hollingworth

TRCA Chris Jones, Rob Grech, Sharon Lingertat

OPG Margo Sloan

MTO Marek Wiesek

Durham Region David Dunn

1. S Hollingworth thanked everyone for attending, and noted that a considerable amount of work had been done since the last steering committee meeting of February 2013. S Hollingworth noted that the first Public Information Centre (PIC) was scheduled for February 19, 2014 and distributed the draft presentation materials for the PIC. 2. S Hollingworth provided a summary of the existing environmental conditions through the study area. Other than the Hydro Marsh, the aquatic and terrestrial habitat associated with Kronso Creek is relatively poor. 3. S Hollingworth stated that a new, calibrated PCSWMM hydrologic/hydraulic model of Krosno Creek was developed for the study. The resulting peak flow rates are approximately 50% of the flow rates from the TRCA’s current approved hydrology model. The most significant reason for the lower flow rates is the restrictions caused by the Highway 401/CNR culverts. These restrictions aren’t considered in the TRCA’s hydrology model, as it was prepared consistent with MNR guidelines for Regulatory flood plain mapping. S Hollingworth described an additional model scenario, which found that flow rates would increase by more than 50% if the culverts under Highway 401 and CNR were replaced by much larger structures. 4. M Wiesek confirmed that the EA for the rehabilitation for Highway 401 (nearing completion) does not recommend replacement or rehabilitation of the existing culvert under Highway 401, nor are there any plans to replace the culvert in the future. 5. R. Grech confirmed that the PCSWMM model will not conform to MNR guidelines for calculating the Regulatory flood flow and flood plain mapping, as it considers flow attenuation behind culverts and other ‘man made’ storage. However, R Grech agreed that this was a reasonable approach for the study, which is to evaluate options to reduce the risk / frequency of actual flooding along Krosno Creek. 6. There was some discussion on how to differentiate between the TRCA’s Regulatory flood plain and the (reduced) extent of flooding predicted using the PCSWMM model, considering the reductions in flow due to the relatively small culverts along the system. Suggestions included: a. Labelling the PCSWMM predicted extent of flooding as “urban flood plain” or similar

Page 1 of 3 January 29, 2014 Project 12150

b. Removing the TRCA Regulatory flood plain from the display materials, and adding a note to indicate that the work was separate and distinct from the TRCA Regulatory flood plain c. Referencing and showing flooding for up to the 100 year storm, and not mentioning Regional storm or Hurricane Hazel in the display materials 7. TRCA staff confirmed that the outcome of this study does not affect the flood studies and plans for the redevelopment of the lands adjacent Krosno Creek between Bayly Street and the CNR corridor, and that this statement could be conveyed to the owners of those lands if they attend the PIC. 8. S Hollingworth presented the alternative solutions to reduce flooding and flood damages: a. Regulatory Channel: A channel corridor to convey the Regulatory peak flow (ignoring the effect of the 401/CNR culverts) would consume all of the residential properties between the existing channel and Reytan Boulevard. It was generally agreed that the significant costs and social upheaval make this solution unappealing. b. Enhanced SWM: Full build-out of the Pickering City Centre area (north of Bayly, south of Kingston) with the recommended stormwater management criteria could reduce flow rates and flood damages for small storm events (2 year, 5 year), but would not reduce the severity of flooding for larger storm events. c. Culvert Improvements: Flooding and flood damages could be significantly reduced (but not eliminated) for all storms, up to and including the Regional storm, if the culverts at Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street were replaced with twin 3.0 m span concrete boxes. This is the largest size of culvert that could reasonably be integrated with the existing channel. d. Diversion to Pine Creek: If ALL of the flow from north of Highway 401 were diverted to Pine Creek and culverts were upgraded along Krosno Creek, no buildings would be flooded for the 100 year and Regional storms. This alternative also includes significant culvert replacements on Pine Creek (Radom Street, Highway 401) to mitigate the impacts of flooding on Pine Creek. e. Krosno Boulevard Relief Sewer: This sewer would intercept a portion of the flow at Morden Lane and divert it around the most flood prone area, discharging back into Krosno Creek downstream of Alyssum Street. This solution would significantly reduce flood damages for small and moderate storms, but would have a limited reduction in flood damages for the Regional storm. 9. S Hollingworth presented the evaluation matrix, and stated that Culvert Improvements are the preliminary preferred solution but the study is also recommending the enhanced stormwater management controls for redevelopment in the Pickering City Centre area, and flood proofing for the 8 homes that would continue to be at risk of flooding in a 100 year / Regional storm. S Hollingworth also presented a plan showing the extent of flooding for the Regional storm with the culvert improvements in place, and noted that a final model run will be prepared to include culvert improvements in combination with Enhanced SWM controls for Downtown Pickering. 10. G McGregor confirmed that the Downtown Pickering study had been officially rebranded “City Centre”. A draft OPA document will be circulated to key stakeholders within the next 2 weeks, with a statutory public meeting planned for April. The Zoning by-law process will be initiated in June, and it is intended that the OPA and zoning will be adopted by council in the fall. 11. D Dunn indicated that the EA Addendum for the Kingston Road BRT project had not yet been completed. The delay was due to a recent change in the Region’s noise policy. 12. D Dunn confirmed that Kingston Road is scheduled to be reconstructed between Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road this summer. A stormwater management (SWM) report for Kingston Road will be circulated to TRCA and City staff within the next 2 weeks. The SWM plan has been

Page 2 of 3 January 29, 2014 Project 12150

updated to divert some flow from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek, with underground storage to reduce the discharge rates to Pine Creek. 13. Other than the items described above, no one raised any issues or concerns with the material presented, and no one was aware of any other issues or plans that could impact the recommended solution of culvert improvements. 14. C Jones stated that the TRCA would not be in attendance at the PIC, but would be willing to review the revised display materials and provide any suggestions regarding the differentiation between actual flooding and Regulatory flood plain.

Distribution: Attendees Richard Holborn, City of Pickering Abe Khademi, TMIG John Van Voorst, MTO

Page 3 of 3 THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 200 T 905.738.5700

Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905.738.0065 www.tmig.ca

MEETING MINUTES

PROJECT KROSNO CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION STUDY

CLIENT / MUNICIPALITY City of Pickering CLIENT REFERENCE

DATE / TIME November 20, 2014 / 10:00 am City of Pickering, 1 The Esplanade LOCATION Meeting Room 4 (Second Floor) MEETING PURPOSE Steering Committee Meeting # 3

ATTENDEES City of Pickering Marilee Gadzovski, Grant McGregor, Déan Jacobs

TMIG Steve Hollingworth

TRCA Chris Jones, Sharon Lingertat, Amy Winterhalt

OPG Meredith Crouch

MTO Marek Wiesek

Durham Region David Dunn

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

S Hollingworth provided a brief overview of the study, describing the past flooding 1 problems and previous study of Krosno Creek through the Frenchman’s’ Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan

S Hollingworth presented the existing extent of flooding for the 100 year storm event, showing 62 homes at risk of flooding. S Hollingworth noted that the culverts 2 under Highway 401 / CNR, combined with the storage available on the south parking lot at the Pickering Town Centre, significantly reduce the flow rates and flooding in the open sections of Krosno Creek south of Highway 401

S Hollingworth described the different alternatives to reduce flooding in Krosno Creek, and the selection of the preferred alternative: replacing the culverts at 3 Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard and Alyssum Street with much larger concrete box culverts

A Winterhalt noted that the reference to ‘recognition’ of the improved culverts by TRCA in the Evaluation Summary (Table 5-2) could mislead readers regarding the extent of the TRCA’s Regulatory Flood Plain. M Crouch suggested that the impact of other alternatives on the extent of the Regulatory flood plain also be mentioned 4 in Table 5-2. S Hollingworth agreed to revise the table to avoid the confusion and TMIG reference impacts on the Regulatory flood plain for all alternatives, or eliminate all references to the TRCA regulatory flood plain in the summary table. A Winterhalt acknowledged that the potential impacts on the TRCA regulatory flood plain was sufficiently clear in the text of the report (Section 5.5)

MIN-12150-KRONSO CREEK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING # 3 - 2014 11 20.DOCX MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 of 3 NOVEMBER 20, 2014

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

S Lingertat stated that the TRCA would prefer to see an open bottom culvert at 5 Alyssum Street, where the creek is more natural. S Hollingworth indicated that TMIG TMIG will explore the feasibility of an open bottom culvert at this location.

S Hollingworth noted that surveys were completed for the 8 homes that would remain potentially at risk of flooding in a 100 year storm following construction of 6 the culvert replacements. It was found that the minimum opening elevations (side doors, basement windows) were above the predicted 100 year water level at all 8 homes

S Hollingworth provided a brief summary of the Public Information Centres (PICs) held in February and May, 2014. Approximately 15-20 people showed up at each PIC, with the key concerns being maintenance to clear debris from the channel 7 and replacing the culverts at Sandy Beach Road and the sanitary sewer crossing (downstream of Alyssum Street) in addition to the three recommended culvert replacements.

S Hollingworth described the Additional Recommendations that are included in the study report to address the residents’ concerns. . The study recommends that the City implement a program for regular inspection and maintenance of the creek . The study notes that the Sandy Beach Road culvert will be replaced as part of the overall reconstruction of Sandy Beach Road, currently scheduled for 8 2016/2017 construction . The sanitary crossing was investigated, and it appears feasible to reconstruct the sanitary sewer to cross under the creek, rather than above creek. S Hollingworth noted that there would be close to 1 m cover from the top of the sewer to the bottom of the creek channel. The study is recommending that the City work with the Region (who are responsible for the sewer) to advance the planning and design for reconstruction of the sanitary sewer crossing

D Dunn stated that the Region will provide comments shortly on the proposed realigned sanitary sewer crossing under Krosno Creek 9 UPDATE: Durham’s Engineer Planning and Studies Department reviewed the proposed sanitary crossing of Krosno Creek and have no comments.

S Lingertat indicated that the TRCA would prefer not to remove the trees that are currently encroaching into the concrete channel lining. However, if they need to be 10 removed due to maintenance of the channel it was suggested that additional plantings could possibly be included as part of the design for the section of channel upstream of Alyssum for example

S Lingertat indicated that the TRCA will issue a letter with formal comments within 11 TRCA the next few days

S Hollingworth noted that a draft report has also been circulated to MOE, and 12 comments are expected by the end of November

S Hollingworth stated that the report will be updated to address the comments and 13 TMIG concerns, and a Notice of Completion for the study will be issued thereafter (likely

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 MIN-12150-KRONSO CREEK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING # 3 - 2014 11 20.DOCX MEETING MINUTES PAGE 3 of 3 NOVEMBER 20, 2014

ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY

in early January 2015). S Hollingworth will forward a draft Notice of Completion to M Gadzovski for review

D Jacobs provided an update on the Pickering City Centre. There were 2 appeals to the OMB on the Official Plan Amendment, and a hearing is scheduled for 14 December 3. The City is currently preparing the zoning by-law and hopes to have it finalized soon.

C Jones stressed the importance of including the hazard lands/valley corridors in the zoning. C Jones agreed to send a zoning example from Whitchurch-Stouffville 15 C Jones that provides flexibility to accommodate future revisions and refinements to the limits of the hazard lands/valley corridors

G McGregor indicated that the Pickering Town Centre (PTC) has initiated a 16 comprehensive study to address stormwater management and flooding for future development and re-development at the PTC.

C Jones confirmed that Infrastructure Ontario (IO) is undertaking a cut/fill analysis to ‘normalize’ the flood limit along the east side of Pine Creek, north of Highway 17 401. IO will not implement the valley re-grading, but is seeking approval in principle for the works to aid in the sale of the surplus property at Liverpool Road and Highway 401.

D Dunn noted that the Region is installing temporary signals and other works in advance of construction of the Kingston Road BRT. D Dunn stated that the 18 Region intends to tender the project early in 2015 and hopes to complete construction of the BRT (through the Pickering City Centre area) by the end of 2015.

UPDATE: MTO’s Drainage Office reviewed the Diversion Draft Final PFR and 19 they have no objections to the proposed work.

PLEASE NOTE: If these minutes do not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise, otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.

DISTRIBUTION All Attendees

MINUTES PREPARED BY ______Steve Hollingworth

TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 12150 MIN-12150-KRONSO CREEK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING # 3 - 2014 11 20.DOCX