HomeMy WebLinkAboutENG 13-24Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 13-24 Date: September 3, 2024
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
-Municipal Class Environmental Assessment-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report ENG 13-24 regarding the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be received;
2.That Council endorse the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to
be used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning projects for Pine
Creek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering;
3.That the recommendations within the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be implemented in a phased approach, subject to budget and further Council approval for the individual projects; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the
Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) dated May 10, 2024, prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, provides a comprehensive geomorphic assessment and rehabilitation works plan for the Pine Creek channel corridors.
Implementation of the recommended solutions from Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA
will result in the long-term stability of the Pine Creek channel corridors, the reduction of suspended sediments in the channel, and ultimately the improvement of water quality in Frenchman’s Bay. The Study satisfied the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) requirements, and the recommended works plan includes a priority list of channel rehabilitation projects. All projects can proceed directly to detailed design and construction
stages in accordance with the priority plan specified in the Study.
It is recommended that the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA be endorsed by Council as a resource document to be used by staff.
ENG 13-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Page 2
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Lead & Advocate for Environmental
Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; and Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe and
Healthy Community.
Financial Implications: Council endorsement of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) is a commitment, in principle, to
implement rehabilitation projects to address ongoing erosion issues within the Pine Creek channel corridor and to improve water quality in Frenchman’s Bay. The recommended projects in the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA, estimated to have a total cost of $13.22 million, will need to be approved in future capital budgets in order to be implemented. Staff will
consider phasing opportunities in order to spread the cost over a fifteen (15) year period in
accordance with the prioritization and phasing plan provided in the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA. Opportunities for grant funding to offset municipal costs will be sought out
Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.
In 2015, the City completed the Pine Creek Outfall Channel Restoration project following recommendations of the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (Master
Plan) endorsed by Council in April 19, 2010.
Since the completion of the outfall channel restoration works, some property owners whose properties are adjacent to the main tributary of the Pine Creek valley located upstream of the outfall channel, have contacted City staff with their concerns related to the erosion along the creek banks. Through site visits, the City staff observed the undermining and erosion of the
creek channel, upstream and downstream of the restored channel. It appears that the stability
and erosion conditions of the creek banks has declined since the initial erosion assessment, completed in 2009 as a part of the Master Plan.
To address the erosion issues within the Pine Creek corridor (Attachment 1), the City of Pickering retained Aquafor Beach Limited to complete the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
MCEA. The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA was conducted as a Schedule B project
in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (Municipal Engineers Association, October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2023), under the
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The process included indigenous, public and review agency consultation.
The purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive geomorphic assessment of the Pine
Creek channel corridor, evaluate alternatives, assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed improvements, and identify reasonable measures to mitigate any adverse impacts. The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA identified preferred alternatives to be constructed at eleven (11) select locations.
ENG 13-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Page 3
Public consultation consisted of a Notice of Study Commencement issued July 28, 2022, a Public Information Centre (PIC) in May 2023, which allowed for public and stakeholder input
throughout the project, and a Notice of Study Completion issued May 10, 2024.
The PIC was held in person in the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex on May 18, 2023. The comments received included input on the Pine Creek channel existing conditions and localized erosion issues within the study area.
All of the rehabilitation projects identified in the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA are
categorized as Schedule A undertakings under the Municipal Class EA, which means they can
proceed directly to detailed design and construction. A summary of the prioritized projects is outlined in the table below.
Priority Location Risk Description Preferred Alternative
1 Site #22
Culvert at Lynn Heights
Drive
Erosion Risk to Culvert and
Lynn Heights Drive
Local Restoration
Works and Culvert
Replacement
2 Site #25
Kitley Avenue Ravine
Erosion Risk to Private
Properties
Targeted Corridor
Rehabilitation
3 Sites #13/14/15/16
Pine Creek Downstream of
Finch Avenue
Erosion Risk to Private
Property and Storm Sewer
Outfall
Extended
Restoration Works
4 Sites #9/10
Pine Creek Downstream of Kitley Avenue
Erosion Risk to Multi-Use Trail
and Private Property
Extended
Restoration Works
5 Site #12
Pine Creek Upstream of Dixie Road
Erosion Risk to Dixie Road Local Restoration
Works
6 Sites #23/24 Pine Creek Upstream of Finch Avenue - East Branch
Erosion Risk to Private Property Extended Restoration Works
7 Sites #17/18 Pine Creek Upstream of Finch Avenue - West
Branch
Erosion Risk to Private Property and Finch Avenue Local Restoration Works
8 Sites #20/21 Pine Creek Downstream of
Fairport Road
Erosion Risk to Private Property and Storm Sewer
Outfall
Local Restoration Works
ENG 13-24 September 3, 2024
Subject: Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Page 4
Priority Location Risk Description Preferred Alternative
9 Sites #1/2/3/4
Pine Creek Upstream of
Kingston Road
Erosion Risk to Kingston Road,
Storm Sewer Infrastructure,
Private Property and Pedestrian Bridge
Local Restoration
Works
10 Site #11 Downstream of Dixie Road Erosion Risk to Culvert Local Restoration Works
11 Sites #5/6/7/8
Pine Creek Upstream of Glenanna Road
Erosion Risk to Glenanna
Culvert Crossing and Parkland
Local Restoration
Works
Staff recommend that the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment MCEA prepared by Aquafor Beech
Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to be used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning projects for Pine Creek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering.
Attachments:
1.Study Area Map2.Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Report
(Appendices are available upon request)
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Irina Marouchko, P.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Manager, Water Resources Director, Engineering Services
IM:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by:Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Study Area Map
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 13-24
Prepared for:
City of Pickering
Water Resources and Development Services
Tel: 905-420-4660
Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment –
Project File
Pine Creek Erosion Assessment
Submitted by:
Aquafor Beech Ltd.
in association with
AMICK Consultants Ltd.
Published: May 10th, 2024
Contact:
Rob Amos, MASc, P. Eng
Aquafor Beech Ltd.
Amos.R@aquaforbeech.com
2600 Skymark Avenue
Building 6, Unit 202
Mississauga, ON L4W 5B2
T.416.705.2367;
Aquafor Beech Reference: 67114
Alternate formats are available as per the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act by contacting Rob Amos at 416-705-2367
Attachment 2 to Report ENG 13-24
i
Executive Summary
Introduction
In 2009, the City of Pickering completed the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan (FBSMMP), which included geomorphic risk assessments for all of
Frenchman’s Bay’s major tributaries. The assessment of the Pine Creek tributary
identified signs of degradation within the ravine corridor as a result of urbanization
induced stressors on watershed hydrology. As part of the FBSMMP study, the Mountcastle
Crescent Outfall Tributary of Pine Creek was identified as a mass erosion site in needed
of restoration to protect municipal infrastructure and private property. A detailed erosion
control and channel rehabilitation design was later undertaken, with construction of the
restoration works completed in 2017.
Following the completion of the Master Plan, the geomorphic stability of Pine Creek has
continued to deteriorate overtime with City staff and the public reporting a series of
erosion related risks and concerns. The City has therefore elected to complete an erosion
assessment of Pine Creek between Kingston Road/Regional Road Highway 2 and Fairport
Road to identify high priority erosion sites where there are risks to infrastructure or
private property, and develop conceptual designs to mitigate erosion and protect the
natural heritage of the surrounding areas. The study area includes the riparian corridor
predominantly located within lands owned by the City of Pickering.
The Pine Creek Erosion Assessment was completed under the Municipal Class
Environment Assessment framework as a Schedule B project, following Phases 1 and 2 of
the planning and design process. Aquafor Beech Limited were retained to led the
completion of technical assessments and the development of the Project File report on
the City’s behalf.
Study Objectives
The intent of the study was to assess the existing conditions within the study area and
develop alternatives to address the erosion hazards at identified risk sites. In developing
these alternatives, the study team took into consideration the following objectives
1.Develop long-term erosion protection strategies that are compatible with the
natural tendencies of the creek;
2.Maintain or improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek;
3.Provide environmental enhancements wherever possible;
4.Realize opportunities to improve fish habitat and fish passage;
5.Decrease property and infrastructure loss; and
6.Implement high-value solutions that will minimize costs (both capital and
maintenance)
Phase I: Identification of Problems and Opportunities
Urbanization within the watershed has altered the natural hydrologic regime, inducing
erosion and creating risks to private property and infrastructure located within, or
adjacent to, the channel corridor. In considering the constraints related to the physical
extents of the study areas, several opportunities have been investigated, including:
ii
•Replacement of failing bank protection treatments with new enhanced bank
protection treatments;
•Channel realignment and use of natural channel materials (bioengineering) where
property constraints allow;
•Natural channel design;
•Enhancement of aquatic habitat;
•Improvement of riparian cover through planting of native trees and shrubs.
Phase II: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
A total of twenty-five (25) erosion risk sites were identified. Three (3) alternatives were
developed to address the erosion concerns at each of the identified erosion sites,
including:
•Alternative 1: Do Nothing – This alternative involves leaving the site as it is and
allowing erosional processes to continue within the watercourse corridor. Under
this alternative, it should be expected that maintenance, or possibly emergency
works, may have to be undertaken to address damage to property or
infrastructure caused by the continued erosion. Damage from erosion may occur
gradually over time or suddenly due to a high magnitude flood event.
•Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative consists of localized
channel bank and/or bed work to address erosion issues at the site. While it is
understood that local erosion protection works may require ongoing maintenance,
occasional repairs, or eventual replacement, this alternative is often still preferred
to limit the economic cost and the environmental impact of large-scale channel
engineering and stream restoration works.
•Alternative 3: Extended Works – This alternative consists of a comprehensive
approach, which is typically completed on a reach or sub-reach scale, to address
erosion issues at the site. Reach-scale engineering focuses on minimizing the risks
of erosion and flooding in highly constrained urban watercourses. This alternative
will apply a combination of “hard” channel engineering approaches for erosion
control and natural channel techniques to mimic natural channel features such as
riffles and pools to enhance the riparian environment.
A set of criteria were then developed to evaluate the alternatives:
•Physical / Natural Environment
o Mitigation of existing erosion risks;
o Impacts to aquatic habitat;
o Impacts to terrestrial habitat and vegetation
o Impacts to Species at Risk
o Resiliency to Climate Chage
•Social / Cultural Environment
o Impacts to Public Safety
o Landowner / Community Disruption
o Benefit to the Community and Expected Public Acceptance
o Archaeological Impacts
iii
o Aesthetic Value
•Economic Environment
o Capital costs;
o Operation and maintenance costs;
o Life cycle costs;
o Overall cost effectiveness.
•Technical and Engineering
o Regulatory agency acceptance
o Impact on Existing Infrastructure
o Flooding impacts
o Technical feasibility;
o Expected lifespan of the proposed works;
Public Consultation
An in-person Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on May 18th, 2023. A series of
presentation slides were presented which outlined the study background, problems,
opportunities, alternatives, and the preliminary alternative evaluation. In general,
attendees were in support of the preliminary preferred alternatives for each erosion site.
The Region of Durham, TRCA and local First Nations were also consulted throughout the
study and their comments and inputs are considered and incorporated into the EA.
Selection of Preferred Alternatives
Based on the results of the alternative evaluation and consultation with the City and the
public, the twenty-five erosion (25) sites were bundled into eleven (11) groups based on
their spatial proximity. The preferred alternatives for the eleven (11) site groupings are
listed below:
•Erosion Sites 1 - 4: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 5 - 8: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 9 - 10: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
•Erosion Site 11: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Site 12: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 13 - 16: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
•Erosion Sites 17 - 18: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Site 19: Excluded from further assessment as the site is located entirely
on Private Property
•Erosion Sites 20 – 21: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Site 22: Alternative 2 – Local Works
•Erosion Sites 23 – 24: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
•Erosion Site 25: Alternative 2 – Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation
Priority Ranking and Estimated Costs
The preferred alternatives have been prioritized into eleven (11) capital works projects
and the estimated costs are summarized in the table below. While the project cost
estimates and time horizon are to provide the City with direction on project priorities,
decisions on the actual order and implementation of projects should also give
consideration to overall City priorities, budgets, and stakeholder interests.
iv
Project Priority Ranking for the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA
Priority
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Preferred
Alternative
Cost
Estimate
(Design and
Construction)
Recommended
Planning
Horizon
1
Culvert
Replacement at
Lynn Heights
Drive
Site #22 - Erosion Risk to
Culvert and Lynn Heights
Drive
Local Works $2,505,600.00 0 - 5 Years
2 Restoration of
Kitley Ravine
Site #25 - Erosion Risk to
Private Properties
Targeted
Corridor
Rehab
$1,944,000.00 0 - 5 Years
3
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Downstream of
Finch Avenue
Site #13 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #14 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #15 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer Outfall
Site #16 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property and Finch
Avenue
Extended
Works $1,296,000.00 0 - 5 Years
4
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Downstream of
Kitley Avenue
Site #9 - Erosion Risk to
Multi-Use Trail and Private
Property
Site #10 - Erosion Risk to
Multi-Use Trail and Private
Property
Extended
Works $1,008,000.00 0 - 5 Years
5
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Dixie Road
Site #12 - Erosion Risk to
Dixie Road Local Works $604,800.00 0 - 5 Years
6
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Finch Avenue -
East Branch
Site #23 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #24 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Extended
Works $2,160,000.00 5 - 10 Years
7
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Finch Avenue -
West Branch
Site #17 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #18 - Risk to Finch
Avenue
Local Works $921,600.00 5 - 10 Years
8
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Downstream of
Fairport Road
Site #20 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #21 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer Outfall
Local Works $1,036,800.00 5 - 10 Years
v
Priority
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Preferred
Alternative
Cost
Estimate
(Design and
Construction)
Recommended
Planning
Horizon
9
Localized
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Kingston Road
Site #1 - Erosion Risk to
Kingston Road and Storm
Sewer Infrastructure
Site #2 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #3 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer Infrastructure
Site #4 - Erosion Risk to
Pedestrian Bridge
Local Works $878,400.00 5 - 10 Years
10
Erosion Control
Works
Downstream of
Dixie Road to
Protect at Risk
Culvert Crossing
Site #11 - Erosion Risk to
Culvert Local Works $345,600.00 5 - 10 Years
11
Localized
Restoration of
Pine Creek
Upstream of
Glenanna Road
Site #5 - Erosion Risk to
Glenanna Culvert Crossing
Site #6 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #7 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #8 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Local Works $518,400.00 10 - 15 Years
Conclusions and Recommendations
The eleven (11) proposed capital works projects achieve the study goals to reduce
erosion and preserve/enhance the natural environment. Following completion of this
report, detailed design and construction will be undertaken to implement the preferred
alternatives and remedy the identified problems.
Recommendations for site investigations and implementation measures should be taken
into consideration during the detailed design and include the following items:
• Obtain Permission to Enter Agreements where temporary access through privately
owned property is required.
• For projects 1, 5 & 6, where works are proposed on private property, the property
owner will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their
property. Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for
undertaking the necessary measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks
on their property using the concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods
(subject to all associated regulatory approvals at the detailed design stage).
vi
Alternatively, the City may give future consideration to an easement acquisition in
order to complete creek restoration works on select private properties.
•Undertake a geotechnical investigation and chemical soil testing for each proposed
restoration project;
•Undertake higher level SUE investigations as needed to confirm possible utility
conflicts;
•Undertake a detailed topographic survey at each project site to reflect the current
site conditions;
•Complete a detailed tree inventory for each proposed project site;
•Facilitate permitting with TRCA, DFO and MECP as part of the detailed design
process;
•Undertake Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments for projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and
11.For projects 1 & 5, where works are proposed on private property it will be the
private property owner’s responsibility to address identified erosion risks. This will
include undertaking additional archaeological assessment work where required.
Alternatively, should the City elect to secure an easement from the private
property to undertake the erosion control works themselves, the City may then
give consideration to coordinating select archaeological works themselves as
required.
•Engage First Nations for their field liaison representation during the Stage 2
Archaeological Assessment;
•Complete a geomorphic analysis of channel hydraulics and tractive forces to size
erosion control materials;
•Confirm appropriate construction staging, access and erosion and sediment
controls;
•Completion of a post-construction monitoring program and preparation of as-built
construction drawings.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ i
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Class Environmental Assessment Process ................................................................. 3
2 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS & OPPORTUNITIES .......................... 6
2.1 Problem Identification & Background ....................................................................... 6
2.2 Study Objective .................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Erosion Sites #1 – 4 .............................................................................................. 8
2.4 Erosion Sites #5 – 8 ............................................................................................. 11
2.5 Erosion Sites #9 – 10 ........................................................................................... 13
2.6 Erosion Sites #11 - 12 .......................................................................................... 15
2.7 Erosion Sites #13-16 ............................................................................................ 17
2.8 Erosion Sites #17-21 ............................................................................................ 19
2.9 Erosion Site #22 .................................................................................................. 21
2.10 Erosion Sites #23-24 ............................................................................................ 23
2.11 Erosion Site #25 .................................................................................................. 25
2.12 Site Summaries and Restoration Opportunities ........................................................ 27
2.12.1 Opportunities ................................................................................................. 27
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SITE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIES ................. 29
3.1 Geomorphic Assessments ...................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Reach PC3a – Kingston Road to Glenanna Road ................................................. 31
3.1.2 Reach PC3b – Glenanna Road to Confluence Upstream of Kitley Avenue ................ 33
3.1.3 Reach PC3c – Confluence Upstream of Kitley Avenue to Confluence Downstream of
Finch Avenue ............................................................................................................. 35
3.1.4 Reach PC3d – Kitley Ravine Corridor ................................................................. 37
3.1.5 Reach PC4a – Confluence downstream of Finch Avenue to Fairport Road ............... 39
3.1.6 Reach PC4b – Lynn Heights Drive to Confluence Downstream of Finch Avenue ....... 41
3.1.7 Geomorphic Stability Assessment ..................................................................... 43
3.2 Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory ............................................................................... 45
3.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment ..................................................................... 51
3.3.1 Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology .................................................................... 51
3.3.2 Overview of Pine Creek Hydraulics ................................................................... 51
3.4 Source Water Protection ........................................................................................ 54
3.5 Geology, Physiology, and Soils ............................................................................... 55
3.6 Terrestrial Natural Heritage Assessment .................................................................. 56
3.6.1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................. 56
viii
3.6.2 Trees ............................................................................................................ 66
3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................... 66
3.6.4 Habitat and Connectivity ................................................................................. 67
3.7 Significant Species, Features, and Areas ................................................................. 68
3.7.1 Species at Risk Screening................................................................................ 68
3.7.2 Species of Conservation Concern and Regionally Rare Species Review .................. 72
3.7.3 Significant Natural Heritage Feature Consideration ............................................. 73
3.7.3.1 Provincially Significant Features ................................................................. 73
3.7.3.2 City of Pickering Official Plan ..................................................................... 73
3.7.3.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulations and Guidelines .......... 74
3.8 Aquatic Natural Heritage Assessment ...................................................................... 74
3.8.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment ............................................................................ 75
3.8.2 Fish Community Assessment ........................................................................... 81
3.8.2.1 In-Water Timing Window .......................................................................... 81
3.8.2.2 DFO Self-Assessment ............................................................................... 81
3.9 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment ..................................................... 87
3.10 Utilities ............................................................................................................... 88
3.11 Social-Economic Environment ................................................................................ 88
3.11.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................. 88
3.11.1.2 Transportation ......................................................................................... 89
3.11.1.3 Ownership ............................................................................................... 89
3.12 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Assessment ............................................. 91
3.12.1.1 Climate Change Mitigation ......................................................................... 91
3.12.1.2 Climate Change Adaptation ....................................................................... 92
4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ..................................... 93
4.1 Description of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 93
4.1.1 Erosion Sites #1 - #4 ..................................................................................... 93
4.1.2 Erosion Sites #5 - #8 ..................................................................................... 94
4.1.3 Erosion Sites #9 - #10 ................................................................................... 95
4.1.4 Erosion Sites #11 - #12.................................................................................. 95
4.1.5 Erosion Sites #13 - #16.................................................................................. 96
4.1.6 Erosion Sites #17 - #21.................................................................................. 96
4.1.7 Erosion Site #22 ............................................................................................ 97
4.1.8 Erosion Sites #23 - #24.................................................................................. 98
4.1.9 Erosion Site #25 ............................................................................................ 98
4.2 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................ 99
4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................................... 101
4.4 Selection and Description of the Preferred Alternative ............................................. 102
5 PRIORITIZATION AND PROJECT PHASING ..................................... 120
ix
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................. 124
6.1 Notice of Commencement ................................................................................... 124
6.2 Online Engagement ............................................................................................ 124
6.3 Online Engagement ............................................................................................ 124
6.4 Public Information Centre .................................................................................... 125
6.5 Summary of Public & Stakeholder Comments and Responses ................................... 126
6.6 Region of Durham .............................................................................................. 127
6.7 Impact of Public Consultation on Selection of the Preferred Alternative ..................... 127
7 INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT ............................................................ 137
7.1 Project Notification Letters .................................................................................. 137
7.2 Notice of Public Information Centre ...................................................................... 137
7.3 Sharing of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report ....................................... 138
8 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................. 146
8.1 Detailed Design and Investigations ....................................................................... 146
8.1.1 Hydraulic Assessment ................................................................................... 146
8.1.2 Geomorphic Assessment ............................................................................... 147
8.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................ 147
8.1.4 Utilities Confirmation .................................................................................... 147
8.1.5 Tree Inventory ............................................................................................. 148
8.1.6 Natural Heritage System ............................................................................... 148
8.1.6.1 General Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 148
8.1.7 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment ................................................................ 149
8.1.8 Permissions to Enter ..................................................................................... 149
8.2 Permits ............................................................................................................. 149
8.3 Construction Services ......................................................................................... 151
8.4 Monitoring Program ............................................................................................ 152
8.5 As-Constructed Drawings and Analysis .................................................................. 152
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 153
x
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Study Area Extents from Kingston Road to Fairport Road ........................................ 2
Figure 1-2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process .................. 5
Figure 2-1: Spatial Distribution of Erosion Sites within the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA Study
Area ................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-2: Erosion Site #1 – Undermined Gabion Baskets Upstream of Kingston Rd. ................. 8
Figure 2-3: Erosion Site #2 – Bank Erosion Risk to Private Properties ....................................... 8
Figure 2-4: Erosion Site #3 – Outflanking of Concrete Wingwalls due to Erosion......................... 8
Figure 2-5: Erosion Site #4 – Scouring & Erosion around Bridge Footings .................................. 8
Figure 2-6: Erosion Site #1-4: Existing Site Conditions ......................................................... 10
Figure 2-7: Erosion Site #5 – Minor Bank Erosion Downstream of the Glenanna Road Culvert
Crossing. ......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-8: Erosion Site #6 – Minor Bank Erosion Creating Risk to Parkland. ........................... 11
Figure 2-9: Erosion Site #7 – Over Encroachment into the Riparian Corridor Leading to Bank Erosion
and a Risk to Parkland. ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-10: Failure of Rip-Rap Bank Treatment Intended to Prevent a Loss of Parkland due to Active
Erosion Processes. ............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2-11: Erosion Site #5-8: Existing Site Conditions ....................................................... 12
Figure 2-12: Erosion Site #9 – Active Bank Erosion Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail System .......... 13
Figure 2-13: Erosion Site #10 – Major Erosion Scar Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail ..................... 13
Figure 2-14: Erosion Site #9 – Minimal Offset from the Edge of Trail and Top of Erosion Scar .... 13
Figure 2-15: Erosion Site #10 – Bank Erosion Actively Encroaching Towards the Existing Multi-Use
Trail ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2-16: Erosion Site #9-10: Existing Site Conditions ...................................................... 14
Figure 2-17: Erosion Site #11 – Gabion Baskets Downstream of Dixie Road ............................ 15
Figure 2-18: Erosion Site #11 – Observed Gabion Basket Failure ........................................... 15
Figure 2-19: Erosion Site #12 – Mass Debris Jams Forcing Channel to Erode Eastward ............. 15
Figure 2-20: Erosion Site #12 – Minimal Offset (<10 m) between Dixie Road Sidewalk and Top of
Erosion Scar. ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-21: Erosion Site #11-12: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 16
Figure 2-22: Erosion Site #13 – Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property. ........................ 17
Figure 2-23: Erosion Site #14 – Observed Debris Jams and Bank Erosion. ............................... 17
Figure 2-24: Erosion Site #15 – Eroding Outfall Channel ....................................................... 17
Figure 2-25: Erosion Site #16 – Undercutting of Deformed CSP Culvert .................................. 17
Figure 2-26: Erosion Site #13-16: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 18
Figure 2-27: Erosion Site #17 – Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property on Grafton Court. 19
Figure 2-28: Erosion Site #18 – Observed Debris Accumulation and Bank Erosion Adjacent to Finch
Avenue. .......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-29: Erosion Site #20 – Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property on Duncannon Drive.
...................................................................................................................................... 19
xi
Figure 2-30: Erosion Site #21 – Significant Scouring Observed Downstream of Fairport Road Outfall.
...................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-31: Erosion Site #17-21: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 20
Figure 2-32: Erosion Site #22 – Debris Jam Downstream of the Lynn Heights Drive Culvert. ..... 21
Figure 2-33: Erosion Site #22 – Observed Scouring Downstream of the Lynn Heights Culvert. ... 21
Figure 2-34: Erosion Site #22 – Observed Structural Degradation at the Culvert Outlet. ........... 21
Figure 2-35: Erosion Site #22 – Wooden Support Posts Observed within the Lynn Heights Drive
Culvert. ........................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-36: Erosion Site #22: Existing Site Conditions ......................................................... 22
Figure 2-37: Observed Channel Widening and Bank Erosion within Lynn Heights Park. .............. 23
Figure 2-38: Observed Uprooted Fallen Trees Creating a Debris Jam in Lynn Heights Park. ........ 23
Figure 2-39: Erosion Site #23 – Observed Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property on
Duncannon Drive .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 2-40: Erosion Site #24 – Actively Eroding Bank behind Duncannon Drive Properties. ...... 23
Figure 2-41: Erosion Site #23-24: Existing Site Conditions .................................................... 24
Figure 2-42: Erosion Site #25 – Observed Bank Erosion and Undercutting of Trees in the Kitley
Ravine Corridor. ............................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-43: Erosion Site #25 – Observed Debris Jams within the Kitley Ravine Corridor. .......... 25
Figure 2-44: Erosion Site #25 – Ponding within the Kitley Ravine Corridor ............................... 25
Figure 2-45: Erosion Site #25 – Encroachment of the Kitley Ravine Drainage Ditch towards Private
Property. ......................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-46: Erosion Site #25: Existing Site Conditions ......................................................... 26
Figure 3-1: Delineated Management Reaches within the Pine Creek Study Area ....................... 30
Figure 3-2: Riprap Lined Channel with Dense Riparian Overbank near Kingston Road Culvert. .... 32
Figure 3-3: Beaver Dam Upstream of Kingston Road Culvert Causing Backwatering of the Reach
Upstream. ....................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-4: Backwater Effects from Beaver Dam Affecting Storm Outfall and Pedestrian Bridge
Abutments Upstream. ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-5: Unlined Channel with Sandy Banks Eroding at Meander less than 5m from Private
Property. ......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-6: Looking Downstream at a Meander Bend with Dense Riparian Overbank Visible and
Small to Medium Boulders Present within the Channel Bed. ................................................... 34
Figure 3-7: Looking Upstream at the Straight Channel where Bank Erosion Present Throughout the
Reach can be Seen on Either Bank of the Channel ................................................................ 34
Figure 3-8: Looking Upstream at the Steep Slope Adjacent to City Owned Trail on the North Easterly
Bank ............................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3-9: Looking Downstream from Trail Which is Within 2.0 m of Channel. Erosion Taking Place
at the Toe of the Over Steepened Bank. .............................................................................. 34
Figure 3-10: Looking Upstream at Wetland Through Which the Channel Passes. ....................... 36
Figure 3-11: Looking Upstream at the Densely Vegetated Banks Where Erosion at the Toe of Bank
can be Observed on the Left Bank ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 3-12: Sediment Accumulation Occurring Downstream of Energy Dissipation Blocks at the
Dixie Road Culvert Causing Aggradation of the Bed and Active Channel Widening. .................... 36
xii
Figure 3-13: Looking Upstream at Natural Riparian Corridor Filled with Dense Trees and Shrubs.
Bank Erosion Taking Place and Large Woody Debris Fallen into the Channel Obstructing Flow. ... 36
Figure 3-14: Looking Upstream Near the Midpoint of the Reach. Note bed materials consisting of
fine to medium sand and sandy loam. ................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-15: Looking Upstream at a Segment of the Kitley Ravine where the Channel Corridor is
Poorly Defined. ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 3-16: Looking Downstream Towards Accumulated Debris. ........................................... 38
Figure 3-17: Looking Upstream near the Midpoint of the Reach. Note Encroachment of the Channel
Towards Private Property. .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-18: Looking Upstream at Channel with Shallow Banks Where Channel has Access to a Wide
Floodplain ........................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 3-19: Looking Downstream at Steep Valley Slope where Cutbank Erosion Scars are Notable
as well as Leaning and Fallen Trees within the Channel ......................................................... 40
Figure 3-20: Looking Downstream at Channel Where Bank Erosion is Occurring on Meander Bends
and Steep Valley Slopes .................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-21: Looking Upstream at Large Woody Debris Obstructing Flow. Island Formation Taken
Place Due to the Resulting Sediment Accumulation. .............................................................. 40
Figure 3-22: Looking Downstream at Heavily Vegetated Channel. Multiple debris jams throughout
the reach. ........................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3-23: Looking Downstream at Channel where 1.2 m Deep Cutbank Erosion Scar can be Seen
on the Right Bank and Another on the Left Bank in the Background. ....................................... 42
Figure 3-24: Looking Upstream of Channel Where Exposed Tree Roots Through the Banks are
Visible. ............................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3-25: Erosion on the Outside of the Meander Bend Looking at the North Easterly Bank.
Leaning Trees and Exposed Tree Roots Visible...................................................................... 42
Figure 3-26: Existing HEC-RAS Schematic Showing Regional Floodline Extents and Model Cross-
Section Locations ............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 3-27: Box and Whisker Plot Illustrating Variations in Channel Velocity by Design Storm for
the Main Branch of Pine Creek. Permissible Minimum Velocities for Varying Materials as per
Fischenich (2001) Shown on the Right. ............................................................................... 53
Figure 3-28: CTC Intake Protection Zones (CTC Source Protection Plan, 2022) ......................... 54
Figure 3-29: Geological Cross-Section of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed in the North-South
Direction (Eyles et al., 2003) ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 3-30: Surficial Geology of the Frenchman’s Bay Sub watershed (Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan
& City of Pickering, 2009) .................................................................................................. 56
Figure 3-31: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC4-a & PC4-b ............................................................ 63
Figure 3-32: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-c & PC3-d ............................................................. 64
Figure 3-33: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-a & PC3-b ............................................................ 65
Figure 3-34: Aquatic Monitoring Locations ........................................................................... 75
Figure 3-35: TRCA Land use Mapping .................................................................................. 76
Figure 3-36: DS Extent of PC1, Looking DS ......................................................................... 82
Figure 3-37: US Extent of PC1, looking US .......................................................................... 82
Figure 3-38: Beaver Activity Signage at PC1 ........................................................................ 82
Figure 3-39: OF DS of Pedestrian Bridge at PC1, Right Bank .................................................. 82
xiii
Figure 3-40: DS Extent of PC2, Looking DS ......................................................................... 83
Figure 3-41: US Extent of PC2, Looking US .......................................................................... 83
Figure 3-42: Pool Habitat and Undercut Bank at PC2 ............................................................. 83
Figure 3-43: Typical Habitat at PC2 .................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-44: DS Extent of KR1 at Pine Creek ....................................................................... 84
Figure 3-45: Typical Habitat in KR1 .................................................................................... 84
Figure 3-46: Pool at Confluence with Duncannon Ravine (LB) ................................................ 84
Figure 3-47: DS Extent of PC3, Looking DS ......................................................................... 84
Figure 3-48: US Extent of PC3 at Finch Ave ROW ................................................................. 85
Figure 3-49: Typical Habitat in PC3 ..................................................................................... 85
Figure 3-50: Typical Habitat at DR1, Looking US .................................................................. 85
Figure 3-51: Typical habitat at DR1, Looking DS .................................................................. 85
Figure 3-52: Typical Habitat at PC4, Looking US ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-53: Typical habitat at PC4, Looking DS ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-54: Typical Habitat at PC4, Looking US ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-55: Typical habitat at PC4, Looking DS ................................................................... 86
Figure 3-56: Aerial Map of the Study Area Illustrating the Spatial Distribution of Sites with Stage 2
Archaeological Potential..................................................................................................... 88
Figure 3-57: Land Use within the City of Pickering (City of Pickering, 2022) ............................. 90
Figure 3-58: Transportation System Network within the City of Pickering (City of Pickering, 2022)
...................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #1 - #4 - Local Works
.................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 4-2: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #5 - #8 - Local Works
.................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #9 - #10 - Extended
Works ........................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 4-4: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #11 - #12 - Local Works
.................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 4-5: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #13 - #16 - Extended
Works ........................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 4-6: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #17 - #18, #20 - #21 –
Local Works ................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4-7: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #22 – Local Works .... 115
Figure 4-8: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #23 - #24 – Extended
Works ........................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 4-9: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #25 – Targeted Corridor
Restoration .................................................................................................................... 119
xiv
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Risks at Identified Erosion Sites ........................................................ 28
Table 3-1: Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Descriptions Based on Index Value .......................... 43
Table 3-2: RGA Values for the Six Reaches Associated with the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA
...................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 3-3: Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory Results ................................................................ 46
Table 3-4: Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology within the EA Study Area ................................... 51
Table 3-5: Erosion Thresholds for Stream Bed and Bank Materials (Fischenich, 2001) ............... 52
Table 3-6: Vegetation Community Descriptions .................................................................... 57
Table 3-7: Wildlife Species List ........................................................................................... 66
Table 3-8: Species at Risk Screening Results ....................................................................... 69
Table 3-9: Aquatic Habitat Characteristics ........................................................................... 78
Table 4-1. Alternative Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................. 99
Table 4-2: Criteria Weighting Factors ................................................................................ 101
Table 4-3: Ranking Scheme for Criteria Evaluation of Each Alternative .................................. 101
Table 4-4. Evaluation Scoring Summary ............................................................................ 101
Table 5-1: Proposed Prioritization and Phasing of Pine Creek Erosion Restoration Projects ....... 121
Table 6-1: Stakeholder List Summary ............................................................................... 125
Table 6-2: Public Consultation Summary ........................................................................... 128
Table 7-1: First Nations Consultation Summary .................................................................. 139
xv
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Drawings
Appendix B: RGA Sheets
Appendix C: Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory Sheets
Appendix D: HEC-RAS Model Results
Appendix E: Plant List
Appendix F: SAR Screening
Appendix G: OSAP Field Sheets
Appendix H: Conceptual Design Drawings for the EA Alternatives
Appendix I: Detailed Evaluation Matrices
Appendix J: Public Consultation Records
Appendix K: Public Information Centre Boards
Appendix L: Indigenous Consultation Records
Appendix M : Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
Aquafor Beech Limited (Aquafor), with subconsultant AMICK Consultants Ltd., were
retained by the City of Pickering to complete the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment under
the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) framework. The Municipal Class EA
study was conducted as a Schedule B project, including consultation with the public to
evaluate alternative solutions.
In 2009, the City of Pickering completed the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan (FBSMMP), which included geomorphic risk assessments for all of
Frenchman’s Bay’s major tributaries. The assessment of the Pine Creek tributary
identified signs of degradation within the ravine corridor as a result of urbanization
induced stressors on watershed hydrology. As part of the FBSMMP study, the Mountcastle
Crescent Outfall Tributary of Pine Creek was identified as a mass erosion site in needed
of restoration to protect municipal infrastructure and private property. A detailed erosion
control and channel rehabilitation design was later undertaken, with construction of the
restoration works completed in 2017.
Following the completion of the Master Plan, the geomorphic stability of Pine Creek has
continued to deteriorate overtime with City staff and the public reporting a series of
erosion related risks and concerns. The City has therefore undertaken this EA to define
the existing environmental conditions of Pine Creek, identify high priority erosion sites
where there are risks to infrastructure or private property, and develop conceptual
designs to mitigate erosion and protect the natural heritage of the surrounding areas.
Key objectives of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA include:
1. Develop long-term erosion protection strategies that are compatible with the
natural tendencies of the creek;
2. Maintain or improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek;
3. Provide environmental enhancements wherever possible;
4. Realize opportunities to improve fish habitat and fish passage;
5. Decrease property and infrastructure loss; and
6. Implement high-value solutions that will minimize costs (both capital and
maintenance)
This Project File is intended to document the Municipal Class EA process, including
delineating how a preferred restoration strategy was selected for each of the identified
high priority erosion risk sites. The project study area is approximately three (3)
kilometers in length, extending from Kingston Road (downstream extent) upstream to
Fairport Road. While parts of Pine Creek do extend further upstream, and downstream, of
the study area, these segments of the ravine corridor were excluded from this EA study
as these portions of the creek are situated on privately owned lands. The general study
area extents are illustrated below in Figure 1-1.
2
Figure 1-1: Study Area Extents from Kingston Road to Fairport Road
Pine Creek
Study Area
3
1.2 Class Environmental Assessment Process
This study will examine a series of design alternatives through the Municipal Class EA
process (schedule B) to identify a solution to mitigate erosion related risks to private
properties as well as municipal (Pickering) and regional (Durham) managed
infrastructure within the project study area. Consideration will also be given to
naturalization and minor realignment of the existing watercourse system. These solutions
may involve localized protection works at critical areas by retrofitting existing measures,
as well as a complete reach-scale rehabilitation using a combination of traditional
engineered solutions in conjunction with more natural approaches.
The Environmental Assessment Act was legislated by the Province of Ontario in 1975 to
ensure that an Environmental Assessment (EA) is conducted prior to the onset of
development and development-related (servicing) projects. The “environment” as
defined by the EA Act is understood broadly to include the biophysical, socio-cultural,
built and economic environments and the interrelationships between them. The EA Act
applies primarily to public sector undertakings and extends to private sector projects
where designated under the regulation. Depending on the individual project to be
completed, there are different processes that municipalities must follow to meet Ontario’s
Environmental Assessment requirements.
The EA Act draws a distinction between “Individual” and “Class” environmental
assessments. Individual EAs are prepared for large, complex projects in which significant
environmental impacts are foreseeable. A “Terms of Reference” are devised which outline
the EA process, and the final EA document is submitted to the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for approval. Alternatively, a Class EA is a
streamlined approval process for a group of routine undertakings with predictable
environmental impacts. Once a Class EA planning document is approved by the MECP, all
projects of this type are pre-approved provided that they adhere to its design. In this
fashion, the Class EA process expedites approval for smaller, recurring projects.
The Municipal Class EA, which is followed here, outlines how municipal infrastructure
projects are planned in accordance with the EA Act. The Municipal Class EA is consistent
with the EA Act’s five key principles for successful planning:
• Consultation with affected parties early on and throughout the process, such that
the planning process is a cooperative venture;
• Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, both the functionally different
“alternatives to” and the “alternative methods” of implementing the solution;
• Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of
the environment;
• Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and
disadvantages, to determine their net environmental effects; and,
• Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to
allow “traceability” of decision-making with respect to the project.
As the project being undertaken is defined as an Erosion Control project, the Schedule B
process as defined in the Municipal EA (2015) document is applicable.
A summary of the Class EA process and phases is provided below, with the
accompanying flow chart (Figure 1-2) illustrating the process followed in the planning
and design of projects covered by this Class Environmental Assessment:
4
Phase 1: Identify the problem or deficiency.
Phase 2: Identify alternative solutions to the problem by taking into consideration the
existing environment, and establish the preferred solution taking into account public and
agency review and input. At this point, determine the appropriate Schedule for the
undertaking and documenting decisions in a Project File for Schedule B projects, or
proceed through the following phases for Schedule C projects.
Phase 3: Examine alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution, based
upon the existing environment, public and government agency input, anticipated
environmental effects and methods of minimizing negative effects and maximizing
positive effects.
Phase 4: Document, in an Environmental Study Report, a summary of the rationale
and the planning, design, and consultation process of the project as established
throughout the above phases, and make such documentation available for scrutiny by
review agencies and the public.
Phase 5: Complete contract drawings and documents, and proceed to construction and
operation; monitor construction for adherence to environmental provisions and
commitments. Where special conditions dictate, also monitor the operation of the
completed facilities. Public and agency consultation is also an important and necessary
component of the five phases.
The Municipal Engineers Association’s Class EA document also classifies projects as
Schedule A, A+, B or C depending on their level of environmental impact and public
concern.
•Schedule ‘A’ projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental
effects and generally include routine maintenance and operational activities. These
projects are pre-approved and may proceed to implementation without following
the full Class EA planning process.
•Schedule ‘A+’ projects have minimal adverse environmental effects and are pre-
approved, however the public is to be advised prior to project implementation.”
•Schedule ‘B’ projects have the potential for some adverse environment effects.
Projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing
facilities. These projects require completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA
process, before proceeding to Phase 5 Implementation.
•Schedule ‘C’ projects have the potential for significant environment effects.
Projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions
to existing facilities. These projects require completion of Phases 1 through 4 of
the Class EA process, before proceeding to Phase 5 Implementation.”
The Pine Creek Erosion Control Assessment is classified as a Schedule B project and
follows Phases 1 and 2 of the planning and design process with Phase 5 to follow at a
subsequent stage. This report outlines Phases 1 and 2 of the EA process.
5
Figure 1-2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process
6
2 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS &
OPPORTUNITIES
2.1 Problem Identification & Background
The Pine Creek sub watershed has a drainage area of approximately 8.1 km2 and is
located entirely within the City of Pickering. The watershed drains from North to South,
ultimately discharging to Frenchman’s Bay just south of Highway 401. While the
headwaters of the creek are located in agricultural areas, the majority of the watershed,
in particular everything downstream of Fairport Road, is highly urbanized. Rapid
urbanization, starting in mid-late 1980’s, has increased watershed imperviousness,
decreased opportunities for infiltration and retention of runoff by natural processes and
ultimately redefined the watershed’s hydrologic regime. In the present day, the rainfall-
runoff response within the watershed if characterized by frequent, intense, peak flows
resulting in accelerated erosion processes as the channel enlarges it’s cross-sectional
area to accommodate higher peak flow rates. The consequences of this accelerated
erosion are readily apparent throughout the EA study area, where ongoing channel
widening and incision has created a series of erosion related risks to private property as
well as municipal and regional infrastructure.
To accommodate urban growth various aspects of the watercourse has been
anthropogenically altered including the installation of uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls
contributing to local scour and erosion, channel straightening, installation of intermittent
engineered treatments in various states of repair (i.e., gabion baskets, Armourstone
retaining walls, etc.), and channelization and confinement of the watercourse at major
road crossings. Aquafor has performed a series of detailed site investigations to
document key issues observed within the watershed. These keys issue include:
•Channel incision and lowering of the channel bed;
•Widespread bank erosion contributing to the formation of unstable slopes;
•Degradation of existing erosion control structures;
•Uncontrolled watercourse enlargement and widening;
•Unmanaged accumulation of channel debris;
•Loss of vegetation within the riparian corridor;
•Deterioration of aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions; and
•Creation of barriers to fish migration.
These issues represent risks to municipal and regional infrastructure, roadway
embankments, private properties, as well as the natural environment.
In total, twenty-five (25) areas of risk were identified within the study area based on the
completed field investigations, with the general spatial distribution of these risk sites
illustrated in Figure 2-1. Descriptions and photos of each erosion site are included in the
sub-sections below. For reporting purposes, risk sites have been grouped together based
on their spatial proximity and associated levels of risk. While the erosion sites denoted
below include identified risks to both Regional and Privately owned Infrastructure, the
development of restoration alternatives associated with this EA have been generally
scoped to limit planned restoration works to municipally owned lands, such that all
projects align with the City of Pickering’s mandate for the implementation of capital
works projects.
7
Figure 2-1: Spatial Distribution of Erosion Sites within the Pine Creek Erosion
Assessment EA Study Area
2.2 Study Objective
This study is being carried out to assess the erosion related risks to private property and
public infrastructure within the Pine Creek valley corridor, with the intent of providing
recommendations to reduce erosion and protect the natural heritage of the area.
Forestbrook
Park
Erskine Church
Cemetery
Lynn
Heights
Park
David Farr
Memorial Park
Maple Ridge
Park
ES25
8
2.3 Erosion Sites #1 – 4
Erosion Sites #1-4, are located at the downstream extent of the project study area, in
municipally owned parks lands immediately north of Kingston Road/Regional Road HWY2.
There is significant beaver activity in this area contributing to the loss of mature riparian
vegetation and the formation of a small beaver dam upstream of Kingston Road.
A number of erosion related risks to municipal and regional infrastructure are present
including undermining of the gabion basket retaining wall that adjoins Kingston Road
(Erosion Site #1 – Figure 2-2), outflanking of a 1,700 mm diameter storm sewer outfall
headwall (Erosion Site #3 – Figure 2-4), and active bank erosion beneath a pedestrian
bridge crossing leading to exposure of the bridge footings (Erosion Site #4 – Figure
2-5). Backwatering upstream of the beaver dam has also contributed to saturation and
sloughing of the upstream channel banks creating an erosion risk to the private
properties that border the channel corridor (Erosion Site #2 – Figure 2-3). It should be
noted that proposed rehabilitation works to address the risks identified at Site #1 are
included in the detailed design of the BRT project, which is currently being undertaken by
the Region of Durham. These works will be coordinated between the City of Pickering and
the Region to ensure that improvements effectively mitigate long-term erosion.
Any future works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to channel restoration
and erosion protection works on City owned lands.
Figure 2-2: Erosion Site #1 – Undermined
Gabion Baskets Upstream of Kingston Rd.
Figure 2-3: Erosion Site #2 – Bank
Erosion Risk to Private Properties
Figure 2-4: Erosion Site #3 – Outflanking
of Concrete Wingwalls due to Erosion.
Figure 2-5: Erosion Site #4 – Scouring &
Erosion around Bridge Footings
9
Figure 2-6 provides an overview of the existing site conditions at Erosion Sites #1-4.
High quality renderings of the existing conditions drawings for all erosion sites are
provided in Appendix A.
10
Figure 2-6: Erosion Site #1-4: Existing Site Conditions
11
2.4 Erosion Sites #5 – 8
Erosion Sites #5-8, are primarily located in the downstream extents of David Farr Park,
where mowing of vegetation within the riparian corridor up to top of bank line has
contributed to widespread bank erosion and the formation of a series of minor debris
jams. With respect to specific erosion risks, active erosion within this segment of Pine
Creek has resulted in minor bank erosion along the face of the Glenanna Road Culvert
crossing at it’s upstream and downstream extents (Erosion Site 5 – Figure 2-7).
Moreover, widening of the channel has also created unmitigated risks to public parkland
at a several locations including Erosion Site #6 (Figure 2-8) and Erosion Site #7
(Figure 2-9). In some locations attempts to limit bank erosion through the placement of
rip-rap bank treatments have failed and are in need of future repair (Erosion Site #8 –
Figure 2-10).
Figure 2-7: Erosion Site #5 – Minor Bank
Erosion Downstream of the Glenanna
Road Culvert Crossing.
Figure 2-8: Erosion Site #6 – Minor Bank
Erosion Creating Risk to Parkland.
Figure 2-9: Erosion Site #7 – Over
Encroachment into the Riparian Corridor
Leading to Bank Erosion and a Risk to
Parkland.
Figure 2-10: Failure of Rip-Rap Bank
Treatment Intended to Prevent a Loss of
Parkland due to Active Erosion Processes.
Figure 2-11 provides an overview of the existing site conditions at Erosion Sites #5-8.
12
Figure 2-11: Erosion Site #5-8: Existing Site Conditions
13
2.5 Erosion Sites #9 – 10
Erosion Sites #9-10, are situated immediately downstream of Kitley Avenue at the
upstream most extents of David Farr Park. The confluence of flows from the Kitley
Avenue culvert and a 2,400 mm diameter storm sewer outfall have contributed to active
channel widening downstream. Continued erosion of the western channel bank
represents a risk to the multi-use trail system that connects David Farr Park to Kitley
Avenue, the associated municipal trail lighting infrastructure and, to a less immediate
effect, the private properties on the east side of Pinecreek Court. There are two locations
(Erosion Site #9 – Figure 2-12 & Erosion Site #10 – Figure 2-13) where large erosion
scars have formed. The crest of these scars is offset only a few meters from the edge of
trail (Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15). There is potential for future undermining of the
trail system and the creation of a significant public safety hazard. It is therefore highly
recommended that erosion mitigation works be applied in the near future to mitigate
risks to both public safety and trail infrastructure.
Figure 2-12: Erosion Site #9 – Active
Bank Erosion Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail
System
Figure 2-13: Erosion Site #10 – Major
Erosion Scar Adjacent to a Multi-Use Trail
Figure 2-14: Erosion Site #9 – Minimal
Offset from the Edge of Trail and Top of
Erosion Scar
Figure 2-15: Erosion Site #10 – Bank
Erosion Actively Encroaching Towards the
Existing Multi-Use Trail
Figure 2-16 provides an overview of the existing site conditions at Erosion Sites #9-10.
14
Figure 2-16: Erosion Site #9-10: Existing Site Conditions
15
2.6 Erosion Sites #11 - 12
The contraction and expansion of flows through the Dixie Road Culvert Crossing creates a
risk of downstream scour and erosion. This penchant for erosion has been historically
mitigated through the application of energy dissipation blocks downstream of the culvert,
coupled with gabion basket retaining walls along the downstream channel banks.
However, overtime age and exposure to hydrodynamic forces have led to the failure of
the aforementioned gabion baskets (Erosion Site #11 – Figure 2-17 & Figure 2-18).
Upstream of Dixie Road, the main branch of Pine Creek runs north through a large parcel
of undeveloped municipally owned lands. In general, this segment of Pine Creek is
sufficiently setback from adjacent private properties and infrastructure resulting in
minimal erosion risks. The one exception occurs approximately 75-100 m upstream of
the Dixie Road culvert where a debris jam has formed forcing the channel to erode to the
east. The creek is now setback less than 10 m from the Dixie Road sidewalk (Erosion Site
#12 – Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20). Future restoration works are required to protect
the sidewalk and Dixie Road from potential undermining.
Figure 2-17: Erosion Site #11 – Gabion
Baskets Downstream of Dixie Road
Figure 2-18: Erosion Site #11 – Observed
Gabion Basket Failure
Figure 2-19: Erosion Site #12 – Mass
Debris Jams Forcing Channel to Erode
Eastward
Figure 2-20: Erosion Site #12 – Minimal
Offset (<10 m) between Dixie Road
Sidewalk and Top of Erosion Scar.
Figure 2-21 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #11-12.
16
Figure 2-21: Erosion Site #11-12: Existing Site Conditions
17
2.7 Erosion Sites #13-16
Erosion Sites #13-16, are located downstream of Finch Avenue along the western branch
of Pine Creek. Significant widening and downcutting of the channel have undercut a
series of mature trees leading to their failure and the formation of several large debris
jams. The presence of these debris jams has forced the creek to cut into the valley walls,
causing toe erosion and creating potential risks to private properties on Mountcastle
Crescent as a result of potential slope instability (Erosion Site #13 – Figure 2-22 &
Erosion Site #14 – Figure 2-23). A series of erosion risks to municipal and regional
infrastructure were also observed along this segment of Pine Creek, including an eroding
outfall channel downstream of a municipal storm sewer outfall (Erosion Site #15 –
Figure 2-24) and an undermined deformed CSP culvert underneath Finch
Avenue(Erosion Site #16 – Figure 2-25). There is also a heavily eroded outfall channel
running parallel to Finch Avenue that conveys drainage from the roadside ditch down into
the valley corridor. It should be noted that as Finch Avenue is Regional Road 37,
restoration of the CSP culvert and roadside ditch outlet channel, while recommended, is
outside the purview of the City of Pickering. The Region of Durham may give
consideration to completing these works at a future date.
Figure 2-22: Erosion Site #13 – Toe
Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property.
Figure 2-23: Erosion Site #14 – Observed
Debris Jams and Bank Erosion.
Figure 2-24: Erosion Site #15 – Eroding
Outfall Channel
Figure 2-25: Erosion Site #16 –
Undercutting of Deformed CSP Culvert
Figure 2-26 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #13-16.
18
Figure 2-26: Erosion Site #13-16: Existing Site Conditions
19
2.8 Erosion Sites #17-21
Erosion Sites #17-21 are situated along the western branch of Pine Creek between
Fairport Road and Finch Avenue. Immediately upstream of Finch Avenue, widening of the
channel corridor has led to erosion at the toe of the valley slope creating a risk to private
properties on Grafton Court (Erosion Site #17 – Figure 2-27) as well as the Finch
Avenue right-of-way (Erosion Site #18 – Figure 2-28). During Aquafor’s field
investigation, scouring on either side of a privately owned culvert was observed and
identified as Erosion Site #19. Since this erosion site is located entirely on Private
Property, further assessment of the site and the development of candidate erosion
mitigation alternatives was excluded from the scope of this EA study. Further upstream
of the private crossing, additional toe erosion at the base of the valley corridor was
observed behind private properties on Duncannon Drive (Erosion Site #20 – Figure
2-29). Lastly significant scouring was observed downstream of the Fairport road outfall,
creating a risk of future undermining of the headwall structure (Erosion Site #21 –
Figure 2-30).
Figure 2-27: Erosion Site #17 – Toe
Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property
on Grafton Court.
Figure 2-28: Erosion Site #18 – Observed
Debris Accumulation and Bank Erosion
Adjacent to Finch Avenue.
Figure 2-29: Erosion Site #20 – Toe
Erosion Creating Risk to Private Property
on Duncannon Drive.
Figure 2-30: Erosion Site #21 –
Significant Scouring Observed
Downstream of Fairport Road Outfall.
Figure 2-31 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #17-21.
20
Figure 2-31: Erosion Site #17-21: Existing Site Conditions
21
2.9 Erosion Site #22
Hydrodynamic forces associated with the contraction and expansion of flows passing
through the Lynn Heights Drive Culvert crossing have contributed to significant scouring
and erosion on either side of the existing Corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) culvert structure.
Several large debris jams have formed downstream of the culvert (Figure 2-32), which
have in turn further accelerated upstream scouring at the culvert outlet. The existing
culvert structure is undercut (Figure 2-33) and is also exhibiting signs of structural
degradation due to corrosion of the CSP material (Figure 2-34). Wooden support posts
have been placed inside the structure (Figure 2-35), potentially to provide vertical
support against possible buckling. Factoring in the degraded condition of the existing
culvert as well as the upstream and downstream channel conditions, full replacement of
the culvert is recommended in conjunction with channel restoration / erosion mitigation
works on either side of the new replacement structure.
Figure 2-32: Erosion Site #22 – Debris
Jam Downstream of the Lynn Heights
Drive Culvert.
Figure 2-33: Erosion Site #22 – Observed
Scouring Downstream of the Lynn Heights
Culvert.
Figure 2-34: Erosion Site #22 – Observed
Structural Degradation at the Culvert
Outlet.
Figure 2-35: Erosion Site #22 – Wooden
Support Posts Observed within the Lynn
Heights Drive Culvert.
Figure 2-36 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Site #22.
22
Figure 2-36: Erosion Site #22: Existing Site Conditions
23
2.10 Erosion Sites #23-24
Erosion Sites #23-24 are located along the eastern branch of Pine Creek, upstream of
Finch Avenue within Lynn Heights Park. At these locations, unmitigated widening of the
channel, in response to urbanization induced pressures on watershed hydrology, has
eroded the toe of the valley slope (Figure 2-37). Several large trees have been
undercut and uprooted leading to the formation of a series of debris jams (Figure 2-38),
further accelerating erosion within the valley corridor. Two instances of significant toe
erosion were observed creating risks to private properties on Duncannon Drive (Erosion
Site #23 – Figure 2-39 and Erosion Site #24 – Figure 2-40). Future restoration works
are recommended to remove the accumulated debris and implement toe erosion control
measures to enhance slope stability and protect private property.
Figure 2-37: Observed Channel Widening
and Bank Erosion within Lynn Heights
Park.
Figure 2-38: Observed Uprooted Fallen
Trees Creating a Debris Jam in Lynn
Heights Park.
Figure 2-39: Erosion Site #23 – Observed
Toe Erosion Creating Risk to Private
Property on Duncannon Drive
Figure 2-40: Erosion Site #24 – Actively
Eroding Bank behind Duncannon Drive
Properties.
Figure 2-41 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Sites #23-24.
24
Figure 2-41: Erosion Site #23-24: Existing Site Conditions
25
2.11 Erosion Site #25
Taking into account public feedback received through the EA process, a twenty fifth
erosion site was added encompassing the whole of the Kitley Ravine corridor. The Kitley
Ravine is an approximately 500 m long storm sewer outfall channel that conveys flows
from a source outfall behind Pickering Fire Station #6 downstream to the main branch of
Pine Creek. The corridor is confined by private residential properties on either side as
well as an informal multi-use trail. A central drainage ditch is poorly defined leading to
areas of erosion (Figure 2-42), the accumulation of debris (Figure 2-43), ponding
(Figure 2-44) and encroachment into private property (Figure 2-45). Through the EA
process several residents noted concerns regarding the degraded state of the corridor
and expressed interest in restoration works being undertaken to improve drainage
conditions; provided that measures are taken to limit vegetation removals and
disturbances to the existing natural environment.
Figure 2-42: Erosion Site #25 – Observed
Bank Erosion and Undercutting of Trees in
the Kitley Ravine Corridor.
Figure 2-43: Erosion Site #25 – Observed
Debris Jams within the Kitley Ravine
Corridor.
Figure 2-44: Erosion Site #25 – Ponding
within the Kitley Ravine Corridor
Figure 2-45: Erosion Site #25 –
Encroachment of the Kitley Ravine
Drainage Ditch towards Private Property.
Figure 2-46 provides an overview of the site conditions at Erosion Site #25.
26
Figure 2-46: Erosion Site #25: Existing Site Conditions
27
2.12 Site Summaries and Restoration Opportunities
As outlined above, twenty-five (25) erosion sites were identified through the Pine Creek
Erosion Assessment EA. At each of these sites, there is an identifiable erosion related risk
to one of the following assets:
• Private property;
• Municipal infrastructure;
• Region of Durham infrastructure;
• Public parklands; and/or
• The city maintained multi-use trail system.
Table 2-1 below, summarizes the identified project sites and the risks currently presented
by ongoing erosion. A general level of risk (i.e., Low, Medium, High) is also reported for
each site based on the results of the field erosion assessment.
2.12.1 Opportunities
In light of the existing conditions observed within the study area, there are several
opportunities to mitigate the identified erosion risks, protect infrastructure and private
properties, and also improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions. These opportunities
include:
• Replacement of failing erosion control structures with alternative bank treatments
including armourstone, vegetated buttresses, rock toe protection, and/or vegetated
banks;
• Protection of municipal infrastructure assets and private properties through minor
channel realignment and erosion control measures;
• Restoration of floodplain access by cutting back channel banks where feasible;
• Restoring the channel banks and bed with softer soil bioengineering approaches and
minimizing the application of harder engineering methods;
• Enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitat through removal of fish barriers and
placement of rounded substrate, rib structures, and riparian plantings;
• Removal of accumulated channel debris; and
• Replanting of the riparian corridor with native species.
In considering the possible alternatives for the stabilization and rehabilitation of Pine Creek
within the study area, each of the above-listed opportunities were considered on a site-by-
site basis.
28
Table 2-1: Summary of Risks at Identified Erosion Sites
Site # Private
Property Risk
Municipal
Infrastructure
Risk
Regional
Infrastructure
Risk
Public
Parklands Risk
Multi-Use
Trail Risk Comments Level of Risk
1 X
Risk to Kingston Road/HWY2 Box Culvert and a CSP Storm Sewer Outfall. Both
Assets are Located on Region of Durham Property.
All Future Restoration Works, if any, to be Coordinated by the Region of Durham.
Medium
2 X Risk to Private Properties on Charlotte Circle Medium
3 X X Minor Risk to Municipal Storm Sewer Outfall and Adjacent Parklands Low
4 X X X Minor Risk to Municipal Pedestrian Bridge, Adjacent Trail and Adjacent Parklands Low
5 X X X Minor Risk to Glenanna Road Box Culvert, Public Parklands and the Adjacent Multi-
Use Trail Low
6 X Minor Risk to Parklands in David Farr Park Low
7 X Minor Risk to Parklands in David Farr Park Low
8 X Minor Risk to Parklands in David Farr Park Low
9 X X Risk to Multi Use Trail and Parklands in David Farr Park High
10 X X Risk to Multi Use Trail and Parklands in David Farr Park High
11 X Minor Risk to Dixie Road Culvert Medium
12 X Risk to Dixie Road Medium
13 X Risk to Private Properties on Mountcastle Crescent High
14 X Risk to Private Properties on Mountcastle Crescent High
15 X Risk to Municipal Storm Sewer Outfall Medium
16 X
Risk to Regional CSP Culvert Crossing and Finch Avenue/Regional Road 37 Roadside
Ditch. Both Assets are Located on Region of Durham Property.
All Future Restoration Works, if any, to be Coordinated by the Region of Durham.
High
17 X Risk to Private Properties on Grafton Court Medium
18 X Risk to Finch Avenue/Regional Road 37 Medium
19 X
Risk to Private Culvert and Access Road.
All Future Restoration Works, if any, to be Coordinated by Private Property Owner.
Low
20 X Risk to Private Properties on Duncannon Drive Medium
21 X Risk to Municipal Outfall Culvert Medium
22 X Risk to Lynn Heights Drive Culvert Crossing High
23 X Risk to Private Properties on Duncannon Drive Medium
24 X Risk to Private Properties on Duncannon Drive Medium
25 X X Risk to Private Properties on Ridgewood Court, Lydia Crescent, Gloucester Square
and Monteagle Lane as well as loss of Parkland in the Kitley Ravine. Medium
29
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SITE-SPECIFIC
INVENTORIES
Site-specific studies were conducted to support the selection and design of the
preferred alternative for each set of erosion sites. A summary of the site-specific
inventories that were conducted in support of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA
is provided below.
3.1 Geomorphic Assessments
Geomorphic stream reaches are relatively uniform lengths of channel in terms of
surface geology, hydrology, channel slope, boundary materials, and vegetation that
control dominant geomorphic processes and sediment transport dynamics. In other
words, the physical channel processes and resulting river morphology are relatively
consistent over the length of the reach as compared to the differences between
adjacent reaches. As such, the watercourse within the study area has been
categorized into different reaches to better understand the factors taking place. As
part of the stream erosion inventory and assessment for Pine Creek within the City
of Pickering, about 4 kilometers of the creek were walked to visually assess the
channel and the surrounding area. The reach delineation was confirmed and refined
in the field during creek walks to fully account for geomorphically significant changes
in channel conditions.
A synoptic level fluvial geomorphic field assessment was completed in Fall 2022.
During the field walk, existing conditions within Pine Creek were noted, and erosion
site identification and photographic inventory for watercourse reach conditions were
collected. The extent of the assessed watercourse reaches is shown in Figure 3-1.
In order to maintain consistency from previous studies conducted within the same
study area, particularly, the Frenchman’s Bay Storm Water Management Master Plan
(2009), the same reach names have been assumed (PC3 and PC4) where the reaches
are further divided into subsections (PC3a, PC3b, PC3c, PC3d, PC4a, and PC4b) so as
to provide a higher level of detail. Erosion is present throughout the study area. While
inherent erosion processes are expected in a natural watercourse; erosion can be
exacerbated by urbanization within a catchment area through alteration of the
watercourse and changes in the rainfall-runoff response due to decreased infiltration.
The existing fluvial conditions for each reach have been summarized in the sections
below, accompanied by representative photographs.
30
Figure 3-1: Delineated Management Reaches within the Pine Creek Study Area
Pine Creek
Study Area
PC3-a
PC3-b
PC3-dPC3-c
PC4-a
PC4-b
31
3.1.1 Reach PC3a – Kingston Road to Glenanna Road
Reach PC3a is approximately 560 m in length and extends from the Kingston Road
bridge crossing to the Glenanna Road crossing. The bank material predominantly
ranges from very fine and fine sand with some areas containing very fine pebbles
throughout the reach. The bed material consists of cobble sized stones downstream,
however, transitions to fine sand increasing in clay content with the clay bed of the
channel exposed towards the upstream extent of the reach. The bankfull width ranges
from 6 – 8 m and the average bankfull depth is 1.5 m. This reach has low to moderate
sinuosity with a sinuosity index of 1.15.
This reach of Pine Creek is surrounded by city owned riparian corridor and residential
land use on either side where residential properties line the top of the slope in some
areas. The reach is channelized with a narrow floodplain and the channel exhibits
pool – riffle morphology. Figure 3-2 shows a part of the straightened channel looking
upstream towards the Kingston Road culvert with dense vegetation lining the banks
of the channel. Recent beaver activity has resulted in a beaver dam located
approximately 50 m upstream of the Kingston Road culvert as seen in Figure 3-3.
This barrier has significantly backwatered the channel immediately upstream and is
having an impact on the function of storm water outfalls within the reach and is
resulting in channel widening as seen in Figure 3-4. Fracture lines along the bank
are also present immediately downstream of the storm outfall and pedestrian bridge
where channel widening and erosion is evident. The channel widening poses a risk to
private properties lining the top of the slope as cutbanks are forming on the sandy
banks as shown in Figure 3-5.
32
Figure 3-2: Riprap Lined Channel with
Dense Riparian Overbank near
Kingston Road Culvert.
Figure 3-3: Beaver Dam Upstream of
Kingston Road Culvert Causing
Backwatering of the Reach Upstream.
Figure 3-4: Backwater Effects from
Beaver Dam Affecting Storm Outfall
and Pedestrian Bridge Abutments
Upstream.
Figure 3-5: Unlined Channel with
Sandy Banks Eroding at Meander less
than 5m from Private Property.
33
3.1.2 Reach PC3b – Glenanna Road to Confluence Upstream of
Kitley Avenue
Reach PC3b extends from the Glenanna Road culvert to the confluence upstream of
Kitley Avenue. This reach has been channelized and confined to a narrow corridor
where it borders residential land use upstream and the channel extends through an
open parkland downstream towards Glenanna Road. The channel exhibits pool – riffle
morphology throughout the reach. The bankfull width ranges from 4 – 8 m and the
average bankfull depth is 1.2 m. The bank material is made of very fine to fine sand
and the bed material ranges from medium silt to fine sand. The channel has been
lined with small cobbles which have been washing out downstream. Also present are
small to medium boulders in riffles throughout the reach. Clay material is exposed
on the channel bed and banks towards the upstream extent of the reach. This straight
reach has a sinuosity index of 1.03.
This reach of Pine Creek is also surrounded by city owned riparian corridor and
residential land use on either side. The channel has pool – riffle morphology with
small to medium boulders present within the channel bed as shown in Figure 3-6.
Bank erosion is present throughout the reach and can be seen on either bank of the
straight channel in Figure 3-7. This reach has over steepened banks extending from
the middle of the reach to the upstream end at Kitley Avenue (Figure 3-8) where
erosion is taking place at the toe of the bank. These over steepened banks pose a
risk to city infrastructure such as the multi-use trail which lines the top of the slope
at the upstream extent shown in Figure 3-9. The surrounding city property has
varying ground conditions ranging from manicured grasses to thickly wooded areas.
Throughout the reach, the landscaping extends towards the banks decreasing the
riparian corridor and promoting bank erosion. Some of these segments have been
protected by channel treatment and stabilization measures. Most notable is the
limited riprap application allowing for a more natural bedform, which is primarily
composed of medium sized cobbles. The channel is moderately incised and degraded
exposing the clay bed as a result of urbanization in the watershed.
34
Figure 3-6: Looking Downstream at a
Meander Bend with Dense Riparian
Overbank Visible and Small to Medium
Boulders Present within the Channel
Bed.
Figure 3-7: Looking Upstream at the
Straight Channel where Bank Erosion
Present Throughout the Reach can be
Seen on Either Bank of the Channel
Figure 3-8: Looking Upstream at the
Steep Slope Adjacent to City Owned
Trail on the North Easterly Bank
Figure 3-9: Looking Downstream from
Trail Which is Within 2.0 m of Channel.
Erosion Taking Place at the Toe of the
Over Steepened Bank.
35
3.1.3 Reach PC3c – Confluence Upstream of Kitley Avenue to
Confluence Downstream of Finch Avenue
This reach extends from the confluence upstream of Kitley Avenue to the confluence
downstream of Finch Avenue. The reach, towards the downstream extent, is
characterized by shallow banks however, transitions into a deeply incised channel
with pool – riffle morphology at the upstream extent. This reach is surrounded by
different types of land use including a wide riparian corridor with limited erosion
hazard risks, as well as segments in which the channel passes through a wetland
(Figure 3-10). The average bankfull width is 3.4 m and the average bankfull depth
is 0.9 m. The bed material ranges from silt to coarse sand with fine pebbles and the
bank material ranges from clay to very fine upper sand, coarsening downstream to
fine to medium sand. This reach has low to moderate sinuosity with a sinuosity index
of 1.1.
Within this section of the creek, the riparian corridor is unmaintained and filled with
dense trees and shrubs which provide some resistance to erosion and increased
boundary roughness to the channel during high discharge events (Figure 3-11). The
energy dissipation block structures located downstream of the Dixie Road culvert are
causing sediment accumulation to occur which is resulting in aggradation of the bed
and active channel widening with bank erosion taking place on both sides of the
channel as seen in Figure 3-12. Large woody debris jams are observed at many
locations within the reach. Along the upstream extent of this reach, erosion on the
outside of the meander bend from lateral channel migration is notable. Exposed tree
roots are prevalent within the eroded cutbanks and many fallen trees are visible as
seen in Figure 3-13. Geomorphic adjustment is occurring as a result of urban
hydromodification which drives channel widening and downcutting in response to
higher peak flows, greater runoff volumes, and more frequent flow events.
36
Figure 3-10: Looking Upstream at
Wetland Through Which the Channel
Passes.
Figure 3-11: Looking Upstream at the
Densely Vegetated Banks Where
Erosion at the Toe of Bank can be
Observed on the Left Bank
Figure 3-12: Sediment Accumulation
Occurring Downstream of Energy
Dissipation Blocks at the Dixie Road
Culvert Causing Aggradation of the Bed
and Active Channel Widening.
Figure 3-13: Looking Upstream at
Natural Riparian Corridor Filled with
Dense Trees and Shrubs. Bank Erosion
Taking Place and Large Woody Debris
Fallen into the Channel Obstructing
Flow.
37
3.1.4 Reach PC3d – Kitley Ravine Corridor
Reach PC3d is approximately 570 m in length and extends from the confluence
upstream of Kitley Avenue to the Finch Avenue crossing, encompassing the entirety
of the Kitley Ravine Corridor. The bank material consists of clay loam and the bed
material consists of fine to medium sand and sandy loam (Figure 3-14). The bankfull
width ranges from 3 – 6 m and the average bankfull depth is 0.5 m. This reach has
moderate to high sinuosity with a sinuosity index of 1.25.
This reach lacks pool – riffle morphology and consists of low-lying areas where the
watercourse transitions between channelized and un-channelized forms (Figure
3-15). Overall, the reach is characteristic of a poorly defined urban drainage ditch,
with a heterogenous cross-sectional area along its length and intermittent access to
the adjacent floodplain. There has been a significant accumulation of debris within
the ravine corridor (Figure 3-16) as a result of local dumping and the failure of
mature vegetation due to active erosion processes. The aforementioned debris jams
are contributing to increased erosion and migration of the channel centerline, which
has in turn caused encroachment towards private property (Figure 3-17) leading to
a series of residential complaints related to erosion and flooding issues.
38
Figure 3-14: Looking Upstream Near
the Midpoint of the Reach. Note bed
materials consisting of fine to medium
sand and sandy loam.
Figure 3-15: Looking Upstream at a
Segment of the Kitley Ravine where
the Channel Corridor is Poorly Defined.
Figure 3-16: Looking Downstream
Towards Accumulated Debris.
Figure 3-17: Looking Upstream near
the Midpoint of the Reach. Note
Encroachment of the Channel Towards
Private Property.
39
3.1.5 Reach PC4a – Confluence downstream of Finch Avenue to
Fairport Road
Reach PC4a extends from the confluence downstream of Finch Avenue northeast to
Fairport Road upstream. The reach is surrounded by open grassland on one side and
residential land use on the other. This reach transitions between the watercourse
being in contact with the steep valley walls to the channel having access to a wide
floodplain (Figure 3-18). Throughout the extent of the reach, the bed material
consists of fine gravel to small cobbles with a higher concentration of medium to
coarse sand towards the downstream extent, and an increase in clay content towards
the upstream extent. The bank material is composed of silt to fine upper sand with
very little clay. The bankfull width ranges from 3 – 6 m and the average bankfull
depth is 0.5 m. This reach is considered to be moderately sinuous with a sinuosity
index of 1.16.
Along this reach, several cutbank erosion scars are notable, exposed tree roots are
prevalent within the eroded banks, and large woody jams are observed as seen in
Figure 3-19. This photo also shows that severe undermining of the toe of slope is
present throughout the extent of the reach. Also present are areas of extensive bank
slumping where channel planform migration and erosion has occurred (Figure 3-20).
Island formation has taken place due to the large woody debris in the channel
obstructing flow and causing sediment accumulation (Figure 3-21). The watercourse
has full access to its floodplain through most of the reach, however; the channel is
partially confined with steep valley walls through some areas. Geomorphic
adjustment is taking place as a result of urban hydromodification which drives
processes of channel widening, planform adjustment, and degradation in response to
higher peak flows, greater runoff volumes, and more frequent flow events.
40
Figure 3-18: Looking Upstream at
Channel with Shallow Banks Where
Channel has Access to a Wide
Floodplain
Figure 3-19: Looking Downstream at
Steep Valley Slope where Cutbank
Erosion Scars are Notable as well as
Leaning and Fallen Trees within the
Channel
Figure 3-20: Looking Downstream at
Channel Where Bank Erosion is
Occurring on Meander Bends and Steep
Valley Slopes
Figure 3-21: Looking Upstream at
Large Woody Debris Obstructing Flow.
Island Formation Taken Place Due to
the Resulting Sediment Accumulation.
41
3.1.6 Reach PC4b – Lynn Heights Drive to Confluence
Downstream of Finch Avenue
Reach PC4b extends from Lynn Heights Drive to the confluence downstream of Finch
Avenue. The reach consists of a heavily vegetated channel where the riparian corridor
is unmaintained, filled with dense trees and shrubs, and has multiple debris jams
throughout the extent of the reach (Figure 3-22). The bed material ranges from of
silt to fine sand and coarse gravel to small boulders. The bank material consists of
silt to fine upper sand. The bankfull width ranges from 3 – 6 m and the bankfull depth
ranges from 0.5 – 1.5 m. The reach has moderate to high sinuosity with a sinuosity
index of 1.21.
Along this reach, severe cutbank erosion scars are notable (Figure 3-23). There are
several areas with extensive bank slumping occurring due to the steep slopes where
channel planform migration and erosion is evident (Figure 3-24). Exposed tree roots
are prevalent within the eroded banks and many fallen trees are present (Figure
3-25). Through this reach, the channel has varying access to the floodplain. Due to
the densely vegetated banks towards the upstream extent of the reach, the channel
has become intensely entrenched and does not have access to its floodplain. The
watercourse towards the middle of the reach and sparsely throughout the
downstream extent however, has access to a wide floodplain where the banks are
shallow.
Geomorphic adjustment is occurring throughout the reach where channel widening
and severe downcutting is evident. The watercourse is attempting to meander which
is resulting in channel widening and severe bank erosion that is causing trees to fall
in creating woody debris jams at many locations within the reach.
42
Figure 3-22: Looking Downstream at
Heavily Vegetated Channel. Multiple
debris jams throughout the reach.
Figure 3-23: Looking Downstream at
Channel where 1.2 m Deep Cutbank
Erosion Scar can be Seen on the Right
Bank and Another on the Left Bank in
the Background.
Figure 3-24: Looking Upstream of
Channel Where Exposed Tree Roots
Through the Banks are Visible.
Figure 3-25: Erosion on the Outside of
the Meander Bend Looking at the North
Easterly Bank. Leaning Trees and
Exposed Tree Roots Visible.
43
3.1.7 Geomorphic Stability Assessment
The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) tool was used during field walks to assess
the fluvial conditions of the watercourses. The RGA protocol uses visual indicators to
determine whether a given stream is stable, in transition, or in adjustment. Stability
of the channel is determined by adjustments in slope; the bed elevation may be
increasing due to sediment deposition (aggradation) or decreasing due to bed erosion
(degradation). Consideration of increases in bank-to-bank width (widening) and
indicators suggesting a change in the planform regime (planimetric form adjustment)
are also part of the assessment. Based on the results of the RGAs, reaches were
classified as “in regime”, “in transition”, or “in adjustment” depending on the stability
index value as described in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Descriptions Based on Index Value
Stability Index
Value Stability Class Description
0 - 0.20 In Regime
Channel morphology is within the expected
range of variance for stable channels of similar
type. Channels are in good condition with
minor adjustments that do not impact the
function of the watercourse.
0.25 – 0.40 In Transition
Channel morphology is within the expected
range of variance but with evidence of stress.
Significant channel adjustments have occurred
and additional adjustment may occur.
0.40 – 1.0 In Adjustment
Metrics are outside of the expected range of
variance for channels of similar type.
Significant channel adjustments have occurred
and are expected to continue.
RGA stability results for the six reaches described above are listed in Table 3-2,
while the actual RGA evaluation sheets are contained in Appendix B.
Table 3-2: RGA Values for the Six Reaches Associated with the Pine Creek Erosion
Assessment EA
Reach RGA Stability
Index RGA Stability RGA Dominant
Process
Number of
Erosion Sites
PC3a 0.49 In Adjustment Widening 4
PC3b 0.36 In Transition Widening 6
PC3c 0.34 In Transition Aggradation 2
PC3d Not Assessed 1
PC4a 0.36 In Transition Widening 9
PC4b 0.51 In Adjustment Aggradation 3
The RGA scores highlighted in Table 3-2 reveal that reaches PC3a and PC4b are in
adjustment and are undergoing widening and aggradation respectively, whereas,
PC3b, PC3c, and PC4a are in transition but are dominated by widening and
aggradation, respectively.
44
Reach PC3a has a stability index of 0.49 and although it is dominated by the process
of widening, the process of aggradation is also influencing the channel as there is
ample evidence of siltation in the pools. Evidence of the widening is very prominent
as, along with the pedestrian bridge footings being outflanked, the presence of basal
scour can be observed through more than 50% of the reach.
Reach PC3b, having a stability index of 0.36, is also being influenced by both factors,
however, widening is the dominating process as evidence of exposed tree roots,
fracture lines along top of bank, and basal scour is present through the extent of the
reach.
Reach PC3c has a stability index of 0.34 and comprises a single thread channel with
pool – riffle channel morphology. The dominant process taking place within this reach
is aggradation but the channel is also undergoing widening. The process of
aggradation is evidenced from the formation of lobate bars, accretion on point bars,
and severe siltation of the bed whereas extensive leaning and fallen trees, and
exposed tree roots are evident indicating channel widening.
Reach PC3d was not assessed using the RGA tool, at this reach is a poorly defined
engineered drainage ditch that does not receive consistent base flow contributions or
exhibit typical creek morphology.
Reach PC4a has a stability index of 0.36 and is in transition with widening being the
dominating process. This reach is characterized by steep valley walls where the
channel is incising into the banks. Occurrence of large organic debris, exposed tree
roots, and fallen or leaning trees is present all throughout the reach evidencing the
process of widening is taking place. The channel through this reach is also impacted
by some degradation as scour pools are forming downstream of storm sewers.
Reach PC4b, having a stability index of 0.51, is undergoing channel adjustment.
This reach is dominated by the process of aggradation, however, evidence of channel
widening and the process of degradation is also significant within this reach. The
reach is characterized by steep valley walls where the channel is incising into the
banks on both sides of the channel. Steep cut banks are present on the meander
bends throughout the channel. Along with severe debris jams, the channel is incising
and occurrence of basal scour on inside the meander bends is prevalent throughout
the extent of the reach.
None of the six (6) reaches are in regime or “stable” but instead, are in transition or
adjustment indicating significant geomorphic instability, likely due to the effects of
urbanization and the reduction of infiltration throughout the watershed which has
caused considerable change to the hydraulic regime of Pine Creek.
45
3.2 Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory
As part of the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment EA, stormwater outfalls that discharge
directly into the creek were identified and inventoried in the field. Key outfall parameters
were recorded including size, material, and condition. A total of fifteen (15) outfalls were
inventoried through the EA assessment, with key results reported in Table 3-3 below.
Each outfall was assigned an overall condition score according to the following ratings:
• Good: The outfall is reasonably well maintained and in good overall condition. No
significant signs of structural degradation or risk of failure due to channel erosion
processes were identified.
• Fair: The outfall is still generally functioning as intended but is starting to exhibit
notable signs of structural degradation or is at moderate risk of failure due to
ongoing erosion processes.
• Poor: The outfall is approaching the end of its service life and is exhibiting significant
signs of deterioration. The outfall is at risk of complete failure due to structural
degradation or ongoing channel erosion processes. It is expected that within the
relatively near term that the outfall will no longer be able to perform it’s intended
function.
• Failure: The outfall is no longer functioning as intended. This ranking is typically
reserved for outfalls that have become fully detached from their inletting storm
sewers or are buried and are no longer able to provide sufficient drainage.
Overall, nine (9) of the fifteen (15) assessed outfalls were found to be in relatively good
condition, with the condition of remaining outfalls assessed as either fair (3 outfalls) or
poor (3 outfalls). Of the outfalls rated as poor, two (2) can be considered to be in a failed
condition as a result of significant sedimentation (Outfall #9) or complete detachment from
the upstream storm sewer pipe (Outfall #13).
Copies of the field sheets used for the Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory are included in
Appendix C.
46
Table 3-3: Storm Sewer Outfall Inventory Results
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
1 PC3-a Unknown 800 CSP Unknown Poor
Mitered to
Gabion Basket
Retaining Wall
Gabion Baskets
on Either Side
The CSP is located directly upstream of
Kingston Road.
CSP exhibits signs of corrosion and
structural degradation.
Restoration of this CSP pipe is accounted
for the Region of Durham planned BRT
project.
The outfall channel is heavily vegetated
and poorly defined.
No grate.
2 PC3-a SIO-53-
0002 600 Concrete 1978 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Some minor cracking near the pipe invert
connection
Sedimentation on the concrete apron
~100 mm backwatering at low flow due
to downstream beaver dam.
Steel Grate in good condition.
3 PC3-a SIO-53-
0001 1,700 Concrete 1976 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Minor Outflanking of Outfall Wingwalls
(Erosion Site #3)
Visible degradation of the Steel Grate
~560 mm backwatering at low flow due
to downstream beaver dam
47
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
4 PC3-a SIO-53-
0003 900 Concrete 1976 Fair
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Significant Sedimentation observed
within the Outfall Channel
~350 mm backwatering at low flow due
to the downstream beaver dam
Steel grate in good condition.
5 PC3-a /
PC3-b
SIO-63-
0003 1,200 Concrete 1976 Good
None – Outlets
inside the
Glenanna Road
Culvert
None
~100 mm backwatering at low flow
Steel grate in good condition
6 PC3-a /
PC3-b
SIO-63-
0002 1,350 Concrete 1976 Good
None – Outlets
inside the
Glenanna Road
Culvert
None
~100 mm backwatering at low flow
Steel grate in good condition
48
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
7 PC3-b SIO-63-
0001 2,400 Concrete 1977 Good
Mitered to
Downstream
Face of the
Kitley Road
Culvert
None
~100 mm backwatering at low flow
Steel grate in good condition
Minor Sediment Accumulation inside the
Outfall Pipe
Some Minor Cracking Observed around
the Pipe Invert
8 PC3-c SIO-72-
0006 600 Concrete 1986 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Moderate Sediment Accumulation and
Vegetation Observed in the Outfall
Channel.
Steel grate in good condition.
9 PC3-c SIO-72-
0004 1,650 Concrete 1984 Poor /
Failed
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Major sediment accumulation / debris
blockage. Approximately 80-90% of the
opening area is blocked.
49
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
10 Mountcastle
Tributary
SIO-71-
0001 1,050 Concrete 1987 Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
Energy
Dissipation
Blocks
Downstream of
Outfall
Engineered
Armourstone
Plunge Pool
Outfall protected through previous
channel restoration works identified as
part of the Frenchman’s Bay Stormwater
Management Master Plan
11 PC3-c Unknown 900 CSP Unknown Fair
None – CSP Pipe
Projecting from
Slope
None
Appears to be a private outfall servicing
the Plaza at the Intersection of Finch
Avenue and Dixie Road
Signs of Corrosion observed within the
CSP Pipe
Outfall is significantly setback from the
main channel
12 PC4-a Unknown 450 Concrete Unknown Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
Energy
Dissipation
Blocks
Downstream of
Outfall
Rip-rap lined
outfall channel
Outfall is not included on City base-
mapping and is setback from the main
channel
Downstream erosion protection works are
starting to fail (Erosion Site #15)
50
Outfall # Reach Asset ID Diameter
(mm) Material Construction
Year Condition Headwall
Erosion
Protection
Works
Comments Photo
13 PC4-a Unknown 600 CSP Unknown Poor /
Failed None None
Failed CSP culvert that Conveys Flows
from the Roadside Ditch Along Finch into
the Ravine Corridor.
Downstream is heavily eroded and is
starting to outflank the main CSP culvert
that conveys the west branch of Pine
Creek under Finch Avenue (Erosion Site
#16).
14 PC4-a Unknown
1,250
900
CSP
Concrete
Unknown Fair
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
and Steel Railing
None
Concrete Headwall with Two Pipes (One
CSP and One Concrete)
Steel Grate has Failed
Significant Corrosion Observed within the
CSP Pipe
Scouring and Erosion Observed
Downstream of the Headwall (Erosion
Site #21)
15 PC4-b Unknown 500 Concrete Unknown Good
Concrete
Headwall with
Flared Wingwalls
Engineered
Energy
Dissipation
Blocks
This outfall is located in Lynn Heights
Park, immediately Southeast of 923
Alanbury Crescent
Steel Grate in Good Condition
Outfall is setback from the Main Channel
Minor Erosion Observed Around the
Concrete Wingwalls
51
3.3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment
A review of the study area hydrological and hydraulic conditions was undertaken to
determine the existing flood levels / flood lines of Pine Creek within the project study area,
as well as to gain an understanding of the hydraulic parameters observed under the range
of flood flow conditions which attribute to erosion and channel alteration.
3.3.1 Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology
At the onset of the study, a hydraulic (HEC-RAS) model was obtained from TRCA which
addresses a range of hydrologic conditions (i.e., flood flow scenarios), including the
regional event and return period events for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year,
and 100-year storms, under existing land use conditions. Flows under the various storm
scenarios are summarized in Table 3-4, below.
Table 3-4: Overview of Pine Creek Hydrology within the EA Study Area
Profile
Reach PC4-a
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach PC4-b
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach PC4-c
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach PC3-b
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Reach
PC3-a
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
2-Year 0.73 0.72 4.36 11.36 12.33
5-Year 1.09 1.49 6.56 17.07 19.77
10-Year 1.39 2.12 8.18 21.34 24.34
25-Year 1.76 3.00 10.76 27.86 31.76
50-Year 2.09 3.74 12.65 33.88 38.35
100-Year 2.6 4.51 14.80 39.65 45.27
Regional 9.53 16.24 39.8 67.35 73.80
3.3.2 Overview of Pine Creek Hydraulics
For the purposes of this EA, the Pine Creek HEC-RAS model obtained from TRCA was used
to define the existing hydraulic conditions within the study area. The schematics and cross-
section arrangement of the existing HEC-RAS model within the study area boundary are
depicted in Figure 3-26, along with the regional flood line. The model was run under a
subcritical flow regime, with a summary of the key hydraulic modeling results for each of
the various flood flow events provided in Appendix D.
The results of the hydraulic assessment demonstrate that Pine Creek experiences
moderately high velocities, shearing forces, and channel power under the range of flood
flow conditions, which can contribute to continuous erosion and increased levels of channel
activity under extreme wet-weather flow events. These conditions have been considered
in the process of defining the types of restoration options, the sizing and resistance
thresholds for materials, and appropriate channel planform configurations.
In order to provide further insight into the impact of the hydraulics parameters, Aquafor
reviewed the published data on the critical erosional thresholds for river bed and bank
materials as presented in Table 3-5. These threshold values were then compared to the
range of velocities modelled within the Pine Creek sub watershed, a visual summary of
which is provided in Figure 3-27 as a box plot. A comparison between the values reported
in Table 3-5 and the box plot presented in Figure 3-27 suggests shearing and velocity
conditions will surpass the permissible thresholds for natural materials, and in turn, careful
attention to stone sizing and placement of material will be required to mitigate failure of
52
the reconstructed channel banks. It is worth noting however, that the modelled velocities
within Pine Creek are generally within the permissible range of velocities that
bioengineering bank treatments, such as a vegetated buttress, are designed for and that
consequently there are likely opportunities to limit the use of harder engineering solutions
(i.e., Armourstone or concrete retaining walls) in the development of the proposed
restoration alternatives.
Figure 3-26: Existing HEC-RAS Schematic Showing Regional Floodline Extents and Model
Cross-Section Locations
Table 3-5: Erosion Thresholds for Stream Bed and Bank Materials (Fischenich, 2001)
Material
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Minimum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Maximum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Velocity
Minimum
(m/s)
Permissible
Velocity
Maximum
(m/s)
Fine Gravels 3.6 0.76
Stiff Clay 12.4 0.91 1.37
Alluvial Silt 12.4 1.14
Graded Silt to Cobble 18.2 1.14
Shales and Hardpan 32.1 1.83
Non-Uniform Gravel / Cobble
2-inch 32.1 0.91 1.83
6-inch 95.8 1.22 2.29
Regulatory
Floodline
Discharge (m3/s)Profile
12.332-Year
19.775-Year
24.3410-Year
31.7625-Year
38.3550-Year
45.27100-Year
73.8Regional
53
Material
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Minimum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Shear
Stress
Maximum
(N/m2)
Permissible
Velocity
Minimum
(m/s)
Permissible
Velocity
Maximum
(m/s)
12-inch 191.5 1.68 3.66
Long native grasses 57.5 81.4 1.22 1.83
Short native and bunch grass 33.5 45.5 0.91 1.22
Reed plantings 4.8 28.7
Hardwood tree plantings 19.2 119.7
Wattles 9.6 47.9 0.91
Reed fascine 28.7 59.8 1.52
Coir roll 143.6 239.4 2.44
Vegetated coir mat 191.5 383.0 2.90
Live brush mattress (initial) 19.2 196.3 1.22
Live brush mattress (grown) 186.7 392.6 3.66
Brush layering
(initial/grown) 19.2 299.2 3.66
Live fascine 59.8 148.4 1.83 2.44
Live willow stakes 100.5 148.4 0.91 3.05
Gabions 478.8 4.27 5.79
Concrete / Armourstone 598.5 5.49
Figure 3-27: Box and Whisker Plot Illustrating Variations in Channel Velocity by Design
Storm for the Main Branch of Pine Creek. Permissible Minimum Velocities for Varying
Materials as per Fischenich (2001) Shown on the Right.
54
3.4 Source Water Protection
In compliance with the Clean Water Act (2006), the Credit Valley Conservation Authority,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority have collaborated on the CTC (Credit Valley-Toronto and Region-Central Lake
Ontario) Source Protection Plan (2022). The CTC source protection plan outlines the
policies and procedures developed to protect existing and future municipal drinking water
sources within the CTC region.
As per the CTC source protection plan, the EA project study area is not located within an
intake protection zone (Figure 3-28) or wellhead protection area. As such, it is generally
expected that the implementation of the stream restoration projects associated with this
EA will be of low risk to source water resources. Nevertheless, the prescribed drinking
water threats listed in the CTC source protection plan were also reviewed. It is expected
that the activities associated with the implementation of the proposed projects may involve
at least one potential threat to drinking water sources, which is the handling and storage
of fuel. To mitigate this risk to source water, at the construction phase of the project,
contractors will be required to handle and store all fuel at least thirty (30) meters from
Pine Creek or any other natural waterbodies. Contractors will also be responsible for
developing, and implementing as needed, a Spill response plan to address any potential
spills of deleterious substances into the natural environment.
Figure 3-28: CTC Intake Protection Zones (CTC Source Protection Plan, 2022)
55
3.5 Geology, Physiology, and Soils
A geological cross-section of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed, in the North-South direction,
is presented below as Figure 3-29. As per Figure 3-29, the project study area is underlain
by the Halton Till and Newmarket Till geological formations, which are comprised of glacial
sediment laid down between 12,000 and 70,000 years ago. Both till formations are founded
on top of gently sloped shale bedrock, known as the Whitby Formation with an estimated
age of 440 million years.
Figure 3-29: Geological Cross-Section of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed in the North-
South Direction (Eyles et al., 2003)
Groundwater flows in the watershed originate in the Oak Ridges Moraine, draining south
towards Lake Ontario. With respect to the subject study area, groundwater flow from the
foot of the Iroquois Bluffs plays a key role in providing baseflow to Pine Creek. With regards
to surficial geology, the lower half of the study area is dominated by a mixture of clay and
silt material with the upper reaches characterised by till overburden material as illustrated
in Figure 3-30.
56
Figure 3-30: Surficial Geology of the Frenchman’s Bay Sub watershed (Marshall,
Macklin, Monaghan & City of Pickering, 2009)
3.6 Terrestrial Natural Heritage Assessment
Aquafor completed field investigations on September 8th and 9th, 2022, to review site
conditions and characterize habitat that may be impacted by the proposed works. The
following subsections provide the results of those investigations combined with relevant
information gained from a comprehensive review of background resources.
3.6.1 Vegetation Communities
The entirety of the river valley corridor contains naturalized vegetation that ranges from
forest/woodland to wetland type habitats with varying amounts of anthropogenic
influence. The surrounding lands are mainly residential and recreational facilities.
Vegetation communities were assessed according to Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
for Southern Ontario, First Approximation (Lee et al., 1998). Where a suitable community
description was not available per the First Approximation, classification was supplemented
from the 2008 Draft version for Southern ELC, or a suitable vegetation community code in
the TRCA jurisdiction (TRCA, 2017) - most equivalent 1998 code is provided in brackets
where this applies. Communities are illustrated in Figure 3-31 – Figure 3-33 and
described in Table 3-6, below. A botanical inventory was conducted concurrent with the
ELC assessment; a total of 144 vascular plants were identified within the study area, 11 of
which were only identified to genus due to a lack of diagnostic features at the time of
survey. A complete annotated list of plant species is provided in Appendix E.
57
Table 3-6: Vegetation Community Descriptions
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
1 CUW1-A3 (CUW1)
Native Deciduous
Successional Woodland
(Mineral Cultural Woodland)
-/ L5 A strip of this semi-open community surrounds Pine Creek south of Kitley Avenue. The
canopy and subcanopy contain a mixture of species, although Silver Maple and Manitoba
Maple (Acer negundo and A. saccharinum) compete for overall dominance. A wide variety
of other trees are also present, examples including Norway Maple (Acer platanoides),
American Elm (Ulmus americana), Willows (Salix spp.), Basswood (Tilia americana), White
Mulberry (Morus alba), plus many others. The understory contained an abundance of
regenerating White and Green Ash (Fraxinus americana and F. pennsylvanica), along with
invasive European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and other common cultural woodland
species such as Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Dogwoods (Cornus spp.), Tatarian
Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), European Privet (Ligustrum vulgare), etc. The ground
layer was a variable mix, but often had patches of dense Dog-strangling Vine
(Vincetoxicum rossicum), Honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis), Avens (Geum sp.), or
other disturbance tolerance forbs and grasses. Some area showed evidence that they had
previously undergone restoration, indicated by the presence of common planted species
or species often included in seed mixes that would unlikely be present otherwise, such as
the presence of the provincially rare Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum – S2).
2 FOM3-2
Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple –
Hemlock Mixed Forest Type
S4S5 / L4 This community is located within Forestbrook Park and contains mainly Eastern Hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis) with a high content of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) in the canopy.
The subcanopy by contrast contains primarily Sugar Maple. Shrubs and groundcover are
almost absent here, with the exception of the area directly along the Pine Creek system –
this area receives a higher amount of sunlight and moisture, and therefore features some
common riparian woodland species such as Dogwoods, Red Raspberry (Rubus idaeus),
European Buckthorn, Dog-strangling Vine, Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
Dame’s Rocket (Hesperis matronalis), Avens, Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
etc. The community overall likely experiences a fair amount of anthropogenic disturbance
due to a network of trails observed throughout.
58
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
3 FOD5-1
Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple
Deciduous Forest Type
S5 / L5 A small patch of forest almost exclusively dominated by Sugar Maple is found in
Forestbrook Park, directly north of the FOM3-2 Hemlock community. Alternate-leaved
Dogwood (Conrus alternifolia), Red-Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and Maple-leaved
Viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) are examples of shrubs found in this area. The ground
layer was moderately dense, and contained common upland species such as Zig-zag
Goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), False Solomon’s Seal (Maianthemum racemosum), Herb
Robert (Geranium robertianum), Blue-stemmed Goldenrod (Solidago caesia), Spinulose
Wood Fern (Dryopteris carthusiana), White Baneberry (Actaea pachypoda) and Sedges
(Carex spp.).
59
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
4 MAM2-10
Mixed Forb Mineral Meadow
Marsh Type
S4S5 / L5 A large, open low patch at the northeast end of Forestbrook Park contains a mixture of
common wetland forbs, mainly Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Spotted
Jewelweed. Other common species include True Forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides),
Devil’s Beggar-ticks (Bidens frondosa), Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), Reed-canary Grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), Spotted Joe-Pyeweed (Eutrochium maculatum), Broad-leaved
Cattail (Typha latifolia) and Swamp Aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum). Trees and shrubs
were common around the perimeter, including Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea), Wild
Black Currant (Ribes americanum), European Buckthorn, Eastern White Cedar (Thuja
occidentalis), Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera) and American Elm.
A substantial patch of Common Reed (Phragmites australis spp. australis) was noted at
the southern tip of the community, as shown as a MASM1-12 (Common Reed Mineral
Shallow Marsh Type) inclusion.
60
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
5 WOMM4-1/CUW1-A3
(CUW1)
Fresh - Moist White Cedar -
Hardwood Mixed Woodland
Type/ Native Deciduous
Successional Woodland
(Mineral Cultural Woodland)
-/ L5 A large area in the northeast of Forestbrook Park, carrying on across to the east side of
Dixie Road, is characterized by a mixed woodland with no clear dominance. Canopy
coverage is variable but ultimately averages out at about 60%, the majority being made
up of either Maples, Pines, or Eastern White Cedar depending on location. Common
examples include Sugar, Norway, Manitoba and Red (Acer rubrum) Maples, White Pine
(Pinus strobus), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), White Spruce (Picea glauca), Black Cherry
(Prunus serotina), Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Crack Willow (Salix x fragilis)
and Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera). Some areas containing old dead Ash and Elm were
also noted scattered throughout the community. The understory is generally thick, and
often contains a mix of regenerating Ash, European Buckthorn and Chokecherry (Prunus
virginiana). Dog-strangling Vine is common in the ground layer, as is Canada Goldenrod
(Solidago canadensis). Wetland plants were also observed at lower elevations as the
community transitioned into Mineral Meadow Marsh.
One Species at Risk – Butternut (Juglans cinerea - Endangered), was observed in this
community, just south of Finch Avenue.
6 FOM2-2a
Dry – Fresh White Pine –
Sugar Maple Mixed Forest
Type
S5 / L4 North of Finch Avenue the watercourse flows through Duncannon Ravine, adjacent to
Erskine Cemetery. A mixed forest dominates the riparian area here, characterized by
Sugar Maple, followed by White Pine and Eastern Hemlock in the canopy. Other common
associates such as American Elm, White and Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis), Red Oak
(Quercus rubra) and American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) were noted throughout. The
subcanopy contains mainly Sugar Maple. The subcanopy contained mainly young White
Ash and Sugar Maple, as well as Chokecherry. The ground layer was a variable mixture,
often containing patches of Dog-strangling Vine, English Ivy (Hedera helix), Periwinkle
(Vinca minor) and Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata). Other species such as Poison Ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Dame’s Rocket, Broad-leaved Enchanter’s Nightshade (Circaea
canadensis) and other woodland species were common.
61
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
7 FOM2-2b
Dry – Fresh White Pine –
Sugar Maple Mixed Forest
Type
S5 / L4 Similar to Duncannon Ravine, the adjacent branch of the Pine Creek watercourse (abutting
Lynn Heights Park) also contains Sugar Maple mixed with White Pine and Eastern Hemlock.
Although this community is generally consistent with the aforementioned FOM2-2a
community, a higher conifer content was noted here, with White Pine and Eastern White
Cedar in particular being more abundant generally throughout the canopy and subcanopy.
8 WOMM4-1/CUW1-A1
(CUW1)
Fresh - Moist White Cedar -
Hardwood Mixed Woodland
Type/
White Cedar Successional
Woodland
(Mineral Cultural Woodland)
-/ L4 This community is a mixed jumble of both deciduous and coniferous species. Poplars
account for approximately 30 % of the cover above the main canopy. The main canopy
by contrast is somewhat patchy and contains mainly young to mid-aged Eastern White
Cedar with some younger Poplar, and an abundance of vines (e.g. Riverbank Grape - Vitis
riparia, and Thicket Creeper - Parthenocissus vitacea). A thick layer of Young Ash and
European Buckthorn dominate the shrub layer, along with vines. Where present, ground
cover comprises mainly Dog-strangling vine with occasional patches of Sensitive Fern
(Onoclea sensibilis) and sporadic woodland forbs such as Baneberry, Broad-leaved
Enchanter’s Nightshade, Sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), Panicled Aster (Symphyotrichum
lanceolatum) and Garlic Mustard. A small patch of planted Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) is
present in the northeast corner of the community. Overall, this community is heavily
disturbed, as indicated by the high content of invasives (e.g. European Buckthorn and
Garlic Mustard), and abundance of garbage dumping noted along the edges.
62
Polygon
#
Community Code Rank
(S-rank/
TRCA-
rank)
Description Representative Photos
9 FOC1-2
Dry – Fresh White Pine – Red
Pine Coniferous Forest Type
S4 / L3 A small chunk of White Pine dominated forest was observed adjacent to the WOMM4-1
and FOM2-2 communities associated with Lynn Heights Park. As indicated, this community
contained mainly White Pine, with some Trembling Aspen and Paper Birch in the canopy,
and some White Cedar in the subcanopy. White Ash was prevalent in the shrub layer, with
some young deciduous trees (e.g. Sugar Maple) and Alternate-leaved Dogwood. The
ground layer contained large patches of Dog-strangling Vine, with some other sporadic
woodland species such as Jack-in-the-Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), Broad-leaved
Enchanter’s Nightshade, Canada Mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), Garlic Muster,
White Baneberry and others.
One Species at Risk – Butternut (Endangered), was observed in this community, just west
of the Alanbury Crescent cul-de-sac.
- ANTH
Anthropogenic
- Lands used for anthropogenic purposes (e.g., roadways and paths, mown areas, parking
lots).
63
Figure 3-31: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC4-a & PC4-b
64
Figure 3-32: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-c & PC3-d
65
Figure 3-33: ELC Mapping – Reaches PC3-a & PC3-b
66
3.6.2 Trees
A tree inventory, arborist report, and tree preservation plan will need to be completed
as part of the detailed design process to support permitting efforts with MECP and
TRCA. Impacts to existing trees and any implications under the City’s by-law
(including any associated protection or replanting requirements related to those
impacts) should be detailed upon the completion of the tree inventory and leveraged
to prepare site restoration plans that satisfy the requirements of all regulatory review
agencies.
3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat
Aquafor’s wildlife biologist attended the site in September of 2022 and documented
all wildlife species that were seen or heard during those site visits (either via direct
observation, or indirectly via tracks, dens, etc.). Opportunistic surveying for wildlife
(i.e., basking surveys for turtles on the creek banks and other perches, reviewing
beneath cover materials for reptiles and amphibians) was also carried out where
possible. Due to the timing of site visits, the bird species assemblage that was
documented mostly includes urban birds commonly seen throughout the year and is
not representative of breeding diversity expected in the spring and summer months.
Insects, as well as reptile and amphibian activity is also reduced in the fall, as many
species are preparing for winter hibernation.
Table 3-7, below, provides an overview of Aquafor’s site observations.
Table 3-7: Wildlife Species List
Species Observed
S Rank L Rank
SAR
Designation
(ESA) Common Name Scientific Name
Birds
American Crow Corvus
brachyrhynchos
S5 L5
-
American Goldfinch Spinus tristis S5 L5 -
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla S5B L4 -
American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 L5 -
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 L5 -
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 L5 -
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 L5 -
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 L5 -
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S5B,S3N L4 -
House Sparrow Passer domesticus SNA L+ -
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 L5 -
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S5 L4 -
White Breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 L4 -
Mammals
American Beaver Castor canadensis S5 L4 -
67
Species Observed
S Rank L Rank
SAR
Designation
(ESA) Common Name Scientific Name
Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis S5 L5 -
Northern Raccoon Procyon lotor S5 L5 -
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes S5 L4 -
Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
S5 L4
-
Insects
Asian Lady Beetle Harmonia axyridis SNA L+ -
Cabbage White Pieris rapae SNA L+ -
Eastern Tailed-blue Cupido comyntas S5 - -
Monarch Danaus plexippus S2N,S4B - Special
Concern
Several species listed above are considered to be of regional concern within the
TRCA’s urban matrix – i.e., ranked L4; they inhabit forests and other such habitats
which are much reduced or absent in urban landscapes. These include American
Redstart, Gray Catbird, Northern Flicker, White Breasted Nuthatch, American Beaver,
Red Fox and Red Squirrel. The majority of these species do not require habitats
specific to those found in the study area, and may be found an any similar habitat up
or downstream of the study area, or neighboring river corridors. Specific to beaver
activity, beaver dams have been noted frequently by Public Works Staff in the Pine
Creek corridor, particularly between Storrington Street and Bronte Square. Dam and
debris removal activities have been on-going to protect private property in the
adjacent areas and reduce tree damage.
One Species at Risk (SAR) insect; Monarch was observed incidentally within the study
area. No other SAR or Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC) wildlife were
observed. Notwithstanding, potential exists for additional SAR (discussed in further
detail below), or numerous other common wildlife species to use the habitats types
found here.
Based on the diversity of habitat in the corridor, the timing of field investigations,
and high connectivity to other natural features, the study area and surrounding
habitat likely supports a wider range of wildlife than could be confirmed during
Aquafor’s field investigations.
3.6.4 Habitat and Connectivity
The species diversity described in the previous sections indicates that the Pine Creek
corridor at this location supports a healthy, diverse wildlife community. Local wildlife
movement along the river corridor is expected to occur, and the overall corridor could
provide habitat connectivity on the larger landscape as it functions as a direct corridor
between Frenchman’s Bay and undeveloped rural habitat to the north of the City.
Provided natural features are restored to the disturbance area post constriction,
impacts to wildlife movement through the corridor is likely to be temporary.
68
3.7 Significant Species, Features, and Areas
3.7.1 Species at Risk Screening
For the purposes of this study, SAR are defined as species designated Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern under either the provincial Endangered Species Act
(ESA) or federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).
Aquafor reviewed background sources (e.g.: prior occurrence records from the
provincial Natural Heritage Information Center [NHIC] database; community science
databases such as the eBird and iNaturalist websites; provincial species atlases; and
the Fisheries and Oceans Canada online SAR mapping) to identify SAR that have
previously been or could potentially be found in or adjacent to the study area. The
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) was also
contacted to confirm whether they had additional species concerns for the area on
August 22, 2022.
The resulting list of species was subsequently screened by comparing the habitat
requirements of each species to the habitat that is available in the study area, and
species determined to be presented or have some potential to be present are
discussed in Table 3-8 below. A complete screening of all SAR or Species of
Conservation Concern (SOCC) with records in the vicinity of the study area is detailed
in Appendix F.
69
Table 3-8: Species at Risk Screening Results
Species
Common
Name
Species
Scientific
Name
Status Data
Source Habitat Requirements Discussion
Plants
Butternut Juglans
cinerea Endangered NHIC
Generally grows in rich, moist, and well-drained soils often
found along streams. It may also be found on well-drained
gravel sites, especially those made up of limestone. It is also
found, though seldomly, on dry, rocky and sterile soils. In
Ontario, the Butternut generally grows alone or in small
groups in deciduous forests as well as in hedgerows.
Species was confirmed in two locations within the study area (Polygon 2 and
Polygon 9), and additional specimens may be present.
Protected habitat may extend up to a radius of up to 50 m from a pure, retainable
Butternut and any trees that are found within 50 m of the proposed works should
be subject to a Butternut Health Evaluation to determine their status. Works
affecting retainable Butternut will require registration through a Notice of
Activity prior to commencing construction.
Birds
Barn Swallow Hirundo
rustica
Special
Concern NHIC
Prefers farmland, lake/river shorelines, wooded clearings,
urban populated areas, rocky cliffs and wetlands. They nest
inside or outside buildings, under bridges and in road
culverts, or on rock faces and caves.
No Barn Swallow nests or signs of Barn Swallow were observed during field
investigations. However, several box culverts at road crossings were noted
throughout the Pine Creek corridor. Although there were no nests present at the
time, these structures have potential to be used in the future.
As the proposed works will not involve any modifications to the aforementioned
structures, any impacts to this species associated with the works are expected to
be temporary sensory disturbance.
Eastern
Wood-pewee
Contopus
virens
Special
Concern NHIC
Associated with deciduous and mixed forests. Within mature
and intermediate age stands it prefers areas with little
understory vegetation as well as forest clearings and edges.
Habitat for this species is abundant throughout the creek corridor.
Since edge habitat is not limiting in the study area, the proposed works is not
expected to have a significant effect on breeding opportunity for this species
provided mitigation measures are followed. Destruction or damage of active nests
can be avoided by limiting vegetation clearing to outside of the breeding bird
window in any given year (April 1st to August 31st).
Wood Thrush Hylocichla
mustelina
Special
Concern NHIC
Nests mainly in second-growth and mature deciduous and
mixed forests, with saplings and well-developed understory
layers. Prefers large forest mosaics, but may also nest in
small forest fragments.
Although not detected during field investigations, suitable habitat is present in the
mature deciduous and mixed forest types (e.g. Polygon 6 and 7 - FOM2-2) at the
northern end of the study area.
Destruction or damage to active nests can be avoided by limiting vegetation
clearing to outside of the breeding bird window in any given year (April 1st to
August 31st).
Yellow-
breasted Chat Icteria virens Endangered OBAA
Breeds in early successional, shrub-thicket habitats including
woodland edges, regenerating old fields, railway and hydro
right-of-ways, young coniferous reforestations, and wet
thickets bordering wetlands. Tangles of grape (Vitis spp.)
and raspberry (Rubus spp.) vines are features of most
breeding sites.
Although not detected during field investigations, several thicket-type habitats are
present in the study area, particularly around the perimeter of Polygon 4 wetland
(MAM2-10) and in the vine heavy WOMM4-1 habitat at the north end of the study
area (Polygon 8).
Destruction or damage to active nests can be avoided by limiting vegetation
clearing to outside of the breeding bird window in any given year (April 1st to
August 31st). If this species is confirmed to be using any of the
aforementioned habitats, works affecting those habitats will require
registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing construction.
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Eastern
Milksnake
Lampropeltis
Triangulum
Special
Concern
(federal)
ORAA
This habitat generalist may utilize a variety of different
habitats including open or forested natural areas, but shows
preference to sites that can provide hibernation
No specific hibernacula habitat was identified during field investigation, but due to
the generalist nature of this species, any natural areas within the Pine Creek
corridor may function for other life-history processes such as foraging.
70
Species
Common
Name
Species
Scientific
Name
Status Data
Source Habitat Requirements Discussion
opportunities (old foundations, mammal burrows, old logs,
etc.) and are in close proximity to water.
• Potential impacts can be mitigated through awareness and monitoring to avoid injury
or mortality of snakes during construction.
Midland
Painted Turtle
Chrysemys
picta
marginata
Special
Concern
(federal)
General
Screening
Quiet, warm, shallow water with abundant aquatic
vegetation such as ponds, large pools, streams, ditches,
swamps, marshy meadows; eggs are laid in sandy places,
usually in a bank or hillside, or in fields; basks in groups;
not territorial.
This species may make use of the Pine Creek for various life cycle processes such
as foraging, hibernation, basking and/or nesting activities.
Potential impacts to this species can be mitigated through awareness and
monitoring to avoid injury or mortality of turtles during construction, and by
avoiding the creation of soil stockpiles or other features which may attract nesting
turtles in the spring and early summer.
Snapping
Turtle
Chelydra
serpentina
Special
Concern NHIC
Generally inhabit shallow waters where they can hide under
the soft mud and leaf litter. Nesting sites usually occur on
gravely or sandy areas along streams. Snapping turtles
often take advantage of man-made structures for nest sites,
including roads (especially gravel shoulders), dams and
aggregate pits.
This species may make use of the Pine Creek for various life cycle processes such
as foraging, hibernation, basking and/or nesting activities.
Potential impacts to this species can be mitigated through awareness and
monitoring to avoid injury or mortality of turtles during construction, and by
avoiding the creation of soil stockpiles or other features which may attract nesting
turtles in the spring and early summer.
Western
Chorus Frog
Pseudacris
triseriata
Threatened
(federal) ORAA
Habitat typically consists of marshes or wooded wetlands,
particularly those with dense shrub layers and grasses.
Prefers fishless ponds with at least 10 cm of standing water
for breeding. This species hibernates in terrestrial habitats
under rocks, dead trees or leaves, in loose soil or in animal
burrows.
Standing water in wetland areas (e.g. Polygon 4 – MAM2-10) provides the most
suitable habitat for this species.
A wildlife rescue should be completed in any closed off areas associated with
wetland habitat, prior to construction. Potential impacts can be mitigated through
awareness and monitoring to avoid injury or mortality of frogs during construction.
Disturbed wetland habitat should be restored post-construction to provide similar
pooled habitat to what was removed.
Insects
Monarch Danaus
plexippus
Special
Concern iNaturalist
Exist primarily where it’s obligate larval host plant -
milkweed (Asclepias spp.) and other wildflowers exist. This
includes abandoned farmland, roadsides and other open
spaces.
This species was confirmed within the study area. Habitat is present in any open,
sunny areas that contain wildflowers for foraging, or milkweed for breeding.
Impact to this species can be reduced by avoiding vegetation clearing during the
growing season (April and October of any given year), including a variety of native,
pollinator friendly flowering flora in the restoration seed mix, and avoiding the use
of pesticides.
Mammals
Little Brown
Myotis
Myotis
lucifugus Endangered General
Screening
Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above
freezing.
Maternal roosts: Often associated with buildings (attics,
barns, etc.). Occasionally found in trees (25-44 cm DBH).
Numerous large DBH trees were present throughout the study area, with a high
likelihood that cavities, peeling bark and other suitable sheltering features are
present. Leaf-off surveys would be required to document the full extent of Myotis
habitat throughout the study area.
Any proposed tree removals containing features suitable for roosting SAR
bats require registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing
construction. Tree removals should be timed to avoid the bat maternity season
which generally runs April 1 – October 1 of any given year.
Northern
Myotis
Myotis
septentrionalis Endangered General
Screening
Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above
0°C.
Maternal Roosts: Often associated with cavities of large
diameter trees (25-44 cm DBH). Occasionally found in
structures (attics, barns etc.)
Numerous large DBH trees were present throughout the study area, with a high
likelihood that cavities, peeling bark and other suitable sheltering features are
present. Leaf-off surveys would be required to document the full extent of Myotis
habitat throughout the study area.
Any proposed tree removals containing features suitable for roosting SAR
bats require registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing
71
Species
Common
Name
Species
Scientific
Name
Status Data
Source Habitat Requirements Discussion
construction. Tree removals should be timed to avoid the bat maternity season
which generally runs April 1 – October 1 of any given year.
Tricoloured
Bat
Perimyotis
subflavus Endangered General
Screening
Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above
0°C.
Maternal Roosts: Can be in trees or dead clusters of leaves
or arboreal lichens on trees; oaks and maples preferred.
May also use barns or similar structures.
Large-diameter maples and oaks with potential for Tricolored Bat habitat were
present in wooded portions of the study area.
Any proposed tree removals containing features suitable for roosting SAR
bats require registration through a Notice of Activity prior to commencing
construction. Tree removals should be timed to avoid the bat maternity season
which generally runs April 1 – October 1 of any given year.
72
3.7.2 Species of Conservation Concern and Regionally Rare
Species Review
Additional species which were reviewed as Species of Conservation Concern include
those with Global Ranks of G1-G3 and/or Sub-National/Provincial ranks of S1-S3,
and species considered rare within the TRCA watershed (L-Ranks 2017) or in Eco-
region 7E-4 (Oldham, 2017), where those species were not already considered under
the SAR assessment noted above.
One provincially significant plant species was confirmed in association with the study
area – Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum – S2). Within the TRCA jurisdiction, this
species is common (L5), and is considered secure in the region. Aquafor documented
it in a narrow section of woodland corridor in the southern extent of the study area
(Polygon 1 – CUW1). Several multi-stemmed pockets of this species were observed
throughout this community, particularly is association with David Farr Park. There is
some evidence that previous restoration efforts may have occurred in that stretch of
the Pine Creek corridor, which suggests it may have been part of a planting plan.
Both TRCA’s Annual Local Occurrence Score and Local Rank Update (2017) and
Oldham’s Vascular Plan List of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (2017) were referenced for
regional rarity. All species with L-ranks of L1 through L3 are considered regionally
rare in TRCA’s jurisdiction, and species ranked L4 are considered rare in an urban
setting. Similarly, Oldham (2017) lists species listed as Uncommon (U) or Rare (R)
in Ecoregion 7E-4. The following 9 locally rare plant species were found within the
study area:
•Canada Honewort - Cryptotaenia canadensis (U)
•Wood Nettle - Laportea canadensis (U)
•Tamarack – Larix laricina (R; L3)
•Great Blue Lobelia – Lobelia siphilitica (R; L3)
•Lopseed – Phryma leptostachya (R)
•White Spruce – Picea glauca (U; L3)
•Dwarf Clearweed – pilea pumila (U)
•White Oak - Quercus alba (L3)
•Maple-leaved Viburnum – Vibernum acerifolium (L3)
In instances where the proposed works will involve the destruction or removal of any
of the above species, relocation efforts may be considered where feasible.
Alternatively, inclusion of these species in the proposed planting plan will increase
the likelihood that these species remain present locally post-construction.
No other SOCC with known records are thought likely to occur in the study area based
on the habitat. A complete screening of all SAR or Species of Conservation Concern
(SOCC) with records in the vicinity of the study area is detailed in Appendix F.
73
3.7.3 Significant Natural Heritage Feature Consideration
Significant Natural Heritage features include any natural feature formally identified
as having policy or regulatory implications for proposed site alteration or
development. These features may require additional ecological impact assessment or
permitting to proceed with proposed works. The study area contains the following:
3.7.3.1 Provincially Significant Features
The study area does contain one mapped wetland according to the mapping layers
maintained by the MNRF (as viewed through the “Make A Map: Natural Heritage
Areas” website, December 2022). This wetland was confirmed during Aquafor’s field
investigations as MAM2-10 (Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh) with a MASM1-12 (Common
Reed) inclusion. However, this wetland is not considered either provincially or locally
significant.
There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest within the study area, and it is
not located within the provincial Greenbelt or the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan area.
3.7.3.2 City of Pickering Official Plan
Under the City of Pickering Official Plan (CPOP), the “Natural Areas” subcategory falls
under the “Open Spaces” policy of the CPOP. Lands designated as part of the Open
Space System (Schedule I) are intended to be used primarily for conservation,
restoration, environmental education, recreation, and ancillary purposes and may
include Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features which have related
minimum areas of influence and minimum vegetation protection zones. The study
area contains several natural heritage features under this designation afforded
protection under the Plan, including “Natural Heritage System” (Schedule IIIA)
comprising Significant Woodland (Schedule IIIB), and Shorelines, Significant Valley
Lands and Stream Corridors (Schedule IIIC).
Under the CPOP, works falling into Ontario’s Natural Heritage System are subject to
the stipulations of Durham Region Official Plan (DROP, 2020) in accordance with the
Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement (2020). Under the DROP, the natural heritage
features of the study area fall within Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic
Features (Schedule B - Map B1). Specific to the proposed works, Table 3 of the CPOP
states the following with regards to permissible uses and site alteration within these
Natural Areas, reflective of equivalent policy in the DROP (Policy 2.3.15):
Conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation,
and similar uses, subject to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan related to non-
agricultural uses, and provided that development or site alteration may only be
permitted in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features for the following
purposes:
74
(ii) conservation and flood and erosion control and other similar environmental
protection and restoration projects demonstrated to be necessary in the public
interest and after all alternatives have been considered.
As the proposed works are intended to address erosion control issues and intend to
restore natural habitat post-construction, works within these features are permitted
as per the CPOP (Table 3) and DROP (Policy 2.3.15). An Environmental Impact Study,
in accordance with DROP Policy 2.3.43, is be required for any development or site
alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage or hydrologic feature to
demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts to these features or their
ecological functions. The contents of this document serves to fulfill this requirement.
3.7.3.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulations and
Guidelines
Under the Conservation Authorities Act, Section 28.1 grants the TRCA the authority
to regulate development, interference with wetlands, and alteration of shorelines and
watercourses within the TRCA watershed. Given that the site includes Lake Ontario
and associated coastal wetlands and is located within regulated lands, it is anticipated
that a permit from TRCA will be required for the completion of the proposed works.
In addition to permitting within TRCA regulated lands, it is anticipated that restoration
and/or compensation within any disturbed portions of the Frenchman’s Bay PSW and
surrounding lands will be required. The mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize,
mitigate) must be applied before considering compensation for wetlands. If
compensation if required, a 1:1 compensation ratio for marshes and meadows is
required by the TRCA under their Ecosystem Compensation Guideline (TRCA, 2023).
For swamp habitats, if present, the compensation ratio will be determined using the
basal area method. Compensation within wooded areas is dependent on basal area
or equivalent calculation as agreed upon by the TRCA based on these guidelines.
3.8 Aquatic Natural Heritage Assessment
Fish community and aquatic habitat within the Pine Creek study area was reported
on in the 2009 Stormwater Management Master Plan for the Frenchman’s Bay
Watersheds, City of Pickering (MMM Group, 2009), with TRCA monitoring results
provided in the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Progress Report (TRCA,
2012). Site conditions along the Pine Creek corridor were confirmed as a part of this
study September 14, 2022 by Aquafor Beech aquatic biology staff in accordance with
Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), Section 4, Module 1: Rapid Assessment
Methodology for Channel Structure (Stanfield, 2017). The aquatic components of the
study area are described in the following subsections. Photographs from Aquafor’s
site visits are included.
75
3.8.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Aquatic habitat characteristics, as described hereafter, are major determinants for
biotic composition, which is an indicator of aquatic ecosystem health. The habitat
characteristics investigated within the constructed corridor and study area include:
• Bank characteristics;
• Stream width and depth (wetted and bankfull);
• Instream cover (e.g., substrate type, woody material, undercut banks,
boulders, vegetation);
• Riparian cover (vegetation composition, quality and width); and
• Physical barriers to fish movement (e.g., woody or debris jams, knickpoints,
etc.)
Monitoring locations are depicted below in Figure 3-34 with results provided
thereafter.
Figure 3-34: Aquatic Monitoring Locations
The study area for the Pine Creek aquatic habitat assessment, located within the
Frenchman’s Bay watershed, extended from Kingston Road upstream to the Lynn
Heights Drive and Fairport Road, including the main branch of Pine Creek as well as
76
any other contributing features identified through aerial imagery and field work.
Contributing features identified were the Kitley Ravine bound by Kitley Ave and the
Duncannon Ravine bound by Duncannon Drive. Throughout the study reach, multiple
crossings intersected the watercourse, Kingston Road, Glenanna Road, Kitley Ave,
Dixie Road, Finch Ave, and the upstream Fairport Road and Lynn Heights Drive. These
crossings will be referenced throughout the following description for site context. This
assessment area was selected to provide a representative view of the watercourse
and the general study area. Where possible, monitoring and assessment information
as provided in background information from the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) was used to offer insights into long-term monitoring results and
habitat considerations. One TRCA monitoring site (FB003WM) was noted within Pine
Creek, although downstream of the study area. The study area relative to the TRCA
background information, in particular aquatic and fisheries monitoring, is shown in
Figure 3-35.
Figure 3-35: TRCA Land use Mapping
Pine Creek is a part of the Frenchman’s Bay watershed within the TRCA jurisdiction.
This section of the Pine Creek subwatershed falls within the Pickering city centre, with
much of the watercourse representative of an urban-impacted watercourse. The
Master Plan noted that Pine Creek and its associated riparian habitat within the study
area has been largely developed, with the urban landuse resulting in fragmented
open riverine habitat (MMM Group, 2009). The Master Plan also noted that the Pine
77
Creek subwatershed demonstrated degradation in aquatic habitat evidence of active
erosion and downcutting, with the TRCA citing a regularly anoxic water with high
temperatures and turbidity, water quality parameters in exceedance of the Provincial
Water Quality Objectives for the Protection of Aquatic Life, and “Very Poor” water
quality based on the Hilsenhoff Index of benthic macroinvertebrates with “Likely
severe organic pollution present” (MMM Group, 2009). Through the reach examined
as a part of this study, Pine Creek is bordered by a very narrow, fragmented swath
of natural heritage cover. OSAP findings and habitat characteristics for the study area
are detailed in Table 3-9. OSAP photos are provided below and field sheets in
Appendix G.
78
Table 3-9: Aquatic Habitat Characteristics
Assessment
Location
General
UTM
Coordinates
Site Location Site Characteristics Habitat Description Substrate
Composition Bank Stability
Instream and
Riparian
Vegetation
Fish Barriers and Other
Disturbances
Pine Creek
1
(PC1)
17 T
653179 m E
4855237 m N
Site 1 (PC1) was
the furthest, most
downstream site
within the main
Pine Creek
branch, located
adjacent to
Bronte Square
and
approximately
140 m upstream
of Kingston Road
and 1.35 km to
where the creek
empties into
Frenchman’s Bay.
This site is the
closest to the
TRCA monitoring
site (FB003WM).
Site length was ~40 m.
Average wetted width was
~6 m. The average depth
at crossovers was 500 mm
with the maximum depth
observed over 1 m due to
downstream beaver
activity and backwatering.
The site observed
engineered features with
evidence of past
restoration efforts, such as
historic straightening to
accommodate adjacent
outfalls, a well-used
pedestrian crossing with
concrete abutments
extending into the creek,
and encroaching
residences. The site fell
adjacent to a busy public
walking trail.
This site was dominated by
medium depth glides (Figure
3-36), with habitat largely
limited due to downstream
beaver activity and
backwatering (
Figure 3-37). Cover was
provided upstream of the
pedestrian crossing by
moderate canopy cover, as
well as some large woody
material and rooted
macrophytes. Sedimentation
was evident, with turbid water
and little evidence of larger
cobbles to contribute to
instream cover.
This site was largely
contributed by fines,
with some gravels
observed. Areas of
sedimentation were
observed adjacent to
multiple outfalls
downstream of the
pedestrian crossing.
Little to no instream
cover was provided
by substrate.
Erosion and
downcutting was
observed on both
banks throughout the
entire length of the
site, with reaches
upstream of the
pedestrian crossing
exacerbated by
manicured lawn
encroaching onto the
creek banks.
Instream vegetation
was moderate
throughout this site,
limited to some
rooted macrophytes.
Riparian vegetation
was limited, with
both of the left and
right bank consisting
scrubland for ~5-10
m before
transitioning to
maintained parkland
and residential lawn.
A small buffer
adjacent to the creek
was observed
downstream of the
pedestrian crossing
before transitioning
to manicured park
lawn.
No crossings outside of the
pedestrian crossing existed
within the immediate area,
although multiple residential
areas and residential
developments bordered the
site with maintained lawns
encroaching on the
watercourse. Multiple signs
of beaver activity, including
posted signage (
Figure 3-38) and wiring
were observed. Discussions
with locals pointed to
downstream beaver activity
which led to the apparent
backwatering in the creek.
Multiple outfalls were
observed downstream of the
pedestrian crossing (
Figure 3-39). A well-used
park and trail existed on the
right bank with maintained
lawn beyond the narrow
riparian zone. No fish
barriers were observed.
Pine Creek
2
(PC2)
17 T
652988 m E
4855642 m N
Site 2 (PC2) was
approximately 0.5
km upstream of
PC1, within the
David Farr
Parklands, and
within the main
Pine Creek
branch.
Site length was ~90 m.
Average wetted width at
the time of sampling was
~3 m. The average depth
at crossovers was 100 mm
and the maximum depth
sampled was ~800 mm.
The site observed signs of
past engineering and
channel restoration, with
large substrate introduced
and active riparian
plantings to buffer from the
adjacent, busy public park
(David Farr Park).
This site was delimited by two
riffles (
Figure 3-40 &
Figure 3-41), with the
remainder of the habitat
throughout represented by
well-distributed pools (
Figure 3-42) and glides (
Figure 3-43). Cover was
contributed by round cobbles
introduced during past channel
restoration works, with in-
stream vegetation very limited.
Cover was largely contributed
by overhanging canopy cover
immediately adjacent to the
bank(s).
This site largely
consisted of sands
and gravels, with
cobbles observed in
riffle structures and
areas of consolidated
clay where flows had
stripped the top layer
of substrate. The
maximum particle
size was greater than
1 m in size and was
contributed by
engineered materials.
The banks consisted
almost entirely of silt
with some larger
cobbles and boulders
observed throughout,
likely introduced by
past engineering
efforts. Both the right
and left bank had
erosion contributed by
encroaching park land
and foot traffic, with
fines held stable by
well-established mixed
scrubland.
Instream vegetation
was moderate,
consisting of moss,
filamentous and
attached algae, and
some rooted
macrophytes.
Riparian vegetation
consisted of narrow
mixed deciduous
scrubland up to 10
m. Manicured
parkland and lawn
was beyond the
narrow riparian
buffer.
The site was adjacent to a
well-used park with
pedestrian trails and
unofficial crossings
throughout, which likely
contributed to nutrients and
pollutant loading within the
site and system. Other
contributions were likely
adjacent lawns, as well as
upstream residential areas
and residential
developments. No barriers to
fish were observed, with fish
observed in pools and
adjacent to undercut banks.
79
Assessment
Location
General
UTM
Coordinates
Site Location Site Characteristics Habitat Description Substrate
Composition Bank Stability
Instream and
Riparian
Vegetation
Fish Barriers and Other
Disturbances
Kitley
Ravine 1
(KR1)
17 T
652547 m E
4855826 m N
The Kitley Ravine site (KR1), located within a contributing feature to the main Pine Creek, was approximately 30 m upstream of Kitley Ave (
Figure 3-44). The site was on municipal property bound by private residential property surrounded by a thin riparian corridor. The site was dry at the time of assessment with no indication
of ground water contribution (
Figure 3-45). OSAP could not be performed due to the intermittent flow regime. No fish were observed within the feature; however, the watercourse was fairly well-defined within the
mixed deciduous forest block and appeared to contribute to downstream catchments. Although no fish were observed within the feature, the Kitley Ravine should still be considered fish
habitat despite the intermittent nature as it would convey sediment and food supply as well as flow during runoff events, indirectly contributing to the downstream catchments.
Pine Creek
3
(PC3)
17 T
652064 m E
4856075 m N
Pine Creek 3
(PC3) was
approximately 40
m downstream of
the Finch Ave
right of way and
at the confluence
of Duncannon
Ravine, within the
main Pine Creek
branch.
Site length was ~40 m.
Average wetted width was
~3 m. The average depth
at crossovers was 80 mm
and the maximum depth
sampled was observed at
the confluence with
Duncannon Ravine (
Figure 3-46). The site fell
downstream of a busy
municipal right of way
serviced by a large CSP
culvert (
Figure 3-48). A well-
established riparian buffer
contributed by mixed-
deciduous and cedar forest
provided ample habitat
and protection against
pedestrian traffic.
This site varied in form and
function, largely contributed by
shallow glides and slow riffles,
with a moderate depth pool
found at the confluence with
the Duncannon Ravine feature.
Woody material and was
abundant throughout (
Figure 3-47), with areas of
deposition observed
contributing to a braided
composition (
Figure 3-49). The site was
consistent with a cedar swamp
watercourse, with ample cover
provided by overhanging
canopy as well as large woody
material.
Substrate was poorly
sorted, consisting of
fines, gravels and
cobbles. Some
cobbles contributed
to instream cover
throughout. Evidence
of sedimentation was
observed throughout
with aggradation and
island forms. Fine
substrate was
observed in
abundance at the
Finch ROW. The
maximum particle
size was observed at
~100 mm.
Evidence of bank
instability was
observed throughout
the site, with steep
angles observed on
both banks and a
riverbed elevation well
below the top of bank
indicating
downcutting.
Undercuts were
observed on both
banks, although the
well-established cedar
and mixed deciduous
forest provided some
stability.
Aquatic vegetation
was minimal at the
time of observation.
Canopy cover was
abundant
throughout, with
100% of the stream
shaded from mixed
deciduous and cedar
swamp riparian
cover.
The site was approximately
immediately downstream of
Finch Ave, a well-travelled
regional road which likely
contributed to nutrients and
pollutant loading within the
site and system. Other
contributions, such as the
adjacent residential
development on the left
bank beyond the ~45 m
riparian zone were observed
with debris and garbage
accumulating in the channel.
Upstream residential areas
were also likely contributors
as well as an upstream
cemetery and parks. No
barriers to fish were
observed, although the Finch
Ave ROW may contribute to
a barrier.
80
Assessment
Location
General
UTM
Coordinates
Site Location Site Characteristics Habitat Description Substrate
Composition Bank Stability
Instream and
Riparian
Vegetation
Fish Barriers and Other
Disturbances
Duncannon
Ravine 1
(DR1)
17 T
651796 m E
4856084 m N
The Duncannon
Ravine site was
immediately
upstream of the
Finch Ave right-
of-way within a
contributing
feature to the
main Pine Creek
branch,
approximately
270 m upstream
of the confluence
and PC3.
Site length was ~45 m.
Average wetted width was
~1.5 m. The average
depth at crossovers was
20 mm and the maximum
depth sampled was ~50
mm, downstream of a
knickpoint created by
woody material and
substrate changes (
Figure 3-50). The site fell
within a natural area
ravine with a residential
area ~40 m beyond the
channel on the right bank
and a cemetery on the left
bank. Another, larger
natural area and ravine
(Bylawn Drive Ravine) was
upstream of the Fairport
Rd ROW.
This site was largely
contributed by slow riffles and
pool habitat. Aquatic
vegetation cover was non-
existent at the time of
observation, with all instream
cover provided by round
cobbles and woody material.
Substrate was
moderately sorted
contributed mainly by
gravels and cobbles,
with some areas of
fine sediments in
deposition zones. The
maximum particle
size was observed at
~850 mm.
Some evidence of
bank instability was
observed throughout
the site, with steep
angles observed on
both banks and fines
observed in deposition
zones (
Figure 3-51). No
undercuts were
observed despite this
evidence likely due to
the well-established
riparian habitat.
Instream vegetation
was non-existent.
Riparian vegetation
consisted of mixed
deciduous forest on
both banks, with
abundant forest
canopy cover
provided on both
banks.
The site was located within a
well-buffered natural area,
upstream of the last major
ROW (Finch Ave) in the City.
The site observed little to no
foot traffic, however,
dumping was observed
adjacent to abutting resident
fences on the right bank. No
barriers to fish were
observed within the site,
however the Finch Ave ROW,
serviced by a CSP culvert,
could contribute as a barrier.
No fish were observed within
the site.
Pine Creek
4
(PC4)
17 T
651600 m E
4856332 m N
Pine Creek 4
(PC4) was the
furthest most
upstream site in
the study area
and was
approximately
620 m upstream
of PC3, and
approximately
240 m
downstream of
the Lynn Heights
Dr right-of-way
within the main
Pine Creek
branch.
Site length was ~45 m.
Average wetted width was
~0.8 m. The average
depth at crossovers was
~20 mm and the
maximum depth sampled
was ~50 mm. The site fell
within a natural area
bound by residential areas
on both banks outside of
the well-established
riparian area. Little
development was observed
upstream of the site.
This site was contributed by
slow riffles, glides and a deep
pool between the extents (
Figure 3-52). Cover was
provided by large woody debris
throughout and instream
cobbles throughout (
Figure 3-53 &
Figure 3-54). Aquatic
vegetation cover was non-
existent at the time of
observation.
Substrate
demonstrated poor
sorting, consistent
with downstream
sites. Similar to
downstream sites,
cobbles represented
up to the D50 for
point substrate, with
observed throughout
and areas of
deposition on both
banks and in pool
habitat. The
maximum particle
size was ~850 mm
observed near the
upstream extent.
Evidence of bank
instability was
observed throughout
the site, with steep
angles observed on
both banks throughout
the site and areas of
deposition likely
contributed by fines
entering the system
from erosion.
Instream vegetation
was non-existent.
Riparian vegetation
consisted of mixed
deciduous forest on
both banks, with
abundant forest
canopy cover
provided on both
banks.
The site was located within a
well-buffered natural area
and near the urban boundary
of the City. The site had a
small, unofficial trail leading
to the channel, however little
signs of foot traffic was
observed along the channel
itself. No barriers to fish were
observed within the site,
however the upstream extent
was observed with very little
water contributing to the
downstream habitat (
Figure 3-55). Fish were
observed within the pool
habitat throughout the site.
81
3.8.2 Fish Community Assessment
The TRCA data provided by MMM Group in the Master Plan (MMM Group, 2009) notes that
Pine Creek provides habitat to Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) and Creek chub
(Semotilus atroomaculatus), both of which are common, secure in status and moderately
to highly tolerant to disturbance typical of cool-warmwater thermal regimes. Contributing
features to the Pine Creek subwatershed, such as Kitley Ravine and Duncannon Ravine did
not have fish community studies, although it can be assumed that these channels would
provide habitat to similar species outside of limitations from low baseflow and habitat
fragmentation. MNRF data confirms the presence of these species and suggests that
additional species, such as Central Mudminnow (Umbra limi), Common Shiner (Luxilus
cornutus), Logperch (Percina caprodes) and White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii), may
also exist where habitat is present (MNRF, 2015).
3.8.2.1 In-Water Timing Window
Based on the observations discussed above and on recommendations made by the MNRF
In-water Work Timing Window Guidelines (MNRF, 2013) for Ontario’s Southern Region, no
in-water works should take place between March 15th and July 15th of any given year.
This restriction is aimed to protect the species listed above during their vulnerable life
stages of spawning and rearing and should be implemented to avoid contravention to the
Federal Fisheries Act, among other mitigation measures.
3.8.2.2 DFO Self-Assessment
The Federal Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing the death of fish and the
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This applies to work being conducted in or
near waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year or are connected to
waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year. As noted above, the study
area does contain fish at any time during any given year. Therefore, the Fisheries Act
applies to works conducted in or near water at the site.
Upon completion of the detailed design for the channel works at the study site, the works
should be cross-referenced with the DFO “Projects Near Water” online service to determine
if a request for regulatory review under the federal Fisheries Act is required (Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, 2019). Based on field investigations conducted by Aquafor staff
and background information provided by the TRCA, the study area does contain fish at any
time during any given year. It is therefore the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that a
request for regulatory review by Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be required. It is
recommended that the proponent exercise the measures listed by Fisheries and Oceans
Canada to avoid contravention with the Federal Fisheries Act and exercise due diligence by
further mitigating accidental death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or
82
destruction of fish habitat.
Figure 3-36: DS Extent of PC1, Looking
DS
Figure 3-37: US Extent of PC1, looking
US
Figure 3-38: Beaver Activity Signage at
PC1
Figure 3-39: OF DS of Pedestrian Bridge
at PC1, Right Bank
83
Figure 3-40: DS Extent of PC2, Looking
DS
Figure 3-41: US Extent of PC2, Looking
US
Figure 3-42: Pool Habitat and Undercut
Bank at PC2
Figure 3-43: Typical Habitat at PC2
84
Figure 3-44: DS Extent of KR1 at Pine
Creek
Figure 3-45: Typical Habitat in KR1
Figure 3-46: Pool at Confluence with
Duncannon Ravine (LB)
Figure 3-47: DS Extent of PC3, Looking
DS
85
Figure 3-48: US Extent of PC3 at Finch
Ave ROW
Figure 3-49: Typical Habitat in PC3
Figure 3-50: Typical Habitat at DR1,
Looking US
Figure 3-51: Typical habitat at DR1,
Looking DS
86
Figure 3-52: Typical Habitat at PC4,
Looking US
Figure 3-53: Typical habitat at PC4,
Looking DS
Figure 3-54: Typical Habitat at PC4,
Looking US
Figure 3-55: Typical habitat at PC4,
Looking DS
87
3.9 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment
Amick Consultants Limited completed a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the project
study area from 2022 – 2023. All archaeological assessment works were completed in
conformity with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011) and the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO
1990a).
The entirety of the study area was subject to a desktop Stage 1 Archaeological Background
Study, completed November 11th, 2022. A property inspection and photographic
documentation of the study area was completed on December 2nd, 2022. Based on the
results of these assessments, some areas within the study area have been identified as
exhibiting major landscape alterations and subsurface disturbances which include major
grading to mitigate flooding, fill to facilitate road construction, pathways and underground
electrical infrastructure and retaining walls to mitigate erosion. Other parts of the study
area are made up of steep slopes in excess of 30 degrees, and seasonally flooded areas,
limiting their archaeological potential. All of these areas are considered to have no potential
to yield archaeological deposits of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI).
However, select areas within the study area do have high potential to yield archaeological
deposits of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest based largely on their proximity to Pine
Creek or the previous discovery of archaeological sites nearby. The spatial distribution of
these areas is illustrated below in Figure 3-56. Completion of a Stage 2 archaeological
assessment is recommended at the detailed design stage for any proposed projects where
the proposed area of disturbance overlaps with an identified area of high CHVI.
88
Figure 3-56: Aerial Map of the Study Area Illustrating the Spatial Distribution of Sites
with Stage 2 Archaeological Potential
3.10 Utilities
Aquafor undertook a Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Quality Level D investigation,
including a review of Municipal and Regional Base mapping, as-built drawings and
completion of an Ontario One Call Planning Level assessment. The identified utilities within
the general proximity of the project study area include: municipal storm sewers and storm
sewer outfalls; Region of Durham sanitary sewers; York Region sanitary sewer
infrastructure; municipal lighting infrastructure; Bell and Rogers telecommunication lines;
Hydro One and Elexicon Energy Hydro Infrastructure; and Enbridge Gas Lines.
Utility base mapping is included in the Existing Conditions Drawings appended to
Appendix A of this report. Additional subsurface utility investigations (Level C, B or A)
should be completed at the detailed design stage as needed to identify potential utility
conflicts and ensure appropriate utility protection measures are implemented at the
construction phase.
3.11 Social-Economic Environment
3.11.1.1 Land Use
As defined in the City of Pickering’s official plan, land use within the project study area is
delineated as a natural corridor surrounded by low density urban residential development
(Figure 3-57). There are three (3) major parks located within the EA project area: David
Farr Memorial Park, Forestbrook Park and Lynn Heights Park, along with two natural areas
89
denoted as the Duncannon Ravine and the Kitley Ravine corridors. The proposed projects
associated with this EA are not expected to result in any change in land use designations.
3.11.1.2 Transportation
As per the City of Pickering’s Official Plan, the road crossings within the project study area
include Type B Arterial Roads (Kingston Road and Finch Avenue), Type C Arterial Roads
(Glenanna Road, Dixie Road and Fairport Road), and Collector Roads (Kitley Avenue, and
Lynn Heights Drive). Through the EA erosion risks to Finch Avenue (a Region of Durham
owned Type B Arterial Road), Dixie Road (a Municipally owned Type C Arterial Road) and
Lynn Heights Drive (a Municipally Owned Collector Road) were identified. There are no
significant utility corridors within the project study area. A map showing the City’s
Transportation System with the EA study area extents overlain is provided below as Figure
3-58.
3.11.1.3 Ownership
Within the EA study area, the majority of the Pine Creek Corridor is contained within City
owned lands. Some of the identified erosion sites are located on, either entirely or partially,
lands owned by the Region of Durham or Private Landowners. Furthermore, there are some
proposed projects associated with the EA where the recommend solutions extend onto
privately owned lands. In these instances, property owners will be advised of the ongoing
erosion issues and associated risks on their property. Each individual property owner will
ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary measures to mitigate the identified
erosion related risks on their property using the concepts outlined in this EA or alternative
methods (subject to all associated regulatory approvals at the detailed design stage).
Alternatively, the City may give future consideration to an easement acquisition in order
to complete creek restoration works on select private properties.
90
Figure 3-57: Land Use within the City of Pickering (City of Pickering, 2022)
Study Area
91
Figure 3-58: Transportation System Network within the City of Pickering (City of
Pickering, 2022)
3.12 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Assessment
3.12.1.1 Climate Change Mitigation
Mitigation refers to actions that reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate
change, such as switching to clean energy and being energy efficient.
Study Area
92
A qualitative approach has been taken to assess climate change mitigation noting that
the primary impact of the proposed EA restoration, from a climate change perspective,
will be the generation of greenhouse gas emissions during the detailed design,
construction and post-construction monitoring phases. It is recommended that at the
detailed design stage a Climate Lens GHG Mitigation assessment report be completed for
each project, consistent with the requirement’s defined in Infrastructure Canada’s
Climate Lens – General Guidance Document (Infrastructure Canada, 2019). Preparation
of this report will allow for an assessment of candidate mitigation measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions during each phase of the project. At this stage the following
mitigation measures are recommended for future consideration:
• Detailed Design and Post-Construction Monitoring Phase: Car-pooling to
site, wherever feasible, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with onsite
field investigations.
• Construction Phase: Exploring opportunities to reuse materials onsite wherever
feasible to reduce emissions associated with the transport of materials to and from
site. As a secondary mitigation measure, consideration may be given to requiring
contractor’s to use fuel efficient construction equipment to further reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
3.12.1.2 Climate Change Adaptation
Climate change adaptation refers to actions that manage and reduce the risk of climate
change impacts such as infrastructure upgrades, flood protection, disaster management,
and business continuity planning. All of the proposed restoration alternatives will improve
the watershed’s resiliency to climate change by helping to mitigate erosion, reduce
flooding and protect at-risk infrastructure and private property. Moreover, this EA has
given specific consideration to climate change resiliency through the evaluation of
alternatives process as outlined in Section 4.2 below.
Further consideration should also be given at the detailed design stage to account for
climate change in the design of the proposed restoration works. This should include
accounting for climate change related impacts to watershed hydrology and hydraulics to
ensure all proposed erosion control materials are appropriately sized and adequate flood
mitigation measures are established.
93
4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
A series of alternatives were developed to specifically address the erosion concerns
documented in the twenty-five (25) erosion sites identified in Section 2. Factoring in the
relative spatial proximity and risk level associated with the twenty-five identified erosion
sites, sites have been grouped into nine (9) interest areas for the purposes of developing
and evaluating conceptual design alternatives. These alternatives are described in general
below with specifics related to each particular grouping of sites following thereafter.
•Alternative 1: Do Nothing – This alternative involves leaving the site as it is and
allowing erosional processes to continue within the watercourse corridor. Under this
alternative, it should be expected that maintenance, or possibly emergency works,
may have to be undertaken to address damage to property or infrastructure caused
by continued erosion. Damage from erosion may occur gradually over time or
suddenly due to a high magnitude flood event.
•Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative consists of localized
channel bank and/or bed work to address erosion issues at the site. While it is
understood that local erosion protection works may require ongoing maintenance,
occasional repairs, or eventual replacement, this alternative is often still preferred
to limit the economic cost and the environmental damage of large-scale channel
engineering and stream restoration works.
•Alternative 3: Extended Works – This alternative consists of a comprehensive
approach, which is typically completed on a reach or sub-reach scale, to address
erosion issues at the site. Reach-scale engineering focuses on minimizing the risks
of erosion and flooding in highly constrained urban watercourses. This alternative
will apply a combination of “hard” channel engineering approaches for erosion
control and natural channel techniques to mimic natural channel features such as
riffles and pools to enhance the riparian environment.
High-resolution drawings of the alternatives for each interest area can be found in
Appendix H.
4.1 Description of Alternatives
4.1.1 Erosion Sites #1 - #4
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – Erosional process will continue to pose a risk to city
property, municipal and regional infrastructure, and private properties. Specifically,
ongoing risks include destabilization of the roadway embankment along the upstream side
of Kingston Road (Site #1), loss of private property along Charlotte Circle (Site #2),
outflanking of the Storrington Street outfall structure (Site #3), and further exposure of
the pedestrian bridge footings (Site #4).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; The use of vegetated buttresses for bank protection directly upstream of
Kingston Road (Site #1) , repairs to an outfall pipe and headwall structure combined with
installation of a buried Armourstone retaining wall bank upstream to protect private
94
properties on Charlotte Circle (Site #2); patchwork repairs to outfall pipe and headwall
structure combined with vegetated buttress bank treatments for the Storrington Street
outfall (Site #3); and repairs to the bridge supports combined with vegetated buttress
bank treatments to protect the pedestrian bridge (Site #4). Furthermore, with respect to
Site #1, it should be noted that the proposed culvert rehabilitation works are included in
the detailed design of the BRT project, which is currently being undertaken by the Region
of Durham. Any works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to channel
restoration and erosion protection works on City owned lands. Lastly, implementation of
the proposed works for Site #2 may require a Permission to Enter Agreement be obtained
from the Region of Durham for the area outlined in the Proposed Alternatives Figure. This
temporary Permission to Enter agreement may be needed to allow for construction of the
buried Armourstone retaining wall behind the Charlotte Circle properties.
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; installation of vegetated buttresses to
mitigate channel erosion upstream of Kingston Road (Site #1), repairs to an outfall pipe
and headwall structure combined with installation of a buried Armourstone retaining wall
to provide protection for the private properties at risk behind Charlotte Circle (Site #2),
repairs to outfall pipe and headwall structure combined with vegetated buttress bank
treatments for the Storrington Street outfall (Site #3), and protection of pedestrian bridge
abutments using vegetated buttresses (Site #4). Additionally, the alternative includes the
establishment of a pocket wetland to promote floodplain connectivity and plant
biodiversity, and the staged removal of the beaver dam. Furthermore, with respect to Site
#1, it should be noted that the proposed rehabilitation works are included in the detailed
design of the BRT project, which is currently being undertaken by the Region of Durham.
Any works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to channel restoration and
erosion protection works on City owned lands.
4.1.2 Erosion Sites #5 - #8
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – City property, municipal infrastructure, private property and
public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include the outflanking of the Glennana Road culvert
headwall (Site #5), loss of parkland within David Farr Park (Sites #6, #7, #8).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; Regrading and restoring eroded slopes directly upstream and downstream of
Glennana Road (Site #5), and regrading and revegetation of the riparian corridor in select
areas (Sites #6, #7, #8).
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; restoration and regrading of slopes directly
upstream and downstream of Glennana Road (Site #5), regrading and revegetation of the
riparian corridor along study area, combined with boulder toe protection in select areas
(Sites #6, #7, #8). This design is intended to tie into the downstream extent of the
proposed extended works for Sites #9 and #10.
95
4.1.3 Erosion Sites #9 - #10
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – City property, private property, municipal infrastructure,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include erosion risks to multi-use trail infrastructure,
lighting infrastructure, and private property (Sites #9, #10). Additionally, sediment
accumulation and cracking of the headwall will continue to prevail within the Kitley Avenue
outfall structure.
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of the localized
application of vegetated buttresses bank protection at each site (Sites #9, #10).
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; regrading and revegetation of the entire
riparian corridor (Site #9), a minor channel realignment to protect multi-use trail, lighting
infrastructure and private properties (Site #10), patchwork repairs to and removal of
sediment from the Kitley Avenue outfall structure, and an engineered scour pool
downstream of the Kitley Avenue culvert.
4.1.4 Erosion Sites #11 - #12
Alternative 1: Do Nothing – City property, private property, municipal infrastructure,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include deterioration of the Dixie Road culvert crossing
through outflanking of the headwall apron and failing gabion baskets (Site #11), as well
as active bank erosion encroaching towards Dixie Road (Site #12). Additionally, sediment
will continue to accumulate within the two identified Dixie Road outfall structures and
corresponding outfall channels.
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of patchwork
repairs to the Dixie Road culvert crossing (Site #11), and the localized application of
vegetated buttresses bank protection reinforced with a buried Armourstone wall (Site
#12). Additionally, sediment will be removed from both of the Dixie Road outfall structures
and channels.
The restoration work proposed at Site #12 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
Alternative 3: Extended Works – Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; repairs to the Dixie Road culvert crossing
complete with the removal of accumulated sediment and the replacement of failed gabion
baskets with vegetated buttresses (Site #11), as well as a minor channel realignment away
from Dixie Road combined with a vegetated buttresses bank protection reinforced with a
buried Armourstone wall (Site #12). Additionally, accumulated debris from failed erosion
96
control structures will be removed along the length of the restoration works. Furthermore,
the upstream extent of the works will tie into the existing wetland area.
The restoration work proposed at Site #12 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
4.1.5 Erosion Sites #13 - #16
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property and
public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include active toe erosion placing private properties along
Moutcastle Crescent at risk (Sites #13, #14), outfall channel erosion from the Finch Avenue
outfall (Site #15), and active erosion along the Finch Avenue roadway embankment (Site
#16).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works – This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; Apply vegetated buttress toe protection and regrade and re-vegetate slopes
(Sites #13, #14), repair concrete headwall and apply rip-rap lined swale for the Finch
Avenue outfall (Site #15), and potentially replace the Finch Avenue culvert and apply an
engineered sour pool downstream coupled with restoration of the Finch Avenue roadway
swale (Site #16). It should be noted that the Site #16 proposed works are to be considered
by the Region of Durham pending further review, and that any works completed by the
City of Pickering will be limited to channel restoration and erosion protection works on City
owned lands.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply a comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; Apply vegetated buttress toe protection and
regrade and re-vegetate slopes (Sites #13, #14), repair concrete headwall and apply rip-
rap lined swale with an engineered scour pool for the Finch Avenue outfall (Site #15), and
potentially replace the Finch Avenue culvert and apply an engineered sour pool
downstream coupled with restoration of the Finch Avenue roadway swale (Site #16).
Additionally, the proposed works will transition into the confluence with the east branch of
Pine Creek at the downstream extent. Accumulated channel debris will also be removed
from the corridor along the length of the proposed restoration works. It should be noted
that the Site #16 proposed works are to be considered by the Region of Durham pending
further review, and that any works completed by the City of Pickering will be limited to
channel restoration and erosion protection works on City owned lands.
4.1.6 Erosion Sites #17 - #21
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property and
public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and the failure of existing erosion
control structures. Ongoing risks include active bank erosion towards private properties on
Grafton Court (Site #17), undercutting of the toe of bank adjacent to Finch Avenue (Site
97
#18), active bank erosion towards private properties on Duncannon Drive (Site #20), and
deterioration of the Fairport Road outfall structure (Site #21).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works - This alternative will consist of localized
channel bank and minor repair works to address erosion issues at each of these four sites,
including; minor channel realignment and vegetated buttress bank protection (Site #17),
vegetated buttress toe protection in addition to regrading and re-vegetation of adjacent
slopes (Sites #18, #20), and patchwork repairs to an at-risk headwall structure combined
with vegetated buttress bank protection (Site #21). Additionally, CCTV inspection of the
CSP pipe crossing under Fairport Road is recommended as part of the Site #21 works to
determine if a full replacement or CIPP lining of the pipe is required. Furthermore, it should
be noted that implementation of the proposed solution for Site #17 may require a potential
Permission to Enter Agreement from the Region of Durham to facilitate construction access
and staging.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including; An engineered scour pool with vegetated
buttresses combined with minor channel realignment (Site #17), vegetated buttress toe
protection in addition to regrading and re-vegetation of adjacent slopes (Sites #18, #20),
patchwork repairs to an at-risk headwall structure combined with vegetated buttress bank
protection (Site #21). Additionally, CCTV inspection of the CSP pipe crossing under Fairport
Road is recommended as part of the Site #21 works to determine if a full replacement is
required. Furthermore, it should be noted that implementation of the proposed solution for
Site #17 may require a potential Permission to Enter Agreement from the Region of
Durham to facilitate construction access and staging.
4.1.7 Erosion Site #22
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, and public safety
will continue to be at risk from erosion and failed erosion protection measures. Ongoing
risks include undermining of the pipe arch culvert at Lynn Heights Drive and washed out
erosion protection measures directly downstream.
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works - This alternative will consist of a scour pool on
either side of the Lynn Heights Drive culvert. In addition, the downstream channel debris
will be removed, and a culvert replacement or relining will be considered pending the
results of the structural assessment at the detailed design stage. A potential Permission to
Enter Agreement may be required on private property as part of these works.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology downstream of the Lynn Heights Drive culvert,
transitioning into the existing channel conditions. In addition to the extended channel
rehabilitation works, a scour pool will be constructed on either side of the Lynn Heights
Drive culvert. Furthermore, the downstream channel debris will be removed, and a culvert
replacement or relining will be considered pending the results of a structural assessment
at the detailed design stage. Lastly, a potential Permission to Enter Agreement may be
required on private property as part of these works.
98
4.1.8 Erosion Sites #23 - #24
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and failed erosion protection
measures. Ongoing risks include slope stability concerns to private properties on
Duncannon Drive (Sites #23, #24).
Alternative 2: Local Restoration Works - This alternative will consist of vegetated
buttress toe protection combined with regrading and re-vegetation of eroded slopes (Sites
#23, #24).
The restoration work proposed at Site #23 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
Alternative 3: Extended Works - Apply comprehensive reach-based natural channel
design using riffle-pool morphology, including vegetated buttress toe protection and re-
vegetation of eroded slopes (Sites #23, #24), removal of accumulated channel debris, and
the rehabilitation of an outfall structure. The proposed works will tie into existing conditions
upstream and downstream of the study area.
The restoration work proposed at Site #23 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
4.1.9 Erosion Site #25
Alternative 1: Do Nothing - City property, municipal infrastructure, private property,
and public safety will continue to be at risk from erosion and failed erosion protection
measures. Ongoing risks include debris accumulation and erosion within the Kitley Ravine
corridor which is creating flooding and erosion risks to the surrounding private properties
on Ridgewood Court.
Alternative 2: Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation - This alternative will consist of
recentering the drainage swale within the city owned parcel to reduce erosion and flooding
risks to private properties. Efforts will be made to reduce the amount of tree removals and
overall disturbances to the surrounding properties. Works will be scoped to targeted areas
of the channel to achieve the desired alignment. Erosion control will be provided through
the use of plantings and bioengineering measures. Work will be done with small equipment
to reduce the disturbance area and minimize vegetation removals. Material from required
vegetation removals will be reused on-site to provide erosion control where feasible.
99
Alternative 3: Full Corridor Rehabilitation – This alternative will consist of recentering
the drainage swale within the city owned parcel to reduce erosion and flooding risks to
private properties. These works would include the use of angular stone to line the channel,
and would include significant tree removals. The intent of this solution is to establish a
fixed drainage channel lined with angular stone material to prevent channel migration.
4.2 Evaluation Criteria
As a part of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process, each alternative must
be evaluated based on a set of physical, natural, social, cultural, and economic
environmental criteria, as well as technical and engineering considerations. These set of
criteria were developed by Aquafor and reviewed by the City of Pickering. The list of criteria
and the associated description of the scoring rationale is presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Criteria
Category Criteria Description
Mitigation of
Existing Erosion
Risks
Alternatives are evaluated on their ability to mitigate
erosion. Alternatives with the greatest erosion
mitigation potential score highest.
Aquatic Habitat
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on fish
passage and the overall quantity/quality of Aquatic
habitat. Alternatives that improve aquatic habitat
conditions score highest.
Terrestrial Habitat
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on
connectivity, diversity and quantity/quality of
terrestrial habitat. Alternatives that offer the greatest
long-term benefit to terrestrial habitat conditions score
highest.
Physical/
Natural
Environment
Terrestrial
Vegetation
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on existing
woodlots; removals & restoration scheme. Typically,
alternatives will a smaller disturbance area are
preferred as they minimize vegetation removals.
Impacts to
Species at Risk
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on
terrestrial and aquatic habitat for Species at Risk,
potentially affected temporarily or permanently.
Alternatives that minimize disturbances to Species at
Risk are favoured.
Climate Change
Alternatives are evaluated on their ability to adapt to,
and be resilient to, climate change. More resilient
alternatives score higher.
Public Safety
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on public
safety. Alternatives that best mitigate risks to public
safety in the short and long-term score highest.
Social/
Cultural
Environment
Landowner
Impacts /
Community
Disruption
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on private
property, this includes giving consideration to both
short-term disturbances (i.e., construction) as well as
long-term benefits (i.e., erosion protection).
100
Criteria
Category Criteria Description
Benefit to
Community and
Public Acceptance
Alternatives that improve access to trails, enjoyment
of surrounding lands are preferred.
Archaeological
Impacts
Less disturbance of areas with archaeological potential
and cultural heritage resources scores higher
Aesthetic Value
Alternatives are evaluated on their impact on existing
and proposed aesthetic value. Alternatives that help
increase the aesthetic value of the study area are
favoured.
Capital Costs One time cost to City. Alternatives with a lower capital
cost are favoured.
Operations &
Maintenance Costs
Requirement for regular, irregular or no maintenance
activities and ensure effectiveness of implemented
measures. Alternatives with lower Operation and
Maintenance costs score highest.
Economic
Environment Life Cycle Costs Lower life cycle costs relative to the other alternatives
scores higher
Cost Effectiveness
Ability to provide multiple improvements, at a cost less
then the total of completing all the works separately.
Accounts for the ability of the City to partner and share
costs with other agencies (i.e., Region of Durham,
TRCA, etc.)
Regulatory Agency
Acceptance
Alternatives are evaluated on their ability to satisfy
City, TRCA, DFO and MNR mandates. Alternatives that
are more likely to achieve regulatory agency
acceptance score highest.
Impact on Existing
Infrastructure
Alternatives are evaluated on how they provide
protection for the potential exposure of infrastructure
(buildings, bridges, properties, sewers). Alternatives
that provide a higher level of protection are preferred.
Technical/
Engineering
Consideration
Flooding Impacts Greater reduction of flooding risks to public and/or
private lands for longer time score higher
Technical
Feasibility
Alternatives are evaluated regarding their associated
complexity of implementing the Project, including
constructability and need to manage construction
related disturbances to other infrastructure / property.
Alternatives that are more technically feasible score
highest.
Lifespan of Works
Expected lifespan / years of works before intervention
needs to be repeated. Alternatives with a longer
lifespan are preferred.
A weighting factor was assigned to each category, which ensured that each category was
valued appropriately, regardless of the number of sub-criteria presented within the larger
category. The maximum points for each category are shown in Table 4-2.
101
Table 4-2: Criteria Weighting Factors
Category Maximum Points
for Category
Physical and Natural Environment Criteria 25
Social/Cultural Environment 25
Economic Environment 25
Technical/Engineering Considerations 25
TOTAL 100
For all the criteria, a score was applied ranging from 0 to 5 (Table 4-3), where:
• 0 = Unfavourable, no improvement or negative impact
• 3 = Acceptable
• 5 = Favourable, most improvement or most positive impact
Table 4-3: Ranking Scheme for Criteria Evaluation of Each Alternative
Ranking Scale
No /
Negative Impact 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ideal /
Most Positive
Impact
4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
For each alternative and each grouping of erosions sites, the criteria were evaluated, where
higher scores relate to varying degrees of positive effect that an alternative, for the defined
criterion, would have on the outcome. The sum of the criterion scores was determined for
each alternative and the alternative with the highest score was deemed to be preferred.
A summary of scores for each grouping of erosion sites is presented in Table 4-4. A
detailed evaluation matrix for each grouping of Erosion Sites can be found in Appendix I.
Table 4-4. Evaluation Scoring Summary
Erosion Site(s) Alternative 1 –
Do Nothing
Alternative 2 –
Local
Restoration
Works
Alternative 3 –
Extended Works
Erosion Sites #1 - #4 54 83 76
Erosion Sites #5 - #8 55 82 77
Erosion Sites #9 - #10 49 70 84
Erosion Site #11 54 80 75
Erosion Site #12 54 80 75
Erosion Sites #13 - #16 48 63 83
Erosion Sites #17 - #18 48 78 75
Erosion Sites #20 - #21 48 78 74
Erosion Site #22 48 83 73
Erosion Sites #23 - #24 48 68 83
Erosion Site #25 56 81 (Targeted
Corridor Rehab)
74 (Full Corridor
Rehab)
102
4.4 Selection and Description of the Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternatives were selected based on the evaluation criteria, and were then
further refined and confirmed through consultation with the City and the public. The
preferred alternatives are as follows:
Erosion Sites #1 - #4: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #1, use vegetated buttresses to restore and revegetate channel banks directly
upstream of Kingston Road. Works within the Kingston Road corridor, such as any
Kingston Road culvert repairs, corrugated steel pipe outfall removal, and gabion basket
replacement are to be completed by Region of Durham through a separate project. These
Site #1 works, in combination with Region of Durham works, will provide protection and
stability to the adjacent roadway embankment and upstream channel. The erosion
control works proposed within the Kingston Road corridor may differ from the works
shown within the preferred alternative, depending on the results of the Region of
Durham’s detailed design work for the planned Kingston Road improvements.
With regard to Site #2, repair the Charlotte Circle outfall pipe and headwall structure,
and construct an armourstone retaining wall buried behind a vegetated buttresses to
provide bank protection directly upstream of the outfall. This solution will improve the
lifespan of the Charlotte Circle outfall, as well as protect numerous private properties on
Charlotte Circle.
For Site #3 works, repair the Storrington Street outfall pipe and headwall structure and
provide vegetated buttress bank treatments directly upstream and downstream of the
outfall. This solution will improve the lifespan of the Storrington Street outfall, in addition
to providing erosion protection to the upstream pedestrian bridge.
Lastly, for Site #4, minor repairs to the pedestrian bridge supports and protect
abutments with vegetated buttress bank treatments. These proposed works will extend
the lifespan of the pedestrian bridge and ensure the safety of its users.
Access and Staging: The pedestrian walkways from Bronte Square or Storrington
Street are the most likely points of access to all four sites. Staging is readily available
within the City owned parklands adjacent to the Pine Creek Corridor. Smaller equipment
will need to be used to allow for access through the walkways and care should be taken
to protect the walkway and sidewalks from damage during construction.
There is also Region of Durham sanitary sewer & storm sewer infrastructure that runs
through this part of the Pine Creek Corridor. Should work be required in close proximity
to regional sewer infrastructure, appropriate protection measures (i.e., steel plates) must
be put in place to protect the sewer infrastructure. At the detailed design stage an SUE
investigation should be completed to confirm the location all buried infrastructure onsite.
Any proposed protection measures will need to be approved by the Region of Durham, or
the corresponding utility authority, prior to implementation onsite.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #1 - #4.
103
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #1 - #4 - Local Works
104
Erosion Sites #5 - #8: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #5, apply engineered scour pools directly upstream and downstream of Glenanna
Road to provide scour protection. A hydraulic analysis will be required to ensure
appropriate stone sizing is achieved. Along the edge of both scour pools, vegetated
buttresses are proposed to provide bank protection. These proposed works will help
provide long-term protection and stability to Glenanna road.
With regard to Sites #6, #7, and #8, regrade the channel banks and revegetate the
riparian corridor. Boulder toe protection at select areas is also proposed to mitigate bank
erosion processes. For Site #8 the failed rip-rap swale should be re-establish and
integrated into the proposed vegetated bank restoration works to provide long-term
stability. The implementation of these works will help prevent loss of parklands within
David Farr Park. The City should also give consideration to the removal of accumulated
channel debris and changing their park mowing strategy to prevent over encroachment
into the riparian corridor.
Access and Staging: Site #5 can be accessed directly from Glenanna Road, whereas
Sites #6, #7, and #8 can be accessed via David Farr Park. Care should be taken to limit
impact to Park infrastructure and operations, with appropriate safety barricades and
fencing put in place to protect the public from construction operations.
Figure 4-2 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #5 - #8.
105
Figure 4-2: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #5 - #8 - Local Works
106
Erosion Sites #9 - #10: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
The proposed extended works solution consists of a comprehensive reach-based natural
channel design using riffle-pool morphology extending from the Kitley Avenue culvert to
approximately 150 m downstream. The channel will be realigned to increase the erosion
buffer between the edge of the channel and the existing multi-use trail that runs parallel
to private properties on Pinecreek Court. Vegetated buttresses will be installed along the
western channel bank to provide enhanced erosion control and to prevent the channel from
migrating back towards the at-risk multi-use trail.
An engineered scour pool will also be constructed downstream of Kitley Avenue to provide
energy dissipation, while sediment and debris is removed from the Kitley Avenue Culvert
and Storm Sewer Outfall to improve flow conveyance.
Access and Staging: The recommended access for this project is via the asphalt
pedestrian trail connecting to Kitley Avenue where it intersects Pinecreek Court. A
temporary trail closure at this location will likely be required to facilitate construction.
Staging is available either on the Kitley Avenue right-of-way or within David Farr Park.
Figure 4-3 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #9 - #10.
107
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #9 - #10 - Extended Works
108
Erosion Site #11: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
This local works solution will consist of patchwork repairs to the downstream side of the
Dixie Road culvert crossing. Failed gabion baskets lining the banks downstream of the Dixie
Road culvert will also be removed and replaced with vegetated buttresses. Additionally,
sediment will be removed from both of the Dixie Road outfall structures and channels to
improve flow conveyance.
Access and Staging: Site #11 can be accessed directly from Dixie Road, with staging
available on the Dixie Road Right-of-Way.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #11.
Erosion Site #12: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
These proposed works consist of constructing a vegetated buttress, combined with a buried
armourstone wall, designed to protect Dixie Road. The implementation of these proposed
works may require a Permission to Enter Agreement with the commercial shopping plaza
at 1900 Dixie Road for temporary access to City’s infrastructure. Additionally, the large
debris jam and other accumulated channel debris at this erosion site will be removed as
part of the planned site restoration works.
The restoration work proposed at Site #12 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
It should be noted that this site is located in close proximity to a potential TRCA mapped
wetland feature. At the detailed design stage, a site meeting should be held with TRCA to
stake out the boundaries of the wetland feature west of Dixie Road. The staked out wetland
boundary will then act as a constraint to guide the detailed design of the proposed local
restoration works solution.
Access and Staging: Site #12 can be accessed directly from Dixie Road through City
owned lands. The results of the tree inventory for this site should be referenced to
develop an access and staging plan that limits the removal of mature trees and the
overall area of environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #12.
109
Figure 4-4: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #11 - #12 - Local Works
110
Erosion Sites #13 - #16: Alternative 3 – Extended Works
This proposed solution consists of a comprehensive reach-based natural channel design
using riffle-pool morphology. The proposed channel works will extend from the northern
boundary of the city owned property parcel south of Finch Avenue, downstream
approximately 200 m to the confluence between the east and west branches of Pine Creek.
Additional site specific restoration will be undertaken along the length of the proposed
channel rehabilitation works to provide enhanced erosion control at select priority sites.
For sites #13 and #14, vegetated buttresses integrated into the regraded and revegetated
slopes will provide toe of slope protection for private properties on Mountcastle Cresent.
For Site #15, the Finch Avenue concrete headwall will be repaired, and the outfall channel
will be rehabilitated through the placement of angular stone substrate.
With regard to Site #16, the proposed works will potentially involve the replacement of
the degraded Finch Avenue CSP culvert, restoration of the Finch Avenue Swale and
installation of an engineered sour pool to provide erosion mitigation where flows from the
culvert and swale discharge to Pine Creek. These Site #16 works are to be considered by
the Region of Durham pending further review. Restoration of the CSP culvert and
roadside ditch outlet channel, while recommended, is outside the purview of the City of
Pickering. Any channel restoration works completed by the City will be limited to City
owned property.
Access and Staging: The proposed project site can be accessed from Finch Avenue.
Access towards the downstream extent of the proposed restoration area is likely
preferred given the topography of the area and the grade constraints associated with
accessing the site near the Finch Avenue Culvert. The results of the tree inventory for
this site should be referenced to develop an access and staging plan that limits the
removal of mature trees and the overall area of environmental disturbance.
There is also Region of Durham sanitary sewer and storm sewer infrastructure that runs
through this part of the Pine Creek Corridor. Should work be required in close proximity
to regional sewer infrastructure, appropriate protection measures (i.e., steel plates) must
be put in place to protect the sewer infrastructure. At the detailed design stage an SUE
investigation should be completed to confirm the location all buried infrastructure onsite.
Any proposed protection measures will need to be approved by the Region of Durham, or
the corresponding utility authority, prior to implementation onsite.
Figure 4-5 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #13 - #16.
111
Figure 4-5: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #13 - #16 - Extended Works
112
Erosion Sites #17 - #18: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #17, the proposed solution consists of a minor channel realignment and vegetated
buttress bank protection to ensure the protection of private properties on Grafton Court.
This work may require a Permission to Enter Agreement from the Region of Durham for
the construction of the downstream most portion of the proposed restoration works. Any
channel restoration works completed by the City will be limited to City owned property.
With regard to Site #18, vegetated buttress toe of slope protection is recommended to
ensure the stability of the Finch Avenue Roadway embankment. Both of these proposed
works involve the removal of debris and accumulated organic material from the channel
area, to promote flow conveyance.
Access and Staging: Sites #17 and #18 can be accessed directly from Finch Avenue.
The results of the tree inventory for this site should be referenced to develop an access
and staging plan that limits the removal of mature trees and the overall area of
environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #17 - #18.
Erosion Sites #20 - #21: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
For Site #20, the proposed solution consists of vegetated buttress toe protection to provide
slope stability for private properties on Duncannon Drive. Furthermore, this solution
involves the removal of debris and accumulated organic material from the channel area,
to promote flow conveyance.
With regard to Site #21, patchwork repairs to the Fairport Road headwall structure are
recommended, to be combined with vegetated buttress bank protection and an engineered
scour pool downstream of the outfall. At the detailed design stage, a CCTV inspection of
the Fairport Road CSP outfall pipe is recommended to determine if pipe rehabilitation works
are needed either in the form of CIPP lining or full pipe replacement.
Access and Staging: Site #20 can be accessed directly from Fairport Road. Access to
Site #21 will be more challenging, requiring access along a steep valley corridor with a
potential channel crossing. The initial point of access for Site #20 is likely either from the
Fairport Road Right of Way or through the Erskine Church and Cemetery at which point a
permission to enter agreement would be required. Lastly, the results of the tree inventory
for these sites should be referenced to develop an access and staging plan that limits the
removal of mature trees and the overall area of environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #20 - #21.
113
Figure 4-6: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #17 - #18, #20 - #21 – Local Works
114
Erosion Site #22: Alternative 2 – Local Restoration Works
At the detailed design stage, a comprehensive structural assessment of the Lynn Heights
Drive culvert should be completed to determine if a full culvert replacement is required or
if the culvert can be rehabilitated through CIPP lining or alternative means. Should a culvert
replacement be required an SUE Level A investigation will be needed to identify potential
utility conflicts. A detailed hydraulic analysis is also recommended to determine if the
culvert needs to be upsized to meet current design standards for flow conveyance. A
geotechnical investigation will also need to be completed to provide foundation
recommendations for any proposed replacement structure. It is suggested that any
potential culvert replacement look to improve fish and wildlife passage potential through
the integration of nature substrate along the interior culvert bed.
The proposed local works solution also includes the construction of an engineered scour
pool of either side of the Lynn Heights Drive culvert for erosion mitigation and removal of
channel debris. While it may be possible to limit the extent of the proposed work area to
the Municipally owned Right-of-way, if it is determined at the detailed design stage that
extending the upstream and downstream channel works is required to achieve a
geomorphically stable solution, then a Permission to Enter Agreement may need to be
obtained from the upstream and downstream private property owners.
Access and Staging: Site #22 can be accessed directly from Lynn Heights Drive, with
potential for staging within the Lynn Heights Drive Right of Way. Should a full culvert
replacement be required, consideration should be given to constructing the culvert in two
phases to avoid a full road closure and allow for half of the road to remain open to local
traffic at a time.
Figure 4-7 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #22.
115
Figure 4-7: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #22 – Local Works
116
Erosion Site #23 - #24: Alternative 2 – Extended Restoration Works
This proposed solution applies a comprehensive reach-based natural channel design using
riffle-pool morphology, including vegetated buttress toe protection and re-vegetation of
eroded slopes at key risk areas (i.e., Erosion Sites #23 and #24). The total length of the
proposed channel restoration works is approximately 550 m. The primary focus of this
work is to protect private properties on Duncannon Drive and to a lesser extent properties
on Alanbury Crescent and Lynn Heights Drive. Accumulated channel debris will be removed
at numerous locations throughout the study area, to improve flow conveyance and mitigate
lateral bank erosion. Where feasible the channel should be realigned towards the center of
the municipally owned parcel to increase the erosion buffer between the channel and at-
risk private properties.
Where sufficient offsets from private properties exist, natural channel design principles can
be applied to allow for future controlled rates of erosion and migration that mimic natural
channel processes. In areas where the channel is more heavily constrained and risks to
private property and infrastructure are greater, additional bioengineering or hardened
erosion control approaches should be applied to establish a more fixed channel corridor.
As part of the proposed restoration works a storm sewer outfall off of Alanbury Crescent
will be restored along with it’s associated outfall channel.
The restoration work proposed at Site #23 includes work on Private Property. Property
owners will be advised of the ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property.
Each individual property owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary
measures to mitigate the identified erosion related risks on their property using the
concepts outlined in this EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory
approvals at the detailed design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future
consideration to an easement acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on
select private properties.
Access and Staging: Sites #23 and #24 can be accessed from Lynn Heights Drive
through Lynn Heights Park. Care should be taken to limit impact to Park infrastructure and
operations, with appropriate safety barricades and fencing put in place to protect the public
from construction operations. Lastly, the results of the tree inventory for these sites should
be referenced to develop an access and staging plan that limits the removal of mature
trees and the overall area of environmental disturbance.
Figure 4-8 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Sites #23 - #24.
117
Figure 4-8: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Sites #23 - #24 – Extended Works
118
Erosion Site #25: Alternative 2 – Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation
The proposed solution consists of recentering the drainage swale within the city owned
parcel to reduce erosion and flooding risks to private properties. Taking into account
feedback received from the public through the public information centre event, efforts will
be made to reduce the amount of tree removals and overall disturbances to the natural
environment.
Targeted areas of the channel with be realigned and regraded to achieve the desired
alignment. A combination of plantings and bioengineering measures will be applied to
provide erosion control, with the intent of maintaining and enhancing the natural aesthetic
of the area. Work will be done with small equipment to reduce the disturbance area and
minimize vegetation removals. Where feasible, material from required vegetation removals
will be reused on-site to provide erosion control.
Access and Staging: Site #25 can be accessed from Kitley Avenue using the informal
trail that runs through the Kitley Ravine. The park / open space area at the southern extent
of the ravine can be used for staging.
Figure 4-9 illustrates the preferred alternative for Erosion Site #25.
119
Figure 4-9: Conceptual Drawing of Preferred Alternative for Erosion Site #25 – Targeted Corridor Restoration
120
5 PRIORITIZATION AND PROJECT PHASING
Taking into account the dominant erosion processes and geomorphic trends observed
within the Pine Creek sub watershed, and the relative levels of risk to infrastructure and
private property, the preferred restoration alternatives presented above have been
bundled and prioritized into a series of proposed capital works projects.
Table 5-1 below, summarizes the key information associated with each project including
the project name, erosion site number(s), a risk summary and risk rating on a scale of 1-
5, reach ID, preferred alternative, property ownership impacts, cost estimates for
engineering design and construction, and a recommended time horizon for
implementation. While the project costs estimates and recommended time horizons are
provided to assist the City with project prioritization, final decisions on the actual order
and implementation of projects should give due consideration to overall City priorities,
budgets and stakeholder interests.
For tentative planning and budgeting purposes only, a feasible implementation plan for the
recommended erosion mitigation projects is organized into 0-5 years, 5-10 years and 10-
15 years planning horizons.
The cost estimates provided below are preliminary and include a 20% contingency
(rounded to the nearest $1,000). All cost estimates are exclusive of HST and do not account
for any potential land or easement acquisition costs that may be required in some
instances.
121
Table 5-1: Proposed Prioritization and Phasing of Pine Creek Erosion Restoration Projects
Project
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Risk
Rating
(1-5)
Reach
ID
Preferred
Alternative Property Ownership
Construction
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Consulting
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Planning
Horizon Comments
1 Culvert Replacement at
Lynn Heights Drive
Site #22 - Erosion Risk
to Culvert and Lynn
Heights Drive
5 PC4-b Local Works City and Private $2,088,000.00 $417,600.00 0 - 5 Years
Cost Estimate assumes a full
like for like culvert
replacement and that no
utility relocations will be
required, only stabilization
during construction
2 Restoration of Kitley
Ravine
Site #25 - Erosion Risk
to Private Properties 5 PC3-d Extended
Works City $1,620,000.00 $324,000.00 0 - 5 Years Area of Significant Public
Concern
3
Restoration of Pine Creek
Downstream of Finch
Avenue
Site #13 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #14 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #15 - Erosion Risk
to Storm Sewer Outfall
Site #16 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property and
Finch Avenue
5 PC4-a Extended
Works City $1,080,000.00 $216,000.00 0 - 5 Years
Cost Estimate is inclusive of
City Works only and does not
account for possible future
works by the Region of
Durham to protect their
infrastructure in this area.
4
Restoration of Pine Creek
Downstream of Kitley
Avenue
Site #9 - Erosion Risk to
Multi-Use Trail and
Private Property
Site #10 - Erosion Risk
to Multi-Use Trail and
Private Property
5 PC3-b Extended
Works City $840,000.00 $168,000.00 0 - 5 Years
Area of Significant Public
Concern
Interim monitoring at this
site is recommended to
document the rate of erosion.
Should the bank erode faster
than expected increasing the
prioritization of this site is
recommended.
5 Restoration of Pine Creek
Upstream of Dixie Road
Site #12 - Erosion Risk
to Dixie Road 5 PC3-c Local Works City and Private (1900 Dixie
Road) $504,000.00 $100,800.00 0 - 5 Years
Interim monitoring at this
site is recommended to
document the rate of erosion.
Should the bank erode faster
than expected increasing the
prioritization of this site is
recommended.
122
Project
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Risk
Rating
(1-5)
Reach
ID
Preferred
Alternative Property Ownership
Construction
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Consulting
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Planning
Horizon Comments
6
Restoration of Pine Creek
Upstream of Finch
Avenue - East Branch
Site #23 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #24 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
4 PC4-b Extended
Works City and Private $1,800,000.00 $360,000.00 5 - 10 Years
Intended to provide long-
term protection to private
properties on Duncannon
Drive and Alanbury Crescent.
May be opportunities to
explore enhancements to
Lynn Heights Park and the
Communities Integration with
the Creek System.
Comprehensive corridor
maintenance, with local
realignment and erosion
mitigation at slope contacts.
7
Restoration of Pine Creek
Upstream of Finch
Avenue - West Branch
Site #17 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #18 - Risk to Finch
Avenue
4 PC4-a Local Works City $768,000.00 $153,600.00 5 - 10 Years
Cost Estimate is inclusive of
City Works only and does not
account for possible future
works by the Region of
Durham to protect their
infrastructure in this area.
8
Restoration of Pine Creek
Downstream of Fairport
Road
Site #20 - Erosion Risk
to Private Property
Site #21 - Erosion Risk
to Storm Sewer Outfall
4 PC4-a Local Works City $864,000.00 $172,800.00 5 - 10 Years
If the budget allows it, could
be bundled with Project #7
as one larger capital works
project.
The cost estimate does not
include for lining or
replacement of the CSP
culvert beneath Fairport
Road.
9
Localized Restoration of
Pine Creek Upstream of
Kingston Road
Site #1 - Erosion Risk to
Kingston Road and
Storm Sewer
Infrastructure
Site #2 - Erosion Risk to
Private Property
Site #3 - Erosion Risk to
Storm Sewer
Infrastructure
Site #4 - Erosion Risk to
Pedestrian Bridge
4 PC3-a Local Works City $732,000.00 $146,400.00 5 - 10 Years
Cost Estimate is inclusive of
City Works only and does not
account for possible future
works by the Region of
Durham to protect their
infrastructure in this area.
123
Project
Number Project Name Priority Sites - Risk
Description
Risk
Rating
(1-5)
Reach
ID
Preferred
Alternative Property Ownership
Construction
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Consulting
Cost Estimate
($), including
20%
Contingency
Planning
Horizon Comments
10
Erosion Control Works
Downstream of Dixie
Road to Protect at Risk
Culvert Crossing
Site #11 - Erosion Risk
to Culvert 4 PC3-c Local Works City $288,000.00 $57,600.00 5 - 10 Years
If the budget allows it, could
be bundled with any of
Projects #1, #3 or #4 as one
larger capital works project
11
Localized Restoration of
Pine Creek Upstream of
Glenanna Road
Site #5 - Erosion Risk to
Glenanna Culvert
Crossing
Site #6 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #7 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
Site #8 - Erosion Risk to
Parkland
2 PC3-b Local Works City $432,000.00 $86,400.00 10 - 15 Years
To be completed in
conjunction with a change to
Park Operations to limit
excess mowing of riparian
vegetation in David Farr Park
124
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Consultation is an essential requirement of the Municipal Class EA process. Consultation is
the process of identifying interested and potentially affected parties and informing them
about the project, soliciting knowledge of the local environment, and receiving input about
key project decisions before those decisions are finalized. Consultation and outreach
activities have included providing project information to, and requesting
comments/feedback from members of the public, public agencies and other stakeholders.
Public engagement activities completed in support of the EA include the following:
• Notice of Commencement
• Online Engagement
• Public Information Centre
• Public and Stakeholder Correspondence
• Notice of Completion
A comprehensive communications log summarizing the public consultation process is
provided at the end of this section in Table 6-2. Detailed descriptions of the key public
consultation activities and milestones are provided below.
6.1 Notice of Commencement
A Notice of Commencement was prepared and distributed to residents and stakeholders
on July 28th, 2022 by the consulting team and the City of Pickering. A copy of the Notice
of Commencement is included in Appendix J. The purpose of the Notice of
Commencement was to inform the public and stakeholders about the Pine Creek Erosion
Assessment being undertaken to address erosion risks to infrastructure and public property
within the Pine Creek corridor between Kingston Road and Fairport Road. Interested parties
were given the opportunity to learn more about the study and engage directly with the
City of Pickering and Aquafor Beech Limited through the contact information provided in
the notice.
6.2 Online Engagement
A project webpage was hosted on the City of Pickering’s website. Information related to
the Class EA study was posted on this webpage, including a study overview, an overview
of the Class EA process, study notices, Public Information Centre Materials, and contact
information for questions or comments.
The link to the project webpage is provided below:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/pine-creek-erosion-assessment-mcea-study.aspx
6.3 Online Engagement
A Stakeholder List was developed at the commencement of the Class EA Study, and
updated throughout the study based on requests received. The list included Indigenous
Communities identified by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
(MECP), provincial government ministries, the Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, landowners adjacent to the study area, interest
groups, and residents. A summary of the Stakeholder List is provided in Table 6-1.
125
Residents added to the list included those living adjacent to the study area and additional
residents who requested to be included on the list. Resident names have not been included
in this Project File report for privacy reasons.
Table 6-1: Stakeholder List Summary
Stakeholder Group Name
Indigenous Communities Curve Lake First Nation
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Alderville First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation
Rama First Nation
Chippewas of Georgina Island
Beausoleil
Huron-Wendat
Provincial Government Ministries Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and
Parks
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Region of Durham Works Department
Emergency Medical Services
Paramedic Service
Planning and Economic Development Dept.
Regional Transit / Transportation Infrastructure
City of Pickering Various Staff
Conservation Authority Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA)
Utility Operators Bell Canada
Rogers Telecommunications
Trans Canada Pipelines
Enbridge Gas
MTS Allstream
Hydro One
Interest Groups / Other Stakeholders Ontario Provincial Police
Durham District School Board
Claremont and District Community Association
Claremont Public School
Residents Residents adjacent to the study area
Residents who submitted a request to be added
to the contract list
6.4 Public Information Centre
An in-person Public Information Centre was arranged to allow local residents and interested
members of the public an opportunity to review and comment on the project findings to
date, the alternative solutions being considered, the evaluation process, and the
preliminary preferred alternatives. The Notice of Public Information Centre was delivered
by Mail to local residents and posted on the City Website on May 4th, 2023. A copy of the
Notice of Public Information Centre is provided in Appendix J. The in-person PIC was later
held on May 18th, 2023 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm at the Chestnut Hills Developments Recreation
Complex. Copies of the PIC materials, including boards and comment sheets, were made
available on the City’s Webpage, with a comment submission window provided from May
18th, 2023 to June 2nd, 2023. Copies of the PIC comments sheets are provided in Appendix
J.
126
The presented PIC boards outlined the study purpose, background, findings as well as next
steps. A copy of the PIC boards is appended to Appendix K. The PIC boards outline the
following items:
•The study area extents;
•The objectives of the study and the purpose of the PIC;
•The Municipal Class EA – Schedule B process;
•Natural heritage assessment and Species at Risk;
•Vegetation communities;
•Fisheries and aquatic habitat;
•The hydrology and existing conditions of Pine Creek within the study area;
•Erosion site inventory;
•The evaluation criteria for proposed alternatives;
•The evaluation approach;
•Alternative solutions;
•Problems and opportunities;
•Site-specific findings and proposed preliminary preferred alternatives;
•The next steps in the process.
A significant number of comments were received from the public during and after the PIC
event. Three major areas of concern were identified by the public as noted below:
1.The public expressed significant concern regarding the erosion observed at priority
sites #9 and #10, where active bank erosion is encroaching towards the multi-use
trail downstream of Kitley Avenue creating a potential public safety hazard. The
public generally supported the preliminary preferred alternative which
recommended extended works be implemented to realign the channel and protect
the eroded bank from failure.
2.Several members of the public also expressed concerns regarding the erosion
observed at priority sites #13 – 16, where channel widening downstream of Finch
Avenue is creating risks to private properties on Mountcastle Crescent. The public
generally supported the preliminary preferred alternative which recommended
extended works be implemented to rehabilitate this degraded section of Pine Creek.
3.The area of greatest public interest was the degraded state of the Kitley Ravine,
identified through the EA as priority site #25. While the public supported
rehabilitation of the ravine corridor, there were significant concerns about tree
removals, potential disturbances to the natural environment and impacts to the
informal trail system that runs through the ravine corridor. Taking into account
public feedback, a new alternative, targeted corridor rehabilitation, was proposed
to allow for a less intrusive restoration of the creek corridor.
6.5 Summary of Public & Stakeholder Comments and
Responses
The public and all project stakeholders were given an opportunity to contact the project
team with their comments by either email or phone call for the duration of the study.
Several emails were received following the issuance of the Notice of Commencement and
the PIC event. The public identified a number of erosion related risks to private property
and municipal infrastructure, all of which were generally well captured through the Erosion
Sites identified as part of the EA study. There is general public support towards the planned
rehabilitation of Pine Creek to address erosion risks, although suggested areas of
prioritization varied from stakeholder to stakeholder. The public also raised concerns about
127
construction related disturbances to the natural environment, particularly with respect to
tree removals. Table 6-2 below provides a summary of all public and stakeholder
communications, with a detailed record of all correspondence provided in Appendix J.
6.6 Region of Durham
The Region of Durham operates and maintains significant infrastructure within the EA
project study area, including the Kingston Road culvert crossing, the Finch Avenue culvert
crossings, and a regional sanitary sewer that runs intermittingly through the valley
corridor. Erosion Risks to Regional Infrastructure were identified through the EA process
(Erosion Sites #1 and #16), and shared with the Region of Durham engineering team for
information purposes. The Region of Durham has acknowledged receipt of these findings
and noted that they may look to address these risks through their future capital works
program. Ultimately, the projects proposed through this EA are scoped to address risks to
City infrastructure and private property only. Any identified erosion related risks to
Regional Infrastructure are to be addressed by the Region at their discretion.
6.7 Impact of Public Consultation on Selection of the
Preferred Alternative
Based on the feedback received through the public consultation process described above,
a new alternative was introduced for erosion site #25 (degradation of the Kitley Ravine
Corridor). The new alternative is defined as “Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation” and
encompasses a less intrusive restoration of the Kitley Ravine than the originally proposed
“Full Corridor Rehabilitation” alternative. Under the targeted rehabilitation approach, less
intrusive construction equipment will be used, tree removals will be minimized, areas of
restoration will be scoped to only the highest priority areas to diminish the overall area of
disturbance, and bioengineering measures will be used for erosion control in-lieu of the
placement of angular stone substrate. “Targeted Corridor Rehabilitation” was ultimately
selected as the preferred alternative taking into consideration the feedback received from
the public. While this alternative was not presented to the public at the PIC, it most
effectively addresses their concerns related to environmental disturbances, tree removals
and a desire to maintain a natural channel aesthetic.
128
Table 6-2: Public Consultation Summary
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
02-08-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Residents and Stakeholders as
Defined in the Project Stakeholder
List.
Email, posting on
City website, and
posting in local
newspapers
Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering to invite residents and
stakeholders to an open house to discuss the EA.
02-08-2022 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager –
Stormwater
Management
Regional Municipality
of Durham
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Request to have Doug Robertson replaced with Antony
Manoharan as the Region of Durham point of Contact for
the EA Study.
Follow-up: Project stakeholder list updated as per
the Region’s Request.
08-08-2022 Adam Kennedy
Regional Planner
Ministry of Natural
Resources and
Forestry
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided MNRF Comments on the EA Circulation Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
MNRF comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
Adam Kennedy added to Stakeholder List.
Consultant requested clarification from MNRF on their
protocol for preventing conflicts with Beavers.
09-08-2022 Adam Kennedy
Regional Planner
Ministry of Natural
Resources and
Forestry
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided clarification on MNRF’s protocol for preventing
conflicts with Beavers.
Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to follow the
appropriate protocol for dealing with Beavers.
129
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
12-08-2022 Anthony Pigaidoulis
Local Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Notify the Proponent and their agents of ongoing erosion
issues within the Kitley Ravine.
Follow-up: Noted erosion issues to be assessed and
report on through the EA process.
12-08-2022 Caroline Mugo
Senior Planner
TRCA
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Request that Nathan Jenkins be added to the Stakeholder
list as the primary point of contact for TRCA
Follow-up: Stakeholder list updated accordingly.
16-09-2022 Mimi Santano
Carrasco
Regional
Environmental Planner
MECP
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided MECP Comments on the EA Circulation Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
MECP comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
Mimi Santano Carrasco added to Stakeholder List
16-09-2022 Nathan Jenkins
Planner,
TRCA
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided TRCA Comments on the EA Circulation Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
TRCA comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
130
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
18-10-2022 Dan Minkin
Heritage Planner
Ministry of Citizenship
and Multiculturalism
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided MCM Comments on the EA Circulation. Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
MCM comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
04-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Residents as Defined in the Project
Stakeholder List.
Email, Mail-out Issue a Notice of Public Information Centre. PIC to be held
in person Thursday May 18th, 2023 from 6:00 pm – 8:00
pm.
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Non-Residential Stakeholders as
Defined in the Project Stakeholder
List.
Email Issue a Notice of Public Information Centre. PIC to be held
in person Thursday May 18th, 2023 from 6:00 pm – 8:00
pm.
08-05-2023 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Responded to Notice of PIC, asking to receive a copy of
the PIC boards once they are posted for review. The
Region with then review the boards and provide
comments.
Follow-up: Project team to send the Region of
Durham a copy of the PIC boards once they are
posted for review.
131
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-05-2023 Suzanne Harding
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Acknowledged receipt of the PIC notice and requested
that more information be provided on the project’s
environmental impacts.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent provided a response
with a copy of the PIC boards.
09-05-2023 Paul Darby
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Email Sharing of concerns regarding observed erosion and
flooding issues between Glenanna Road and Kingston
Road.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent provided a response
with a copy of the PIC boards.
18-05-2023 Jeannette Anderson
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
PIC Comment
Response Form
Made note of observed erosion downstream of Finch
Street behind Mountcastle Crescent.
Made note of a natural spring located downstream of the
western Finch Culvert.
Inquired who is responsible for addressing erosion in this
area as part of the lands are owned by the City and the
other part of the lands are owned by the Region?
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
18-05-2023 Suzanne Harding
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
PIC Comment
Response Form
Made note that debris in the channel needs to be removed
to help mitigate erosion.
Reported that they support some erosion restoration
work, but do not want to see a complete stripping of the
natural environment. Very concerned about tree lose.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
132
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
18-05-2023 Anonymous
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
PIC Comment
Response Form
Made note of concerns regarding beaver activity in Pine
Creek and voiced support for the proposed EA
alternatives.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
23-05-2023 Adrian Bhagwandin
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Email Request to be added to EA Contact List and inquiry
regarding alternatives that are being proposed near
Silverthorn Square.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent provided a copy of the
PIC boards and added the Resident to the EA contact
list.
23-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Dale
Resident
Email Shared photos of the Mountcastle outfall restoration
project (pre and post restoration).
29-05-2023 Chris Coniam
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Shared information regarding ongoing Erosion behind
Lydia Crescent. Requested to be added to the project
mailing list, and asked who they need to speak to about
getting permission to build a private retaining wall
structure.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent added the Resident to
the EA contact list and provided TRCA contact
information to allow the resident to follow-up with
TRCA about the process for getting a permit to
construct a retaining wall.
133
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
31-05-2023 Martin Herzog
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email / Letter Provided background on the history of erosion in Pine
Creek and recent proliferation of erosion downstream of
Kitley Avenue.
Provided recommendations for implementation of
extended erosion control and stream rehabilitation works
at sites 9, 10, & 12 as well as the Kitley Ravine.
Made note that the EA should specify smaller equipment
be used during construction to limit tree removals.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
31-05-2023 Paul Dalton
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Shared questions about the preferred restoration
alternative for Erosion Site #25 and asked to be added to
the stakeholder list.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent added the Resident to
the EA contact list and provided answers to the
Resident’s questions regarding the nature of the
proposed restoration alternatives.
02-06-2023 Jeannette Anderson
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Shared a description of erosion concerns behind
Mountcastle Crescent. Inquired about TRCA planting
program.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
02-06-2023 Anthony Pigaidoulis
Resident
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Online Form
Submission
Response to PIC comment form comments, with an
emphasis on discussing erosion along the Kitley Ravine.
Follow-up: Proponent/Agent to document PIC
comment responses and take into account public
input in the preparation of the project file report.
134
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
05-06-2023 Janet Mosher
Sr. Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Email Asked that moving forward the Region be given a copy of
materials presented to the public for their review and
approval prior to publication, if any of the materials
involve Region of Durham Infrastructure.
Follow-up: Proponent clarified that the EA
alternatives will be revised and scoped to only include
for works to protect city infrastructure and private
property.
07-06-2023 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided the Region of Durham’s comments on the PIC
boards.
Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
Region of Durham comments are addressed / taken
into account through the EA process.
12-06-2023 Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email TRCA provided their comments on the PIC Boards. Follow-up: Proponent and their agents to ensure
TRCA comments are addressed / taken into account
through the EA process.
01-02-2024 Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources
Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Email Provided a copy of the Draft Project File Report for Region
of Durham Review
Follow-up: Region of Durham to review the draft
project file report and provide any comments before
the report is published.
135
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
01-02-2024 Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources
Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Email Provided a copy of the Draft Project File Report for TRCA
Review
Follow-up: TRCA to review the draft project file
report and provide any comments before the report
is published.
08-02-2024 Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources
Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Gavin Battarino
A/Supervisor
Project Review Unit,
Environmental Assessment
Services Section
Environmental Assessment
Branch
Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks
Email Provided a copy of the Draft Project File Report for MECP
Review
Follow-up: MECP to review the draft project file
report and provide any comments.
14-02-2024 Chunmei Liu
Regional
Environmental Planner
Ministry of the
Environment,
Conservation and
Parks
Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email MECP noted they had reviewed the draft Project File report
and also noted they had no comments.
22-02-2024 Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Jacob Ursulak
Water Resources Analyst
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Region of Durham provided their comments on the draft
project file report.
Follow-up: Project team to update the draft project
file report to address Region of Durham comments
prior to publishing the final report for public review.
136
Public Consultation - Communications Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
19-04-2024 Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Irina Marouchko
Manager, Water Resources
City of Pickering
Email / Letter TRCA provided their comments on the draft project file
report.
Follow-up: Project team to update the draft project
file report to address TRCA comments prior to
publishing the final report for public review.
08-05-2024 Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Antony Manoharan
Project Manager
Region of Durham
Works Department
Email / Letter Provided comments responses to the Region of Durham
addressing their comments on the draft project file report.
08-05-2024 Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Paul Leithwood
Planner
TRCA
Email / Letter Provided comments responses to the TRCA addressing
their comments on the draft project file report.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Residents and Stakeholders as
Defined in the Project Stakeholder
List.
Email, posting on
City website, and
posting in local
newspapers
Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
137
7 INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT
Based on consultation with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
(MECP) it was determined that the City of Pickering should notify and consult with
indigenous communities about the proposed project and any potential impacts on
existing land or credibly-asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights. As per the MECP’s
direction the following Indigenous Communities were engaged:
1.Curve Lake First Nation
2.Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
3.Alderville First Nation
4.Hiawatha First Nation
5.Rama First Nation
6.Chippewas of Georgina Island
7.Beausoleil
8.Huron-Wendat
An engagement summary log is provided in Table 7-1 below, with detailed correspondence
records appended to Appendix L. A summary of key consultation milestones is provided
below.
7.1 Project Notification Letters
Letters addressed to each First Nations community with a copy of the project Notice of
Commencement appended to the end were distributed on December 8th, 2022 by the
consulting team and the City of Pickering. The purpose of these project introduction letters
was to inform the Indigenous Communities about the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment being
undertaken to address erosion risks to infrastructure and public property within the Pine
Creek corridor between Kingston Road and Fairport Road. Each First Nations was given the
opportunity to learn more about the study and engage directly with the City of Pickering
and Aquafor Beech Limited through the contact information provided in the project
notification letter. Copies of the project notifications letters are included in Appendix L.
Responses to the Notification Letters were received from the Alderville First Nation and the
Chippewas of Rama First Nation. Both groups acknowledged the study, and asked to be
kept informed as the EA process moves forward.
7.2 Notice of Public Information Centre
The Notice of Public Information Centre was emailed to each First Nation Community on
May 5th, 2023. A copy of the Notice of Public Information Centre is provided in Appendix
L. A response to the Notice of PIC was provided by the Hiawatha First Nation correcting
the incorrect Salutation used in the notification email. The Hiawatha First Nation asserted
that they are not stakeholders but rather inherent rights and treaty holders. They also
noted they would review the PIC materials and provided any comments if they had any
concerns with the study. Since the completion of the PIC event on May 18th, 2023 no
further comments were received from the Hiawatha First Nation or any of the other First
Nations Communities.
138
7.3 Sharing of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
Report
As a third point of contact, the project team shared a copy of the finalized Stage 1
Archaeological Assessment report with each of the eight First Nations. A copy of the Stage
1 Archaeological Assessment Report is provided in Appendix M.
139
Table 7-1: First Nations Consultation Summary
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Alderville First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Beausoleil First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation
Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Rama First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
140
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Curve Lake First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Hiawatha First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Huron-Wendat First Nation Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
08-12-2022 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation
Email Notice of Study Commencement – Introduction to the
Project
Follow-up: City of Pickering provide an invitation to
an open house to discuss the EA.
141
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
08-12-2022 Dave Simpson
Alderville First Nation
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Commencement
and asked to be kept posted of progress as the project
moves forward.
19-12-2022 Samantha Craig-
Currow
Associate General
Counsel, Legal
Chippewas of Rama
First Nation
Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Provided an updated email address to use for consultation
purposes.
Follow-up: First Nations contact listed updated to
reflect the updated email address for consultation
purposes.
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Alderville First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Beausoleil First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
142
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation
Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Rama First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Curve Lake First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Hiawatha First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
143
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Huron-Wendat First Nation Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation
Email Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)
05-05-2023 Tom Cowie
Lands/Resources
Consultation
Hiawatha First Nation
Rob Amos
Consultant Project Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Email Corrected the Salutation used in the Notice of PIC email,
noting that the Hiawatha First Nation are not
stakeholders, and are instead inherent rights and treaty
holders.
It was noted the Hiawatha Nation is reviewing the
information provided and that they will provide comments
if they have any concerns.
Follow-up: Rob Amos responded noting appreciation
for the correction on the incorrectly applied salutation
while also noting that the project team looks forward
to receiving and incorporating any input the Hiawatha
First Nation may have.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Alderville First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
144
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Beausoleil First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Georgina Island First
Nation
Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Chippewas of Rama First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Curve Lake First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
145
First Nations Consultation - Communications
Log
Date
(dd/mm/yy)
From To Medium (e.g.,
email, letter,
call)
Communication Description - Nature of Concern(s)
or Interest(s)
Response/Follow Up
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Hiawatha First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Huron-Wendat First Nation Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
10-05-2024 Irina Marouchko
Sr. Water Resources
Engineer
City of Pickering
Rob Amos
Consultant Project
Manager
Aquafor Beech Limited
Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation
Email / Letter Notice of Study Completion Follow-up: Comments on the Project File Report to
be provided to the City’s Project Manager, Irina
Marouchko, by Monday June 10th, 2024.
146
8 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
8.1 Detailed Design and Investigations
Upon completion of the EA, each recommended capital works project will require a detailed
design process prior to construction. The detailed design will include additional technical
investigations and inventories, with the primary deliverable to be a design package used
for construction. This package will be subject to regulatory review and permitting. A brief
overview of the additional inventories and deliverables to be completed in support of each
detailed design package is summarized below.
For each project a detail design package will include the preparation of 60%, 90% and final
design drawings for review by the City, TRCA and relevant stakeholders. Each detailed
design package will include the following components:
•General plan - Existing Conditions and Removals: Outlines project extents,
property ownership and proposed site removals;
•General plan - Proposed Conditions: Delineates the proposed restoration designs
including the proposed length of channel rehabilitation works and any proposed
erosion control structures;
•Plan and profile drawings: Defines alterations to the planimetric alignment and
longitudinal profile of Pine Creek;
•Cross-Sections: Outlines proposed changes to the cross-sectional configuration of
Pine Creek;
•Site Access and Staging Plan: Delineates the recommended site access, staging
and stockpile areas;
•Erosion and sediment control plan: Defines ESC requirements as per the Erosion
and Sediment Guidelines for Urban Construction, GGHACA, as well as applicable
TRCA standards and guidelines. Should also include proposed flow management
solutions to establish a dry working condition. Flow management solutions may
include such measures as bypass pumping, implementation of a bypass flume or
installation of longitudinal coffer dams.
•Landscape restoration plans: Includes tree removal, preservation and planting
plans. The development of restoration plans should take into account impacts areas
associated with different Ecological Land Classifications as well as TRCA guidelines;
•Construction details: Outlines the construction requirements for key design
components; and
•Associated design brief: Provides supplementary design information to support
the permitting and construction process.
As part of the design process, additional inventories and plans will be required to further
inform the design.
8.1.1 Hydraulic Assessment
A hydraulic assessment of the proposed conditions will need to be undertaken for each
project to facilitate permitting with the TRCA. The results of each assessment will be
included in the various project design briefs. Computation of peak velocities, shear stresses
and stream powers for bank full and peak floods (i.e., 2–100-year events and Regional
Storm) shall be included and incorporated into evaluation of the proposed remedial
measures. The assessment will be used to confirm that no negative flooding or erosion
147
impacts will result from the proposed works, a condition of TRCA permits, and to size the
material for the channel bed and bank restoration works. To facilitate permitting, an
existing and proposed conditions model will need to be prepared to allow for a comparison
of the proposed designs impacts on water surface elevations as well as channel velocities,
shear stresses and stream power values.
When using the results from the hydraulic modelling assessment to adjust the cross-
sectional design of the channel, efforts should be made to promote floodplain connectivity.
Ideally, the bankfull depth of the channel should be exceeded for all storms events greater
than the 2-year return period flow. In instances where this is infeasible due to site
constraints, best efforts should be made such that the level of floodplain connectivity is
either maintained or enhanced through implementation of the proposed design solution.
As a TRCA permitting requirement, incremental and cumulative riparian storage volumes
may need to be assessed at 0.3 m increments for both existing and proposed model
conditions. The results of this assessment should confirm that there is no loss in riparian
storage volumes as a result of the implementation of the proposed works.
Consideration should also be given on a project-by-project basis to explore opportunities
for the installation of wetland pockets to help attenuate flows, create new habitat and
reduce erosion. Pocket wetlands may be constructed adjacent to channel rehabilitation
works or in line with storm sewer outfall channels.
8.1.2 Geomorphic Assessment
A detailed geomorphic assessment should be undertaken at the detailed stage to build on
the findings of this report and ensure all proposed channel restoration works are designed
accounting for dominant geomorphic trends and key fluvial geomorphology principles.
Particular care should be taken at transition regions between proposed works and existing
conditions to ensure these vulnerable areas remain geomorphically stable in the long-term.
8.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation
A geotechnical investigation should be undertaken to determine the engineering properties
of the existing soils for bank protection works. The details of the geotechnical investigation
are to be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer in consultation with the stream
restoration consultant.
Borehole logs containing appropriate and sufficient data should be prepared. Information
from the boreholes is to be used for assessments of slope stability, soil properties for
channel design, soil contamination, and any other geotechnical recommendations for
engineered structures. Furthermore, soil chemical testing should be undertaken to provide
recommendations for the disposal of excess material offsite in accordance with O.Reg.
406/19.
8.1.4 Utilities Confirmation
Further SUE investigations will be required to confirm the impact of each proposed
restoration design on the utilities and underground services within the proposed restoration
areas. The utilities may include, but are not limited to, electricity, natural gas, cable
television, telephone, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
148
SUE investigations should be completed in sufficient detail to identify all above ground and
buried infrastructure within each project site. Prior to the start of construction, utility
protection measures will need to be confirmed with each corresponding utility authority.
8.1.5 Tree Inventory
A tree inventory, arborist report, and tree preservation plan will need to be completed as
part of the detailed design process for each project to support permitting efforts with MECP
and TRCA. Impacts to existing trees and any implications under the City’s by-law (including
any associated protection or replanting requirements related to those impacts) should be
detailed upon the completion of the tree inventory and leveraged to prepare site restoration
plans that satisfy the requirements of all regulatory review agencies. Tree inventories
should include the full expected area of construction related disturbance, including
proposed access and staging areas. Every effort should be made to design access and
staging areas that will minimize tree removals and environmental impacts.
8.1.6 Natural Heritage System
The mitigation measures discussed above in Section 3.6 - 3.8 should be reviewed and
further developed for implementation as part of the detailed design and construction
tender. Agency consultation and related approvals should be pursued including, as
required, the DFO Request for Review and MECP consultation regarding Endangered
Species via the submission of an IGF.
8.1.6.1 General Mitigation Measures
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sedimentation control techniques are necessary precautions to minimize
sediment entry into surrounding creeks and/or storm sewer pipes. Installation of
construction fencing and erosion & control silt fence are required well in advance of
construction activities. Construction fencing and access routes shall be clearly delineated
and appropriate setbacks maintained from private property for the duration of construction
works. Sediment and erosion control measures should remain in place until vegetation has
become established.
Sediment and erosion control measures should also act as wildlife exclusion fencing to
prevent small mammals and herpetofauna from entering disturbance areas.
Public lands should be restored with woody vegetation as a part of bank stabilization
efforts.
Potential sources for sedimentation related to construction activities include sediments
disturbed and deposited by construction vehicles and blowing sand and dust. The following
mitigating measures are proposed:
•Place sediment traps to receive storm runoff during construction;
•Provide tire washing facilities for construction vehicles that exit the site;
•Install silt fencing along the perimeters of the work sites where appropriate to
prevent migration of sediment-laden storm runoff;
•Cover exposed excavated material to prevent erosion by rain and wind; and
•Water or other dust suppressants to be employed during construction to control
release of dust particles to the air.
149
An erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared and the selection of appropriate
measures will be addressed during the detailed design stage. The erosion and sediment
controls indicated are the minimum that are required. It is necessary to ensure that all
erosion and sediment control measures are functional prior to and throughout the duration
of construction.
Fuel Spills
Fuel spills may occur during the onsite refueling of construction equipment, and may
potentially contaminate surface and groundwater as well as soils. Recommended mitigation
measures include the following:
• Refueling in designated areas outside of the NHS;
• Spill containment for on-site storage tanks; and
• Develop and Implement as needed a spill clean-up contingency plan.
8.1.7 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment
Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment work is required for Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11.
The Stage 1 report (AMICK, 2023) recommends the following with respect to the Stage 2
archaeological assessment:
1. A portion of the Study Area exhibits archaeological potential. These lands require
Stage 2 archaeological assessment by test pit survey at five-meter intervals, prior
to any proposed impacts;
2. The remainder of the Study Area does not retain archaeological potential on account
of deep and extensive land disturbance, slopes in excess of 20 degrees or being
previously assessed. These lands do not require further archaeological assessment;
and,
3. Should the proposed work extend beyond the current Study Area, further Stage 1
archaeological assessment should be conducted to determine the archaeological
potential of the surrounding lands.
Engagement with the First Nations is recommended via field liaison representation during
the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment;
8.1.8 Permissions to Enter
Within the study area, Pine Creek is located on both public and private property. For select
projects, Permission to Enter Agreements are required for a temporary construction access
/ staging.
Where works are proposed on private property, the property owner will be advised of the
ongoing erosion issues and associated risks on their property. Each individual property
owner will ultimately be responsible for undertaking the necessary measures to mitigate
the identified erosion related risks on their property using the concepts outlined in this
EA or alternative methods (subject to all associated regulatory approvals at the detailed
design stage). Alternatively, the City may give future consideration to an easement
acquisition in order to complete creek restoration works on select private properties.
8.2 Permits
Prior to construction it will be necessary to coordinate the environmental approvals and
permits necessary to complete the intended works. At this time, it is Aquafor’s
150
understanding that reviews or approvals from TRCA, MECP, and DFO may be required. A
brief summary of permits and approvals is included below:
TRCA – Section 28.1 Permit - TRCA permits will be required at the detailed design stage
under Section 28.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act. This typically involves two
submissions (60% & 90% design), and will include supporting design brief information.
DFO – Assessment under the Federal Fisheries Act – A certified fisheries biologist will
complete a Self-Assessment based on the detailed design for the proposed works. Based
on similar experiences, at minimum a Letter of Advice may will be required from DFO.
MECP Species at Risk Permit – Under the evolving MECP policy regarding SAR Habitat, a
regulatory exemption clause has been published for “non-imminent threats to health and
safety” under O.Reg. 242/08 (23.18) to the Endangered Species Act, which allows certain
works to proceed without a permit regardless of their potential impacts, including:
- Work to maintain, repair, remove or replace an existing structure or any
infrastructure [specifically: a communications system; an electric power system,
oil or gas pipeline, alternative energy system or renewable energy system; a road
or railway system; water works, wastewater works, stormwater works and
associated facilities; or drainage works designed to control surface water runoff,
other than a drainage work to which section 23.9 applies], including the
decommissioning of a mine, or to upgrade an existing structure or any of the
aforementioned infrastructure to meet a safety standard, if:
o i. the maintenance, repair, removal, replacement, decommissioning
or upgrade does not require:
▪ a temporary or permanent change to the location of the
structure or infrastructure, or
▪ a temporary or permanent extension of the area the structure
or infrastructure occupies, except in the case of the replacement
of an existing culvert with a new culvert that is larger than the one it
replaces,
o ii. in the case of work to maintain, repair, replace or upgrade a structure or
infrastructure, the work does not alter the way in which the structure or
infrastructure is used or operated.
- Work to protect against drought, flooding, forest fires, unstable slopes and
erosion as long as the protection does not include the building of new
infrastructure.”
As part of the proposed works, one culvert replacement is planned at the north end of the
study area (replacing an existing structure with a new structure of a similar size). New
erosion control works (armourstone walls, buttresses) will be installed at all sites to protect
existing infrastructure. No new sewer or road infrastructure is planned at this time. As
such, the proposed works qualify for this exemption, as they are emergency measures
intended to prevent against unstable slope and erosion and do not involve the building of
new infrastructure.
As part of the exemption, a Notice of Activity must be submitted through the provincial
website (ONe-key) to register the project prior to commencing the proposed works.
Although there are no associated additional approval application or review as part of this
process, the proposed works are still obligated to minimize their effects on SAR (e.g.,
151
providing mitigation such as timing restriction on vegetation removal, following in-water
works timing windows and standard DFO mitigation measures to prevent harm to fish, as
well as providing habitat restoration/compensation as appropriate). A mitigation plan
should be prepared, and records of the activity maintained, should the MECP request a
review at a later date.
8.3 Construction Services
All tender documentation will be completed applicable to the City of Pickering or TRCA
standards, with Special Provisions and Schedule of Quantities with refined engineering cost
estimates provided. The package will include Project Descriptions, Special Provisions,
Specifications, Form of Tender and a Schedule of Prices. The final detailed design drawings
will be issued as a set of contract drawings with the completed tender package. The
contract drawings will be stamped by a professional engineer, signed, and labeled “Issued
for Tender” complete with all necessary material and performance specifications. The
consulting engineer will typically assist the City during the tendering and procurement
period as required, providing responses and clarification to bidders during the procurement
process.
Inspection and administration services during construction under the guidance of a
professional engineer (or geomorphologist) who has been integrated in the design and is
well versed in similar construction projects is required. Tasks undertaken as part of the
supervision role will include:
•Attend regular (bi-weekly) progress meetings, including pre-construction meeting,
prepare and distribute meeting minutes within 5 days of the meeting;
•Respond to inquiries and request for information from external agencies, public
stakeholders;
•Preparation of progress payment certificates and recording material quantities as
they arrive to site;
•Overseeing the day-to-day construction and providing interpretation of the
drawings;
•Ensuring that contractor’s methodology complies with requirements of design;
•Monitor the traffic control measures to ensure they are consistent with traffic control
plans;
•Inspect all layout and construction work to ensure compliance with the contract
specifications and drawings;
•Provide advice to the contractor regarding the interpretation of the contract
drawings and specifications and the preparation of supplemental details, instruction
and clarifications as required;
•Notify the contractor of any deficiencies in the construction of the work, instructing
the contractor to take appropriate corrective measures, confirm and report results
of the corrective measures during construction. The deficiency list will be maintained
and coordination of rectification throughout the 2-year maintenance period;
•Review, monitor and ensure compliance with contractor environmental conditions
(i.e., Erosion and Sediment Control Plan).
•Preparation and issuance of substantial Performance certificate and
recommendations; and
•Undertake a complete and thorough inspection of the contractor’s work and prepare
a report which lists all outstanding deficiencies at the end of the warranty period
and coordinate and ensure that contractor corrects all warranty deficiencies
expeditiously and to the satisfaction of the City.
152
8.4 Monitoring Program
A 2-year annual monitoring plan is recommended following completion of construction,
which will include Warranty Period engineering review, as well as assessment of the
efficacy of restoration plantings. The program should include time for inspection of both
the channel works and vegetation plantings by the project geomorphologist/engineer, as
well as the project ecologist. Both the monitoring and warranty will be defined to suit the
detailed design, and satisfy City, TRCA and other agency requirements.
8.5 As-Constructed Drawings and Analysis
This task will set baseline conditions following construction, which will enable future
monitoring and comparative analysis. Specifically, an as-built survey of completed
channel works (plan, profile, and cross sections) to verify implementation of design
within reasonable tolerances should be undertaken. As-constructed drawings, together
with a report summarizing pre- and post-construction conditions should be provided. The
report should comment on significant deficiencies found with recommendations for
correction or adaptive management as required.
The HEC-RAS model should be updated to match as-built conditions (should the
comparative analysis to the design highlight differential conditions), and the updated
HEC-RAS model should be applied accordingly to confirm no negative impacts to flooding.
153
9 REFERENCES
City of Pickering. (2022, March). Pickering Official Plan.
CLOCA, CVC & TRCA. (2022, March). Source Protection Plan: CTC Source Protection
Region.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (2019, August). Projects Near Water.
Eyles et al. (2003, September). Geophysical and Sedimentological Assessment of Urban
Impacts in a Lake Ontario Watershed and Lagoon: Frenchman’s Bay, Pickering, Ontario.
Fischenich, Craig. (2001, May). Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials.
Infrastructure Canda. (2019, October). Climate Lens – General Guidance Document
Lee at al. (1998, January). Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First
Approximation and Its Application.
MMM Group. (2009, April). Stormwater Management Master Plan: Frenchman’s Bay
Watersheds.
MNRF. (2013, March). In-water Work Timing Window Guidelines.
MNRF. (2015, October). Aquatic Resources Areas.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture. (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists.
Oldham, Michael. (2017, March). List of Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone
(Ecoregion 7E)
Region of Durham. (2020, May). Durham Regional Official Plan.
Stanfield, L. (2017). OSAP Version 10.
TRCA. (2012, January). Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Progress Report 2011.
TRCA. (2017, July). Annual Local Occurrence Score and Local Rank Update.
TRCA. (2023, June). Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation