ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT TERMS OF …€¦ · 4.5.2.2 Environmental Implementation Reports (or Master Environmental Servicing Plans as appropriate) will include but are

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

TERMS OF REFERENCE

MOUNT PLEASANT SUB-AREA 51-1 within the

MOUNT PLEASANT SECONDARY PLAN AREA North West Brampton

July 30, 2010

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT TERMS OF REFERENCE


MOUNT PLEASANT SECONDARY PLAN AREA TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background……………………………………………………………….… 1 1.2 Study Area and Subcatchment Areas……………………….……….…... 2 1.3 Purpose of the EIR ……………………………………………………….... 3 1.4 LSA and SWS Findings and Recommendations……………………...... 4 1.5 Policies, CVC Regulation and Legislation……………………………….. 6 1.5.1 Policy Documents…..……………………………………………….. 6 1.5.2 Ontario Regulation 160/06………………………………….……… 6 1.5.3 Endangered Species Act…………………………………………… 7 1.5.4 Fisheries Act…………………………………………………………. 7 1.6 Effectiveness Monitoring Program …………………….………………… 8 1.7 Comprehensive Fisheries Compensation Plan 9 1.8 Other Studies Providing Input to the EIR………………………………. 9 1.8.1 Secondary Plan Component Studies………..………………………… 9 1.8.2 Landowner Studies………………………………………………………... 10 1.8.3 Other Block Plan Studies………………………………………………… 10 1.8.4 Mount Pleasant Village Development………………………………….. 11 2.0 EIR SCOPE OF WORK 12 2.1 Block Plan Land Use ……………………………………………………… 12 2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology…………… …………………….…………… 13 2.2.1 Purpose……………………………….……………………….…….…….. 13 2.2.2 Fieldwork…………………………………………………………….….…. 13 2.2.3 Technical Study Requirements …………………….………………..…. 14 2.3 Natural Heritage System Design, Restoration and Enhancement……. 16 2.3.1 Purpose……………………………………………………………………. 16 2.3.2 Fieldwork……………………….………………………………………….. 16 2.3.3 Elements of the Proposed NHS………………………………………... 18 2.3.4 Technical Study Requirements………………………………………….. 18 2.4 Tableland Vegetation Assessment 24 2.5 Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management………………….…… 24 2.5.1 Purpose……………………..……………………………………………... 24 2.5.2 Technical Study Requirements …………………………………………. 25 2.6 Sanitary, Water and Roads…………………………………………..…… 28 2.7 Monitoring ………………………………………………………………………... 28 2.8 Implementation Considerations…………………………..……………………. 29 3.0 REPORTING AND SCHEDULE 30

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT TERMS OF REFERENCE


MOUNT PLEASANT SECONDARY PLAN AREA

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Study Area Figure 2 – EIR Subcatchment Area Figure 3 – Geology/Hydrogeology Monitoring Locations Figure 4 – 2009 Ecological Monitoring Locations Figure 5 – Approach to Wetland Field Surveys Schedule A – Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System

APPENDICES

Appendix F from the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Appendix A – Summary of Secondary Plan Component Studies Appendix B - Listing of Landowner Studies Appendix C - Summary of 2008 Ecological Fieldwork Undertaken by Savanta Inc. Appendix D – Interim Guidelines for the Assessment of Existing Tableland Vegetation Appendix E - List of Tables, Calculations and Drawings for EIR Reports

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ Terms of Reference Page 1 of 46 Environmental Implementation Report for Sub-Area 51 July 30, 2010 Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan

1.0 INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________________________ 1.1 BACKGROUND On February 10, 2010, Council of the City of Brampton adopted the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan. Two of the many background studies prepared in support of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan are the Landscape Scale Analysis (LSA) and Subwatershed Study (SWS) for Huttonville and Fletcher’s Creeks. The LSA and SWS were initiated in 2006 and are scheduled for completion at the end of 2010. The draft LSA Report was circulated for comment in August 2007; draft SWS Phase 1 Characterization Reports were circulated in May 2007 and December 2007; and the draft SWS Phase 2 impact assessment circulated in April 2010. The purpose of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan is “…to implement the policies of the City of Brampton Official Plan by establishing, in accordance with Section 5.4 and Section 4.14 of the Official Plan and the City's Growth Management Program, a policy framework and direction for detailed land use planning to guide the future development of a new community in the City of Brampton as outlined on Schedule SP 51(a), and to specify desired land use patterns, a transportation network, a Natural Heritage System and related policies to achieve superior, efficient, orderly and ecologically responsible urban development. Further, it sets out the planning controls to be used in implementing these policies”. The Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System (SPNHS) is shown on Secondary Plan Schedule SP 51(a). The SPNHS is comprised of Valleylands and Watercourse Corridors, Woodlands, Wetlands, and Environmental Buffers, as well as restoration areas and connecting corridors. The boundaries of the SPNHS reflect the initial findings of the North West Brampton Landscape Scale Analysis and Mount Pleasant Subwatershed Study, and reflect the principles outlined in the "Implementation Principles for the Subwatershed Study, November 24, 2009", (Implementation Principles) attached as Appendix F to the Secondary Plan. These Implementation Principles were agreed to by the City, CVC, MNR and the Mount Pleasant Landowners’ Group. They set out agreement and direction on several design requirements for the Mount Pleasant lands including NHS boundaries, buffers, channel relocation, lowering and widths, NHS restoration/enhancement, trails, stormwater management, comprehensive fisheries compensation plan, drainage density, road crossing design and implementation considerations. A copy of Appendix F is attached to this Terms of Reference.

Secondary Plan policies note that the boundaries of the final Natural Heritage System are to be confirmed through the Mount Pleasant Subwatershed Study and may be refined through the Environmental Implementation Reports (EIRs) consistent with the principles outlined in Appendix F. Minor refinements to the boundaries of the Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System may be considered to reflect the differences in scale, and level of detail available through the preparation of the Environmental Implementation Reports (EIRs), and Functional Servicing Reports (FSRs). However, minor refinements shall not adversely impact the functions or result in any significant increase or decreases in size of the final NHS. The Secondary Plan clearly states that lands located outside of the limits of the final Natural Heritage System shall be considered to be available

__________________________________________________________________


for development as illustrated on Schedule SP51(a). The Secondary Plan and the Implementation Principles summarize key NHS issues that will be addressed and documented in more detail in the EIR.

The Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Schedule L identifies two preliminary Block Plans for the Mount Pleasant lands referred to as Sub-Areas 51-1 and 51-2. The Block Plan for Sub-Area 51-1 is the first block plan for processing in the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan area.

One of the background studies required to be completed in support of Sub-Area 51-1 block plan approval is the EIR. This document is the EIR TOR applicable to the Sub-Area 51-1 area. The EIR is to be prepared on the basis of this TOR. 1.2 STUDY AREA AND SUBCATCHMENT AREAS

The North West Brampton (NWB) lands are bounded in the north by Mayfield Road, in the east by McLaughlin Road and Creditview Road, in the south by Wanless Drive, Bovaird Drive West and the main Credit River valley and to the west by Winston Churchill Boulevard. Within the NWB lands, the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan area lands are located east of Mississauga Road. The area constituting the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan lands measures approximately 865 ha. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the NWB lands as well as the boundaries of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area. Within the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan, there are two block plan areas – Sub-Area 51-1 and Sub-Area 51-2. The Study Area for this EIR is defined to be Sub-Area 51-1 lands as illustrated on Figure 1. The Study Area lands cover approximately 519 hectares lying east of Mississauga Road, north of Bovaird Drive, west of new Creditview Road (and future James Potter Road), and south of Mayfield Drive. Existing residential development in the Fletcher’s Meadows Secondary Plan area exists to the east of the Study Area. The proposed Mount Pleasant Village Mobility Hub (Block Plan 44-1 within the boundaries of the Fletcher’s Meadows Secondary Plan) exists to the southeast of the Study Area. Recommendations of the recently approved Mobility Hub will be recognized in the Sub-Area 51-1 EIR. Sub-Area 51-1 lands lie within three surface water subcatchments as shown on Figure 2:

• The East Huttonville Creek subcatchment lies in the central and southern portions of the Study Area. It encompasses approximately 372 hectares or 72 % of the Sub-Area 51-1 lands;

• The West Huttonville Creek subcatchment lies in the northwest portion of the Sub-Area

51-1 lands. It covers approximately 54 hectares or 10 % of the Sub-Area 51-1 lands;

• The West Tributary subcatchment of Fletcher’s Creek lies in the northeast portion of the Sub-Area 51-1 lands. It covers approximately 93 hectares or 18 % of the Sub-Area 51-1 lands.

__________________________________________________________________


The EIR Subcatchment Areas that lie within the Sub-Area 51-1 lands are defined to be the East Huttonville Creek, West Huttonville Creek and West Tributary of Fletcher’s Creek subcatchments. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE EIR

The City of Brampton (City) requires that development within Secondary Plan areas proceed through the preparation of Community Block Plans. In order to receive approval of a Community Block Plan, an EIR must be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Brampton in consultation with the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) and the Region of Peel (Region). As identified in the City’s Official Plan, the scope of an EIR, “will be determined based on the policies in Sections 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.2, 4.5.2.3 and 4.5.2.4. “ These sections of the City’s Official Plan are reproduced below:

“4.5.2.1 Environmental Implementation Reports (EIRs) (or Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) as appropriate) shall be required to address the impacts of development on the natural environment and to implement the recommendations of subwatershed studies. EIRs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Brampton in consultation with the relevant agencies prior to approval of a community block plan.

4.5.2.2 Environmental Implementation Reports (or Master Environmental Servicing Plans as appropriate) will include but are not limited to:

(i) Inventories and analysis of the natural heritage features, functions and linkages including vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, topography, soils, groundwater and surface water hydrology, fluvial geomorphic processes, and natural hazards including flooding, erosion and meander belt width, slope stability, etc; (ii) An analysis of the individual and cumulative environmental effects that are expected to occur as a result of the proposed development and future uses; (iii) The consideration and evaluation of alternatives including landuse, engineering, subdivision design and infrastructure, and mitigation, enhancement and restoration measures; and, (iv) A commitment to implementing Adaptive Environmental Monitoring (AEM) including measures for compliance and long term monitoring and the ongoing management of measures for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of natural features, functions and linkages to achieve long term ecosystem health.

__________________________________________________________________


4.5.2.3 Environmental Implementation Reports (or Master Environmental

Servicing Plans (MESPs) as appropriate) will be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Brampton in consultation with the local area Conservation Authority and the Region of Peel. Adjacent municipalities will be consulted if there is likely to be potential impact on downstream watercourses.

4.5.2.4 In some instances, the City in consultation with the area Conservation Authority may determine that a scoped Environmental Implementation Report is appropriate.”

Policy 10.1.4 of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan states,

10.1.4 As part of the Block Plan process, an Environmental Implementation Report shall be prepared to demonstrate that issues of stormwater management and infiltration, and confirmation of the limits of the Natural Heritage System, including the constraints of watercourse corridors, woodlands, wetlands, hedgerows and field swales are addressed. Detail studies will be addressed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved North West Brampton Landscape Scale Analysis and Subwatershed Study. The EIR shall consist of three parts: Existing Conditions and Constraint Mapping, Detailed Studies, and Stormwater Management.

These requirements, along with direction provided by Secondary Plan policies, Secondary Plan Appendix F, past EIR Terms of Reference for other areas in the City of Brampton and direction from/anticipated in the SWS were used to prepare this EIR TOR. The EIR requires multi-disciplinary input that is coordinated and integrated to address the range of issues outlined in the scope of work presented in Section 2.0.

1.4 LSA AND SWS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An EIR is intended to provide a further level of detail and study to implement findings and recommendations of a SWS and other applicable studies such as the Credit River Water Management Strategy (2007), as appropriate. In this instance, the EIR will address findings and recommendations of the ongoing LSA, SWS for the Huttonville and Fletcher’s Creeks Subwatersheds, transportation Environmental Assessments and applicable secondary plan policies, and the Conceptual Fisheries Compensation Plan, as appropriate (as noted below in Section 1.7). The LSA and SWS are currently underway and some findings and directions are available. Phase 2 and Phase 3 SWS Reports are nearing completion. Subsequent LSA and SWS recommendations will be incorporated into the EIR TOR if needed. Current findings include results and analyses of 2006 and 2007 fieldwork programs, existing hydrology and hydraulic models, integration discussions, some environmental targets, Phase 2 impact assessments, the Secondary Plan NHS and Implementation Principles for the Mount Pleasant SWS. This information is provided in:

__________________________________________________________________


• Draft North West Brampton Landscape Scale Analysis in Support of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Subwatershed Study dated August 2007;

• Draft Phase 1: Subwatershed Characterization and Integration dated December 2007;

• North West Brampton Target Setting Worksheet for Huttonville and Fletcher’s Creek

Subcatchments, dated March 16, 2009;

• Fletcher’s and Huttonville Creeks Subwatershed Study: Phase 1 Characterization and Integration Response Matrix, dated March 12, 2009;

• “Working Paper”, Phase 2: Subwatershed Impact Assessment Testing of the Point of

Departure Plans, North West Brampton, Mount Pleasant Community (June 2009);

• “Working Paper”, Phase 2: Subwatershed Impact Assessment Testing of the Second Generation (2G) Land Use Plan, Mount Pleasant Community (March 2010); and,

• Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan (February 2010) and its Appendix F containing

Implementation Principles for the Mount Pleasant SWS (November 24, 2009). Directions from these documents have been included, where appropriate, in this EIR TOR. The Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System (SPNHS) is shown on Schedule A to the Implementation Principles for the Mount Pleasant SWS. It forms part of the Second Generation (2G) Land Use plan to be tested in the second round of the Mount Pleasant Subwatershed Study (SWS) Phase 2 impact assessments. It is expected that the Phase 2 impact assessment results will support the SPNHS (Schedule A). If so, no further SWS impact assessment is required and the SWS Phase 3 report will be prepared. However, if the SWS Phase 2 impact assessments recommend major changes to the SPNHS, additional rounds of testing will be completed as part of the SWS. The determination of whether major or minor changes are needed to the SPNHS will be made following the review of the Phase 2 Impact Assessment Report on the 2G Plan. The results of the 2G assessment were presented on March 25, 2010 to the City, CVC, MNR and the landowners and their consultants. This assessment concluded that only minor changes to the land use plan were recommended. The 2G assessment report, entitled, Working Paper Phase 2: Subwatershed Impact Assessment Testing of the Second Generation (2G) Land Use Plan, dated March 2010, was released on April 13, 2010 for review and comment. The Block 51-1 EIR will not be submitted to the City and CVC for review until after the release of the SWS draft Phase 3 report in June 2010.

__________________________________________________________________


1.5 POLICIES, CVC REGULATIONS AND LEGISLATION 1.5.1 Policy Documents In addition to the recommendations from the SWS, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Region of Peel Official Plan and the City of Brampton Official Plan policies provide direction to EIR analyses and designs. Reference should be made to these documents for input on a range of environmental issues including NHS designs, natural area protection, natural connections, buffers, surface water and groundwater resources, stormwater management, floodplain delineation, etc. The City of Brampton Official Plan Section 4.5, Natural Heritage and Environmental Management, policies promote an ecosystems approach to natural feature protection and place emphasis on environmental management to ensure sustainable development. These policies provide policy direction on a range of environmental issues. The importance of the protection, enhancement and restoration of natural heritage features to ecosystem health is noted, particularly in an urban environment. Policies aimed at conserving and protecting natural heritage features functions and linkages are included encompassing issues such as watershed and subwatershed plans, environmental implementation reports, stormwater management, groundwater resources, soil conservation, natural heritage systems, valleylands and watercourse corridors, woodlands and the urban forest, wetlands, environmental sensitive/significant areas, areas of natural and scientific interest, fish and wildlife habitat, environmental buffers, setbacks and linkages, etc. These policies direct efforts for the protection, restoration and enhancement of natural heritage features. More specific direction is provided in the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan and its Appendix F containing Implementation Principles for the Mount Pleasant SWS (November 24, 2009). Appendix F is appended to this EIR TOR and should be referenced to ensure that all matters applicable to EIR analyses are addressed. In addition to the following, guidance is also provided for the design of water management measures from resources such as the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual as well as local agency technical design guidelines.

1.5.2 Ontario Regulation 160/06 The CVC administers Ontario Regulation 160/06: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to shorelines and Watercourses. Through this regulation, the CVC has the ability to prohibit, regulate or require the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream, or watercourse or for changing or interfering in anyway with a wetland. They may also prohibit, regulate or require the permission of the authority for development in a regulated area, if in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development. In the case of Block 51-1, the CVC’s regulated area includes watercourses, floodplains, wetlands and areas adjacent to these features. The extent of the regulated area depicted in Ontario Regulation 160/06 mapping is a preliminary interpretation of the regulated area. The regulated area is determined through the application of wording of Ontario Regulation 160/06.

__________________________________________________________________


Through their review of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan, the CVC advised that they considered both Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 160/06 requirements prior to their endorsement of the Secondary Plan.

1.5.3 Endangered Species Act

Redside dace was recently upgraded from a threatened species to an endangered species under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. Redside Dace and its habitat, both direct and indirect, are protected under the Act. The habitat of the species is currently protected under the general habitat provisions of the Act . The presence of Redside Dace within Aquatic Resource Areas (continuous stream reaches) of the East and West Branches and main stem of Huttonville Creek elevates the regulatory scrutiny of proposed watercourse alterations by engaging the Ministry of Natural Resources to review various project components under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Aquatic Resources Areas currently occupied by Redside Dace are areas on which the species depends, directly to carry on its life processes, including life processes such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding. The upstream support system of headwater features are areas on which the species depends, indirectly to carry on its life processes, including life processes such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding. Headwater features including streams, groundwater discharge areas, directly connected wetlands and coarse sediment supply areas are considered part of the upstream support system for the species. Alteration or elimination of creeks or headwater features that indirectly support the species will require approval under the Act. The CFCP will:

1) document the current occupied Aquatic Resource Areas; 2) document the upstream support system of headwater features; 3) identify which features are being protected, restored, altered or eliminated; and, 4) propose a comprehensive overall benefit plan for the purpose of addressing future approvals under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The EIR will be coordinated with the preparation of the CFCP to ensure that recommendations for overall benefit to the species are identified for implementation, as required.

1.5.4 Federal Fisheries Act

One element of the proposed NHS is the relocation and lowering of the East Huttonville Creek from the CNR to Mayfield Road. The portions of the SPNHS which require relocation of fish habitat will result in a HADD. As such, fisheries compensation to address requisite mitigation and compensation measures will be addressed through the separate but related Conceptual Fisheries Compensation Plan (CFCP) noted in Section 1.7. CFCP recommendations will be incorporated into EIR work. The CVC entered into a Level II agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to review projects under Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. Both the CVC and DFO will be involved in the review, approval and permitting of this component of the final NHS design.

__________________________________________________________________


1.6 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING STRATEGY

In 2003, the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) initiated the Effectiveness Monitoring Strategy (EMS) which expanded on previous subwatershed studies and monitoring programs by investigating various environmental conditions of discrete catchments within several watersheds in North West Brampton. The EMS encompasses three sub-watersheds within the City of Brampton urban boundary – Fletcher’s Creek, Huttonville Creek and Springbrook Creek. Twelve sites, including the inlet and outlet locations at two stormwater management ponds, have been continually monitored throughout a five year study period (2003-2008) for a variety of disciplines including water chemistry, water quantity, benthic macroinvertebrates, fisheries and fluvial geomorphology. The purpose of the EMS is to characterize the aquatic quality conditions and the geomorphologic state of selected stream systems that were:

a) already affected by urbanization without the use of Stormwater Management (SWM) practices to provide a baseline for possible future retrofitting;

b) changing from agriculture to urban areas with the benefit of SWM systems; and, c) in agricultural areas to provide baseline data before significant land use conversion.

The objective of the EMS is to evaluate current environmental conditions of discrete catchment areas to determine the effectiveness of current land use planning controls and BMPs. It was intended that findings and recommendations from the EMS would provide guidance for future planning initiatives within North West Brampton and other proposed developments within the CVC watershed. Annual monitoring reports were prepared for 2003 to 2006. In early 2008, the CVC retained AECOM for the analysis, interpretation and reporting of the findings of the 5 years of monitoring data from the EMS. This assessment included the following activities:

Analysis of all available water quality, water quantity, fisheries, benthic macroinvertebrate and fluvial geomorphology data obtained in the study area since 1998;

Integration of the results from each discipline and analysis to detect trends and shifts in

the available data. If trends are observed, the consultant will determine what underlying factors are contributing to the trends such as weather or land use scenarios;

Review of annual Effectiveness Monitoring Reports from the monitoring years 2003-2007; Review of available literature to relate results of this project with observations in other

studies; and, Recommendations for program improvement.

The draft report entitled, Five Year Review of the Effectiveness Monitoring Strategy (April 27, 2009) was recently circulated for comment. A presentation of findings of the Five Year Review was made to the study Steering Committee on May 7, 2009. At that time, AECOM noted that there were no specific recommendations made for implementation in stormwater management design in North West Brampton. Recommendations were made for additional future monitoring of stormwater management facilities.

__________________________________________________________________


As a result, there are no specific actions required in the Block 51-1 EIR to respond to findings and recommendations of the Five Year Review of the Effectiveness Monitoring Strategy.

1.7 COMPREHENSIVE FISHERIES COMPENSATION PLAN

A Comprehensive Fisheries Compensation Plan (CFCP) is being prepared for the Mount Pleasant lands to address predicted overall potential impacts, the mitigation of identified impacts, and the design of a compensation plan that will meet the DFO’s requirement for “no net loss”. This is a separate but related study being completed by the Mount Pleasant Landowners’ Group that will be coordinated with the completion of the EIR.

1.8 OTHER STUDIES PROVIDING INPUT TO THE EIR

1.8.1 Secondary Plan Component Studies

Numerous background studies were completed to provide input to the preparation of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan. These include the SWS, Infrastructure Servicing Study (ISS), Mount Pleasant Transportation Study, Community Design Study, Open Space Study, Retail/Commercial and Institutional Opportunity Study, Cultural Heritage Resources/Archaeological Study and Alternative Development Standards Study. The purpose, current findings and status of each of these studies is summarized in Appendix A. While each of these studies should be referenced to determine implications/input to the EIR, the ISS, Transportation Study and Open Space Study are expected to have the most direct implications to the EIR. With respect to these studies, draft recommendations include:

The second Draft Infrastructure Servicing Study - Secondary Plan Area 51 (Mount Pleasant), City of Brampton was released in August 2008. This study confirms that the planning area can be serviced through the logical extension of existing and planned water

and wastewater infrastructure and identifies trunk infrastructure requirements and preliminary stormwater management requirements including conceptual stormwater management pond locations. Ultimately, the ISS will be revised, if necessary, to be consistent with recommendations of the SWS. This study will provide input to the EIR on locations for infrastructure crossings of the NHS and proposed SWM pond locations.

The Draft Transportation Master Plan Report for the Mount Pleasant Community,

(December 2008) presents a comprehensive transportation strategy comprising roads, transit, transportation demand and pedestrian opportunities. It establishes the need and justification for arterial and collector roads and the transit spine road in accordance with requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA. It has identified a preferred road network including improvements to Creditview Road and Sandalwood Parkway. This report will provide input to the EIR on road locations across the final NHS.

__________________________________________________________________


The Mount Pleasant Master Open Space Study delineates an open space system that

includes natural features, stormwater management ponds, parks, schools and other uses. It will ultimately be integrated with the SWS NHS recommendations.

1.8.2 Landowner Studies The Mount Pleasant lands have been the subject of ecological, surface water and groundwater investigations beginning in 2005. Field data were gathered by the City of Brampton’s SWS team in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Landowners’ Group consulting team also completed fieldwork in 2006 and 2007 paralleling the SWS team investigations. These data were further supplemented with detailed field programs implemented by the Landowners’ consulting team throughout 2008 and 2009, some of which is continuing through 2010. Fieldwork requirements set out in this EIR TOR have been strongly influenced by data available through the SWS and additional detailed work completed by the Landowners’ Group in 2008 and 2009. The Mount Pleasant Landowners’ Group and the Sub-Area 51-1 Landowners’ Group also completed other studies in preparation for development and, where appropriate, as input to the City’s SWS. A listing of these studies is provided in Appendix B.

1.8.3 Other Block Plan Studies

As part of the Block Plan process, the Sub-Area 51-1 Landowners’ Group is also completing a Transportation Study, and Urban Design Guidelines. Each of these studies will provide input to the EIR and vice versa. The EIR will integrate and advance the recommendations of these studies as they relate to environmental, servicing, roads and stormwater management analyses completed as part of the EIR. Transportation Study The Mount Pleasant Community Transportation Master Plan, prepared in support of the Secondary Plan, is addressing the need for arterial and collector road transportation requirements and the need for the transit spine road for the entire Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area. It will fulfill Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment requirements for the arterial and collector road network including the proposed transit spine collector road. The Block 51-1 Transportation Study will be completed in accordance with the integrated Environmental Assessment process set out in Section A.2.9 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (Municipal Engineers Association, 2007). It will fulfill requirements of Phases 3 and 4 for arterial and collector roads and the transit spine road in Sub-Area 51-1. Block Plan transportation and EIR analyses will be coordinated to address road alignment alternatives, design and mitigative measures as needed, to provide the necessary transportation system compatible with the Secondary Plan NHS design.

__________________________________________________________________


Community Design Guidelines The Mount Pleasant Master Open Space Study, being prepared in support of the Secondary Plan, will identify the location of parks and other open space elements. The Block Plan Community Design Guidelines will provide, among other matters, further detail on the public open space system including the NHS, parks and trails. The location, design and restoration recommendations of the EIR will be integrated with the Community Design Guidelines as appropriate. 1.8.4 Mount Pleasant Village Development

The Mount Pleasant Village lands (Block 44-1) are located in the Fletcher’s Meadow Secondary Plan area to the immediate south and east of the Block 51-1 lands. Figure 1 illustrates their location relative to the Block 51-1 lands. A draft plan of subdivision was submitted in 2007 supported by the report entitled, Mount Pleasant Village Block Plan No. 44-1 within the Fletcher’s Meadow Community, Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. This report was approved in 2008. Earthworks approvals were granted in 2008 and these works were initiated in the fall of 2008. The first phase of development has been registered. The Mount Pleasant Village draft plan, drainage, grading and servicing plans will be referenced as part of the Block 51-1 EIR to ensure compatibility with all designs on these adjacent lands.

__________________________________________________________________


2.0 EIR SCOPE OF WORK _________________________________________________________________ Studies/input are required as components of the EIR in the areas of:

• Land Use; • Geology and Hydrogeology; • Natural Heritage System Design, Restoration and Enhancement including aquatic

habitats and fluvial geomorphology; • Tableland Vegetation Assessment; • Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management; and, • Sanitary, Water and Roads.

Each of these components must be integrated to comprehensively address surface water, groundwater and ecological interactions/dependencies with the NHS and the overall community design. While the characterization, interactions, potential impacts and mitigative measures associated with each of these study components will be integrated through all EIR analyses, study requirements for each study component are outlined separately below. All EIR work is intended to build upon recommendations of the Secondary Plan component studies, as needed. While many of the component studies will provide input to the EIR, it is expected that the Secondary Plan, SWS, ISS, Transportation Study and Open Space Plan will provide the most pertinent input and recommendations to be addressed in more detail through the EIR. As noted in Section 1.0, the Implementation Principles set out agreement and direction on several design requirements for the Mount Pleasant lands including NHS boundaries, buffers, channel relocation, lowering and widths, NHS restoration/enhancement, trails, stormwater management, comprehensive fisheries compensation plan, drainage density, road crossing design and implementation considerations. They summarize key NHS issues that will be addressed and documented in more detail in the EIR.

Three EIR interagency workshops will be held to discuss technical requirements, findings and recommendations associated with EIR study components prior to the submission of the EIR.

2.1 BLOCK PLAN LAND USE

The block planning work and the EIR must be completed concurrently as each depends upon input from the other. The formulation of the Block Plan depends upon input from various environmental evaluations and the EIR relies on a land use concept for impact assessments. These elements of block planning must proceed in an iterative manner to ultimately prepare a Block Plan that recognizes and incorporates the recommended NHS and mitigative measures needed to protect, restore or enhance various elements of the NHS and downstream subcatchments. Early in the block plan process, the EIR will provide input to the Block Plan on the field staking/survey of environmental features and delineation of NHS boundaries. A preliminary Block Plan is subsequently required for completion of impact assessments and the identification of mitigative measures to be incorporated into the final Block Plan.

__________________________________________________________________


The Sub-Area 51-1 EIR will be completed on the basis of the Secondary Plan land use schedule including the SPNHS and any changes required to the SPNHS that may result from the SWS Phase 2 2G impact assessment released on April 13, 2010.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

2.2.1 Purpose The SWS prepared in support of the Secondary Plan for the Mount Pleasant area includes recommendations for more detailed hydrogeological investigations as part of the EIR in support of Block Plans and Draft Plans of Subdivision. The purpose of the detailed hydrogeological study is to characterize existing hydrogeological conditions, quantify potential groundwater-related impacts of development and determine the need for, and nature of, any mitigation measures required to protect the hydrogeological features and functions within the Study Area in accordance with SWS recommendations. 2.2.2 Fieldwork

As noted in Section 1.8.2, geological and hydrogeological studies were initiated in 2007 to assess the existing soil and groundwater conditions. The field work included borehole drilling, soil sampling and the installation of an extensive groundwater monitoring network of 27 monitoring wells (including 7 well nests) and 20 drive-point piezometers (10 nests). Figure 3 illustrates the locations of the monitoring wells (MW) and the piezometers (PZ). In addition to the monitoring wells installed by the Landowners, the City’s SWS team installed 5 monitoring wells within the Mount Pleasant area (including 2 well nests) and 6 piezometers in 3 nests (BB-BH and BB-PZ locations shown on Figure 3). The monitoring wells were installed at depths between 3 m and 18 m below ground level. Surface water flow monitoring stations (SF) were established at 7 locations on selected watercourses and these locations are also shown on Figure 3. The Landowners monitoring program included all of the locations described above and was designed to provide EIR level of detail on the groundwater and surface water conditions. Groundwater levels and surface water flow conditions have been monitored monthly over a period of three years to establish long-term seasonal variations and several wells were also equipped with automatic water level recording devices (dataloggers) to record detailed water level and barometric fluctuations in the study area. Soil grain-size data were reviewed and in-situ hydraulic conductivity testing was completed at 4 well locations (two nests – MW5s/d and MW10s/d) to provided information on the infiltration capabilities of the surficial soils. Groundwater was sampled and analysed to establish the background groundwater quality conditions at four locations: MW5s/d and MW10s/d.

Key findings of the SWS and the Block 51-1 monitoring data analyses with respect to the geology and hydrogeology of the Study Area are summarized in Appendix C.

__________________________________________________________________


2.2.3 Technical Study Requirements The EIR level of detail must be sufficient to support the formulation of the Block Plan and subsequent Draft Plans of Subdivision. The methodology to complete the study requirements is at the discretion of the consultant, but must conform to generally accepted groundwater engineering and hydrogeological practices. The number of boreholes and groundwater observation wells required will depend upon the size of the proposed development area, the background data available, the geological complexity of the area, and the number of environmental features. The number and location of boreholes and groundwater observation wells must be distributed such that the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions are well defined for the Study Area. The following tasks must be completed as part of the geology and hydrogeology components of the EIR. Some of these activities have been completed to date (e.g., items a) i) to a) xi)) but have been included here to comprehensively list all EIR tasks. a) Site Characterization

i. Review geological and hydrogeological information from the SWS, other relevant studies (both completed and on-going), provincial mapping, water well records and geotechnical assessments to provide an overview of the regional geological setting.

ii. Drill boreholes to determine the site-specific geology and overburden stratigraphy. Excavation of test pits may also be conducted to investigate the shallow soil and groundwater conditions. The number and depth of boreholes or test pits will depend upon the size of the EIR study area and the proposed development area, the background geological and geotechnical data available, the depth of overburden and the geological complexity of the area. The local geological data must be related to the regional geological setting.

iii. Collect soil samples from selected boreholes and/or test pits and test for grain-size to characterize the soil types and to assist in determining soil hydraulic conductivity.

iv. Establish a network of groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers across the study area. The monitoring network must include sufficient number and distribution of shallow and deep monitors to determine the depth to the water table and measure vertical and horizontal groundwater gradients. The number of monitors to be installed will depend upon the size of the EIR study area and the proposed development area, the complexity of drainage, the number, location and significance of environmental features, the locations of groundwater divides, and the background data available. Where available, existing monitoring wells and piezometers may be used. Mini piezometers should be used to assess water levels and gradients in wetland features that may not be accessible to a drill rig.

v. Survey all monitoring locations for coordinates and geodetic elevation. vi. Conduct bail-down, slug, or other appropriate field tests to confirm monitoring well

function and assess the hydrogeological characteristics of stratigraphic units (e.g. in situ hydraulic conductivity).

vii. Monitor groundwater levels in all monitoring wells and mini piezometers (data included in the EIR should be related to the regional groundwater elevation data and be sufficient to document the response of the shallow groundwater to seasonal climatic conditions throughout the year). Selected monitoring wells should be equipped with a dataloggers to automatically record detailed water levels. The data must be corrected for barometric response.

__________________________________________________________________


viii. Assess the groundwater flow conditions (including vertical and horizontal flow components), provide estimates of groundwater flow volumes and provide a map of interpreted groundwater flow directions.

ix. Monitor surface water flows (non-storm event flows where possible) upstream and downstream of the Study Area in all identified watercourses. These spot-flow data will be used to assist in establishing the hydroperiod of the watercourses. Flows measured after a minimum of 72 hours with no appreciable (> 5 mm) precipitation may be interpreted as representative of baseflow conditions and will be used to assess groundwater contributions to stream flow as part of the water balance assessment. Sufficient surface water monitoring should be completed to assess seasonal surface water flow conditions.

x. Identify groundwater recharge and discharge. conditions across the study area, and assess the recharge/discharge functions of features (wetlands and watercourses) through a review of groundwater flow conditions and hydraulic gradients, surface water flow data, visual observations of seeps, springs, and wetland moisture conditions.

xi. Collect a sufficient number of groundwater and surface water samples for laboratory analysis of major ion chemistry to establish the background water quality across the area. These data will be used to establish the baseline pre-development water quality conditions and to assist in the assessment of groundwater/surface water interactions and. the interactions between shallow and deep hydrostratigraphic units.

xii. Complete a groundwater balance analysis to determine the pre-development (based on existing conditions) and post-development (based on the preliminary Block Plan land use), infiltration (interflow and deep recharge) volumes. The groundwater balance should utilize a soil-moisture balance approach (e.g., Thornthwaite and Mather) with monthly calculations reported. To be consistent with the SWS, the groundwater balance should be based on long-term climate data from the Toronto Pearson International Airport station.

xiii. Based on understanding of the geology and hydrogeology of the Study Area, identify groundwater functions with respect to wetlands and watercourses. The study findings will be integrated with findings from other disciplines (hydrology and ecology) to characterize the wetland and watercourse functions.

xiv. Identify existing groundwater users and water supply wells in the Study Area. Complete a private well survey to confirm the location and use of groundwater resources within 500 m of the proposed development. The survey will record details of the local wells where possible including the method of construction, water level, pump intake and well depth, water use, general water quality and suitability of the well for future monitoring if required.

b) Requirements for Proposed Development Plan

i. Determine the infiltration deficit (pre to post development) for the Study Area and identify hydrogeological opportunities and constraints to maintaining the water balance (i.e., to reduce the infiltration deficit).

ii. Identify the type, location and size of infiltration or soil storage measures that may be feasible for use based on the site-specific geological and hydrogeological conditions.

iii. Evaluate opportunities for augmenting groundwater infiltration through appropriate and practical Best Management Practices (e.g., as outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003, and/or the TRCA/CVC LID Manual, 2010) to balance, or at least in part, make up the post-development infiltration deficit.

__________________________________________________________________


iv. If pre-development infiltration cannot be maintained, evaluate the potential for

impacts from proposed development on shallow groundwater conditions adjacent to environmental features and watercourses. If the potential for negative impact exists, other mitigative measures are to be recommended.

v. Identify potential impacts of development on water quality in local water supply aquifers. If the potential for negative impact exists, mitigative measures are to be recommended.

vi. Provide input to inter-disciplinary assessments of water balance changes to wetlands and watercourses including input to mitigative measures to minimize changes to water sources to environmental features to acceptable levels.

vii. Provide input to creek lowering and relocation design, and where required, mitigative measures to minimize changes to groundwater functions to acceptable levels.

viii. Identify areas where hydrogeological conditions may affect construction (e.g., high water table, requirements for dewatering, etc.), and recommend control and mitigation measures, if warranted.

2.3 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM DESIGN, RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT

2.3.1 Purpose

The SWS prepared in support of the Secondary Plan for the Mount Pleasant area includes recommendations for more detailed ecological investigations as part of the EIR in support of Block Plans and Draft Plans of Subdivision. The purpose of the detailed ecological work is to characterize existing ecological conditions, provide input to specific final NHS boundary delineation and creation/restoration, identify potential ecological-related impacts of the Block Plan on the final NHS and assist in determining the need for, and nature of, mitigation measures required to protect the ecological features and functions within the defined final NHS and downstream of the Study Area.

2.3.2 Fieldwork

a) 2005 to 2007 SWS findings Ecological field components completed by Dougan and Associates, C. Portt and Associates and the Ministry of Natural Resources between 2005 and 2007 as part of the Mount Pleasant Subwatershed Study include:

• Breeding amphibian surveys; • Salamander egg mass searches; • Amphibian roadkill surveys (MNR); • Ecological Land Classification; • Breeding bird surveys; • Incidental wildlife observations; • Fluvial geomorphic study; • Fish sampling; and, • Benthic invertebrate sampling.

__________________________________________________________________


Their findings are documented in the Draft Phase 1: Subwatershed Characterization and Integration Report (December 2007) and the MNR, Aurora District, Wetland Data and Draft Interpretation, Huttonville and Fletcher’s Creeks (December 2007). These findings supplemented with the Landowners’ consulting team 2008 and 2009 fieldwork will be used to characterize the natural environment and as the basis for the impact evaluations. b) 2008/2009 Savanta Field Program The North West Brampton Landowners’ Group authorized an extensive ecological field program, which began in Winter 2008 and continued through to the end 2009. The 2008 component of this work was documented in the report, entitled, North West Brampton Wildlife Summary Report (Savanta, March 11, 2009). This report was provided to the City, CVC and MNR. A summary of findings from the 2008 fieldwork is provided in Appendix C. The 2009 fieldwork includes gathering selective supplementary data, both to better understand the annual and seasonal variations in conditions and address a specific data gap (i.e., winter raptor and early season amphibian movement) identified by Dougan & Associates. The following field program components and protocols were completed in 2009.

• Owl surveys following “Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl Monitoring in North America Protocol (Takats et al 2001) including checks of all conifer groves, and owl pellet searches within these areas.

• Raptor surveys through observation of flight patterns, perching and flight silhouettes, calls and habitat.

• Cooper’s Hawk nest searches (2009), as requested by CVC in historical and potential nesting sites.

• Winter wildlife surveys on new landowner holdings, including proposed NHS corridors and linkages following the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the RISC (Resources Inventory Standards Committee) species inventory methods manual.

• 2nd season of breeding amphibian surveys (April, May, June) in natural areas and stormwater management facilities. Surveys followed the Marsh Monitoring Program protocol (Bird Studies Canada 2003). Figure 4 illustrates locations for amphibian surveys.

• 2nd season of amphibian roadkill surveys with an emphasis on documenting early breeders not fully sampled in 2008 (Spring Peeper, Wood Frog, Chorus Frog). Surveys were and will be conducted during breeding season, at night, just after a rain event or during a light rain / mist as frogs are more active during these conditions.

• Waterfowl (stopover, migration, breeding) surveys at natural ponds and stormwater management facilities, (including spring, late spring/early summer and fall).

• 2nd season of breeding bird surveys (areas searches, point counts) following the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas protocol (OBBA 2001-2005).

This level of detail provides sufficient ecological data to address initial EIR ecological fieldwork requirements. However, further fieldwork may be required dependent on the outcome of the more

__________________________________________________________________


detailed EIR assessments to address trail locations, City park channel restoration and formulation of a monitoring plan. Additional site visits with agencies may be required. 2.3.3 Elements of the Proposed NHS

Elements of the SPNHS within Sub-Area 51-1 are presented on Schedule A to Secondary Plan Appendix F, Implementation Principles for the Mount Pleasant SWS. Schedule A includes:

• The protection of 8 woodlands and most of the candidate Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW);

The relocation, lowering and natural channel design of East Huttonville Creek from upstream of the TransCanada Pipeline easement to Mayfield Road;

• The relocation and natural channel design of East Huttonville Creek from the CNR to the TransCanada Pipeline easement; The protection and enhancement of East Huttonville Creek redside dace habitat in its existing location from Bovaird Drive to the CNR. This reach will not be subject to lowering to accommodate upstream servicing;

• 4 new road crossings of East Huttonville Creek (Spine Road in two locations, Sandalwood Parkway and Buick Boulevard) for a total of 8 crossings of East Huttonville Creek from Bovaird Drive to Mayfield Road inclusive, including the CNR;

• The creation of new wetlands in vicinity of the creek relocation adjacent to the City Park; • Linking/connection of all woodlands and wetlands within the north-south orientation of

the NHS; • 7 SWM facilities located adjacent to the East Huttonville Creek and one SWM facility

adjacent to Creditview Road; • The potential locations for the incorporation of LID measures in the NHS; • Buffers to woodland and wetland features within the SPNHS,; • Recognition that a trail will be accommodated in appropriate locations of the NHS; and, • Restoration (i.e., re-introduction of historic and/or creation of new features) and

enhancement (i.e., improving ecological functions of existing features) opportunities in various locations in the NHS including woodlands, wetlands, stream channel and waterfowl breeding ponds.

Each of these SPNHS elements requires EIR analyses and further design details. EIR tasks to be completed for stormwater related elements are noted in Section 2.4; for ecological related elements, see Section 2.3.4 below. Integration of tasks outlined in these two sections as well as with those presented in Sections 2.2 and 2.5 is essential to comprehensively address EIR analysis and design requirements. This work will collectively confirm that all hazards and recommended functions of the SPNHS are contained with the NHS design and boundaries presented on the Block Plan. 2.3.4 Technical Study Requirements

Each of the following tasks must be completed at a level of detail to support the delineation of the final NHS boundaries for Block Plan and Draft Plans of Subdivision. Impact assessments and identification of mitigative measures forms a component of study under each of the following tasks d) to g).

__________________________________________________________________


a) Characterization of Existing Conditions

i. Characterize/document existing environmental conditions in Sub-Area 51-1 relying on

work completed as part of the SWS, 2008, 2009 and 2010 fieldwork.. The SWS and landowner data collection and interpretation will be fully integrated within and form the base of analyses in the EIR.

ii. Map existing conditions including regulatory floodplains, land uses, vegetation communities, linkages, meander belt widths/allowances, aquatic habitat conditions, valley slopes, etc.

iii. Calculate the existing floodplain along East Huttonville Creek using detailed topographic mapping, low flow channel survey and road crossing surveys from Bovaird Drive to Mayfield Road using CVC standard methodologies.

b) Surveying of Existing Environmental Features

Staking and surveying of the woodlands and wetlands within Block 51-1 was completed in July and August 2009 with representatives of the City, CVC and Landowners’ Group. This delineation of feature boundaries forms part of the EIR. Although already completed and submitted to the City and CVC for review and approval in March 2010, these tasks are listed below to provide a comprehensive list of EIR activities.

i. Stake and survey the dripline limits of all woodlands within the SPNHS in Sub-Area 51-1

with representatives of the City and CVC. This survey will be undertaken by an Ontario Land Surveyor taking direction from the EIR Study Team and the agencies to define the dripline locations.

ii. Stake and survey the limits of all wetland units in Sub-Area 51-1 with representatives of the MNR, City and CVC. This survey will be undertaken by an Ontario Land Surveyor taking direction from the EIR Study Team and MNR to define the wetland boundaries. Figure 5 illustrates the approach to be taken to the staking of wetlands located within woodlands wherein only those wetland boundaries that are located near the woodland dripline will be staked (distance from dripline to be determined). This focuses the staking fieldwork to only areas where the wetland boundary may govern when determining the limit of development adjacent to the woodland/wetland feature. In some locations, the wetland is tens of metres interior to the woodland dripline and will not be the governing factor for feature or SPNHS delineation. In these cases, the entire wetland will not be staked. Individual plans will be prepared for each woodland/wetland identifying boundaries to be staked. These plans will be circulated to the City, CVC and MNR prior to the field staking exercise.

iii. Stake and survey existing top of bank of the existing Main Huttonville Creek and East Huttonville Creek, to the extent that one exists, between Bovaird Drive and the CNR with representatives from the City and CVC. This survey will be undertaken by an Ontario Land Surveyor taking direction from the EIR Study Team and the agencies regarding existing top of bank locations.

iv. The need for a geotechnical study of the Main Huttonville Creek slope immediately east of Mississauga Road was identified during the August 31, 2009 field staking work. This study should identify the long term stable slope location along the eastern slope.

v. Prepare survey plans illustrating the surveyed boundaries. These survey plans will be submitted to the City, CVC and MNR for approval.

vi. Provide surveyed boundaries, as per (v), to the Block Plan consulting planner for incorporation into Block Plan drawings.

__________________________________________________________________


c) Delineation of NHS Boundaries South of CNR

i. On detailed topographic mapping base, delineate the final NHS boundaries from Bovaird

Drive to the CNR based on the greater of the identification of existing top of bank, stable top of bank, meander belt allowance, fisheries setback, Regulatory Storm floodplain, appropriate buffers and the SWS recommended SPNHS width of 100 m to address significant habitat of endangered species in this location .

ii. Provide final NHS boundary delineation to the Block Plan consulting planner for incorporation into Block Plan drawings.

d) Design of East Huttonville Creek Realignment

i. Characterize the existing fish habitat and illustrate the extent of any existing features

supporting critical life stages of fish or other aquatic biota. ii. Quantify existing aquatic habitat features (e.g., number and linear extent of pools, riffles,

runs) for use in ensuring that the proposed compensation plan adequately replaces the type and extent of existing habitats.

iii. Confirm the extent of all fish habitat with CVC and DFO. iv. Consistent with Schedule A of Appendix F to the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan,

identify the preferred location of East Huttonville Creek realignment (horizontally and vertically) through evaluation of block plan grading, groundwater levels, surface water inputs (location and elevation), proximity to woodlands and wetlands to ensure long term functions of these areas and impacts to City Park uses.

v. Consistent with Schedule A of Appendix F to the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan, identify the width of realigned East Huttonville Creek considering Regulatory Storm conveyance requirements, maintenance of riparian storage, natural channel design, overbank ponding areas to enhance aquatic habitats, block plan grading, channel vertical profile and ‘flood-free’ areas for wildlife during flood events. Prepare cross sections at various locations throughout the Study Area to support the channel design/width analysis. Prepare future channel HEC-RAS hydraulic modeling of conveyance and riparian storage functions to support channel width/design.

vi. Consistent with Schedule A of Appendix F to the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan, assess the channel location/elevation adjacent to woodlands and wetlands to confirm short term (during construction) and long term (after construction) functions of these areas considering buffer requirements, trail locations and groundwater functions of these features and the creek system.

vii. Complete natural channel design for relocated creek lengths including calculations of width/depth/area versus target discharge, manning’s roughness, velocities based on area and manning, pool/riffle/run dimensions and transitions between each, angular momentum/energy distributions through bends, shear stress on bed and banks in pools and riffles, with particular attention on outside bends and the transition between each segment, and sediment budgets/transport potential through the entire reach. The CVC’s applied geomorphology guidelines will be used where appropriate.

viii. Consistent with the CFCP, prepare a fish habitat compensation plan that clearly demonstrates how modified reaches will achieve a net gain in fish habitat and meet the ‘no net loss in fish habitat productivity’ as required by Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, the intent of the Credit River Fisheries Management Plan and the ESA, where applicable.

ix. Identify channel restoration details including habitat and species establishment targets (functional and area specific), riparian planting plans, and in-stream habitat creation to support lifecycle processes such as spawning, feeding and refuge.

__________________________________________________________________


x. Identify design and appropriate location(s) for incorporation of LID measures in the NHS

corridor. xi. Prepare plan-profile drawings illustrating preliminary channel grading, cross sections and

typical details of channel design elements. xii. Demonstrate how the proposed modification measures meet the SPNHS design

recommendations identified in the SWS and requirements of Appendix F of the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan.

xiii. Prepare a Staging and Implementation Plan for the stream lowering and relocation that is coordinated with the phasing of development and infrastructure .

e) Restoration of Existing East Huttonville Creek Through City Park

East Huttonville Creek currently flows through the City’s Creditview Park. It is a trapezoidal channelized section with little riparian vegetation. The realignment of East Huttonville Creek through the SPNHS will eliminate a large upstream drainage area to the park channel changing its function to the collection/conveyance of localized drainage only from the City Park. Restoration of the park channel is to be addressed as part of the EIR. Restoration concepts for the restoration of the existing East Huttonville Creek through the City Park should be prepared in consultation with CVC as well as the City, should this feature be related to compensation for fish habitat, wetlands and/or a regulated feature in the future. f) Wetland Restoration

The CVC regulates development and alterations to wetlands within Sub-Area 51-1. Most wetlands are to be protected within the NHS while some are proposed for removal with mitigation through the creation of new wetland features. Restoration (i.e., re-introduction of historic and/or creation of new features) and enhancement (i.e., improving ecological functions of existing features) opportunities exist in various locations in the NHS including woodlands, wetlands, stream channel, waterfowl breeding ponds. The study and design of wetland restoration will include:

i. Confirm and document criteria for wetland restoration with CVC and MNR. ii. Consistent with Schedule A of Appendix F to the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan,

prepare plans illustrating new wetland locations, size, configuration, grading and restoration.

iii. Prepare written rationale for wetland restoration design. iv. Refine the “Plant Community Model” (vegetation communities) based on a site specific

understanding of biophysical characteristics. v. Prepare a Restoration and Management Strategy, which describes restoration

techniques for each element and phasing of restorative elements. vi. Develop Plant Lists and Conceptual Planting Plan. vii. Design a Monitoring Program to evaluate success and management areas of concern.

Wetland restoration concepts will consider the recommendations of the CVC Wetland Restoration Strategy (November 2009) where applicable. g) Road Crossings of the NHS

i. Prepare preliminary designs for each of the new road crossings the NHS (Spine Road in

two locations, Sandalwood Parkway and Buick Boulevard) and improvements to existing CNR and Wanless Road as necessary to be compatible with NHS design and function. This work will be coordinated with the Block Plan Transportation Study and Integrated

__________________________________________________________________


Environmental Assessment process as outlined in Section 1.8.2. EIR analyses will consider site grading and channel design to identify crossing opening sizing to accommodate flood-free access to the crossing, fluvial geomorphological considerations, wildlife movement, vegetation planting and fencing to manage wildlife movement (amphibian, waterfowl, reptile, small mammals) and trail design if appropriate.

ii. Identify improvements to existing crossings where required to provide flood-free access and wildlife corridor functions to each crossing.

iii. Identify infrastructure crossing locations of the NHS and their design. This work will be done in coordination with servicing analyses.

iv. Identify road and infrastructure crossing construction timing constraints, construction methods and mitigation where required.

h) Redside Dace Protection and Restoration

Redside dace was recently upgraded from a threatened to an endangered species under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2006. Both the species and its habitat are protected under the Act. The EIR study team will work with the MNR to ensure this species is appropriately addressed through the EIR process. This will include the following tasks:

i. Discuss restoration opportunities and constraints with MNR, CVC and the City. ii. Explore key restoration themes (and integration with channel stability/design upstream of

CNR, hydrology and hydrogeology considerations) related to the optimization of spatial heterogeneity of riparian habitat for redside dace including:

• Create additional forested area with live trees as well as rotting wood and

damp soil to provide larval habitat for prey organisms of Reside dace, including: Diptera, Coleoptera and some Hymenoptera;

• Meadow area establishment with a variety of flowering plants would provide nectar plants for prey. Virtually all Diptera require sugar meals from flowers, so the maintenance and enhancement of meadow areas is warranted. Other prey items such as Hymenoptera are also found frequently in meadow areas;

• Specific planting of the riparian zone with overhanging shrubs and grasses would provide resting sites for insect prey items;

• Design of open areas within the riparian section for Diptera mating swarm production; the water beneath should be clear enough so that the flies can distinguish between rocky substrates and deep pools.

iii. Prepare, in collaboration with agency stakeholders, restoration concepts including drawings, plant lists and a preliminary planting plan.

iv. Prepare an implementation plan for proposed restoration works. v. Identify permitting requirements. vi. Develop a Monitoring Plan, with integrated monitoring locations specifically identified in

relation to all relevant technical disciplines.

The identified riparian zone design considerations, protection and restoration of RSD habitat needs to consider hydrology and hydrography in the design of the NHS as well as how it relates to stormwater management. Reference should be made to the Redside Dace Recovery Strategy, as appropriate.

__________________________________________________________________


i) Headwater Drainage Feature Functions and Drainage Density Calculations The SWS and CFC P address the extent and quality of existing headwater drainage features. This work will be reviewed and summarized in the EIR to characterize existing headwater drainage functions. The EIR will address the quality and extent of headwater drainage functions being replicated in the NHS, within SWM systems and on tablelands. With respect to drainage density calculations, the SWS identifies drainage density targets to be maintained through development design. The SWS Phase 2 impact assessment recommends an approach to the maintenance of drainage density that involves the use of a variety of open swale types throughout development plans. The EIR will identify and measure various open swale categories and confirm that drainage densities will be maintained with Block Plan design through the use of:

• Open channels in the NHS; • Open swales in public lands - parks and schools or LIDs in NHS; • Open swales on private lands - sideyard and rearyard swales and LIDs outletting

either to the NHS or a storm sewer system; • SWM pond outlets to NHS; • Additional overbank channel lengths that may be added to stream corridor

design for fish habitat enhancement; and, • Lengths through SWM ponds.

j) Trail Integration in the NHS

i. In consultation with the open space planner, review the stream corridor and other

associated environmental features to identify the suitability of those features to provide for the development of a pedestrian trail, in accordance with the Pathways Master Plan and the proposed trail system for the Secondary Plan area.

ii. Review potential locations for a trail adjacent to the primary stream corridor and natural heritage features and crossing(s) of the NHS to determine the suitability and feasibility for its development.

iii. Provide recommendations for the location and design of a trail based on the suitability and sensitivity of environmental components of the NHS to maximize wildlife corridor function, and create connections to adjacent tablelands, including supporting commuting transit and connections to school blocks. In this regard, identify how the trail would interface with adjacent features. The location of the trail will have respect for sensitive NHS elements

and may be located in the NHS buffer at the interface between the proposed adjacent development and the natural heritage system. Potential lateral connections across the stream corridor will be reviewed in consultation with the City. The ecological integrity, biodiversity, and protection of the environmental features are primary in the design of NHS and the proposed trail system.

k) NHS Restoration and Enhancement

i. Develop further strategies/plans/details for each of the SPNHS vignette restoration concepts submitted to the City, CVC and MNR in March 2009 and provided as part of Appendix F to the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan. This will include the identification of proposed vegetation types, plant lists and conceptual planting plan, restoration strategy in relation to soils types, detailed topography and NHS design objectives for:

__________________________________________________________________


• Restoration of upland and lowland deciduous forest types; • Restoration of woodland cover in open agricultural and infill situations; • Restoration of two open water ponds for waterfowl stopover and breeding; • Restoration of the channel habitat including, grassland or lowland

woodland/forest for naturalized creek; • Creation of “side channels” and “refuge pools” within the overbank portion of the

floodplain – designed to be seasonally inundated and periodically connected to the main watercourse;

• Creation of shallow pool and meadow marsh for redside dace foraging habitat upstream of CNR; and,

• Enhancement of existing woodlands and wetlands with invasive species removal strategies and edge management and buffer restoration plans.

l) NHS Boundaries

i. Provide drawings to planners illustrating the boundaries of the final NHS in accordance

with recommendations of EIR tasks a) through h) above, recommendations for NHS widths, management and restoration consistent with Appendix F from the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan and SWS Phase 2 findings.

ii. Confirm that all hazards and recommended functions of the NHS are contained with the NHS design and boundaries presented on the Block Plan.

2.4 TABLELAND VEGETATION ASSESSMENT

A Tableland Vegetation Assessment Report will form part of the EIR. This work will be completed in accordance with requirements set out in the City’s Interim Guidelines for the Assessment of Existing Tableland Vegetation, August 12, 2009, provided in Appendix D in the context of the Secondary Plan policies and Appendix F of the Secondary Plan. This assessment will be coordinated and integrated with NHS design and site grading. Appropriate conservation of tableland vegetation is the objective of the Assessment Report; however, mitigation for the loss of tableland vegetation can be addressed through appropriate plantings plans, etc. The loss of tableland vegetation that is connected and/or in close proximity to the NHS that cannot be conserved, shall be addressed consistent with the Implementation Principles. Generally, mitigation for the loss of this tableland vegetation can be addressed through the proposed NHS restoration plans. 2.5 GRADING, DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

2.5.1 Purpose

The SWS prepared in support of the Secondary Plan for the Mount Pleasant area includes recommendations for further study and design of storm drainage systems as part of the EIR in support of Block Plans and Draft Plans of Subdivision. The purpose of the grading, drainage and stormwater management component of the EIR is to characterize existing drainage conditions and identify stormwater management facility requirements and LID measures and design consistent with SWS recommendations for surface water quality and quantity control. This work will provide

__________________________________________________________________


input to specific NHS boundary delineation and determine the location and nature of mitigation measures required to protect the ecological features and functions within and downstream of the Study Area. A major element of the EIR involves the development of a preliminary grading plan and, stormwater management plan. SWM facilities design must be closely integrated with overall site grading design and NHS design to ensure that changes in surface drainage quality and quantity to natural features are managed/minimized in accordance with SWS recommendations. The grading analyses will address the overall serviceability of the lands to determine the grading required to service the lands and to ensure integration with neighbouring lands and the NHS. 2.5.2 Technical Study Requirements

The SWS will include recommendations that will guide the EIR grading and stormwater management component of the EIR. The SWS will acknowledge the need for and recommend design criteria for the relocation and lowering of East Huttonville Creek for servicing, NHS and community design reasons. It will also provide:

1) stormwater management design criteria including unit target flows and unit storage volumes for the design of SWM facilities for a range of storm events;

2) required Regulatory Storm online storage volumes; 3) erosion thresholds in downstream areas to be used as input to the erosion control

design of SWM facilities; 4) storage/infiltration targets for the Study Area; 5) a proposed SWM concept illustrating preliminary SWM facility locations; 6) guidance to the formulation of drainage plans that will manage/minimize changes in

surface water quality and quantity to wetland/woodland elements of the proposed NHS and downstream redside dace habitat; and,

7) hydrologic modeling approaches to be used in the EIR and subsequent studies (e.g. detailed design).

The hydrologic modeling of predevelopment conditions to establish unit flow rate targets for quantity (flood) control (2 year through Regional Storm flows) purposes was completed as part of the SWS. Further modeling of predevelopment conditions is not required as part of the EIR. SWM ponds are to be sized to meet unit flow and unit storage targets recommended in the SWS. With these recommendations from the SWS, EIR grading, drainage and stormwater management tasks are outlined below. a) Preliminary Grading, Drainage and SWM Plan

i. Use updated topographic mapping and survey work to refine the SWS subcatchment

boundaries. ii. Prepare a preliminary grading plan for the Study Area to demonstrate servicing

functionality. Based on SWS recommendations, lowering of the creek is required to service the adjacent tablelands.

iii. Prepare earthworks balance calculations to identify preliminary quantities of cut and fill across the Study Area.

__________________________________________________________________


iv. Prepare a drainage and servicing plan for the Study Area identifying the storm

drainage network, including conceptual designs of storm trunk sizes, foundation drain collectors, roof drain collectors, SWM facilities (see Section b)) and the major and minor system.

v. Identify drainage requirements for the northwest and northeast portions of the Study Area that currently drain to the West Huttonville Creek and Fletcher’s Creek to ensure that these lands can be developed in a similar timeframe as other lands in the Study Area. This assessment is required to identify/confirm servicing approaches to these areas that could not outlet storm sewers to watercourses in the West Huttonville Creek and Fletcher’s Creek subcatchments due to lack of topographic grade difference between the tablelands and receiving watercourses. SWS analyses included an assessment of the potential impacts of inter-catchment diversions between the West and the East Huttonville Creeks. Hydrologic analyses were completed for the proposed diversion using the calibrated HSP-F hydrologic model to identify potential impacts and mitigative measures to meet targets for runoff volumes, peak flows, flow distribution and impacts to downstream terrestrial and aquatic communities. The analyses demonstrated only nominal changes in terms of runoff volume, peak flows, and flow distribution. The net impacts to the natural systems resulting from this change were concluded to be minor with no negative impacts anticipated. These preliminary conclusions will be confirmed through the completion of the Phase 2 impact assessments. The March 25, 2010 2G Assessment workshop conclusions are consistent with this preliminary work. The EIR shall confirm the drainage areas, land use, roof drainage third pipe and other recommended measures to be implemented east of Mississauga Road consistent with SWS findings. This work may involve re-running the SWS HSP-F model if changes are made to drainage or land use in the diversion areas. .

vi. Identify and assess the impacts of: • Increases/decreases in drainage area to a NHS feature. It is intended that

the SWM plan minimize change to runoff volumes and seasonal delivery to NHS features;

• Change in grades adjacent to a NHS feature that could impact surface drainage or groundwater conditions;

• Location of underground services adjacent to a NHS feature that would influence groundwater levels and impact the feature (i.e., wetland).

• Grading and servicing details in support of stream lowering and/or relocation as noted in Section 2.3.4 d) above.

vii. Complete preliminary design for the SWM ponds and prepare drawings illustrating: • SWM pond block sizing, including preliminary grades, design water levels

(pond and receiving body outlet), storage volumes and maintenance access provisions;

• Typical cross-section(s); • Requirements, if any, to provide impermeable liners to ponds due to

groundwater levels; • Pond outlet locations, designs and integration in proposed NHS; • Mitigative measures for water temperature control; • Consideration of overlook/viewing areas; and, • Commentary on requirements for pond naturalization and landscaping plans.

viii. Identify low impact development (LID) requirements to meet recommendations set out in the SWS. This will include the location, sizing and conceptual design of proposed LID measures.

__________________________________________________________________


ix. Identify a conceptual approach to erosion and sediment control.

b) Hydrologic Analyses – Water Quality and Quantity for SWM Pond Sizing

i. Identify drainage areas to each proposed SWM facility (based on the proposed

Drainage and Servicing Plan and SWS recommendations for SWM facility numbers and locations).

ii. Identify target flows and storage requirements for each facility through the application of SWS recommended water quality (Enhanced Level) and water quantity (unit flow and unit storage volumes for each facility for range of storm events including the 2 yr, 5 yr, 25 yr, 50 yr and 100 yr events).

iii. Prepare future conditions hydrologic models for drainage areas to each SWM facility reflecting land use shown in preliminary Block Plan to generate future flows for the range of storm events noted above.

iv. Modify the hydrologic model to include the design of each SWM facility to demonstrate the function of the proposed SWM facilities satisfies SWS water quality requirements and water quantity target outflows and storages.

v. Confirm the location and function of Regulatory Storm storage along the East Huttonville Creek including the identification of channel grading and/or crossing designs supporting the required storage. Address the implications of Regulatory Storm storage in the East Huttonville Creek channel on fish passage and flood-free areas for wildlife during the Regulatory Storm event.

c) Hydrologic Analyses – Wetland Water Balance

Wetland water balance assessments will be completed in conjunction with other surface water and groundwater analyses. Water balance analyses will include:

i. Prepare existing conditions water balance model for each of the existing wetlands to

be protected in the NHS. The QUALHYMO v6.2 model will be used in continuous mode to identify monthly runoff volumes to each wetland. Existing drainage areas and land uses in the catchments of each wetland will be determined using LiDAR mapping, field reconnaissance and aerial photography. Input will be required from surface water hydrology and groundwater hydrogeology perspectives to provide an understanding of water sources to each wetland.

ii. Review model results in context of visual observations of each wetland in the field. iii. Prepare future conditions water balance model to each wetland. If required, various

best management practices (BMP) will be designed and simulated to minimize changes to runoff volumes to each wetland. These BMPs will include, but are not limited to, diversion of flow from roof leaders or foundation drains, and rear-lot drainage through vegetated swales to the wetlands.

iv. Assess the ecological impacts of changes to runoff volume to each wetland with and without BMPs in place.

v. Based on these analyses, recommend drainage design to each wetland and identify implications to the Block Plan land use plan.

__________________________________________________________________


d) Hydraulic Analyses – East Huttonville Creek

Hydraulic analyses of East Huttonville Creek will be completed to identify existing and future floodlines through the Block Plan. This will include:

i. Based on LiDAR mapping and survey of the existing low flow channel and existing road crossings, prepare HEC-RAS model to determine the existing Regulatory Storm floodplain;

ii. Complete existing conditions riparian storage calculations (a refinement of existing conditions riparian storage calculations completed through the SWS Phase 2 work and comparison to riparian storage targets from SWS Phase 3 work);

iii. Prepare future channel HEC-RAS hydraulic modeling of conveyance and riparian storage functions to support channel width/design incorporating road crossing and online storage functions as appropriate.

2.6 SANITARY AND WATER SERVICING

The specific sanitary, water and roads details will be provided in the Functional Servicing Report and will be submitted under a separate cover. A general overview of the sanitary, water and roads will be provided in the EIR. Conceptual designs of sanitary and water services within the Block Plan Area will be provided including crossings of the NHS, appropriate connections to external areas (considering sewer depths and grading). Sufficient analysis is necessary to ensure that external lands can be serviced to meet the Region standards. The intention of this conceptual analysis is to demonstrate the sanitary, water and roads systems will not conflict with the EIR recommendations. Impacts associated with transportation, servicing and utility corridors will be addressed and where appropriate, mitigative measures will be identified. Consideration will be given to ensuring that the proposed road system and grading does not negatively impact environmental features such as woodlots, where the adjacent road grade will not be substantially higher or lower than the grade of the woodlot.

2.7 MONITORING The SWS and/or the EMS will recommend requirements for environmental monitoring plans and reporting. Based on SWS and EMS recommendations, the EIR will include an outline of environmental monitoring requirements for the Study Area that are based on principles of Adaptive Environmental Management. The goal of the Adaptive Environmental Management is to monitor the environmental features and functions of the Natural Heritage System (i.e. existing woodlots, new restoration areas) to observe the success of NHS site design and mitigation measures (i.e. buffers) in protection of these environmental features and functions (i.e. fish habitat and water quality), and where unforeseen negative impacts are observed, to take action by instituting appropriate follow-up adaptive management measures, where possible. Other natural features such as wetlands and watercourse may also be monitored to observe functions including those related to terrestrial/aquatic ecology, hydrogeology, hydrology, geomorphology and other natural and applied sciences.

__________________________________________________________________


2.8 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS The EIR will address implementation considerations including the identification of specific requirements to be addressed as part of Functional Servicing Studies and permitting requirements in accordance with the Fisheries Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Ontario Regulation 160/06, as appropriate. Implementation considerations to be addressed will also include an outline of construction phasing, timing and methodologies. This will include the identification of approaches to construction of channels (including the need for diversion channels), crossings, SWM facilities and outfalls, NHS restoration, wetland re-creation and restoration, sediment and erosion control measures and the timing and sequencing of construction of these facilities/works.

__________________________________________________________________


3.0 REPORTING AND SCHEDULE _________________________________________________________________

Findings of all inventories and analyses noted in Section 2.0 will be documented in an EIR and submitted to the City, CVC and Region and MNR and DFO (as requested) for review and comment. The City’s generic terms of reference for MESP/EIR includes a list of tables, calculations and drawings to be included in the EIR report. This list is provided in Appendix E. A preliminary schedule for the EIR and Block Plan for Sub-Area 51-1, consistent with the timelines presented in the February 2010 City staff report noted in Section 1.0, and modified through recent discussions, includes the following key milestone dates assuming that no major changes are needed to the land use plan/SPNHS as a result of the SWS Phase 2 assessment:

Milestone Completion Date

City’s 2G Land Use Plan Available for SWS Phase 2 Testing January 2010 Submission of EIR Terms of Reference March 2010 SWS Phase 2 2G Impact Assessment findings April 2010 Preliminary Block Plan Available for Impact Assessment April 2010 Determination of Major versus Minor Changes Needed to Land Use/NHS May 2010

Public Meeting on Block Plan and Draft Plans May 2010 EIR Workshop #1 June 9, 2010 Submission of Staking of Environmental Features Limits June 9, 2010 EIR Workshop #2 July 14, 2010 Approval of EIR Terms of Reference July 2010 Submission of Scoped EIR for City August 2010 SWS Phase 3A Report August 2010 EIR Workshop #3 September 8, 2010 SWS Phase 3B Report September 2010 Approval in Principle of Block Plan (City) September 2010 Submission of Full EIR September 2010 EIR Workshop #4 October 13, 2010 Agency Review of EIR October 2010 Filing of Revised Draft Plans and background studies October 2010 EIR Workshop #5 November 10, 2010 Completion/Submission of Final EIR November 2010 Block Plan OPA approval January 2011 Draft Plan approval February 2011

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ Appendices Page 28 of 46 EIR Terms of Reference July 30, 2010 Environmental Implementation Report for Sub-Area 51-1

APPENDIX F from the

MOUNT PLEASANT SECONDARY PLAN

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF SECONDARY PLAN COMPONENT STUDIES

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendices Page 30 of 46 EIR Terms of Reference July 30, 2010 Environmental Implementation Report for Sub-Area 51-1

APPENDIX A Summary of Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Component Studies

Study Consultant Purpose Current Findings Status

Subwatershed Study Philips Engineering/Dougan

and Associates

To develop a natural heritage system based upon characterization of natural features and their form, function and linkages through a landscape scale analysis (phase 1); an evaluation of the impacts of development on the natural heritage system (phase 2); and, solutions for managing impacts from development on the natural heritage system (phase 3).

January 2008- phase 1, the characterization of the natural features completed. May 2008 – phase 2 first impact assessment complete

Study completion anticipated by Fall 2010.

Transportation Study ENTRA Consulting Present a comprehensive transportation strategy comprising roads, transit, transportation demand and pedestrian opportunities Establish the need and justification for roads subject to phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA. Identify a preferred road network including improvements to Creditview Road and Sandalwood Parkway. Outline a transit strategy

Need and justification for Sandalwood Parkway EA extension between Creditview Road and Mississauga Road established. Need and justification for Creditview Road extension/James Potter Road extension EA established. A network of collector roads established, plus the four lane transit spine road at a 26 m r.o.w. A comprehensive transit strategy centered on the transit spine road and other transit corridors.

Transit and Transportation Master Plan approved in Fall 2009

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Community Design Study

NAK Design Group and LRK

To enable the development of appropriate community design polices that support a pedestrian friendly, sustainable transit oriented community.

Key findings to date include: - the design features for the various mixed use nodes located along the transit spine road; - elements that will assist in the creation of compact and walkable neighbourhoods; - the integration of a trail and pathway system with the natural heritage system; and, - features and design principles for the mixed use/retail centre at the intersection of Mississauga Road and Bovaird Drive West.

Approved in Summer 2009

Open Space Study NAK Design Group Delineates an open space system and network that includes natural features, stormwater management ponds, parks, schools and other uses.

As open space system is identified that is integrated with pedestrian movement, transit, traffic capacity, residential densities mixed-uses, stormwater ponds and the NHS system A hierarchy and distribution of parks is provided involving 17 parkettes and 4 new neighbourhood parks.

Approved in Winter 2010

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Retail/Commercial and Institutional

Opportunity Study

Malone Given Parsons Limited.

Evaluates market needs and opportunities for retail/commercial floor space. Identifies sites required for institutional purposes such as schools and places of worship Allocates retail/commercial space and institutional uses

Allocates retail/commercial space totaling about 1.3 million square feet. Establishes preliminary retail/commercial sites based upon a retail hierarchy with a major concentration of district commercial floor space at the intersection of Mississauga Road and Bovaird Drive West. Recommends 16 school sites and four places of worship sites.

Approved in Fall 2009

Infrastructure Servicing

R.J Burnsides and Associates Limited

Identifies, describes and evaluates sanitary sewer and water servicing strategies and systems Determines preliminary stormwater requirements including drainage boundaries and the identification of storm water management ponds.

Ultimate sanitary infrastructure needed includes the extension of the Fletcher’s Creek and Huttonville Creek trunks; all areas within the Secondary Plan can be successfully serviced by gravity; and, no system capacity constraints exist within the receiving trunk sewers.

With ultimate water infrastructure in place, all areas within the Secondary Plan can be serviced in their entirety with adequate flows being provided at sufficient pressures. Preliminary stormwater management pond sizes and locations have been identified and based on spot grading with a minimum of 20 ponds recommended.

Approved in Summer 2009

Cultural Heritage Unterman McPhail Locates and describes heritage The study area has high potential for Approval

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Study Consultant Purpose Current Findings Status Resources/

Archaeological Associates/ AMICK

Consultants features. Outlines methods for the incorporation, integration and protection of significant heritage resources. Comprises an archaeological component.

archaeological resources not yet documented and therefore, areas of proposed development require archaeological assessment in advance of grading at the block plan/subdivision approval stages. Two cultural heritage sites are designated under the Heritage Act and two sites are listed by on the City’s Heritage inventory. The study outlines methods for further evaluation of these and other potential cultural heritage resources at the block plan/subdivision approval stages.

anticipated by March 2010

Alternative Development

Standards

Poulos and Chung Limited

Proposes alternative development standards for various transportation and road related elements such as laneways and non- standard right-of-way widths and turning circles.

Shows how the application of ADS can help to achieve land use and urban design objectives for the Transit Spine and the Nodal Development Areas. Provides detailed guidance to assist in implementing City Wide Alternative Design Standards Outlines how ADS features can be connected to trails and pathways to support pedestrians.

Approved Summer 2009

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX B

LISTING OF LANDOWNER STUDIES

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX B

LISTING OF LANDOWNER STUDIES

The following studies/data were prepared by the Mount Pleasant Owners’ Group or the Block 51-1 Owners’ Group through the Secondary Plan and SWS processes:

• Preparation of LiDAR topographic mapping and digital terrain model and aerial

photography dated Spring 2006, prepared by Rady Pentek Edwards Surveyors. This detailed mapping is appropriate for EIR, floodplain mapping and Functional Servicing Plan work.

• East Huttonville Creek low flow channel survey dated January 2009 undertaken by Rady

Pentek Edwards Surveyors. This survey includes channel invert profile and cross sections from Bovaird Drive northerly to Mayfield Road.

• Field survey of road crossings for the purpose of preparation of detailed floodplain

mapping. This included channel invert, culvert size, invert, length and type and road elevations for Bovaird Drive, CNR, Wanless Drive and Mayfield Road. Surveys were updated by Rady Pentek Edwards Surveyors in January 2009.

• Mount Pleasant and Mount Pleasant Village Natural Heritage and Drainage

Investigations, Input to the Huttonville and Fletcher’s Creeks Subwatershed Study Update in September 2007. The report addressed a number of technical issues associated with the development of the Mount Pleasant lands including existing floodplain mapping, floodplain modifications, pipeline constraints, watercourse lowering concepts, watercourse relocation proposals, subcatchment diversions, SWM facility concept and geotechnical data. Copies of this report were provided to the City and the CVC early in the SWS process.

• North West Brampton Wildlife Summary Report, 2009 prepared by Savanta Inc. including winter wildlife inventories (February and March 2008), breeding bird inventories (April, May, June and July 2008), waterfowl use inventories (April, May, June, July, September, October and November 2008), breeding amphibian (April, May and June 2008), amphibian roadkill surveys (May and June 2008) and milksnake inventories (June, July, August and September 2008). Ongoing fieldwork in 2009 is further supplementing data and adding key seasonal information in response to comments and observations provided by the City’s SWS team on the Summary Wildlife Report. This ongoing fieldwork, in concert with the 2008 fieldwork will provide the necessary EIR level of detail for ecological field investigations.

• Hydrogeological Analyses were completed by R. J. Burnside & Associates Limited in 2007 and 2008 within the Mount Pleasant and Sub-Area 51-1 lands including:

o Borehole drilling and installation of 27 groundwater monitoring wells including 7 well nests;

o Monthly collection of groundwater elevation data at all monitoring wells over a full year period and preparation of hydrographs;

__________________________________________________________________


o Installation of 20 drive-point piezometers (10 nests) along watercourses; o Monthly collection of groundwater elevation data at all drive-point

piezometers over a 6-month period along and preparation of hydrographs; o Monthly surface water flow monitoring data for 7 stations over a full year

period; and, o Mapping of bedrock topography, surficial geology, and groundwater flow,

along with cross-sections to illustrate the hydrogeological site conditions.

Theses data and analyses were provided to the City and CVC in February 2009. It was gathered at an EIR level of detail and will provide the necessary input to the EIR on detailed geology and hydrogeology conditions.

• Geotechnical Analyses completed by AME – Materials Engineering including excavation of 22 test pits in the Fall of 2008 to investigate the shallow soil and groundwater conditions for channel and servicing construction.

• Natural Heritage System Vignettes presenting design, restoration and enhancement

concepts for the Landowners’ proposed NHS extending from the existing City Park northerly to Mayfield Road within the Sub-Area 51-1 lands were submitted to the City, CVC and MNR on March 19, 2009. They provide details on the Owners’ commitment to the creation of an NHS that will provide a diverse and representative system of natural and restored areas that together will provide a viable, functioning and sustainable natural system in an urbanizing area. The Vignettes present:

o Location/protection of woodlands/wetlands; o Relocation and natural channel design/restoration of East Huttonville Creek to

a central spine location adjacent to existing features to create a robust core area. The creek relocation design incorporates flood conveyance, flood storage and fluvial geomorphology design components;

o Restoration of wetlands to optimize diversity and waterfowl functions; o Creation of fish spawning, nursery and refuge habitat and extension of fish

habitat upstream in the new channel areas; o Protection and expansion/creation of habitat for endangered redside dace; o Enhancement and enlargement of wooded areas; o Restoration of existing channel areas; o Overall benefit/net environmental gain in natural cover, habitat and linkage

functions; o Incorporation of trail designs that are sensitive to human/environment

interaction; o Increase in natural cover; and, o Variable NHS widths ranging from 70m minimum to a maximum of

approximately 400m.

While the specific NHS boundaries resulting from the SWS Phase 2 assessments may be different than the NHS boundaries shown on the vignettes, the restoration and enhancement concepts presented on the vignettes are included in the Implementation Principles for the Mount Pleasant SWS (November 24, 2009) and will be further detailed and documented in the Draft and Final EIR.

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX C

FINDINGS FROM 2007/2008 FIELDWORK - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY -

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX C FINDINGS FROM 2007/2008 FIELDWORK

- GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY - Findings of the SWS and 2007/2008 data collection and analyses with respect to the geology and hydrogeology of the Study Area include:

• The regional geology is characterized by silt, sand and gravel layers within the surficial

glacial till overburden overlying shale bedrock. The thickness of the overburden is variable as the depth to the bedrock varies across the Study Area from about 1 m to more than 20 m. The overburden layers of sediment are predominantly sandy silt till interbedded with deposits of silty sand, sand, sand and gravel and occasionally clayey deposits. Most of these deposits tend to be thin, discontinuous layers.

• Two thicker layers of sand (i.e., more than 3 m thick) have been found in locations shown on Figure 3. In the south half of the Study Area, sand is found 4 m to 8 m below ground level and directly overlies the bedrock surface. In the northwest portion of the Study Area, another layer of sand is found higher up in the overburden stratigraphy within the till deposits. This sand is found between about 1 m and 5 m below ground level and does not outcrop at the ground surface. This upper sand layer is pressurized with relatively high hydraulic head.

• No sands are found at ground surface in the Study Area. The surface sediments are

generally very low hydraulic conductivity silts and silty tills that limit groundwater recharge and discharge volumes. Testing indicates the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial soils is low, ranging in order of 10-5 cm/sec to 10-7 cm/sec.

• The water table is relatively shallow across much of the Study Area and is generally

found within 1 m to 2 m of the ground surface, although the depth to water varies seasonally. In topographically lower areas, the groundwater level is at or above ground in places. The monitored groundwater levels also indicate upward gradients at 5 of the nested well locations, i.e., groundwater discharge conditions.

• The general groundwater flow direction is towards the south although locally, the

shallow groundwater flow pattern is influenced by the topography and the incised stream channels (components of lateral groundwater flow converge towards the streams).

• Monthly flow monitoring shows very low flow to no flow in the tributaries to Huttonville

Creek and Fletcher’s Creek within the Study Area indicating these are intermittent watercourses sustained by surface water runoff (there is insufficient groundwater discharge to maintain perennial flows in the watercourses). Perennial flows are evident in the main branch of Huttonville Creek, where the East Huttonville Creek meets the main creek in the southernmost corner of the Study Area. In this area, groundwater discharge contributes to the baseflows; streamflows have been measured between 0.01 m3/s and 0.4 m3/s in the dry season.

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF 2008 ECOLOGICAL FIELDWORK UNDERTAKEN BY SAVANTA INC.

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF 2008 ECOLOGICAL FIELDWORK UNDERTAKEN BY SAVANTA INC.

a) Winter Wildlife

Winter wildlife field surveys were completed by Savanta Inc. staff on February 14th and 23rd, March 2nd, 6th & 7th, 2008. In 2009 surveys were conducted on April 7th and 8th on new landowner parcels (after a fresh snowfall). The purpose of the investigation was to build upon our knowledge regarding the relative importance of winter wildlife habitat within the study area. Wildlife tracks and signs, species observations, and other habitat details were recorded. The following describes the methods used in the winter wildlife work completed.

Wildlife surveys were conducted at selected transects throughout the study area. Transect locations were determined through inspection of orthophotography, vegetation communities, and ground observation and were distributed across the study area to ensure that the ecological variability was adequately sampled. Transects were focused mainly on existing access routes, trails, forest edges, hedgerows, and streams. Vegetation communities consisting of dense vegetation were also surveyed as long as habitat was accessible by snowshoes. Fieldwork was conducted at least 12-24 hours after snowfall. Wildlife tracks were recorded within 2-3 m on either side of each transect, and all other evidence or ‘signs’ of wildlife (scat, browse, nests, etc.) were recorded. ‘Trails’ can be defined as numerous tracks that are difficult to discern from one another, which creates a trail system. In many cases, trails are used by many different wildlife species. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) as well as the RISC (Resources Inventory Standards Committee) species inventory methods manual was used as guidance documents for the survey. The provincial and global status of species identified on the Subject Lands was referenced on the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2001) database. Nine mammals, five unknown mammal species, and three bird species were identified on the subject lands (Appendix B, Table 1). According to the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2008), all species are considered provincially and globally common (S5/G5) with the exception of the provincially uncommon but not rare Wild Turkey (S4/G5). Surveys were conducted only on properties in which property access was granted. It is likely, but cannot be assumed, that the species observed on surveyed lands, are similar to those on lands that were not surveyed/accessible. The most interesting species of note was from Dougan and Associates who visited the northeast woodlot (west of McLaughlin Road and south of Mayfield Road) during EMAN surveys and found a Jumping Mouse sp. . East of Mississauga Road, west of Creditview Road, south of Wanless Drive, and north of the railway line, wildlife observations were abundant. Wildlife appears to be using the cluster of forest blocks and the forested area north of the railway line as habitat during the winter months. Small mammal species and deer trails were abundant and wildlife diversity is relatively high for this area. The forested areas north of Wanless Drive, south of Mayfield Road, west of Creditview Road and east of Mississauga Road contain a high number of mammal tracks and trails. Gray Squirrel tracks were abundant throughout this woodlot, and squirrel trails were also frequently observed. The woodlot is a Fresh-Moist Shagbark Hickory Forest (FOD 9-4), a foraging area with abundant mast, and meets designation as Significant Wildlife Habitat under the Draft Region of Peel guidelines.

__________________________________________________________________


The woodlot also exhibited heavy habitat usage by Eastern Cottontails. Coyotes tracks were also present in this area. The presence of coyote with cottontails and small mammals, likely indicates a potential predator-prey relationship, as cottontails and small mammals are a preferred food source for coyotes. This predator-prey relationship is also found at other locations throughout the study area. West of Heritage Road and north of Bovaird Drive West, wildlife diversity was also relatively high. The hedgerow and associated treed area was marked by abundant tracks and trails of Eastern Cottontail White-tailed deer. To the north, there were numerous Eastern Cottontail trails and coyote tracks were also abundant. Various small mammals were also present. A predator-prey relationship was apparent in this area. Along the edge of the forested area west of Mississauga Rd and south of Bovaird Drive W, ten wildlife trails were observed which included 4 mouse trails, 3 Eastern Cottontail trails and 3 deer trails. Three Gray Squirrel tracks were also observed. Due to the high number of ‘trails’, this forested area appears to be important for these mammal species. In summary, all species observed on the Subject Lands are all designated as common according the to NHIC database. b) Breeding Amphibian Surveys Breeding amphibian field surveys were completed by Savanta Inc. staff on April 6th, 9th, 16th, 17th and 18th, May 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th, and June 10th 11th 12th and 13th, 2008. Surveys were conducted at night, in accordance to Environment Canada’s Marsh Monitoring Program. Locations were determined through inspection of orthophotography, vegetation communities, and ground observation. All calls heard within the subject lands were recorded as well as any incidental call observations on adjacent lands.

The purpose of the investigation was to establish relative importance of amphibian breeding sites within the Subject Lands by recording breeding calls, incidental visual species observations, and other habitat details observed. The provincial and global status of species identified on the Subject Lands were referenced in the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2008) database. An additional amphibian breeding call survey was conducted on adjacent lands, at the Stormwater Ponds (SWP) located within the residential area northeast of the study area. They ponds were surveyed to compare the amphibian occurrences in permanent man-made ponds, to those permanent wetland features found within the study area. The permanent features within the broad North West Brampton study area are located west of Heritage Road, south of Wanless Drive and north of the railway track. Another permanent wetland feature is located just east of Mississauga Road, north of the railway.

The diversity of species within the North West Brampton area was high, however, the number of calling individuals remained very low for all species, with the exception of the Green Frog and the American Toad. Other species heard include Spring Peeper (1 occurrence), Northern Leopard Frog, Chorus Frog (1 occurrence), and Wood Frog (3 occurrences). A moderate number of Green Frog calls were heard at only one location within the subject lands (east of Mississauga Road), and within the residential stormwater ponds immediately adjacent to the study area. Frogs and toads were heard calling within the residential stormwater ponds and were comprised of low to moderate numbers of American Toads and Green Frogs. Both of these species were found in the majority of SWP’s within the residential area. One Northern Leopard Frog was also heard calling in one of the ponds.

__________________________________________________________________


c) Amphibian Roadkill Surveys Savanta Inc. staff conducted amphibian road kill surveys on May 7th, 14th, 30th, and June 4th, 2008. The purpose of the investigation was to better understand the movement of amphibians across that landscape. In 2009 amphibian roadkill surveys will be conducted starting in early Spring (April) to ensure the full range of amphibian species is adequately sampled (i.e. Wood Frog, Chorus Frog, Spring Peeper). Surveys were (and will be) conducted at night, just after a rain event, or during a light rain / mist. Frogs and toads are typically more active during these weather conditions. Roads were driven very slowly (5-10 km/hr) along the perimeter and within the study area, to look for frogs or toads on the road, or on the shoulder of the road. Amphibian occurrences were recorded, dead or alive, and if possible, the sex, age, and direction they were headed. The amphibians were processed, and then released in the direction they were headed, but placed away from the road for their safety. The provincial and global status of species identified on the subject lands was referenced in the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2008) database. American toads were the only amphibian roadkill species observed; early spring (April) surveys will be conducted in 2009 to document any early spring emergent road crossings. Within the study area, the northwestern portion of the site comprised the majority of toad occurrences. The road with the highest mortality rate was Winston-Churchill Boulevard, followed closely by Wanless Drive, Heritage Road and Mississauga Road. All other roads contained very low numbers of toad roadkill occurrences. d) Breeding Bird Surveys On April 13 & 15, May 14 & 24, June 13, 22 & 28 and July 18 2008 breeding bird surveys (area searches, point counts) were conducted according to the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA 2001-2005). Species names follow the AOU Check-list of North American Birds, 7th edition (1998). For each species, the databases from COSEWIC (updated November 2008) and SARA, Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO, updated June 2008) and Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), were searched to determine federal and provincial status. The coordinator responsible for the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Square associated with the property was consulted to determine whether any of the federally, provincially, or regionally rare birds (including Red-headed Woodpecker) were found within or directly adjacent to the Subject Lands. Sixty-three (63) species were observed in the study. Fifty-nine (59) of these are expected to be breeding species in the North west Brampton study area. No federal or provincial Species at Risk were observed. Eight COSEWIC Candidate Species were observed (4 grassland/open country, 1 woodland, 3 insectivores). While no formal protection is attached to these species, they are being considered in terms of ecological restoration and habitat creation within a proposed Natural Heritage System (NHS). e) Waterfowl nesting and stopover (staging) surveys Savanta Inc. assessed the role of a series of ponds east of Mississauga Road (north of the CN Rail line) for its use as a waterfowl breeding area. The Ministry of Natural Resources had previously labeled the area as potential waterfowl breeding habitat. In spring 2008 (April-June), summer (June-July), and fall (September-November) Savanta assessed the pond and surrounding habitat, and conducted waterfowl observations. On April 15, May 14, June 13 and July 6 2008 the ponds north of the railway and east of Mississauga Road were visited to assess their role, if any, as a waterfowl breeding area. On

__________________________________________________________________


September 20, October 24, November 6 & 23 2008 the ponds were assessed as a migratory stopover site. The “racetrack pond” does provide some local importance as a stopover habitat for migrating waterfowl, however, the pond and surroundings are probably not preferred for breeding waterfowl, given the following:

• The ponds are relatively small and not linked with other waterways to supplement food and shelter for a breeding season;

• Shrub and tree cover around the pond is almost absent; and,

• Lands surrounding the ponds are highly disturbed (i.e., completely surrounded by plowed fields including the field inside the horse track surrounding the pond).

The Ministry of Natural Resources identified the pond as a waterfowl stopover area; this term is not clearly defined and is applicable to small ponds, large open water bodies, sewage lagoons, forest, and agricultural fields. Recently the Region of Peel developed draft significant wildlife habitat criteria. In the Draft Region of Peel Significant Wildlife Habitat policy candidate criteria, applicable to waterfowl habitat include waterfowl nesting habitat, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat used for waterfowl stopover (or staging) areas. The draft criteria for designating waterfowl stopover areas (terrestrial and/or aquatic) as significant wildlife habitat includes “sites that support annual aggregations (observed on a single day) of 100 individuals or more of the listed species”. Only one of the listed species, a single Black duck, was observed on the pond over the entire observation period. Non-listed, urbanized species were dominant including Canada Geese and mallards. It is unlikely that the “racetrack pond” would meet these draft criteria. Additional observations in 2009 will help to further characterize these functions.

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX E

LIST OF TABLES, CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS TO BE INCLUDED IN EIR REPORT

__________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX E

LIST OF TABLES, CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS TO BE INCLUDED IN EIR REPORT

List of Tables

• Stage / Storage / Discharge Rating Curves • Development of stage – storage relationship • Comparison of target flows vs. actual flows • Water elevations from modelling • Summary sheet of all assumptions made • Pre development unit flows • Comparison of pre and post development flows • Drainage diversion – per and post development drainage area and flows

List of Calculations

• Stage / Storage / Discharge Rating Curve • Inlet /outlet control calculations • Required and available volumes • Storage calculations • Permanent pool and extended detention • Sediment forebay calculations • Dispersion length calculations • Drawdown time • Meander belt calculations • Erosion control targets, outflows, and volumes • Runoff retention in catchments (LID) • Drainage Density Analysis • Hydraulic analysis • Natural channel design • Hydrology and hydraulic models and their parameter calculations • Geotechnical analyses (erosion and slope stability component), where applicable • Confirmation of safe conveyance of Regulatory storm through SWM ponds and regulatory

storm storage in channel calculations • Riparian storage calculations under existing and proposed conditions for 2-year to

100-year and Regional storm

__________________________________________________________________


List of Drawings

• Proposed SWM facilities • Proposed grading and servicing concept • Floodplain mapping • Limit of development • Pre-development drainage area • Post development drainage area • Constraint mapping (natural features staking plans) • Outfall locations • Drainage area diversion plans • Drainage plans (minor and major) • Roof drain collection system, where apply • LID designs • Drainage Density