HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-067-09 1 '
arm n
Leading the Way REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
,�
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009 t U
Report#: PSD-067-09 File #'s: COPA 2005-008, By-law #:
PLN 31.5.10, ZBA 2005-042,
ZBA 2005-043, S-C 2005-0003 and S-C 2005-0004
Subject: STATUS REPORT: APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY
SMOOTH RUN DEVELOPMENTS INC. (METRUS DEVELOPMENTS INC.)
BROOKFIELD HOMES (ONTARIO) LIMITED ON APPLICATIONS IN THE
VILLAGE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD IN NEWCASTLE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-067-09 be received;
2. THAT the Municipality advise Smooth Run Developments Inc. and Brookfield Homes
(Ontario) Limited that it is the Municipality's position that the North Village
Neighbourhood Design Plan and the related official plan amendment and development
applications must incorporate a restored and naturalized northerly tributary of the Foster
Creek within the Newcastle Village North Neighbourhood; and
3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by: Reviewed by: `�� ' '
Davi . Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu,
Direr or of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
CS/CP/DJC/df
18 June 2009
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Owners: Smooth Run Developments Inc. (Metrus Developments Inc.)
Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited
1.2 Agent: Sernas Associates
1.3 Proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment (May 2009):
• Amend Map E3 to increase the population of the North Village Neighbourhood
from 3,900 to 5,100 and related changes to the population table.
• Amend Table 9-2 by increasing the housing target for North Village
Neighbourhood to reflect the following:
i) 1,050 low density units to 1,275 units
ii) 250 medium density units to 420 units
iii) total from 1,350 units to 1,750 units; and
iv) amending all corresponding totals.
• By amending Section 16.9 — Special Policy Area G North Newcastle Village to,
among other things, reflect the proposal to redesignate the lands currently
designated Future Urban Residential Area for urban residential uses.
• Amend Map A-4 —"Land Use Newcastle Village Urban Area" by:
i) re-aligning Regional Road 17 (Type `B' Arterial);
ii) revising the collector road pattern;
iii) deleting a public elementary school symbol;
iv) relocating two elementary school symbols;
v) relocating two neighbourhood park symbols;
vi) relocating two medium density symbols and adding three more medium
density symbols; and
vii) deleting the "Future Urban Residential" designation within Special Policy
Area G.
• Amend Map B4 -"Transportation — Newcastle Village Urban Area" by realigning
Regional Road 17 (Type `B' Arterial) and revising the collector road pattern.
1.4 Draft Plans of Subdivision (May 2009):
• Smooth Run Developments: 737unit residential Plan of Subdivision consisting
of 304 single detached dwellings, 323 semi/link dwellings, 110 townhouse units,
and part blocks for residential units, one (1) elementary school, (1) park block, a
parkette, two (2) stormwater management facilities and a Future Development
Block.
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 3
• Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited: 293 unit residential Plan of Subdivision,
consisting of 120 single detached dwelling units, 93 semi/link dwellings, 80
townhouse units, and part blocks for residential units, a parkette, and a Future
Development Block.
1.5 Zoning By-law Amendments:
Change the current zoning on both properties from "Agricultural (A-1) Zone" to an
appropriate zone to permit the proposed developments.
1.6 Site Area: Smooth Run Developments 73.84 hectares
Brookfield Homes 34.86 hectares
TOTAL 108.70 hectares (269 acres)
1.7 The subject properties are located north of the Canadian Pacific Railway (St. Lawrence
and Hudson Railway), east of North Street (Regional Road 17) and Highway 35/115,
south of Concession Road 3 and west of Arthur Street, being Part Lots 27 & 28,
Concession 2, former Township of Clarke.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 On August 24, 2005 Staff received an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan
submitted from Smooth Run Developments Inc. (Smooth Run), a company of Metrus
Developments Inc. and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited (Brookfield). A
Neighbourhood Design Plan was also submitted by both parties.
2.2 Smooth Run and Brookfield have each submitted separate applications for draft plans of
subdivision as well as rezonings. A statutory Public Meeting was held on January 9th
2006. The applications were referred back to staff for further processing, the completion
of the Neighbourhood Design Plan process and a Financial Impact Analysis, The
Financial Impact Study was undertaken by Hemson Consulting for the Municipality of
Clarington and included a review of these applications as well as various major
development proposals in other areas of the Municipality. The conclusions and
recommendations of the Financial Impact Analysis were presented at the General
Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting of February 25, 2008, through Report
FD- 007-08.
2.3 On May 28, 2008, both Smooth Run and Brookfield submitted revised draft plans of
subdivision and corresponding rezoning applications for only the lands in the south-west
corner of the combined overall site, where the applicants believed that servicing would
be available for approximately 250 units, referred to as Phase 1.
2.4 On July 28, 2008, a revised Official Plan Amendment was received, as well as a third
revision to the two draft plans of subdivision and rezoning applications based on the
entire site. The total number of residential units was 1,567.
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 4
2.5 On August 7, 2008 the Municipality received a Notice of Appeal submitted by the
solicitor for Smooth Run and Brookfield, regarding the Official Plan Amendment,
proposed Draft Plans of Subdivision and applications for Zoning By-law amendment.
The appeals were filed under Sections 22 (7), 51(34) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, for
the Municipality's failure to make a decision in respect of these development
applications. The appeals were the subject of Report PSD-092-08, considered by
Committee on September 8, 2008.
2.6 A second statutory Public Meeting, based on the July 28, 2008 submissions was held
on September 22, 2008. The applications were referred back to staff for further
processing and the completion of the Neighbourhood Design Plan process and
resolution of issues.
2.7 On December 10, 2008, a Prehearing Conference before the Ontario Municipal Board
was held. At that time, the Municipality and applicant's solicitor agreed to continue to
work on resolving the various issues, regarding financial impacts, phasing and
environmental concerns. A second pre-hearing conference was held on March 261"
2009 at which time a third pre-hearing conference was set for July 9t", 2009 to establish
the issues for the actual OMB hearing. A date for the OMB hearing was also set for
October 5t", 2009 for 21 days. The re-alignment of Regional Road 17 involved the
Region, the Ministry of Transportation and the developers. It was resolved through
mediation held March 6t", 2009.
2.8 On May 6t", 2009 the proponents made a fourth submission of the plans of subdivision.
This submission is currently in circulation for comments from review agencies
(Attachment 2).
2.9 Since the appeal, there have been on-going "without prejudice" discussions with the
proponent to resolve the large number of issues related to this proposal. Given the size
of the proposed development, comprising virtually an entire neighbourhood, and given
the anticipated time to build-out, there have been numerous issues under discussion
with the applicant, involving the long term needs of various government agencies and
the Municipality. This development was also highlighted in the Study of the Financial
Impact of New Developments in Clarington. While it appears that a number of issues
might be resolved by agreement, there is an issue of central importance to the
developers and the Planning Services Department which remains at an impasse. The
purpose of this report is to refer to Council for consideration.
3.0 RESTORATION OF THE FOSTER CREEK TRIBUTARY
3.1 The subject lands are located within the Foster Creek Subwatershed. The Foster Creek
Subwatershed Planning Study was finalized in March 2001 by the consulting firms of
Gartner Lee Limited (now AECOM) and Greenland International Consulting Inc. The
study identified resource management objectives for aquatic and terrestrial habitat,
surface and groundwater functions, soil and land resources and wildlife corridors and
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 5
linkages. The report identified the northerly tributary as a wetland and identified a
significant wetland/forest feature (Site 14) east of Arthur Street. It recommended,
among other things, that:
• a portion of a "buried" tributary/wetland north of the railway in the vicinity of Arthur
Street be uncovered and restored; and
• a 100 metre wide corridor be established to connect the Graham Creek and the
Foster Creek valleys.
The establishment or restoration of native trees and ground cover in the corridor will
facilitate wildlife movement and connections between significant environmental features
(Attachment 3). The subwatershed study and its recommendations were received by
Council in June 2001.
3.2 The two tributaries in the North Village neighbourhood have been severely affected by
tile drainage and farm practices over the years. In the view of the Municipality's
consultant, the tiling of the northerly tributary has been somewhat ineffective and a
meadow marsh community has developed in the depression which includes the buried
watercourse. The watercourse conveys water overland as well as through the tiles. The
alternatives that are under discussion to date are as follows:
• The Developer's Proposal:
The construction of a new bypass pipes within the road system of the subdivision to
convey the water from outside the Plan of Subdivision (east of Arthur Street) to
bypass the stormwater ponds and discharge immediately north of the railway tracks
into the existing culverts and tributaries; or
• The Staff Proposal:
To restore the northerly existing tributary appropriately designed as a functioning
naturalized corridor.
3.3 This matter has been the subject of some discussion since the applications were
submitted. The developers have provided opinions from two environmental consultants.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. and LGL Limited examined the ecological benefits of daylighting
a piped tributary in the subwatershed of Foster Creek, and the benefits of a naturalized
corridor adjacent to the CRP railway connecting the Foster Creek and Graham Creek
(See Attachments 4, 5 and 6). The proponents are proposing two large stormwater
management ponds at the south end of the neighbourhood and in their view, the ponds
would provide an east-west wildlife corridor. Our consultant's view is that this existing
configuration does not fulfill the function of a terrestrial wildlife corridor.
The developer's consultants have advised that there does not appear to be sufficient
local population of animal and bird species to warrant a 100 metre wildlife corridor. The
stormwater management feature is an adequate facility to provide east-west
conveyance of wildlife. In addition, this feature would create a road safety issue. With
respect to the daylighting of the tributary their consultants concluded it may result in
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 6
deleterious impacts on the watercourse including temperature increase and sediment
load. In their opinion there is no apparent fisheries benefit. Their estimated cost of
daylighting the tributary is estimated to approach $1 million dollars.
3.4 Given the proponents continuing objection to the restoration of the tributary or to provide
an alternate proposal to meet the objectives of the Subwatershed Study and with a
Municipal Board hearing imminent, staff requested the original authors of the Foster
Creek Subwatershed Report to review the opinions provided by the applicant's
consultants (See Attachment 7).
Gartner Lee, now part of AECOM, continues to support the overriding vision in the
original report "to maintain and enhance the health and quality of the Foster Creek
Subwatershed and its ecosystem." Natural heritage features in the Foster Creek
Subwatershed area are in short supply. The valleys of the Wilmot and Graham Creeks
are more robust and offer higher potential for natural heritage functions than Foster
Creek due to intense agricultural practices. Overland connections between watersheds
could enhance natural heritage functions. In this instance the east—west railway
corridors serve as an anchor for a corridor. With the appropriate wildlife underpasses
and fencing, road kill and road safety issues can be mitigated.
With respect to daylighting and restoration of the partially buried tributary, AECOM re-
confirmed that daylighting the tributary would contribute to creating connectivity within
the watershed, as well as conveyance of nutrients and provides habitat for benthic
invertebrates. AECOM advises that daylighting would be no more costly than the
engineering and construction required to collect the water and deliver it downstream,
through a third pipe. The daylighted tributary can be planted with native species to
produce a tree canopy which will maintain water temperature levels.
3.5 Planning Staff and GRCA staff have repeatedly requested the developers to amend the
proposed Official Plans, Neighbourhood Plans and Draft Plan to include the daylighting
and restoration of the tributary and the wildlife corridor. This has not occurred.
3.6 In response to the most recent submission of the subdivision plans, GRCA staff noted
that "the lot layout presented in the most recent draft plan continues to ignore the
recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study. The plan fails to
incorporate either of the opportunities presented in the report, one being the restoration
of a buried tributary and the other a wildlife corridor along the southern boundary of the
property. GRCA staff have been involved in numerous meetings and reviewed several
pieces of correspondence from the applicant's consultants regarding the merits of both
of these recommendations". GRCA staff remains "of the opinion that a properly restored
and naturalized stream channel is the preferred alternative to the current proposal, a
piped watercourse. In addition, they are of the opinion that provided wildlife fatality due
to increased traffic volumes can be mitigated, a wildlife corridor would serve to enhance
the function of a connected natural heritage system".
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 7
4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES
4.1 Provincial, Regional and Clarington planning policies support the concept of planning for
the diversity and connectivity of natural features so that the long terms ecological
functions and biodiversity of natural heritage systems is maintained, restored or
improved. From a policy perspective, "islands" of sensitive features are no longer
sufficient, but connectivity is critical.
4.2 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
Section 2.1 Natural Heritage, states that natural features and areas shall be protected
for the long term. The diversity and connectivity of natural features and the long-term
ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained,
restored or where possible improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural
heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.
Natural heritage systems is defined as:
"a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, linked by natural corridors
which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions,
viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. These systems can include
lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural
state."
Surface Water feature is defined as:
"refers to water-related features on the earth's surface including headwaters, rivers
stream channels, inland lakes, seepage areas, recharge/discharge areas, springs,
wetlands, and associated riparian lands that can be defined by their soil moisture, soil
type, vegetation or topographic characteristics".
Wetlands are defined as:
"means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as
lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case, the presence of
abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the
dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four types of
wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens".
Section 2.2 Water, requires planning authorities to protect, improve and restore the
quality and quantity of water by using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful
scale for planning.
Other related policies are:
Section 1.5, Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space policies, states that healthy active
communities should be promoted by planning public streets and spaces that are safe
and facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized movement. A full range of publicly
accessible built and natural setting for recreation including facilities, parks, open space
and trails should also be considered.
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 8
Section 1.8, Energy and Air Quality, states that planning authorities shall support energy
efficiency and improved air quality through various means in the planning and
development process.
4.3 Provincial Growth Plan
The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is to be read in
conjunction with the PPS. Section 4.2.1 of the Growth Plan states that Planning
Authorities are encouraged to identify natural heritage features and areas that
complement, link or enhance natural systems
4.4 Durham Region Official Plan
4.4.1 A goal of the Regional Official Plan is to preserve, conserve, and enhance the Region's
natural environment for its valuable ecological functions.
The development of a connected and functional natural system comprised of the
Greenlands System (identified in the Regional Official Plan) and additional linkages and
corridors as identified in area municipal official plan is encouraged.
4.4.2 The Environmental policies of the Durham Region Official Plan, under the 'Woodlands'
section state: The Region will in cooperation with the area municipalities, conservation
authorities and other agencies having jurisdiction, participate in managing the
woodlands in the Region by establishing an overall woodland cover target of a minimum
30% of Durham's total land area.
4.4.3 In addition the `Water Resources' policies state that during the process of assessing
development, streams and adjoining lands are to be retained in, or rehabilitated to, a
natural state, for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat and to minimize alterations to
natural drainage systems and sediments entering a watercourse.
4.5 Clarinpton Official Plan
4.5.1 A goal of the Plan is to enhance. natural heritage systems and ecological integrity. An
objective is to enhance ecological processes, biodiversity and connections within the
natural heritage system.
4.5.2 The Plan states that in order to ensure corridor functions are maintained, and where
possible improved or restored, every application for development or site alteration shall
indentify planning, design, and construction practices that ensure no buildings or other
site alternation impede the movements of plants and animals among natural heritage
features, hydrologically sensitive features and adjacent lands.
4.5.3 The Plan notes that there are a number of natural heritage features which cannot be
shown on the official plan schedules due to either inadequate information or the nature
of the feature. The Plan notes that these features are also important to the integrity of
the natural heritage system. Furthermore, the municipality is to prepare a subwatershed
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 9
plan prior to the development of any plan of subdivision, with part of the purpose being
to identify the natural features and systems to be preserved, enhanced or restored. The
Foster Creek Subwatershed study was completed in 2001 and the recommendations
were received by Council in principle.
5.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND/OR WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
TO THE SUBDIVISION DESIGN
5.1 The Village North Neighbourhood area has been affected by aggressive farm practices
and, outside of the tributary, has only farm hedgerows. As a whole, this makes the lands
extremely efficient to develop but lacking in any natural character for its residents.
AECOM noted that the Foster Creek Watershed, as a whole, even taking into account
of all restoration opportunities could achieve 4% forest cover. Even in the last few
weeks, the site has been disturbed with a portion of the tributary area being regraded
and planted with a cover crop. The restoration of this tributary provides an opportunity
for improving the forest cover in the watershed and natural open space area for
residents of the neighbourhood.
5.2 The subdivision design to date has involved the planning for two large stormwater
ponds.at the south end of the development and the future construction of two by-pass
pipes to convey water from outside of the neighbourhood around or under the
stormwater ponds to be discharged southerly near the railway. The development
proposal requires extensive regrading, in part as the proponent wants to minimize costs
by attempting to maintain a cut and fill balance on the site. Thus the substantial quantity
of soil excavated for the stormwater ponds is to be moved to other parts of the site. In
addition, lands requiring regarding to accommodate the proposed servicing scheme and
deal with some steep grades. Retaining and restoring of the northerly tributary will
require re-engineering of the project as currently proposed, potentially including the
relocation of the stormwater ponds.
5.3 The restoration of the tributary would require a corridor approximately 30 m wide. This
would yield a loss of approximately 1.6 ha from the site. This is equivalent to
approximately 35-40 units, assuming the densities currently proposed for the site.
5.4 If the wildlife corridor was to be incorporated along the railway, both our consultant and
GRCA indicated that it could be less than 100 m as originally proposed. The impact of
the corridor would be the relocation of the ponds northerly and the loss of more than 50
lots.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 The restoration of the northerly tributary is the preferred option, if only one is to be
implemented. It provides a number of environmental benefits including:
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 10
• Enhanced ecosystem function including the creation of wildlife habitat and habitat
for benthic invertebrates and the contribution of nutrients for downstream fish
habitat, a reduction in flashy floods, removal of waterborne pollutants, and array
of ecosystem services associated with riparian and forest vegetation;
• Increased forest cover in the Foster Creek watershed;
• Enhanced connectivity with the significant swamp forest, thicket and meadow
marsh referred to as Site 14 to the east of Arthur Street; and
• Open space opportunity for residents of the neighbourhood.
6.2 The costs of engineering and constructing the by-pass pipe solution have not been
provided and the costs of the restoration of the existing watercourse would appear to be
exaggerated. Utilizing Stantec's cost estimate but applied to a more accurate length
following the existing watercourse, the estimated cost is $800,000 but could be much
less since with limited flows there is no need for intensive design and engineering.
The cost of the by-pass pipe also requires engineering the solution, constructing the
pipe and excavating the tile drain. Our consultants indicate that many of the costs
overlap with and may not be much cheaper than daylighting through natural channel
design. The major concern relates to the loss of some residential units.
6.3 Our consultant has noted that there is always more than one solution to improve
ecosystem integrity. Alternative means of achieving the goals of the Official Plan and
the Subwatershed Plan could be explored through further discussion following Council's
decision on the matter.
6.4 Since this matter is before the Ontario Municipal Board, Committee may want to discuss
some legal aspects related to the appeal and the Municipality's position. The Solicitor
will be present and a legal update can be considered in closed session.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Neighbourhood Design Plan
Attachment 2 — Fourth Submission of Draft Plan of Subdivisions
Attachment 3 — Extract of Subwatershed Study
Attachment 4 — Stantec Consulting Ltd. — Opinion Letter
Attachment 5 — LGL Limited — Opinion Letter, February 15, 2008
Attachment 6 — LGL Limited — Opinion Letter, June 13, 2008
Attachment 7 —AECOM — Peer Review Letter
REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 11
List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision:
Bryce Jordan, Sernas Associates
Smooth Run Developments
Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited
Hugh Allin
Steve Wilson
Cory Geddes
Robert Macdonald
Robert Fassen
Helen Jones
Rev. Robert Brouwer
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Robert Craunstown.
Jerry Reffosco
Joanne Raymond
Steve Holliday
Doug Rombough
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-067-00
SITE STATISTICS
I I ❑ I I I I I I I I -
ti
1 1 I I
L----- E6NdSSI(bN-ROAD 3---L------------------1�--�
r 1 Y_7=7 C_S_�
J
+-a --+--I II
Inl 16 � E-t-i f--+-� I I
-nrrnTTrnTnTr-. - I I
I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII I
( I
• /IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIII 11
�x� �T 11J1LIJJ1 LLJ I.LLJ �11LIJ11LJ
T--____rn-Tn�rnr-�I
/ FDB // i�\mot/ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I,
/ RESERVED FOR NOJiTKSTREET' ` 'k-1-+}+I+{-H F- -4+I-H}H+41,
/ I RE-ALIGNMENT EA / 1 IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII ) 1
/ I �� Lll,l LL11 L11___JJ ILLI11Ll LI�1
/ I
3++�I.. I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 p 1
H+HI�'F+i_ L H+H+-1-I-H+�H1'
I I I I I I -1-1111111LLLLLLI 1
L_u iuiLUllui�� I
rrn�TnT n-, r--.nom-rTrr,-rr I
LEGEND
u.iL 1LU lull 1 1 1 111
LLU1L,_J RESIDENTIAL
/ �TrlZ rrt r(TI— I fTTT rr,-r rl— 1
� III trFt I�yyy���L,LI1 11 1 1 1eu1 151[11�1ID1 I
I— "f�xf 116�?m�lx I I,.am s,rvcx[o[rncllm
IIIIrnoeaM- -I- FI732kit-1�- ,I„rvo.e onanm
L LLIJIILLII
LL--) L______ -) e IL LIILLLJ111_J
�1 ............ .. mill f� �I V� n�T rnTT � Ixeosrcai o[4ullto
----� 1111 11 1 1 1111 I IIIIIIII i -• J I IIIIIIIIIIII
-
........o,.... m�..
f
----1----- I /e 0 o.m-la•.rvcaEOn�rvEOary♦a„
— "i; I 6un'ts c.iu+oswn<orrncl,EOluwnm
- I --- k £ £ F E—' f E ---�I I £ £ i f Bunts cnv oluvrvnoslsa
....• ...,a... ♦ • $ - .__ a ' i � €[ � 6un6 cc.uvtu.,owrv,rossu
IT
LECIVIC USES va
-----_—J r------J: 1
II e Ire
,
a
: "a ( S ill cnrvnw,
1 �
--- ------- I,--- -- 1, ��
� 1
®_
♦ a .
_ '^ a a^ • TRANPORTATION NETWORK
...-i....-......._...
j -
f
o,
---- -----___�__
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
.—nnvonv.ws
,
M , i
E
. s
_--_J 1.. i i i I , . i •� ?1 £ E � 1 ••, �� v[cesm.w rvozs
II -----------_---- --_ ._-----------------------�--��-- I- _--_---- -'1�--- ------ ---------_ i. I ......... owNew:rv,P•ou,ma,n
IM I , ,� ,. rvao„•oow000♦oorvo,.r
II
11' ' 1j 1
I - ��--�- I I � Approved for the urposss of making on
,
oppllcatlon for a plan of subdlvslon under
I ,
I i i � i �_ 1 ;; ; g Section 51 of the Plonning Act
----- - — -- 1 '
--_-_-_ --..--_-._. _i - __ wins s.ws
'' _--- I :—_--I--- -- i--i aus*•-ho s..w.
I // �.•� a3v.-axaa -'_ .-.--,--____--__ __ -_-- I AHOCIATlS
10 T
_ Iw
I i i r � 1 ;�,�0 _ a,•�.®.I �__� 1
Ill b[w W watchorn
�� PHASE I and PHASE II
I���;T�-i I /
North Village
Iii
Neighbourhood
�°MLgX-
N P-8
PtIASION TO GRAFT PLAN
11 11 l S-C-2005-003 N 0)
♦• , I / 1 PART OF LOTS 27 & 28
�\��--— ————— _.1_`al._�6RIZULIUAAI CJ_I ——_ i GO.NcFSSION 2
_ T ��---�-- MUNICIPALITY OF c:
-� CLARINGTON N r
(GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE• C)
19p 1 j .;•�`') II 1�� /I V / / f FORMERLY VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE) E Q
F�` 1•r,•.}'' I 1 1 i %/' %' ! %i / REGIONAL MUMOPALJTY OF DURHAM I
l
'l CA
\{ I y
S pP\ik�\ 11'1'�t1;i�`l
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT' .
i BLOCK 496
SMOOTH RUN
1 (20.04 ha 19 5 )
POSSIBLE
� _ �� I - ` Pte. ..a .+...... •n��n mr� nw
-
C �
a 1 a i i 5l i i�.i V i s IrkT \
,TT
-�
111 I �T h�
1w
'��� }'Ifi �i��`I�T`Lt�ll \.,•T � - Sl�S-
I�/1 .l �i.I I !V ITrI I ilAi• \\;ml '`T, 1 \I� h!
��1 \ HLi• ; 1�� \ir1�rL Vr�,a \
Tk'�����
ICI a.rT 7:1�Tr -)
✓:. , 'lzi-+-r 1 ,rl a 1 1
J / �I-Lta tt�a i V1 i1 1 a l 1
p+,4-�i fI I!
fIF'l 4 -
rJ � .M1 I 1 I F� 1 \I f 7 Lva 1 T.r.Ill `�F'� •'' ! .r a •�� � �
1 i •.�.��y�.J_LJ_.Li\�i�.iJJI,._J �L_Ali lii�l,l,,_.mil[ EEEE1 �.• �• +
�1� \ 5trect'fF'•I i \�\SReeL'GG' 1 ,I 3'17�^�.�t�- 'tc'i' 1- n.L.°Y�...Y_� 11'
1\� ;11...�� :�T-v-r'T-ra'ri'- T-r--=.--'�- T'r'•r7 rt _ � � ` 1'
iyl\SI
I 1
1a 1.(L iI
I'
�L1. C— 1 1 1 1 1 I I Y I' 1_I V. 1'1. I ._✓�/,-� u.�o-. + .4 ' •II,
L _ 1 a as a 1a I a 1 a .� ..� la p�lF1l.l 1 \r � �ppt�t s`F !s .w # ° 4 �F /
I—'—� �—f�'1`�1 -� I 1 �TI•�— ,I T }. r I' j PEAK
11'. �I C==1 1 all.I'.t•1.1 1� . I 1� i I, I\i 1.'E�al a� \ _3F�LOq(�'l• a ma r + +
..1_ .+ lt`(1:J�p1.J_L1JLL••l�,.l�-LLgJ_L1e},�{. �T , (zm -Sn a) 't `�:.
4'ay �l �Tr 17rttizT'!7� r1�
\�\; mrw cmx ,; •�; )
-„ I \t � \ >nJT ar. ..ate
AN
it
�•o, �-IS• �M I "f ,(; / <�. 1Y'`•1, �� Ida,. \ �,: ,t! � � c /r?,1. „(.. �} ,H.
IaaN,-4.ENT FACILITY \ _ t o f 9 � ±-
akCK- '
(L�o.rors Trnm;.,c 9wk,on c>A
n6 IF
I
30�:
��Al � ��.�— �' �-'--�,.:•
\
\` VJ.- _ �, :; /V r .1 cyL4 YNIAGEUEN 1'p9 -'r� CE' I F`SE�N/�5 pS50C1ATE5
\ L 1 ( I
`�
I _ ..' ss 11_wa r�uexam
it
IORTH VILLAGE-SMOOTHRUN
y VAY X09
Di
0401
1 t\ ` -i I REVISION TO DRAFT PLAN\ t S-C-2005-004
PART OF LOTS 28
MUNICIPALITY OF
------ – – --J–` �–= CLARINGTON
FORMERLY KLUGE OF NE ASTLE)
f, EdCN/L RLRaPADiY OF DURHAM
I \\ RE DE LOP Ett7 bm.a
i���l �\\ \ �' •\BLOIXi92� / / I i ¢.. .s
\��1 j\;j''s��"1)` ����\�_=\`\-,�ltd,-- � - -, / .�s�a,'Fn;•,�-s--_�--- � _ I \ ` i I ' ��.,....�.��..�n.. . .=.a
um
�-F ' L --
`� 13
e et =1?
` a
eet'
II IN' �•StiN' I -
l
T .'r-�
�1 \ till ' K , \\ n. t�� p 1`1 I i 7TTl'T,I i f 'Lim
V
'' •,�,
\ � --�3 °�--. Reet,pq ,', �� ,✓ / � $/!_1'�^Str�c�,--,, -T � 1 4i
ZL
/ -(--'—
�--�-�� • 1�1�;.»rlw� I +- �! ' Ir :�;�,It�; �'}`\ �i � ':= C_� �" ',�s4'�c�T^ j' -
111
sur[.•n J,_� ,
,, ;
!4
-7 r`-'
I
li I.,� y j•� I 1�I_`i.}�, -� , 1
. ,I� �i
i�( •i 11; 1...,\\ ^I l' °.[�}i. ,I`(t 114—A.0\r �\�\
l�
1_J_�_
Slr�t'E[-,./I ' u � i Sit cet.'F'.\ t � \�' VStreel'I' ��� Slme H''
14 LA r(!�
t \ i\� ���'Ll�l\ ` \I �` \F�li\�_-1. `:�. ✓', i , i' �E!�� iil�r/ii
t 1`
Al Ll.
r .
-T-- 1--; ,� i j`I � I �Ir�
�.'�';5 fee G'/� /1 \St+e� G''-� I '�,�_�.. .,�.....o.....
-- --r -�[-�-,- i�- _i I """""µRu�res �•....'' ,..-.�..
1(` '1 � �� �'--�/ �, •3E.'2NA5 L1550Cl/�TES
Ip Smf+l'M IPoSQLbJt
/,' 1 T-1-- \��tom'c)`_ ,�lJ� \ \/�v/✓/ �I / �� UAII F'�[�[N
�f( ���� Jfl IL NORTH VILLAGE
t` 't�l a1 11� G Z
��'7�` �.� �1 \\� \� <\� � J ` c: ' �\ � � -BROOKFIELD
Al
�•
j
�.��•���•>_"�s'/`�R Nr 111111\111111111111111111{IIIIIIIIIII����O/d � �� _
AIM
&INA
gyp\
II Mw
npw
kl-
••�. \F5956�y i•I� i� Npp�P
��p•0 ck�- A�b �I� P�•ptl� ",
�, \r•��PA9� ♦9��i\�\��Poi\�\�����0'= +���
�. B`�- pov'e:•�11111„`%:�/�:��f����• : `\ \%
poi.
IN
j \\\\\\\� \\\�\``�,,'`\\ �� \ Faster Creek Watershed
kill Greenlands System
Limits of Foster Creek
Sub Watershed Study Area
Natural core Area
ice,\\\\� •�\\��\ ♦'��\!
�• � Ecological
Area and Linkages
�� �•�J�r�i��` ��nu����M.is � :Corridors,
and Minor Core Areas
Wooded Areas
Attachment 4
stantec Consulting Ltd, To Report PSD-067-09
361 Southgate Drive
Guelph ON N1G 3M5
Tel:(519)836-6050 Fax:(519)836-2493
stantec.com
Sta
October 11, 2006
File No. 160960242
Carlos Salizar, Planner
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville Ontario
Dear Mr. Salizar:
Reference: North Village Neighborhood Plan Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2
Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington
At the request of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes we have completed a
review of the,recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study(Gartner Lee
Limited and Greenlands International Consulting Inc. March 2001) as they apply to the North
Village'Neighborhood Plan (the Subject Lands). This review was discussed at meetings earlier
this year with Town Planning staff and members of the Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority.
Located north of the Village of Newcastle, the Subject Lands are bordered by the CPR railroad
tracks to the south,Arthur Street to the east, Concession 3 to the north and Regional Road 17
to the west, and are owned by Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (the
proponents)..
The Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study recommends that a substantial portion of the
southern Subject Lands be set aside as part of a Greenlands System, to allow for the re-
opening or"dayiighting"of a buried 'tributary to Foster Creek, the naturalization of agricultural
land and ti ie creation of an ecological corridor between Foster Creek and Graham Creek
wastersheds. The recommendation is not detailed but it appears from Figures that that the
intent would be to open the tributary through the entire North Village Neighborhood from the
CPR tracks to Arthur Street(see pages 99-100 and Figures 11 and 13 in the Subwatershed
planning studyj.
Stantec
October 11, 2006
Page 2 of 7
I
Reference: North Village Neighborhood
As was discussed at the meeting with Town and GRCA staff earlier this year, the proponents
had some questions about this recommendation to"reopen"the northern tributary across the
Subject Lands to connect the CPR railroad tracks with Site 14 west of Arthur Street. Specifically
the questions with regard to this recommendation include:
1. What are the specific ecological watershed functions to be performed by the
recommended measures?
2. What are the relative costs and benefits associated with the recommendation?
3. Is there an alternative approach that could provide substantially the same benefits at
lower cost?
The information below represents our answers to these questions.
1. Ecological watershed functions potentially addressed by re-opening the Northerly
Tributary.
The subwatershed planning study apparently does not provide substantial ecological data from
the eastern tributaries of Foster Creek that cross under the CPR tracks and through the existing
village of Newcastle.
Figure 10 in the subwatershed planning study indicates that flow and surface water sampling
stations were established (SW6, SW9 ands SW10); along with Fisheries Habitat(H9) and
Benthic Invertebrate (136) stations. However, the version of the plan made available to me does
not contain data for the water quality (Table 9), benthic stations (Table 10 and Appendix C-3),
or fish habitat(Table 11).
Natural vegetation on the North Village Neighborhood lands is limited. Figure 11 in the
subwatershed planning study indicates that Site 15, made up of Polygon 62, is a meadow
marsh dominated by reed canary grass. Field work by Stantec Consulting Ltd. conducted in
2006 indicates that this location is a grassed water-way constructed through a farm field,and
that is occupied by a range of common grasses. There are wetter areas near the culverts and
where grading has created small depressions, but the majority of the site is anthropogenic and
does not represent a wetland community. The continuation of the grassed waterway upstream
of Arthur Street(polygon 63) is similar to the grassed waterway on the North Village
Neighborhood lands, and appears to be more appropriately characterized in the subwatershed
planning study as cultural meadow.
Site 14, which is east of Arthur Street is listed in the subwatershed planning study as a
significant site(page 57) and "a connection between the CPR railroad across to site 14"(page
58) is recognized as a possibility, although it is noted "existing farm buildings that will be
affected and therefore will be difficult to achieve."
Under the wildlife habitat discussion (pages 63 to 66) core habitats are identified at the mouth
and headwaters of Foster Creek and it is concluded that the focus should be on maintenance
and enhancement of these features with a second priority being maintaining the corridor of the
main branch of Foster's Creek that links these two features.
Stantec
October 11, 2006
Page 3 of 7
Reference: North Village Neighborhood
Site 14 is identified as being linked to the forest areas in Graham Creek and playing an
important role in bird habitat functions in that watershed. The stated benefit of linking this area
to the railroad corridor is to provide a "circular route"for wildlife movement, although, which
wildlife species and how this route would enhance their habitat, are not specified. There is no
mention in the subwatershed study of aquatic habitat benefits or stream hydrology benefits that
might arise from re-opening or"daylighting" of the stream. This is despite the fact that the vast
majority of creek daylighting projects undertaken are founded primiarily on stream hydrology
and aquatic habitat benefits.
Based on the limited information summarized above the ecological benefits of the
recommendation to reopen the northern-most of the two eastern tributaries would appear to be
limited to a third level wildlife habitat function vaguely described as a "circular route" or"multiple
opportunities for wildlife movement'. Given that daylighting streams can be an extremely
expensive undertaking this seems like insufficient justification of the recommendation.
To further investigate the potential benefits of re-opening the stream, aquatic habitat data was
collected by Stantec Consulting Ltd. in July of 2006, for the area downstream of the North
Village Neighborhood The following is a summary of those 2006 observations.
Eastern Tributary of Foster Creek
The area upstream of Arthur Street and the proposed new channel site is currently under
agricultural production (Photo A), over moderately hilly topography. The area downstream of
Arthur Street proposed for daylighting is currently an agricultural grassed waterway with no
defined channel due to the presence of a pipe that directs flow to the main stream channel
further down the watershed.
Examination of the stream
channel where it daylights
approximately 10 metres
nnrt_hr?act of the milwnx/trarke nn
� z the southern edge of the property
3 revealed a small defined channel
approximately 15 cm wide, with a
depth of 5 cm or less(Photo B).
The water temperature was
measured at 15 degrees, many
degrees below ambient air
temperature, reflecting the long
residence time in the pipe under
grassed waterway as well as
NMI possible groundwater
BRAINcontributions.
Photo A—Agriculture upstream of Arthur Street
Stantec
October 11,2006
Page 4 of 7
Reference: North Village Neighborhood
On the south side of the CPR railroad
tracks, the stream is a defined, diffuse
channel with a narrow, but dense riparian
buffer consisting of grasses, shrubs, large
trees and wetland plants (Photo C).
Instream vegetation consists of dense
" , J patches of watercress, grasses and algae.
Substrate consists of approximately equal
r� measures of cobble and gravel with some
B r sand.
From this point downstream through the
Village of Newcastle towards its it's
�,. confluence with the main branch of Foster
Creek, the stream has a similar character:
a narrow but dense riparian buffer, and
evidence of significant human impact,
a including often abundant in-stream litter
and debris, sections where open-top
corrugated" steel pipes (CSP) function as
the channel bottom, and concrete retaining
Photo B—Grassed water way outlet wall structures. (Photos C and D).
i >
T
STS
Photo C- Downstream of CPR tracks Photo D— Downstream of North Street
Note diffuse channel, refuse and Note Corrugated steel pipe serving as
potential barriers to fish movement. stream bottom (lower left of photo)
Stantec
October 11, 2006
Page 5 of 7
Reference: North Village Neighborhood
Overall, the tributary downstream of the area proposed for daylighting provides low quality
fisheries habitat due to the number of alterations, as well as the diffuse, shallow channel
features. Creating an open channel upstream of this reach will not add significant value to the
existing habitat, as fish passage is limited under regular low flow conditions. To the extent that
the re-opening may result in some water quality changes compared to the piped flow, such as
temperature increase and sediment load, the quality of habitat downstream could even degrade
slightly.
In summary, the watershed ecological functions that the proposed re-opening of the tributary
and the naturalization of agricultural lands could enhance include:
• Wildlife movement between the Foster and Graham Creek corridors for
unspecified wildlife species.
• An increase in the amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed.
• An increase in the total amount of natural vegetation cover.
2. The relative costs and benefits associated with the recommendation
Published experience in Canada and the United States(see for example Daylighting: New Life
for buried streams. Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2000) indicates that the cost of
daylighting streams can range from less than $100 per foot to upwards of$1000 per foot, not
including lands costs. Lower cost efforts tend to be characterized by volunteer labour, in kind
contributions and simple stream systems with minimal grading required.
From the Functional Servicing Plan for the North Village Neighbourhood plan it appears that
approximately 600 m of stream could be subject to daylighting. Assuming that this is a
reasonably simple system and applying a cost of$1600 per metre (roughly $500 per foot)the
total cost could easily approach $1,000,000, excluding the cost of the land. Based on Figure 13
in the subwatershed planning study more than 10 hectares of otherwise developable land would
be lost on the North Village site alone, and a similar amount of land would be lost for future
A
evelopment east of Arthur Street. Reduction in developable area adds to per unit costs for
infraStriir_.tiire ani riryc iin the rnct of 8eniicinrr nnr nin+on i"l—i ton'J urban fabric ie _r -y u — V1Q111 n I&LVI
affecting tax rates, house prices etc. Taking into account these types of indirect costs the total
dollar cost of the proposed daylighting will be several millions of dollars spread out across
landowners, the residents and the Municipality.
Costs of this magnitude can be justified if the resulting environmental benefits are similarly large
and significant.The challenge is that often environmental benefits do not have a clear dollar
value associated with them, and it can often be difficult to balance the costs and benefits.
However a qualitative assessment of the relative value of the environmental benefits is often
possible. In the review above the following potential benefits were identified:
• Enhanced wildlife movement between the Foster and Graham Creek corridors for
unspecified wildlife species.
• An increase in the amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed.
• An increase in the total amount of natural vegetation cover.
Stantec
October 11, 2006
Page 6 of 7
Reference: North Village Neighborhood
These potential benefits, while important at a local scale, will not result in not major impacts on
the ecology of the subwatershed. On a relative basis it seems clear that the limited benefits do
not justify the high costs. This is particularly true if similar, or even greater, watershed scale
benefits could be achieved at lower costs. This is the issue addressed below.
3. Alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits at lower cost.
Enhance wildlife movement between the Foster and Graham Creek corridors
As noted on page 61, the majority of birds wildlife listed in the subwatershed study are adapted
to "field, forest edge and urban fringe habitats"The same could be said of the mammal species
encountered as the full range from short-tailed shrew to deer are known to frequent urban,
semi-urban and agricultural landscapes. These species will readily move through semi-
naturalized low maintenance vegetation found along linear features such as railroad tracks and
through low maintenance areas of stormwater management ponds, parks, and open spaces.
The south end of the proposed North Village Neighborhood includes all these uses backing on
to the CPR railroad tracks. With some minor modifications a minimum 30 m strip of these low
intensity low maintenance uses could be incorporated into the plan. This would provide an
adequate mid-watershed movement corridor between Foster and Graham Creeks. Given that
the corridor must cross Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street, it is, and will remain, a
compromised corridor. To make a portion of the corridor 100 to 400 metres wide would not
compensate for the constraints posed by the road crossings, and would not add substantially to
the function of the area.
Increase the amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed.
Overall, the tributary downstream of the area proposed for daylighting is moderately low quality
habitat. Creating an open channel upstream of this reach will not add significant value to fish
habitat in Foster Creek, and will only increase the amount of low to moderate quality habitat. A
better approach would be to substantially improve the quality of existing habitat in the main
branch of Foster Creek. Several examples of projects that would greatly exceed the benefit of
the proposed day-lighting at much lower cost can be drawn from the subwatershed study
discussion (see page numbers from subwatershed study below for details):
• Increase buffering and riparian plantings in agricultural areas (page 46);
• Removal of debris and barriers throughout the main branch;
• Increased habitat diversity in upper reaches (page 49);
Carp exclusion in the lower reaches of foster Creek(page 49).
Additional examples of lower cost higher benefit fish habitat enhancement could be developed
in conjuction with the Conservation Authority Staff and other interested parties.
One ecological function not addressed by the proposal to daylight the eastern tributary is the
fact that the pipe underlying the grassed water way contributes relatively cool baseflow to Foster
Creek just upstream of the CPR tracks. This function should be preserved in the servicing of the
proposed development.
Stantec
October 11,2006
Page 7 of 7
Reference: North Village Neighborhood
A bypass pipe should be included in the servicing concept to take the relatively cool and clean
external flows from upstream of Arthur Street and bypass the stormwater management facilities
associated with the proposed development, discharging downstream of the SWM outlets. This
will prevent the external flows from being warmed in proposed Pond E.
Increase the total amount of natural vegetation cover.
Approximately 10 ha of development land would be set aside for naturalization under the
approach recommended in the subwatershed study. This area would be in the middle of the
watershed isolated by Regional Roads railroads lines and adjacent urban development. A much
greater ecological benefit could be realized if the natural core areas at the confluence with
Wilmot Creek and in the headwaters were enhanced. Approximately one hectare of relatively
natural habitat, in the form of a 30 metre wide corridor along the CPR tracks would provide the
urban corridor required for the species encountered in the area between Foster and Graham
Creeks, and the time effort and plant material that would have gone into the other nine hectares
of corridor could be better invested in enhancing the core natural areas and improving riparian
habitat along the main branch of Foster Creek.
In summary, we have concluded that the costs of the proposed daylighting of the eastern
tributary far outweigh the ecological benefits of the proposal. Much greater ecological benefits
could be realized from enhancement of the core natural areas and fish habitat improvement
works on the main branch of Foster Creek. A simple bypass of external water flows around
North Village Neighborhood and provision of a 30 metre wide semi-natural corridor along the
CPR tracks is the optimum balance point between costs and benefits.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULT NG LTD.
David Charlton, M.Sc., P.Ag.
Senior Principal, Environmental Management
Tel:(519)836-6050
Fax: (519)836-2493
dcharlton @stantec.com
I
i
Attachment 5
-- To Report PSD-067-09
— LIMITED
environmental research associates
22 Fisher Street, PO Box 280
Tel. 90-833=1%J 2-nr_r Fax: 905=833 1255
Email: kingcity @lgl.com
URL: www.lgl.com
February 15, 2008
Carlos Salazar, Planner
The Municipality Of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Reference: North Village Neighbourhood Plan
Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2
Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington
LGL Limited (LGL) was retained by Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes in
July 2007 to provide advice respecting selected recommendations of the Foster Creek
Subwatershed Planning Study, as they pertain to the (Newcastle) North Village
Neighbourhood Plan area. Specifically, LGL was asked to provide opinion on:
1. the necessity for a wildlife conveyance corridor of 100 metres is width to be
developed abutting the CPR R.O.W.; and
2. the advisability of"daylighting" a buried (farm-tiled) tributary. Corollary to the
daylighting issue is the matter of the study-recommended step to develop a
wildlife conveyance feature centred on the re-developed watercourse, which
would connect the previously noted 100 metre wide (enhanced rail R.O.W.)
corridor with the watercourse; crossing at Arthur Street.
In preparation of this letter, we visited the subject lands and adjacent areas (July-
December,2007) conferred with municipal and Conservation Authority staff (site
meeting of December 14, 2007), and reviewed the Subwatershed Study, relevant file
correspondence, and planning figures as prepared by MBTW and Sernas Associates. In
addition, LGL has reviewed literature sources that address the aforementioned wildlife
issues.
Of particular relevance are the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study (Planning
Study), and a letter dated October 11, 2006 from Stantec to the Municipality of
Clarington,Attention Carlos Salazar, Planning (attached).
The former provides a vision for a greenway framework comprising cultural, naturalizing
and remnant natural features, enhancements to such features, and new connecting
corridors. This Planning Study also recommends exposing farm-tiled groundwater flows;
Page 1
Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited
North Village Neighbourhood Plan February 2008
and in the case of the subject lands, creating a vegetated watercourse corridor between
the enhanced CPR R.O.W. and Arthur Street.
The Stantec letter of October 11, 2006 discusses the Planning Study in the context of
landowner concerns, relating to the daylighting issue of the buried tributary (noted
above) and the enhancement of the Rail R.O.W. corridor, and discusses the costs and
benefits of the planning recommendation and recommends alternative approaches to
those offered in the Planning Study.
The two principal issues addressed by LGL are discussed as follows:
1. the necessity for a 100 metre wide naturalization at the interface of the CPR
R.O.W. and the North Village Neighbourhood Plan Area, principally to enhance
the conveyance of animals between the Foster and Graham Creek watersheds,.
The Planning Study basis for the development of the greenway framework in
general, and the above-noted enhancement in particular, is grounded in the
science of landscape ecology and is built upon the premise that enhancing and
connecting islands and corridors of green always provides a net benefit to plants
and animals. Page 64 of the Planning Study identifies four terms used in the
scientific discussion of connectivity and wildlife habitat. The introduction of these
terms implies that any size criteria that are at variance with those will not qualify
as a productive/sustainable feature. Additionally, it presumes that urban/ex-
urban animals cannot and do not successfully enlist the services of
anthropogenic features to travel between vegetated units within and/or adjacent
to the built environment. Based on our knowledge of the literature and on our
professional experience, it is fair to say that neither premise is accurate.
Although the Planning Study provides a list of wildlife species encountered within
the study area, there is no detailed body of data. This is not unusual for this level
of study; however, given the sweeping nature of the greenlands
recommendations it would have been helpful. Of particular use would have been
data respecting animal numbers in the areas proposed for enhancement. In the
absence of this information, LGL undertook such focused studies to confirm the
character of wildlife usage within and adjacent to the rail R.O.W. and also in the
main branch corridors of Graham and Foster Creek watersheds. The results of
this work confirmed the presence of a wide variety of species (3 amphibians, 49
birds, 24 mammals, 4 reptiles), albeit in moderate to low numbers, with less
diversity and lower numbers within the railway lands (2 amphibians, 31 birds, 15
mammals, 2 reptiles). The above numbers exclude migrant birds.
The majority of these species are urban tolerant and would be habituated to
human presence. Urban subsidized species (gray squirrel, house mouse,
Norway rat, raccoon and striped skunk) were prominent in numbers as were
predatorial species such as deer mouse, coyote, red fox, American crow, blue
jay,and common grackle (gray squirrel, raccoon and striped skunk also fit the
second category). Virtually all of these species may be expected to persist
through the development period and remain (or increase) in post development
years. All of the above noted animals currently appear to be navigating
Page 2
Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited
North Village Neighbourhood Plan February 2008
effortlessly within and between the watersheds utilizing cultural pathways,
including the rail R.O.W. Although the provision of new green space outside of
and paralleling the R.O.W. would benefit this situation, there is no apparent
biological requirement for this change to maintain the current condition and there
does not appear to be a significant enough local population to warrant the size of
a greenspace dedication as proposed in the Planning Study.
Additionally, unless any green enhancement of lands abutting the rail R.O.W. is
fenced to exclude humans and companion animals, the disturbance factor will
result in wildlife selecting the railway lands over the designed greenspace due to
the familiarity and isolation of the former. The principal benefit of new
greenspace would be to buffer the rail corridor for wildlife and to provide
additional conveyance opportunities between watersheds for selected nocturnal
moving species. A significant downside to attracting increased numbers of
animals to transit between watersheds, regardless of the width of any future
greenway, is the crossings they will have to make of Regional Road 17 and
Arthur Street, both of which will carry significantly more traffic at build-out.
Enticing greater numbers of relatively slow moving ground-based animals into
traffic corridors is not sound urban wildlife management and can result in
significant road safety issues for drivers.
A setback width of 20—25 metres for the stormwater management feature (i.e.
the"permanent pool') from the CPR property boundary is adequate to facilitate
east/west conveyance of wildlife, and will suitably buffer wildlife pathway
functions within the railway lands. Wherever possible, the area between the rail
lands and the ponds (including the "park block") should be planted in coniferous
species (white spruce, red and white cedar and white pine) with occasional tall
deciduous tree accents (burr and red oak).
T he interface zones of the greenway feature with Regional Road 17 and Arthur
Street (15—20 metres) should be vegetated only in herbaceous cover; these
areas should be cut at least twice yearly generally to increase visibility of
roadside wildlife and to ensure animals crossing these roads do not break from
cover in a manner which creates a road safety issue.
The greenway unit should not include trails or other features that encourage
residents to consider this area a recreational zone; signage in this regard may be
necessary.
The greenway corridor should not be separated from the stormwater
management area by fencing.
2. The advisability of"daylighting" a buried (farm-tiled) tributary.
The Planning Study recommends "daylighting" a buried tributary on principle to
recover riparian habitat and in the process provide a new wildlife movement
corridor connecting northeast across Arthur Street to lands that currently are
farmed or idle (plantation) and are not within the urban boundary.
Page 3
Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited
North Village Neighbourhood Plan February 2008
The issue of exposing the underground flow or maintaining it in an underground
pipe for delivery to the creek channel at the rail R.O.W. is discussed by Stantec,
who recommend the later. We agree with Stantec on this matter. Specifically, it
is Stantec's opinion that the daylighting of the tributary may result in deleterious
impacts on the watercourse, including temperature increase and sediment load.
Additionally, Stantec note that the Planning Study does not mention that aquatic
habitat benefits or stream hydrology benefits will arise from the daylighting
exercise, in spite of the fact that the majority of watercourse daylighting works
are grounded principally on precisely these foundations. Notwithstanding these
comments, we appreciate that delivery of groundwater in a buried fashion,
however cool it may be, will not have a profound impact on the downstream
thermal regime of Foster Creek. However, we, too, are of the opinion that taking
the course of action proposed in the Planning Study provides no apparent
fisheries benefits and could be detrimental in the long run to down-gradient
conditions (foreign substances washed into the watercourse and general
warming of groundwater).
Secondly, and as recommended by Stantec, we agree that the piped
groundwater should not be processed through the stormwater management
system. In the event a third pipe option is exercised to collect groundwater within
the development envelope, it is acceptable to combine the two sources.
Lastly, it is our opinion that the Planning Study recommendation to design a
tributary-based greenway between the enhanced rail R.O.W. and Arthur Street,
across what is now a farm field, is something to be viewed as an example of
urban wildlife mismanagement. Implementation of this plan undoubtedly will
result in road traffic wildlife fatalities and significant road safety issues as Arthur
Street is upgraded with development. Secondly, encouraging wildlife to loop
northeast onto third party lands in the hope that they will all turn southeast and
return to the connecting rail corridor, in our opinion, is wishful thinking. In
addition, it will increase wildlife numbers, including those species which come in
conflict with humans, on lands to the east of Arthur Street, where they may not
be appreciated by landowners.
The above comments comprise the results of LGL's review of background natural
heritage documents, the development proposal, discussions with Town staff, and site-
specific investigations. These findings confirm that the Resource Management
Objectives of the sub-watershed study generally will be met through development as
Proposed,
//Sincerely,
J.
Robert Nisbet
Senior Biologist
Page 4
Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited
North Village Neighbourhood Plan February 2008
Attachment 6
To Report PSD-067-09
233 Huycke Street
Cobourg, Ontario CANADA K9A 5K8
environmental research associates C 905-372-3261 RE: 905-372-3281
: rnisbet@lgl.com ®: www.lgl,com
Head Office:22 Fisher St,,P.O.Box 280,King City,Ontario CANADA L7B 1A6 t:905-833-1244 M:905-833-1255 U:kingcity @lgl.com ®:www.lgl.com
Julie 13, 2-003
Sernas Associates
110 Scotia Court, Unit 41
Whitby, Ontario
L1 N 8Y7
Attention: Mr. Bryce Jordan
Re: North Village Neighbourhood Plan, Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2
Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington
Policy Implications of the Foster Creek Sub-Watershed Planning Study
Ganaraska Conservation Comment Letter Dated April*1, 2008
Sent from Greg Wells (GRCA) to Lisa Backus(Clarington)
Dear Bryce,
At your direction, we have reviewed the above noted GRCA letter and herein offer our thoughts respecting
the Conservation Authority's recommendations to the Municipality. Our comments are derived through
consultation with LGL ecologists and fisheries biologists who have experience in similar land use
conversion exercises, and from a review of the research conducted by Stantec (letter of October 11, 2006
to the Municipality). LGL refers to the Stantec letter in our correspondence of February 15, 2008. The
following comments are offered in order of page and paragraph position from the GRCA letter,
1. Page one, Paragraph one: the first sentence refers to implementation of the measures and
recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study (Study) as a pre-requisite for
development. Whereas this may be the intent of the Authority and the Municipality, in practice,
implementation of all such measures and recommendations appears fragmentary and
discretionary if the application in hand is an accurate example. We draw attention to the matter of
day-lighting "buried tributaries." The Study notes that "eastern tributaries have been buried north
.of the CPR tracks" (Section 6.7.1, bullet (a)) and recommends in Section 6.7.2 (bullet(a)) to "bring
the buried tributaries above ground" as an impact mitigation measure." Three such "tributaries" are
found within the subject lands, yet only a portion of one of the three s!b-terranian channels is
requested by the Authority to be day-lighted. Using this example alone it is clear that
implementation of the Study measures and recommendations in regard for development is
approached neither in a compulsory nor a comprehensive fashion by the Authority and/or the
Municipality; instead, flexibility apparently is exercised by one or both bodies. It is this flexibility
and discretionary decision-making that Stantec and LGL understood was in place when we made
our respective recommendations to the landowners.
2. Page one, Paragraph One: the last sentence references restoration of a "buried tributary." The
reference might better be worded a buried farm drainage channel for the following reason. We
have no historical information regarding the pre-tiling of the surface drainage period respecting the
precise location or configuration of any original channel; although we agree, that current
Established in 1977
ONTARIO•BRITISH COLUMBIA•NEWFOUNDLAND•ALASKA•TEXAS•WASHINGTON STATE
Page 2
topographic conditions suggest it would be in this general area, at least from sometime in the late
19th Century, and probably previous to forest clearing and settlement. It is likely that in the initial
years after clearing (with the establishment of the roadway) that run-off flowed south along the east
side of the roadway, or overtop of it during flood conditions: In our opinion, the current location
almost certainly is an artifact of farming practices, not nature; any day-lighting would comprise
restoration of a cultural feature or potentially, the creation of a new surface drainage channel. This
opinion is offered, in part, on the basis of our knowledge of 19th Century farming practices as are
documented through the social science discipline of historical geography.
3. Page one, Paragraph two: This wording suggests that in the Authority's mind, the proposed
Stormwater Management facility (and park), albeit reduced in width from the Study
recommendation, comprise an enhancement of the existing rail R.O.W. corridor; and that they
concede the Study recommendations (Including the 11'00"' metre width) need not be implemented,
further reinforcing the point made above. Additionally, they agree that development of a wildlife
corridor, as recommended through the Study, will result in an increased occurrence of wildlife
fatality.
4. Page one, Paragraph three, sentence one: Mr. Well's notes no GRCA intent to link wildlife
movement off-site by day-lighting the farm drainage channel; their purpose being to restore
riparian habitat. LGL does not attach any such intent, but rather provides opinion of what will
happen by default if the corridor is created. Secondly, whereas it may not be the intent of the
GRCA, it was clearly the intent of the Sub-watershed Study authors. Notwithstanding Mr. Well's
comments, it is relevant to note that the day-lighting exercise proposed in the Study extends north
only to the point where it can conveniently turn due east to link with an off-site woodland. If wildlife
connectivity wasn't the intent of the Study, and riparian habitat was, then why didn't the Study
suggest continuing the day-lighting through the entire length of the drainage channel, to the point
of the culvert crossing at Arthur Street, where the corridor walkway also could link with the
sidewalk?
5. Page one, Paragraph three: The third sentence of this paragraph acknowledges that a buried
water source will provide better"temperature regimes" than day-lighted conditions, although the
latter situation would be "acceptable" due to the cooling effects of riparian plantings. This issue
was discussed at the site meeting in December when LGL noted that even with extensive plantings
it would take decades before surface water conditions receive significant relief from solar impacts.
Mr. Wells and a former GRCA fisheries biologist were present at this meeting and neither of these
individuals (nor municipal staff) disagreed with LGL's observation.
6. Page one, Paragraph three, Sentence four: LGL's opinion remains at variance with that of the
Authority on this issue. On the basis of fisheries benefits alone, we do not believe the matter can
be quantified to the extent that a winning opinion is identified. Both approaches have their benefits
and these benefits will be somewhat neutralized as up-gradient flows join the creek course south
of the CPR corridor. However, it is clear to LGL that sedimentation is an issue for the construction
period and the immediate post build-out years if the channel is day-lighted; the same is not the
case if flows are conveyed underground. Secondly, we agree that, over time, a naturalized
channel design can create benthic invertebrate production and provision of allochthonous material;
however, the quality and quantity of such production is dependent upon anthropogenic area use
variables, which largely are uncontrollable. These include higher water temperature regimes in the
early years, and on-going impacts from adolescents and companion animals, which may be
expected to frequent the watercourse banks and channel resulting in contaminant loading of the
watercourse. On balance, we believe that in this case, there is no clear fisheries benefit to day-
North Village Neighbourhood Plan, Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2
Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited
June 13,
Policy Implications of the Foster Creek Sub-Watershed Planning Study
TA4573 573
Page 3
lighting versus maintenance of the status quo, albeit in a different channel location. Conversely,
on the issue of the proposed greenway connection between the daylighted tributary corridor and
Arthur Street, LGL sees no such fisheries, aquatic habitat improvement or terrestrial wildlife
benefits.
7. Same paragraph, Pages one and two, Sentence five: This issue has been commented on above,
and we agree that cooling Gdvantages of an underground delivery would be somewhat
compromised when blended with the flows emanating from stormwater management features.
However, such adverse affects can and should be minimized through pond design, which ensures
an appropriate stratification of the water column, and releases flows which are as cool as possible,
therein, this measure is encouraged through the Sub-watershed Study (Page 89, Section 6.6.3(g),
reducing the thermal impacts of pond waters on buried flows when they are blended south of the
rail corridor.
8. Same paragraph (three), Page two, Sentences six and seven: The issue of"sediment loading"
and "foreign substance" introduction is noted above. In addition, we recognize that (non-riparian)
"surface flows will be captured and treated by stormwater management facilities prior to re-
introduction to the (Foster Creek) system;" however, in open creek blocks through the construction
period and beyond, the day-lighted reach will experience higher than average sediment loading
than in a piped state, and will receive foreign substances (from above noted and other
anthropogenic sources) irrespective of the "filtration capability of a naturalized vegetative buffer." It
is LGL's experience that even with the best of mitigative measures, these issues will prevail with
the creation of a surface channel, but to a much lesser extent with a piped conveyance feature.
9. Page two, First full paragraph: Notwithstanding the above comments, and consistent with a focus
on "aquatic habitat improvements" as noted in the GRCA letter, consideration should be given to
any practical development of a day-lighted portion of this "tributary"where it transits public lands
and/or the stormwater management block.
We trust these comments are of use to you in your on-going discussions with the Authority and the Town.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for clarification of points addressed in this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Robert Nisbet
Senior Wildlife Biologist
LGL Limited
Carlos Salazar, Municipality of Clarington
Cynthia Strike, Municipality of Clarington
Lisa Backus, Municipality of Clarington
Greg Wells,GRCA
Mark Peacock, GRCA
Bruce Fischer, Metrus
Tom Albani,Metrus
Peter Schut, Brookfield
Roslyn Houser, Goodmans
North Village Neighbourhood Plan, Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2 LGL Limited
Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington June 13,2008
Policy Implications of the roster Creek Sub-Watershed Planning Study TA4573
Attachment 7
To Report PSD-067-09
AECOM
AECOM
300—300 Town Centre Boulevard,Markham,ON,Canada WR 5Z6
T905.477,8400 F905,477.1456 www.aecom.com
June 19, 2009 Project Number: 111885
Mr. Dennis Hefferon
South Tower, Royal Bank Plaza
200 Bay Street prepared at the request of counsel
Suite 2600, P.O. Box 185
Toronto, ON MW 2J4
Dear Mr. Hefferon:
Re: North Newcastle Neighbourhood — Response to Peer Review of Foster Creek
Subwatershed Study Recommendations
AECOM has been requested by the Municipality of Clarington to assist with development issues
within the Foster Creek Subwatershed. Specifically, we were asked to review comments provided by
Stantec Consulting Ltd. and LGL Limited directed at two recommendations of the Foster Creek
Subwatershed Planning Study(2001) as follows,:
a) Bring the buried tributaries above ground(page 92);
b) Corridors at least 100 m in width (total) approximately centred on the main creek
valley, plus one of the buried tributaries;and,
c) Corridors of at least 100 m in width adjacent to the CPR and CNR rail lines, east of
Foster Creek, to provide landscape connectivity among the natural areas
associated with the Graham Creek Subwatershed(page 97).
AECOM was to provide our opinion with respect to the Stantec and LGL comments. In addition,
AECOM was asked to comment on the estimated cost involved in daylighting the tributary, and
whether downstream enhancements are reasonable compensation for not undertaking the
daylighting.
In order to prepare this opinion,the following documents were reviewed:
Gartner Lee Limited and Greenlands International Consulting Inc., 2001, Foster Creek
Subwatershed Planing Study. Prepared for the Municipality of Clarington.
Stantec Consulting Ltd., October 11, 2006. Letter addressed to Carlos Salizar, Planner,
Municipality of Clarington at the request of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield
Homes.
(111888_IJune19-09_loster_creek_peer_revlew,doc)
Page 2 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
LGL Limited, February 15, 2008. Letter addressed to Carlos Salizar, Planner, Municipality of
Clarington at the request of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes,
Peacock, Mark, 2008. Email addressed to Councillor C. Trim regarding North Village
Neighbourhood Telephone conversation.
MBTW — Watchorn Group and Sernas, 2008. Neighbourhood Plan, North Village
Neighbourhood.
A site visit was undertaken on June 15, 2009. Note that no rationale for servicing, stormwater
management or other documents that indicate how the Plan intends to manage the unique
groundwater conditions on this site, nor maintain flow to the two un-named tributaries was provided
as part of the scope of this review. Comments are therefore confined to the content of the two letters
and the maintenance of the natural heritage functions on the site without specific reference to the
servicing of the Neighbourhood Plan.
1 . C)verview of Recommendations
The Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study (FCSPS), completed in 2001, benefited from advice
from the Steering Committee and Public Information Centres and includes final editing from the
Municipality of Clarington and Ganaraska and Region Conservation Authority. The Vision agreed
upon was:
"to maintain and enhance the health and quality of the Foster Creek Subwatershed and its
ecosystem."
These recommendations for the Greenlands System were confirmed as reflecting the achievement of
that vision.
When the FCSPS is read in its entirety, the point is made that natural heritage is in very short supply
in this subwatershed. The valleys of the Wilmot and Graham Creeks are more robust and offer higher
potential for natural heritage functions (also known as ecosystem services) than the Foster Creek
valley which has been subjected to intense agricultural activities.
The comments in this letter are focused on two tributaries to the Foster Creek that arise in the north-
eastern corner of the watershed, pass through the Town of Newcastle and merge with the main
channel just north of Durham Road 2 (formerly Highway 2). These headwater streams collect
groundwater that has infiltrated into the sand veneer in this portion of the watershed. The northern
tributary has been modified through agricultural practices but passes into a restored wetland and
plantation east of Arthur Street, providing connectivity via hedgerows to Nine-mile swamp, and to Site
14 (discussed below), and to the Graham Creek via weak linkages along hedgerows and the CPR.
From Arthur Street to just north of the CPRail, a tile drain conveys most of the flow. There is clear
A E '
(111885_IJunei&W_foster_aeek_peer_revlew.doo)
Page s prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
evidence of surface water flow early in the season, and the invert was mapped as a wetland in the
FCSPS. In early June 2009, much of the invert was ploughed and planted with wheat (in contrast to
the corn in the upland area planted earlier in the season). A vertical drain is clearly evident in the
invert part way down the swale. The overland flows merge with the tiled flow within a small wooded
ravine just north of the railroad. The tributary then passes into the Town of Newcastle where the
ravine has been incorporated into the residential fabric as a complement to the landscaping and a
wildlife refuge.
The southern tributary arises in Site 14, is tiled to a wetland (a swamp thicket) adjacent to Arthur
Street, then similarly, disappears into tile drainage, to emerge south of the CPR. The presence of
watercress (Nasturtium officinale) in both of the tributaries provides evidence of groundwater
baseflows. The tributary was flowing at a rate of 1 L/sec on June 15, at Arthur Street.
The central issue surrounding these tributaries concerns how best to manage these features within
the context of the development proposal in a manner that reflects the Vision of the FCSPS.
'S itr0) 14
Based on the natural heritage inventory undertaken in 1999, Site 14, the forest and wetland complex
located just east of Arthur Street was notable as it provided habitat for Sharp-shinned Hawk and
Black-and-White Warbler. These species are somewhat area sensitive, meaning that their success in
breeding and rearing young is proportional to the size of the area in which they breed. Their
occurrence was interpreted to be an indication that the proximity of Graham Creek to the east and the
remnants of Nine-mile Swamp to the north were sufficient influence to attract these species. These
species were not recorded elsewhere in the Subwatershed. Site 14 on its own, without the influence
of these larger native forests, would be unlikely to attract area sensitive species. In addition, Site 14
supports a colony of Early Coralroot (Corallorhiza trifida), a small, native orchid rarely recorded from
Durham Region. The marsh dominated by Variegated Horsetail (Equisetum variegatum) is also an
unusual feature restricted to sandy sites with high water tables. Other rare species are often
associated with this type of marsh. It is an important recharge/discharge feature that contributes flow
to the southern tributary that flows through the Town of Newcastle.
On this basis, Site 14 was considered to be a significant feature that should be built into a connected
Greenlands System, consistent with the Vision above, in order to maintain and enhance its unique
contribution to the subwatershed.
Principles of Landscape Ecology maintain that connectivity among patches of habitat greatly enhance
natural heritage function. It is a case of a connected whole being more than a sum of its parts. The
literature suggests that wider corridors provide a greater diversity of functions, and that when
AECOM
(111885IJune19-09foster_creek_peer_review.doc)
Page prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
corridors achieve a minimum width of 100 metres, that these functions include the provision of
breeding habitat for a wider array of wildlife, and greater potential for plant diversity. There is no
precise threshold that defines exactly where this enhancement of function occurs, and it is related to
the amount of natural area, proximity of natural areas to one another, and landforms. On this
landscape that is lacking tableland forest outside of the valleylands, it is necessary to restore wide
corridors in order to achieve the enhancement reflected in the Vision. Environment Canada (2004)
speculates that"in urban environments it might be supposed that wider corridors would be required to
provide the same level of function in the face of urban effects, assuming that target attributes might
persist at all in an urban matrix". In this case, the agricultural landscape that presents a low barrier to
wildlife movement is being replaced by a residential matrix on a landscape framed by higher quality
natural features in the Wilmot, Foster and Graham Creek valleys. This is a good example of a
location in which wider corridors are justified. In order to provide sufficient resources for plants and
animals making use of the corridor, additional width will reduce edge effects and contribute to
breeding and productive potential. Hence the recommendation for 100 metres for all corridors, with
emphasis on the creation of an east-west connection between watersheds.
In principle, overland connections between watersheds enhance natural heritage function in the same
way that trail systems and good road patterns enhance human settlements. It is recognized that the
land is a finite resource and therefore natural heritage function is coupled with other suitable
infrastructure where possible to achieve multiple objectives. The east-west railroads within the Foster
Creek Subwatershed are obvious anchors for east-west wildlife corridors, however they fail to connect
to Site 14.
As described above, the two un-named tributaries arise on the till plain as the sand cap thins to the
south. Both of them have been tiled between Arthur Street and the CPR (i.e., excavated followed by
installation of a perforated pipe and backfilling) in order to allow farmers to cross from one part of the
field to the other unimpeded. However, the tiling of the more northerly tributary has been less
ineffective and a meadow marsh community has developed in the depression left over the buried
watercourse. This ephemeral watercourse conveys water overland as well as through the tiles in the
spring, but dries out in late spring or early summer when it conveys surface water flow alone. Both
tributaries connect across the railroad to downstream valley systems that have been incorporated into
the-Newcastle Village fabric. The contribution to the downstream watercourses must be maintained,
therefore a discussion in the subwatershed study considered opening both watercourses within the
development block and create a pathway of connectivity to the agricultural lands east of Arthur, and
ultimately toward Site 14 and Graham Creek valley.
In addition to a functional wildlife corridor, habitat that contributes to downstream Canadian fisheries
waters would be enhanced in that it would contribute flow as well as conveyance of nutrients and
provide habitat for benthic invertebrates. A desktop calculation of potential baseflow from the
catchment west of Arthur Street based on broad assumptions, estimates an average annual
AECOM
(111885_Uune1309_foster_creek_pee(_revlew.doc)
Page 5 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
baseflow' of about 0.5 Usec (plus/minus 0.2 Usec) that is likely to range from 2 Usec in the spring to
zero in summer. These flows would be somewhat enhanced by storm runoff and accumulated flows
from east of Arthur Street. There are many benefits of the open watercourse over the piped condition
including attenuation of water quantity in storm events and reduction in flashy flows, removal of water-
borne pollutants, creation of wildlife habitat, habitat for benthic invertebrates and contribution of
nutrients to downstream fish habitat, aesthetics, and an array of ecosystem services associated with
the riparian plantings designed to maintain cool water temperatures (i.e., reduction of heat sink effect,
carbon storage and carbon sequestration.)
In order to minimize the loss of development potential while realizing the benefits to natural heritage, only
one tributary was recommended for daylighting in association with creating a pathway of connectivity
toward Site 14 in spite of the potential to make a case for opening both of the watercourses. Daylighting
the watercourse was expected to be no less expensive than the engineering required to collect the water
and deliver it to the two watercourses, with the enhanced benefit of creating the wildlife connection,
attenuating storm flows and enhancing downstream aquatic habitat.
I A t`,v,eofl ng the ('A. r'r idor
The Greenlands System needs to be anchored to the valleylands of the Foster Creek, but in order to
respond to the Vision, opportunities to enhance the natural heritage system must be identified.
Given the:
• Significance of Site 14 and need to connect this feature to the Greenlands System;
• Opportunity to create an inter-watershed connector parallel to the railroad;
• Need to maintain water supply to the downstream tributaries; and,
• Direction to enhance the natural heritage function;
the opportunity to connect these features was identified, described in Section 7.1 and illustrated on
Figure 13 of the FCSPS (Attachment 1). In order to achieve these objectives, it is anticipated that the
corridor be forested in order to provide the ecosystem services in terms of air quality, water quantity
control and psychological benefits for the residents.
This approach supports the goal of the Official plan"to create an integrated and continuous system of
natural areas" (Section 14.1) and supports the principle of Ecosystem Integrity(Section 3.2).
1.5 F°l nnin for "Itistainable Goornnninities
These recommendations were made eight years ago. In the interval many municipalities have
undertaken Integrated Community Sustainability Plans or Environmental Management Plans that
establish goals for Environmental, Social/Cultural and Economic Sustainability. The ecosystem services
1. Based on a contributing area of about 22 ha and a post development infiltration of 110 mm/annum, and allowing for
25%leakage to depth
AECOM
(111885_IJune1M9_f ter_creek_peer_revlew.doc)
Page 6 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
that contribute to social and economic sustainability are important and quantifiable. A study undertaken by
the Town of Oakville identified an annual environmental benefit of the urban forest to be$2.1 million with a
canopy cover of 29%. Various municipalities are seeking to substantially increase canopy cover to benefit
from air quality improvements, carbon sequestration, carbon storage, heat island effect mitigation,
psychological improvement for residents among many other positive effects for residents. Brantford is
undertaking an increase in canopy cover to 40%. The City of Vaughan is targeting 40%justified by the
threshold for air quality improvement,water quality improvement and benefits to wildlife habitat.
The FCSPS reported that natural cover, including old fields and wetlands, is close to 20% within
Foster Creek. Of that, 9% is forest cover. Brantford estimates the contribution of its street trees to be
around 5% therefore if the urban forest both existing and projected is included, 14% forest cover may
be obtainable within the Foster Creek Subwatershed post development. Forest cover in York Region
and Durham Region (excluding the urban forest) hovers around the 20% mark, more than twice that
in the Foster Creek Subwatershed. Even if all of the restoration opportunities identified in the FCSPS
on Figure 13 were implemented, the total would still fall below 20%. As a result the community will
fail to benefit from the many valuable ecosystem services provided by the forest alone.
The recommendation to daylight the tributary north of the railroad and restore the watercourse and a
wildlife corridor will help to remedy the shortage in ecosystem services needed by the residents to
maintain a healthy community.
The recommendation of a wildlife corridor that links the three watersheds (Wilmot, Foster, and
Graham), enhances connectivity to Site 14 and maintains and enhances the ecosystem function of
the northern un-named tributary is justified in the context of the Vision for the FCSPS and the goals
and principles of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. This review confirms that there is
sufficient merit in terms of enhanced ecosystem function to justify the consequences to the
developable envelope in the North Newcastle Neighbourhood.
Further, in the context of designing sustainable communities, the existing forest canopy is less than
half of that in York and Durham, and as a consequence, Clarington is not benefiting from the
substantial economic and social, as well as environmental outcomes of a more robust natural heritage
network, including the urban forest. Restoration efforts should in fact exceed those recommended in
the FCSPS in order to achieve thresholds for effective performance of ecosystem services.
-runerds of the Pleer Reviewers
Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes retained two consultants to provide opinions with
respect to the recommendations provided above.
AECOM
(111885_Ijune19-09_foster_creek_peer_review.doo)
Page 7 prepared at the request ofcounsel
Juno 19,2009
�.� Sta0tq:�c C(I)rl'-�'I'llfirl� �Ad., 20��. �~���er addre���d to Carlos
@flurdeipality (,�)f Claririgtori at the request of
s@N��th 1,41VI Dovelop0gonts. arid BrookfieUil [Aorrietc,,.
The comments provided by Stantec are discussed in the sections identified by the authors as follows.
2.1.1 EwmiwclicalWaterohed I"0ncWoms,
In general the 8tantec descripti on of Subwabarshed is study generally nuouraba although it
exaggerates the extend of the deyighUng specifically recommended in the FCSPS. We disagree that
the vegetation in Polygon 62 io not owetland. At the time that it was assessed for the FC8p8. there .
were hydrinuui|a present and the vegetation consisted of more than 50Y6 wetland species and by
definition that means it is a wetland and whether it is anthropogenic is not relevant.
The Stantec observations of creeks is likely accurate and technically sound and seems to support the
importance of this feature in contributing to downstream fish habitat. The buried tributary iocurrently
providing this function not identified in the 2OO1 nsport.
Sbsnten further comments that day|ighUng the tributary north of the CPR railroad "vvi|| not add
significant value to the existing habitat" based solely on fish passage and further suggests that the
quality of downstream habitat could degrade due to an increase in water temperature and sediment
load. However, a properly designed natural channel in a post-development scenario should not suffer
from an unusual sediment load, and creeks require o certain bed|oadtoremain healthy and viable.
The temperature issue can be easily rectified through dense riparian plantings. On June 15. 2009.
wmtemveuu, on indicator of cold groundwater discharge, was abundant in full sun at the exposed tile
drains ot Arthur Street and also occurred throughout the Village.
In addiUon, the benefits ofdoy|ighUng and restoring a natural channel connected to n Oondp|ain
include reduced potential for flash flows and runoff velocities that contribute to erosion along the
tributary (Brooke 2OD7). Further, air, vegetation, and soil more likely to absorb water-borne pollutants
in an open channel as opposed to conveyance in a sewer pipe(City of Redwood 2006).
Stnntaouornact|y identifies the ecological benefits cfday|iQhUng and associated naturalization of
creek side as:
w Wildlife movement between the Fooherand Graham Creek ounido/o for unspecified
wildlife species.
w An increase/n the amount of marginal fish habitat/h the watershed.
m An increase/n the total amount of natural vegetation cover.
We note that the connectivity to V@|mot Dnaak and to Site 14 should be included in this list. Further,
the exponential response of wildlife in terms of potential breeding habitat to the increase in nsduno|
cover at this scale has not been identified. Nu conclusion iu provided on the intrinsic importance of
these functions nor their value inan ecosystem services context.
` AECOM
Page 8 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
2.1.E <u ai¢a and Renefits,
The Stantec discussion proceeds to make the case that daylighting the tributary is expensive while
failing to place this conclusion into context. We agree with this assessment in that restoration of
ecosystem function is often expensive, but needs to be evaluated in terms of the net gain to
environmental, social and economic parameters of community planning. Evidence is provided by
Stantec from one American source that seems to suggest that the total cost of restoring the natural
watercourse"could easily approach $1,000,000." However, no estimate of the cost of the engineering
required to excavate the existing tile drains (it cannot remain in situ), and replace the watercourse
with some type of groundwater collection system (foundation drain collector or "third pipe" system)
that will maintain flow to the two tributaries south of the railroad. A proposal for an additional by-pass
pipe to take water from upstream of Arthur Street around the stormwater management facilities,
discharging downstream is mentioned which may or may not be a separate system with additional
costs. We are unaware if there is a report available that details how the development will achieve
these engineering requirements, but this will be an expensive undertaking with many costs that
overlap with, and may exceed, that of daylighting.
It is our experience that when faced with an option to bio-engineer a solution (e.g., natural channel
design), as opposed to hard engineering (pipes that will require future maintenance), the costs of
bioengineering are comparatively low. In addition, the proposed piping project (including routing
water from Arthur Street around the SWMP) will have a greater length (following roadways and not
topography) and both projects will be undertaken in sloppy soils with a high water table. There will be
a greater cost to construct in these saturated soils with corresponding dewatering issues. A solution
that requires less excavation with less interference with groundwater conditions reduces costs.
Based on advice from clients who have undertaken natural channel design, estimates for restoration
of the northern connector to Arthur Street (Figure 13) range between $1,400 to $2,000 a metre which
compares well with Stantec's estimate of $1,600. By our calculation, the total costs translate
approximately to $700k to $1,000k based on our experience, or $800k according to Stantec. These
estimates are for sophisticated natural channel designs that handle considerable flow. In the case of
this project, the flows are low, therefore intensive design and engineering will not be required. This is
more of a grading and planting project and therefore the costs are highly unlikely to escalate to seven
figures.
With respect to the costs associated with the design and construction of a piped alterative, we are
unable to develop an accurate estimate without first obtaining additional information regarding the
proposed minor and major drainage systems that would convey the external flows to the downstream
reaches of the Foster Creek tributary (i.e., south of the CPR tracks). We believe that a detailed
estimate that reflects these costs of a piped alterative should be provided by the developer prior to
rejecting the recommendation to daylight the tributary based simply on the notion that it would be
prohibitively costly.
Stantec also estimates that 10 ha within the North Village site would be lost which appears to be the
total of all of the corridor, daylighting and the interior restoration potential shown in green. This figure
A ECO
(111885_IJune19-09_foster_creek_peer_revlew.doo)
Page 9 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
is high as the interior polygon is not part of the recommended Greenlands System, but rather
constitutes a restoration opportunity. In extrapolating the costs of the restoration, no mention is made
of the potential to charge more for houses that back on to greenspace, or for houses in
neighbourhoods well serviced by natural areas. Natural England's Accessible Natural Greenspace
Standard (2008) recommends that each home, at a minimum, should be within 300 m of an
accessible natural green space of at least two hectares (ha). In addition, each home should also
have access to:
• At least one accessible 20 ha site within two km;
• At least one accessible 100 ha site within five km;
• At least one accessible 500 ha site within 10 km;
• Natural England also recommends that at least two ha of accessible natural green space
be provided for every 1000 population.;
and in doing so the value of the properties are enhanced and the communities benefit from the
ecosystem services provided by the natural areas. Stantec acknowledges that these services are
difficult to calculate; nevertheless they are real and should not be dismissed.
Stantec goes on to conclude that the "potential benefits...will not result in not [sic] major impacts on
the ecology of the subwatershed"without evaluating what those impacts might be.
21.3 Alternaf;lv(c Aptroroac;hw;
We do not fully agree that the costs are as high as suggested and that the benefits are as low as
stated by Stantec. However, there are many options in ecosystem design to achieve the desired
outcome. In this case,the desired outcomes include:
- The east-west wildlife corridor from Wilmot Creek to Graham Creek,
- Connectivity with Site 14,
- Maintenance of ecosystem function for the buried tributaries and
- A contribution to the increase in forest cover within the Foster Creek Subwatershed to
recover lost ecosystem services.
Stantec proposes other alternative approaches to ecological enhancements:
1. Alternate proposal to wildlife corridor between Foster and Graham Creek corridors.
2. Increase amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed.
3. Increase the total amount of natural vegetation cover (by replacing most of 10 ha
naturalized areas that would be in North Village Neighbourhood Plan (under FCSPS)
with 10 ha elsewhere).
It is not clear whether these are proposed to be undertaken in concert, or whether they are mutually
exclusive.
(111885_IJune19-09_Wer_creek_peer_review.doc) A.E C M
Page 10 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
In an effort to evaluate these proposals we have prepared a matrix that provides comment on their
ability to satisfy the desired outcomes (Table 1);
Table 1 Analysis of Alternative Proposals(Stantec)
The east-west wildlife Reduce to 30 m;barriers to Not applicable 1 he of relatively natural habitat
corridor from Wilmot movement remain.
Creek to Graham Needs to be extended to Wilmot
Creek Creek however this is outside of
the Village Neighbourhood.
Connectivity with Site No connectivity Not applicable No
14
Maintenance of No Water contribution expected to Not applicable
ecosystem function be maintained;thermal regime
for the buried cool
tributaries
Increase in forest Marginal Marginal? Enhance core natural areas and
cover riparian habitat along main branch
by 9 ha but trees are not
stipulated.
Additional Comment The resulting narrow corridor All of these actions appear to Suggested isolation is
will concentrate wildlife closer to be stewardship initiatives and exaggerated as wildlife
the rail corridor with expected occur on other owners underpasses and fencing can
wildlife fatalities and rail noise properties. Carp exclusion is improve permeability.
interference however no very expensive and not Riparian habitat along the main
documentation of the recommended. branch may be achieved through
significance of this effect is other planning initiatives. Strategic
available. Need to confirm that addition of 9 ha to core areas will
railroad does not require a contribute important benefits but
larger berm. ownership is an issue.
A review of the table suggests that if all of these initiatives were undertaken, that a minimum of wildlife
movement would be preserved across the watersheds,water would continue to flow in the tributaries, and
natural cover might be increased with the cooperation of non-participating landowners. The disadvantage
is that connectivity would not be enhanced for Site 14, the potential to increase breeding habitat for area
sensitive forest birds will be lost, the benefits of the rehabilitation of a natural watercourse will not be
realized and recovery of threshold ecosystem services for the residents will not be addressed. Most of the
stewardship actions suggested occur outside of the North Village Neighbourhood which will require
creative implementation plans to ensure that they occur and the timing of the projects relative to the
schedule for development could be an issue.
A recurring theme that implies that the wildlife community is urban tolerant and therefore does not
require management is erroneous. The wildlife community is not all urban tolerant (e.g., Black-and-
white Warbler) and it is for these more sensitive species that ecosystem design has more to offer.
Typical planning for natural heritage systems has done little to take into account the management of
urban tolerant wildlife communities. To say that they are urban tolerant is to say that they forage in
the garbage cans and feast at feeders. More thought needs to go in to what constitutes sufficient
natural area for healthy wildlife populations that are self limiting, and that can support the predators
required to create sustainable natural communities.
(111885_IJune19-09_foster_creek_pm_revlew.doc) AEC OM W C
`
Page 11 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Honomn
June 1o.coon
12 L,K31- I.Jrnited, 2008. addre*ssed to C',,fulos f.3alizar, Planner,
hikitdc;ipaUity of Clarington at t h c� �e cl u e i.��t of Smooth RUW
Ek,,,v(:"A o p �i I�s atid [3rookfielcl
The LGL letter references the Stantoc letter then proceeds to provide additional discussion on the
same themes.
221 AVimnalConvmyamcm
U3L is incorrect in stating that defining concepts of landscape ecology that include corridors, onna
habitat, connectors and linkages 'implies that any size criteria that are at variance with those will not
qualify as a pooduotivelbuobo/heb/u /butune^ and that "uobenlexuxban animals cannot and do not
successfully enlist the services ofunbhxlpoJenicfeatures" The reason for defining these terms into
enlighten the reader with respect to how they are used in this report. The science of landscape
ecology in relatively young, and terms are defined differently by different authors. We hutn||y agree
that neither of these premises are accurate, and they are not at all intended by this report.
It is ironic that LGL goes on to criticize the FCSPS for lack ofdetailed data, then goes on to provide
ambiguous data with no species, no dates (although it appears that data were all collected outside of
breeding dobau according to the statement that the area was visited July to December 2007 and
without acceptable protocols). The fact that a wide variety of species were recorded is not at variance
with the FCSPS. The author again evaluates these species in the context of what they are able to
ho|urate, rather than what constitutes appropriate habitat, and how these animals can be expected to
bo managed into the future on a landscape with so little cover, where even with the urban forest, the
cover ia less than a third of recommended thresholds.
It is not clear how the numbers of species recorded from portions of the watershed that are not
opeoified, assists in the recommendation for the need fora corridor. The Subwotarohed study had
sufficient information for this and included ecosystem function well beyond simple lists of species.
The suggestion that the wildlife corridor area should be separate from human/pet used areas is
approphnte, but that both could be present (wildlife south, people north) in overall 60 to 1OO �nwide
area. We also agree that road crossings are an issue however underpasses and wildlife funnel
fencing as mentioned earlier would in large part address this issue. Although L8L recommends
meadows adjacent to roads they are not needed if underpasses and wildlife fencing are implemented.
We diaognao with LQL in recommending the planting of mainly nonifem, especially as White Spruce
and Red Cedar are not often found naturally in the region. The rationale is not provided. A mix of
/
native species, shrubs and trees native to area iopreferred.
222 DuyUgh-liu(J BVriedTd�titary
L8L incorrectly suggests that Sbanbau implies there might only be negative impacts bowatercourse
(temperature increase and sediment |oad), but neglects to mention that Sbanteo more strongly
mentions the potential benefits. It is true that the uubwatemhod study does not clearly mention
AEC( M(11 �u=��) !
Page 12 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
aquatic benefits of daylighting. It may well be that most daylighting projects are founded on
improvements to aquatic habitat, but this one is focused on many other ecosystem functions, of which
aquatic habitat is only one. AECOM does not understand why LGL considers that increasing the
contribution of nutrients to downstream fish habitat, improving water chemistry, maintaining the
thermal regime through maintenance of groundwater infiltration, riparian plantings and attenuation of
storm flows "provides no apparent fisheries benefits and could be detrimental in the long run to
down-gradient conditions". LGL notes that there is potential for "foreign substances [to be] washed
into the watercourse and general warming of groundwater"both of which can be mitigated. AECOM
does not agree that benefits are limited to fish habitat, nor that daylighting the tributary will have a
deleterious effect on downstream conditions.
The issue of piped groundwater is dealt with in Section 2.1.2 above.
The plan to create corridors and wildlife linkages is not based on any one attribute. Providing a
relatively wide corridor that can be shared with residents is a good way to keep the wildlife off of the
streets, although we recognize that crossings are inevitable. For that reason, during the development
process consultants for the development industry can be expected to make reasonable
recommendations to mitigate for road kill and road safety issues in the form of state-of-the-art wildlife
underpasses and fencing. A considerable body of science is devoted to increasing the permeability
of the landscape for wildlife of all descriptions. The Greenlands System was recommended based on
an ecosystem approach that considered the need for many species of wildlife, as well as the
maintenance of other ecosystem services. It is not wildlife mismanagement.
2.2.3 North Vilk.,gle hIcigl..wbourhood: Neighl°:ourh ocl Plan (2008)
The development plan proposes to locate two stormwater management blocks north of the railroad
alignment. LGL suggests that there will be a setback from the CPR lands of 20 to 25 m but does not
provide a rationale for the functionality of this minimal setback. This suggestion is not reflected in the
May 2009 drawing, which shows the constructed ponds immediately adjacent to the property line with
no provision for a terrestrial wildlife corridor. In this configuration, the ponds will provide little to no
cover for wildlife passage, fails to increase natural cover the subwatershed through the creation of a
wide wildlife corridor and there is no indication of how water will be delivered to the two downstream
catchments. The current plan does not satisfy the objectives or recommendations of the FCSPS.
It appears that LGL did not have the current stormwater plan on which to base comments and
therefore they are not relevant.
(111885_IJune19.O9_foster_creek_peer_review.do) AECOM
Page 13 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
3. Conchislolls
After a careful review by a team of senior and intermediate biologists, engineers and senior
hydrogeologist,AECOM confirms that the recommendations contained within the FCSPS with respect
to landscape connectivity and a preferred treatment of daylighting the buried tributary are justified in
the context of the Vision for the Foster Creek Subwatershed.
However, there is always more than one solution to improve ecosystem function and Stantec offered
some suggestions that are worth considering. At issue is the fact that the key outcomes have not
been achieved by their recommended alternative enhancements.
The Consultant for the development community should reconsider appropriate methods to achieve
the following outcomes:
0 Create an enhanced east-west wildlife corridor from Wilmot Creek to Graham Creek to
facilitate wildlife and human movement,
® Enhance connectivity with Site 14,
0 Enhance ecosystem function for both buried tributaries and the downstream corridors;
and, Increase forest cover within the Foster Creek Subwatershed to recover lost
ecosystem services based on a defensible rationale.
Note that the reforestation of all of the restoration opportunities identified in Figure 13 constitutes only
4% of the watershed. The restoration and maintenance of wide corridors will not only contribute to
the forest cover, they will enhance habitat for area sensitive species, increase connectivity with Site
14, and increase the thermal regulation for the buried tributaries.
If these outcomes can be achieved in another way the consultants should be encouraged to submit
an alternative design for consideration of the Conservation Authority and the Municipality. Most of the
alternatives offered occur outside of the North Village Neighbourhood lands and will require
commitments from the Municipality, non-participating landowners and the developer of the North
Village Neighbourhood who would contribute funds to buying lands near the core natural areas as
compensation for not following Greenlands System. These are significant commitments when
compared to finding a solution within the North Village Neighbourhood lands, where the restoration of
ecosystem services would benefit that emerging community and complement the existing Town of
Newcastle.
Regarding the costs for daylighting the tributary, AECOM and Stantec are more or less in agreement
that $1600 a metre is reasonable. This significance of this cost cannot be evaluated out of the
context of servicing and maintaining ecosystem function across the block. There is no comparison of
the cost to engineer the solution,which is expected to exceed that of the naturalization.
AECOM
(111885_IJune19-09_foster_creek_peer_revlew.doc)
Page 14 prepared at the request of counsel
Mr.Dennis Hefferen
June 19,2009
In conclusion, it is our hope that we have responded to your concerns to the best of our ability with
the documentation available to us at this time. Please call me to discuss further. Thank you for
asking us to provide this service to the Municipality.
Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Dale Leadbeater, B.Sc., B.Ed.
Senior Biologist
dale.lead beater @aecom.com
Refer°ences
Brooke R. Smith, 2007,
Assessing the Feasibility of Creek Daylighting in San Franciso, Part 1:A synthesis of Lessons
Learned from Existing Urban Daylighting Projects
City of Redwood, California, General Plan—Conservation Element
Environment Canada, 2004,
How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great
Lakes Areas of Concern (Second Edition)
AEC '
(111885_IJune19-09_loster_creek_peer_review.doc)
Attachment 1
Figure 13. The Greenlands System (Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study, 2001)
I y a a+r k
T',
V�yh ¢9 y 1 11'�111 V 4p
hr v+' �y"°'9 Cr 'a'1 q� � IhN'l'tld N I� � �;,� ✓ � +�1 T� t�'" ,Ir" '
v{'�x 'rr � ,: re 1 1 '",r V1 r �°� :� ✓,r`adr r�'�e �1
r 'ors^ " x
kt1 a r` Ili lads k1 1
Y % s
Ir � uV � ne �Y
rr7
°rIU 1 h4 A=; wa " 1 dYy
su 'tl A a
d4 1
{ �s�
E616161 99 k 41u�r 141 aq a Ma �tra
f ai i r«w t h. s
.1°
J� fir
Ki
"� �w• 1 Yak �r , '~r�`K°^� i{" a �k +a w' 'a�� 4 � "{h�a I"I, '
d
r
qey I v "{p� s-
i
kr ,, x 's s a: hi' v„+ er iql °gym s Iry
� d
row4h6 gtil N � ��, "rq °�} Ix �til na 1 x iayw ',11m 14 x �N + �
M
A
NSNhB II +*rr� � I T { �• 1,Ig ,�' r?s`� ,-'� 74��' � vM' � I s P'"a,� .w�` y�',. �
+Wrs
t
� a V
a" i *�Yrws wsV ri^t�fit I�'" '" us 4 f1,.. s9d
r"
e•t t `�#'�,!�R t a k�4�>r�"�s '�'� ' ���'""� ��+'{{,r a s Po #tL �"� S+y*� �.+fl�� ''1 �u 6 N 1 � �1 k
h41N �d
y y
Ell
�y Iw 1 M1 Ilk k f a �
( r u 1 Iy �yfa
'
zI� �
Ai r,
+•��.p(a;"�IqV+�u "�w ~�) s'� .° i� � '. ��, r F ro^y, 1 f� t hn. Y fi 99 t nr Wv. r r� ',
r,., u
�'
�% ~
(111885_IUune19-09_(osser_creek_peer_revlew.doc)
I