Seaton Natural Heritage System Management ... - City of Pickering

CA p p e n d i x 

C o m m u n i t y M e e t i n g R e p o r t s 

C.1 NHSSG Meeting # 1 Record 

C.2 NHSSG Meeting # 2 Record 

C.3 Stage 2 Response Table 

C.4 Community Meeting # 1 Record 

C.5 First Nations Meeting # 2 Minutes 

C.6 Community Meeting # 2 Record 

C.7 Stage 3 Response Table- Stg Committee 

C.8 Stage 3 Response Table-Public 

C.9 Stakeholder List

APPENDIC C.1 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan: 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Study Group 

MEETING #1 RECORD 

Tuesday, January 23 rd , 2007, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. 

Pickering Recreation Complex – O’Brien Room, 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering 

Thirty-four representatives from twenty organizations and groups with an interest in the 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan participated in 

the first meeting of the Seaton Natural Heritage System Study Group (Seaton NHSSG). 

This Meeting Record summarizes the highlights and key outcomes of the discussions. A 

list of participants is included in Appendix A and the meeting agenda is contained in 

Appendix B. If you have any questions or comments regarding this Meeting Record, 

please contact Susan Hall at: ph: 416-536-9674; fax: 416-536-3453; or email: 

shall@lura.ca. 

1.0 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 

Bruce Singbush, Chair of the Seaton Natural Heritage System (NHS) Management Plan 

Steering Committee, opened the meeting and welcomed the group. He thanked 

participants for sharing their time and for providing input as part of process to develop 

the Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan. 

David Dilks, meeting facilitator from Lura Consulting reviewed the agenda for the 

evening. He indicated that the purpose of the session was to: 

• Introduce the Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan process to 

Seaton NHSSG participants; and 

• Seek early feedback on issues, objectives and outcomes for this project. 

A quick round of introductions followed. 

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE SEATON NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PLAN AND MASTER TRAIL PLAN 

Project Overview and Context for the Seaton Natural Heritage System 

Management Plan and Master Trail Plan – Mark Schollen, Schollen & Company 

Mark Schollen, Project lead from Schollen & Company indicated that the study group 

would play a key role in helping the project team to understand the Seaton area and by 

contributing ideas as part of the process to develop the NHS Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan. 

Mark defined the project study area as covering the natural heritage within a 1600- 

hectare area that provides connections to major systems along the West Duffins Creek 

and Iroquois shoreline and covers approximately 53% of Seaton. He stressed the 

importance of trail connections and alignment of the NHS with existing and planned 

systems such as Rouge Park, Toronto waterfront, TransCanada Trail, etc.) He indicated 

that the team will be looking at ways to use the NHS as a means for practical 

transportation (cycling linkages) between communities to contribute to reducing the 

number of vehicles in the area and creating positive impacts on a global scale. The

APPENDIC C.1 

Master Trail Plan process will look at key linkages between north and south and east 

and west and will also consider the road network. 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Ecological Component – Mirek Sharp, North- 

South Environmental 

Mirek indicated that the ecological data used to create the environmental sensitivity 

analysis map was collected from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and 

Region of Durham and that there is still more data coming in that will influence the 

overall understanding of the study area ecology. Mirek explained that the ecological 

data is critical in the short-term as it allows Mark and the Schollen team to begin 

developing the Master Trail Plan. In the longer term, it will contribute to the development 

of the resource management plan for the NHS that will identify areas for restoration, 

sensitive species and other ecological considerations. 

Mirek explained that the types of ecological data represented on the environmental 

sensitivity analysis map include: 

• Watercourses (location of streams 

rivers); 

• Vegetative mapping; 

• Wetlands; 

• Provincially significant wildlife; 

• Locally significant wildlife (determined 

by TRCA); 

• Slope information (steep and erodable 

slopes); 

• Interior forest (those that are big 

enough to provide interior 

conditions are weighed as 

sensitive); and 

• Sensitive species – primarily 

birds and wildlife (e.g. raptors, 

owls, ground nesters, area 

sensitive birds, etc.). 

Mirek re-iterated that the maps are preliminary as there is still data to be added. 

Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources, Issues and Opportunities – Richard 

Unterman, Unterman McPhail 

Richard reviewed the process for identifying cultural heritage resources in the study 

area. He explained that the team conducted a field survey to reconfirm previous study 

findings and investigate new undocumented viewscapes. The information presented on 

the cultural heritage resources map includes relevant built heritage and cultural heritage 

landscape resources and confirms significant views and the associated cultural heritage 

attributes. 

Richard emphasized that by building awareness of and interest in cultural heritage 

resources in Seaton and by identifying and recognizing the local heritage significance, 

the community will be in a better position to manage the degree and type of change that 

may impact those resources. He explained that important viewsheds and associated 

cultural heritage resources can be integrated into the planning process to enable better 

interpretation of historical settlement patterns and use. 

Richard requested that if there is other information that should be incorporated into the 

analysis, he would be happy to receive this from members of the Seaton NHSSG.

APPENDIC C.1 

Study Process and Consultation Process – Mark Schollen and David Dilks 

Mark and David explained that there are three key stages in the study process which 

include: 

Stage 1: Review and Synthesis of Information 

Stage 2: Development of Recommendations 

Stage 3: Implementation, Operation and Management Plan 

Mark stressed that consultation forms an integral part of the study process and therefore 

the team has included consultation with the NHSSG, First Nations and general public 

through community meetings during each of these stages. 

Stage 1: Review and 

Synthesis of Information 

• Review and assessment of 

background information 

• Supplementary field 

inventory 

• Preparation of mapping 

• Confirmation of principles, 

goals and objectives 

• Conceptual NHS zoning 

NHSSG consultation 

First Nations 

consultation 

Community meeting 

Stage 1 Report 

Stage 2: Development of 

Recommendations 

• Schematic trail plan and 

management strategies 

• Preparation of proposed 

recommendations 

o Trail system 

o Natural Heritage System 

o 

o 

Cultural heritage system 

Regional linkages and 

buffers 


First Nations 

consultation 


Stage 2 Report 

Stage 3: 

Implementation, Operation 

and Management Plan 

• Preparation of final Master 

Trail Plan 

• Preparation of final NHS 

management plan 

• Preparation of 

implementation strategy, 

operations and 

management plan 


First Nations 

consultation 


Final Report

APPENDIC C.1 

First Nations Archaeological Sites and Consultation – Ron Williamson, 

Archaeological Services Inc. 

Ron Williamson explained that he is working with the project team to provide advice 

about the First Nations archaeological sites within Seaton NHS and consultation with 

First Nations. He indicated that there are over 30 known archaeological sites within the 

study area that have been identified over 50 years. 

Ron indicated that the process for First Nations consultation has been designed by the 

Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs (MMAH) and calls for a separate and direct 

process. In this regard, the project team invited ten First Nations organizations to 

participate in the process in November. Ron explained that it is the project team’s hope 

that all the First Nations who have been invited to participate will provide input, 

specifically relating to archaeological sites and land stewardship as the process moves 

forward. 

QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION 

The following identifies participants’ questions (identified with ‘Q’) or comments 

(identified with ‘C’), with responses from the project team in italics. 

Study Timeline 

Q1: I am impressed with work that has been done to date, but considering how 

quickly things have to be done, how can we help in such a short time period? 

Q2: I understand that the project timeline allows for consultation, but I question how 

useful it will be given the tight timelines. What is at stake if timeline is not met? Is 

there a reason why it needs to be so limited? 

Trails 

Bruce Singbush explained that the timelines presented are within the work plan 

that was scoped for the project by MMAH. He explained that the timeline is 

attached to MMAH’s budgetary cycles (March timeline) and that is why it is a 6 

month project timeline. He stressed that the overall operating process quality will 

take priority over the timeline, and it will allow for some fluidity. He re-iterated 

that the team is targeting an early spring completion date, but will consider 

making schedule adjustments as we move forward as necessary. 

Q3: Is the Seaton Trail to be preserved as “the trail”? 

Mark Schollen indicated that the existing Seaton Trail is problematic because it 

has steep slopes, and other factors that do not align with the criteria for the 

Master Trail Plan. He stressed that the team is focusing on removing 

encroachments to the trail system while retaining connectivity. 

Terri Fancy (MMAH) highlighted that the Seaton Trail Management Plan process 

is being undertaken by TRCA for trails in Seaton including those in the City of 

Pickering and Oak Ridges Moraine trails.

APPENDIC C.1 

Groundwater/ Source water Linkages 

Q4: I am concerned about identifying sensitive areas without knowing what the 

vulnerable areas are for source/ground water. Has a three-dimensional flow 

diagram been completed? And peered reviewed? 

Bruce indicated that MMAH can find out for the NHSSG if such a study has been 

completed. 

Gary Bowen (TRCA) clarified that the groundwater model had been updated 

using regional data. He also indicated that there could be another iteration of the 

model specifically for Seaton. 

C5: I suggest that the impacts from water treatment needs to be considered in this 

process. 

C6: Altona forest is a wonderful area in Pickering surrounded by houses but they 

have to bring water in because the water table dropped because proper 

hydrogeology was not done in the first place. 

Map Clarification 

Q7: Can you clarify what the various components are on the map? 

Mirek Sharp explained that: 

• Yellow lines are areas sensitive for trail location; 

• Red lines areas the most sensitive for trail location; 

• Dark green blocks are interior forest segments; 

• Lime green blocks are areas that have potential as interior forest (young 

forest or savannah now that will success to woodland); and 

• Yellow blocks are the NHS that was developed by the Province and the 

TRCA. Provincially owned (majority). 

Land Ownership 

Q8: Who owns the developable land in the study area? 

Bruce identified that the Province of Ontario is the current owner. 

Q9: Are there current negotiations for the development lands? 

C10: The Liberal party promised that 2/3 Seaton lands would go to the Greenbelt, so 

we should be aiming to achieve that commitment. 

Archaeological Sites 

Q11: Has the 2006 burials site investigation been completed? 

Ron Williamson indicated that it has been completed. 

C12: Trails can have an impact on archaeological sites in the sensitive areas. I feel 

that walking trails above ground are alright, but there should be no digging in the 

area as this areas was supposed to be protected.

APPENDIC C.1 

Uses 

C13: The Crown land within this study is where First Nations hunting and fishing 

occurs, so the map is problematic. 

3.0 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 

The group was asked to consider four key discussion questions: 

As you think about this project… 

• What major opportunities or benefits do you see? 

• What pressing issues or concerns will the project need to address? 

• Is there any information or data that you feel will be important to consider? 

• Finally, thinking ahead to the completion of this project, what are the most critical 

objectives, outcomes or results that you would like this project to achieve? 

The following provides a high level summary of the key points raised for each. 

Major Opportunities or Benefits 

Participants identified the following as the key opportunities and benefits to the Seaton 

NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan. 

The project will provide an opportunity to: 

• Set priorities and balance between competing interests; 

• Get people out of the car (cycle and walk); 

• Identify trails that need to be closed; 

• Consider places that should be left natural without trails; 

• Enhance protected areas (increase width); 

• Share ecological knowledge amongst stakeholders (what’s there and what’s 

being done); 

• Educate stakeholders/public about what is sensitive; 

• Learn from past experiences in Durham; 

• Increase stakeholder collaboration; 

• Celebrate First Nations heritage in an appropriate manner; 

• Consider interpretive centre, plaques – education of trail users; 

• Develop other cultural heritage; 

• Create an obstacle to future airport development; and 

• A successful project would make the area more attractive. 

Pressing Issues or Concerns 

Participants identified the following as the key issues or concerns regarding the Seaton 

NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan: 

• Wildlife linkages in the north-south corridors; 

• Narrowness of the environmental corridors; 

• Current trail design doesn’t encourage a loop; 

• Cumulative growth/development impacts 

o Transportation, servicing and wildlife; 

o Impact of 80,000 people moving into Seaton; 

• Impacts of human presence to wildlife using the area; 

• Influences of the airport to residential areas;

APPENDIC C.1 

o Flight path restrictions impacts on storm ponds and migration routes; 

• Federal involvement; 

• Liberal commitments to First Nations and fisheries, species at risk, etc.; 

• Linkages from / safety for communities and obstacles created (who uses it, 

alternatives); and 

• Archaeological sensitivity – not done to standard in protected area. 

Additional Information / Data for Consideration 

Participants identified the following pieces of information or data that should be taken 

into consideration for the development of the Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master 

Trail Plan: 

• Peer review of groundwater; 

• Heritage housing along Whitevale Road and throughout the area – should be 

emphasized as a key to local heritage/ culture; and 

• History of Ontario and area in particular – should be for everyone, not only First 

Nations. 

Most Critical Objectives, Outcomes or Results 

Participants identified the following as the most critical objectives, outcomes or results of 

the Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan: 

The Seaton NHS Management plan should: 

• Achieve a balance between creating a place that is peaceful / environmental 

refuse and learning; 

• Include more of a natural setting; 

• Connect more of the area; 

• Address concern over connectivity to other areas/corridors – Greenwood, Rouge 

Park, etc.; 

• Create an extension or buffer outside NHS; 

• Set new standards for connectivity of long corridors; 

• Create opportunities for roads that provide canopy cover and are designed to 

maintain connectivity and movement of animals and plants; and 

• Find ways to infiltrate water back into the natural system without impacting water 

quality and flow. 

4.0 ADVICE ON FORMAT OF UPCOMING PUBLIC MEETING 

Participants provided the following advice to ensure that the upcoming public meeting is 

successful. Key recommendations include: 

• Maps and presentation: 

o 

o 

o 

• Advertising: 

Present context at a slower pace so people can become familiar with the 

study area; 

Make sure the maps are bigger so its easier to read information 

presented; and 

Provide context on what the plan is, its status and focus of the exercise.

APPENDIC C.1 

o Run advertisements in the Toronto Star, local Pickering-Ajax news, as 

well as the Oshawa and Whitby papers; 

o Distribute notice to Steering Committee and NHSSG members to share; 

o Contact community group leaders to use their network; and 

o Ensure enough advance notice – suggest week and a half ahead. 

• Provide a portable microphone to better hear participants. 

5.0 CLOSING AND ADJOURNMENT 

David thanked participants for their time and feedback and reminded everyone that they 

could submit additional comments by January 30 th , 2007.


NHSSG Meeting #1 Record 

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT LIST 

Participant Name 

Organization (if any) 

Gary Asselin 

Region of Durham Planning Dept. 

Catherine Axford 

Stephen R. Barbier 

Gary Bowen 

Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 

Jeff Brooks 


Doris Chee 

City of Pickering 

Michael Cole 

Micael D’Angelo 

DRAA 

Brian T. Daly 

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation 

Mary Drummond 

Durham Region Community Garden Network 

LIlli Duoba 

Town of Markham 

Tom Farrell 

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) 

Norma Forrest 

Ontario Growth Secretariat 

Andy (Councillor) Hoggarth Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation 

Murray Johnston 

RVF 

Glenda Jones 

Pickering Naturalist Group 

Dena Lewis 

TRCA 

Doug Lockrey 

Pickering Naturalist Group 

Joseph A Longo 

Bill McLean 


Dan McRae 

Durham Region Astronomical Association 

Kris (Chief) Nahrgang Kawaratha Nishnawbe First Nation 

John Presta 

Region of Durham 

Chris Reid 

Serge Rielau 

Jim Robb 

Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition 

Tim Robbins 

Durham Catholic District School Board 

Peter Rodrigues 

Whitevale & District Resident’s Association 

David Grey Eagle Sanford Wapiti Alliance 

Harold Sellers 

Oak Ridges Trail Association 

Sue Siopis 


Dorothy Skinner 


Gord Weeden 

Rouge Park Alliance 

Marten Wind 

Durham Regional Police 

PROJECT TEAM / MINISTRY STAFF 

David Dilks 

Lura Consulting 

Terri Fancy 

MMAH 

Susan Hall 


Markus Hillar 

Schollen & Company 

Mark Schollen 


Mirek Sharp 

North South Environmental - project team 

Bruce Singbush 

MMAH 

Richard Unterman 

Unterman McPhail - Project team 

Ron Williamson 

Archaeological Service Inc.



APPENDIX B – NHSSG AGENDA 


Seaton Natural Heritage System Study Group Meeting #1 

Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. 

Pickering Recreation Complex – O’Brien Room 

1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering 

Meeting Purpose: To introduce the Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan 

and Master Trail Plan process to NHSSG participants and seek early 

feedback on issues, objectives and outcomes for this project. 

PROPOSED AGENDA 

7:00 p.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks – Bruce Singbush, Chair, Steering 

Committee 

7:05 p.m. Agenda Review and Introductions – Dave Dilks, Facilitator 

7:15 p.m. Presentation: Introduction to the Seaton Natural Heritage System 

Management Plan and Master Trail Plan 

8:10 p.m. Break 

i) Project Overview and Context for the Seaton Natural Heritage 

System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan – Schollen & 

Company 

ii) Seaton Natural Heritage System Features, Issues and 

Opportunities – North-South Environmental 

iii) Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources, Issues and Opportunities – 

Unterman McPhail 

iv) Role of the Seaton NHSSG and Community Consultation 

Process – Lura Consulting 

Questions and Discussion 

8:20 p.m. Roundtable Working Session 

• As you think about this project, what major opportunities or 

benefits do you see? 

• What pressing issues or concerns will the project need to 

address? 

• Is there any information or data that you feel will be important to 

consider? 

• Finally, thinking ahead to the completion of this project, what are 

the most critical objectives, outcomes or results that you would 

like this project to achieve? 

9:20 p.m. Advice on Format of Upcoming Public Meeting – February 6, 2007 

9:25 p.m. Next Steps and Meeting of the NHSSG – Dave Dilks 

• Meeting #2 – March 20, 2007, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m., Pickering 

Recreation Complex 

9:30 p.m. Adjourn

APPENDIX C.2 


Seaton Natural Heritage System Study Group 

MEETING #2 RECORD 

Monday, November 26 th , 2007, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. 

Pickering Recreation Complex – O’Brien Room, 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering 

Approximately 20 people from 15 organizations and groups with an interest in the 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan (NHSMP) and Master Trail Plan 

(MTP) participated in the second meeting of the Seaton Natural Heritage System Study 

Group (NHSSG). This Meeting Record summarizes the highlights and key outcomes of 

the discussions. A list of participants is included in Appendix A, and the meeting agenda 

is contained in Appendix B. Copies of the maps presented at the meeting are available 

on request. If you have any questions or comments regarding this Meeting Record, 

please contact Susan Hall at: ph: 416-536-9674; fax: 416-536-3453; or email: 

shall@lura.ca. 

1.0 WELCOME, AGENDA REVIEW AND INTRODUCTIONS 

Bruce Singbush, Chair of the Seaton Natural Heritage System (NHS) Management Plan 

Steering Committee, opened the meeting and welcomed the group. He thanked 

participants for sharing their time and for providing input as part of process to develop 

the Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan. 

David Dilks, meeting facilitator from Lura Consulting, reviewed the agenda for the 

evening. He indicated that the purpose of the session was to: 

• Provide an update on the Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan 

process; 

• Present and discuss the preliminary management strategies for the NHS and the 

cultural and archaeological heritage features in the study area; and 

• Present the draft concept master trail plan and receive feedback on the preliminary 

alignment and connectivity of the proposed trail network. 

2.0 Presentation - Preliminary Seaton NHS Management Strategies and Draft 

Concept Master Trail Plan 

Project Overview and Context for the Seaton Natural Heritage System 

Management Plan and Master Trail Plan – Mark Schollen, Schollen & Company 

Mark reviewed the project team organization, study goals and process and indicated that 

the team is currently developing recommendations in Phase 2 of the study process, 

which involves consulting with the Steering Committee, First Nations, the NHSSG and 

the community before developing the implementation, operation and management plans. 

Seaton NHS Natural Features: Preliminary Ecological Management Framework – 

Mirek Sharp, North-South Environmental 

Mirek provided an overview of the ecological work to date and indicated that the project 

team has: 

• Assembled and summarized background data; 

1



• Prepared sensitivity mapping; 

• Compiled input to inform appropriate trail alignments locations and types and 

generate the draft master trails concept plan; 

• Prepared a draft NHS management framework. 

Mirek explained that the general management goal is to protect and enhance the 

biodiversity and ecological function of existing native plant and wildlife communities, and 

restore disturbed areas. He explained that the team’s approach to achieving this goal is 

to establish a series of management guidelines or prescriptions for each of the 

management units within the NHS. The team has organized the vegetation types into a 

series of 14 management units that include all vegetation types with similar management 

needs. He noted there are two broad groups of management units – those for native 

vegetation communities and those for culturally modified community management units 

as defined below. 

Management Units for Native Vegetation Communities 702 ha/ 45% 

Native Woodlands (FOD, FOM, FOC) 

Swamp Communities (SWC, SWD, SWM, SWT) 

Marsh Communities (MAM, MAS) 

Aquatic Communities (OAO, SAF, SAM, SAS) 

Beach/Bars (BBO, BBS, BBT) 

Bluffs (BLO, BLS, BLT) 

Sand Barrens (SBO, SBT) 

Clay Barrens (CBO) 

497 ha/ 32% 

80 ha/ 5% 

107 ha/ 7% 

10 ha/



• Integrated new study findings with previous study findings for built heritage and 

cultural heritage landscape resources; 

• Compiled maps and data related to all known archaeological sites; 

• Mapped known archaeological sites; and 

• Noted that additional detailed archaeological investigations are underway along 

Primary Neighbourhood Connector trails. 

Richard noted that the interpretation strategy is being formed based on a series of 

themes, which could include: 

• First Nations Heritage 

• Governance history 

• Early land settlement patterns 

• Cultural Heritage resources and 

landscape 

• Evolution of built heritage 

environment 

• Existing settlement 

• Agriculture 

• Industry 

• Transportation 

• Religion 

• Education 

• Family history 

He noted that the First Nations heritage interpretive options for the NHS could include: 

• Information plaques installed at key points along the trails; 

• Native art installations; 

• Plantings of traditional First Nations crops of squash, corn and beans accompanied 

by interpretive signage; and 

• Reconstruction of a First Nations settlement. 

Richard noted that the team would like participant feedback on the proposed themes 

presented and would welcome any thoughts on interpretation opportunities. 

Draft Concept Master Trail Plan – Mark Schollen, Schollen & Company 

Mark indicated that the draft concept master trail plan objectives are to: 

• Protect important natural heritage features; 

• Protect, respect and commemorate significant archaeological and cultural heritage 

resources; 

• Protect existing natural heritage features and functions; 

• Enhance connectivity, diversity and function; and 

• Capitalize upon interpretive opportunities. 

He noted that the proposed trails plan makes connections between neighbourhoods, 

uses existing road networks, links open spaces, uses the internal neighbourhood street 

fabric, and optimizes walking distances. He indicated that the concept includes 6 types 

of trails that serve different purposes as listed below and reviewed the purpose and 

features of each: 

• Primary Neighbourhood Connectors (off-road); 

• Secondary Neighbourhood Connectors / Recreational Trails; 

• Dedicated Bike Routes; 

• Primary On-Road Bike Route; 

• Secondary On-Road Bike Route; 

• Low Impact Trails. 

3



See concept master trail plan map in Appendix C for details. 

Mark indicated that there are two other related processes that influence the Seaton 

Master Trail Plan, namely the Seaton Hiking Trail planning process (Seaton 

Management Plan), which is underway with Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA), City 

of Pickering and TRCA; and the block plans for the employment lands. Mark indicated 

that in the Seaton Master Trail Plan the crossings for Highway 407 right-of-way will likely 

be confined to proposed north/south road locations as existing culverts are not of 

sufficient size to accommodate trail segments and that Highway 7 is proposed as major 

east/west spine to provide regional connectivity. 

Preliminary Management and Implementation Strategy for Master Trail Plan – Mark 

Schollen, Schollen & Company 

Mark explained that the implementation strategy includes the following key components 

to be expanded upon in Phase 3: 

A. Alignment corridor determined through field assessment and stage II archaeological 

assessment to be completed as part of the NHSMP and MTP study process: 

• Primary Neighbourhood Connectors 

B. Alignment to be determined through future planning process 


• Primary On-Road Bike Routes; 

• Secondary On-Road Bike Routes; 

• Secondary Neighbourhood Connectors / Recreational Trails; and 

• Low Impact Trails 

Mark noted that the future planning process may include: 

• EA process for roads and infrastructure; 

• MESP / neighbourhood planning process and subdivision approval process; 

• Site specific environmental studies to confirm appropriate assessment in 

consideration of sensitivity of natural heritage features and functions; and 

• Archaeological assessment. 

QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION 

The following identifies participants’ questions (identified with ‘Q’) or comments 

(identified with ‘C’), with responses from the project team (identified with ‘A’) where 

provided. 

Q. The primary trails are designed to connect neighbourhoods so that community 

members can get to schools, employment areas, etc. The experience in 

Pickering has been that kids and adults don’t use trails in the winter or at night 

unless they are well lit. Have you considered lighting and snow 

clearance/maintenance in the plan? 

A. We will be putting forward the management strategy for trails in Phase 3, but we 

will make a recommendation to include snow clearing on primary routes. The 

question of lighting is bit more challenging. Municipalities have different policies 

and practices on trail lighting. For example when the trail management plan for 

Bowmanville Creek was developed there were discussions with Durham police, 

4



who indicated they preferred that trails were not lit but accessible for police so 

they could monitor activities along the trail. Sometimes lighting can lead to more 

unsafe conditions, so we need to discuss the social considerations in more detail 

as well as consider impacts to wildlife. 

Q. The plan includes a lot of trails; who will maintain them from a financial 

perspective? 

A. Trail maintenance will be considered in the implementation and management 

phase of the study (Phase 3); we are not at that stage yet. 

3.0 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 

The following provides highlights of the roundtable discussions as well as feedback 

provided through worksheets at and following the meeting. 

1. Thinking about the preliminary NHS ecological management strategies and 

goals… 

a. What do you like? 

b. What would you change or add? 

Study group members indicated that they liked the following elements: 

• Recommendations on creating edge and interior forest; 

• Introduction of native plants or reforestation of agricultural lands; 

• Connecting people to employment lands/407; and 

• Buffers included within the features. 

In addition, study group members suggested that the project team: 

• Ensure the plan includes access to natural features through interpretive trails so 

that schools can use these as educational walking trips/tours; 

• Consider including boardwalks that allow good access to ecological systems so 

they can provide opportunities for nature appreciation and education; and 

• Consider urban agriculture demonstration projects in the NHS agricultural lands to: 

o Demonstrate how cultivation and forested areas can support each other; 

o Enhance appreciation of agricultural heritage; or 

o Showcase new methods of agricultural being studied such as aquaculture. 

Study group members raised concerns about maintenance, access and vandalism. It 

was suggested that the project team consult with TRCA to gain an understanding of 

how the strategy for management of Altona Forest Reserve is progressing to provide 

cues to appropriate management of the Seaton NHS. 

5



2. Any comments on the cultural, heritage and archaeological work? 

Study group members had the following questions relating to the cultural, heritage and 

archaeological work: 

Q. How will the cultural heritage resources in the Highway 407 Employment Lands 

Precinct be addressed in this study? 

A. Our role is to look at cultural, heritage and archaeological features and see how 

they relate to the trails system. More detailed cultural heritage studies would 

have been conducted as part of work to assess the 407 employment lands. 

Q. Are there agricultural areas that will be preserved? 

A. The study team will develop a plan that takes into consideration both the 

ecological and agricultural history so that some agricultural features like 

viewscapes, continuity from settlement, family heritages of area will be 

preserved. 

Q. Why did the presentation include numerous references to “restoration” – cultural 

habitats, woodlands, agricultural, etc.? Would restoration be necessary if left 

alone? 

A. Areas for restoration will be prioritized, primarily with respect to anticipated 

pressure from proposed development. Areas that are remote from development 

sites may be left to regenerate naturally, unless there is a pressing ecological 

reason to do otherwise. 

In addition, a study group member indicated that he was glad to hear that there is 

recognition of cultural heritage (First Nations, settlers, etc.) as part of the project 

approach. 

3. Looking at the Draft Concept Master Trails Plan… 



Study group members raised questions and provided suggested points for 

consideration rather than specifically identifying what they liked or wanted change with 

the Draft Concept Master Trail Plan. 

The questions of clarification included the following: 

Q. Are the primary trail connectors identified in the proposed master trail plan set 

or will they change based on other plans? 

A. We hope that the proposed primary trail connectors are close to the ‘right’ 

places based on avoiding the natural heritage features of the site and efficiency 

of moving from one residential area to the next. These primary trail connector 

locations are initially identified as 6m wide corridors enabling for some 

6



3. Looking at the Draft Concept Master Trails Plan… 



movement of the trail alignment within this corridor when the neighbourhood 

plans and development plans are finalized. The proposed plan does 

accommodate some flexibility in trail alignment to enable congruency with other 

plans when they are ready. 

Q. Are there opportunities to connect the GO station to the trails? 

A. We have used the road network as the main connector to the GO station. This 

is one of the challenging pieces of the plan to address because the GO station 

is surrounded by wetland which means trail connections would require different 

design. The gateway connections we have included in the proposed plan are 

aligned through the path of least disturbance. 

The following issues, concerns or suggestions for further consideration where raised 

about the Draft Concept Master Trail Plan: 

• Safety concerns near Whitevale golf club due to ball encroachment at the north end 

of the proposed trail where it extends across the top of the driving range, and at the 

south end where there is a fairway close by. Study group members recommended 

that the project team meet with Whitevale Golf Club to view the site and work out 

potential solutions to these safety concerns. 

• Consideration of trail lighting, winter maintenance/snow removal and public safety. 

• Clarification of future trail ownership, cost of trail development, and maintenance is 

needed. Mark indicated that phase 3 of the study process will examine these 

concerns in greater detail and make recommendations on priorities and timelines. 

• Implementation roles and responsibilities concerns. Mark indicated that the 

Management Plan will set out implementation actions and priorities as well as order 

of magnitude construction and maintenance costs. The Management Plan will not 

resolve specific implementation issues related to responsibility but will describe a 

process to address these issues. He noted that there will be a need for dialogue 

between the province and local municipalities to determine the allocation of 

responsibility. 

• Integration with other plans that will promote enhanced habitat for native species by 

reducing the amount of asphalt/concrete and encourage people walking from one 

neighbourhood to another. 

4.0 CLOSING AND ADJOURNMENT 

David thanked participants for their time and feedback and reminded everyone that they 

could submit additional comments by December 7 th , 2007. Bruce Singbush also 

thanked study group members for their dedication and feedback. 

7



APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT LIST 

PARTICIPANT NAME ORGANIZATION (IF ANY) 

Tom Albani 

Metrus Developments 

John Connolly 

Transport Canada 

Shirley Curran 

Heritage Pickering 

Chris Darling 

Region of Durham – Planning Department 

Anne Dobos 

Durham Catholic District School Board 

Mary Drummond 


Alan Dunn 

Sernas Associates 

Egeh Hodan 

Ontario Realty Corporation 

Norma Forrest 

Ontario Growth Secretariat 

Saul Glass 

Marshall Farms 

Rick Johnson 

City of Pickering Councillor 

Mollie Kermany 

Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 

Alex Maggielomo 

Whitevale Golf Club 

Jim McGilton 

Region of Durham - Works 

Harold Sellers 


Dave Pickles 

City of Pickering Councillor 

Ralph Sattero 

Marshall Farms 

Carol Sulton 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 

Kathey Waren 


STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Gail Anderson 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 

Gary Bowen 


Ralph Eades 

Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal 

Terri Fancy 

Ministry of Natural Resources 

Steve Gaunt 






PROJECT TEAM 

David Dilks 


Susan Hall 


Markus Hillar 


Mark Schollen 


Mirek Sharp 

North-South Environmental 

Richard Unterman 


8



APPENDIX B – NHSSG AGENDA 

Meeting Purpose: 

1. To provide an update on the Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan process; 

2. To present and discuss the preliminary management strategies for the Natural 

Heritage System and the cultural and archaeological heritage features in the study 

area; and 

3. To present the draft concept master trail plan and receive feedback on the 

preliminary alignment and connectivity of the proposed trail network. 


7:00 p.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks – Bruce Singbush, Chair, Steering 

Committee 


7:20 p.m. Presentation - Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan: Preliminary Management Strategies and Draft Concept 

Master Trail Plan. 

i) Project Overview and Context for the Seaton Natural Heritage 

System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan – Schollen & 

Company 

ii) Seaton Natural Heritage System Natural Features: Preliminary 

Ecological Management Framework – North-South Environmental 

iii) 

iv) 


Draft Concept Master Trail Plan – Schollen & Company 

Preliminary Management and Implementation Strategy for Master 

Trail Plan – Schollen & Company 

Questions of Clarification 

8:20 p.m. Roundtable Feedback Session 

• Participant feedback on preliminary management framework and 

associated objectives; and draft concept master trail plan 

9:20 p.m. Overview of Upcoming Public Meeting – December 5, 2007 

9:25 p.m. Next Steps – Bruce Singbush 

9:30 p.m. Adjourn 

9

Appendix C.3 

Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan: 

Consolidated Stage 2 Comments and Responses 

– FINAL – 

1.0 GENERAL / OVERARCHING ISSUES 

1.1 Seaton NHS in Context of the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) 

No. / Source Comment / Issue Action / Response Status / Resolution 

1.1.1 

Public Mtg. 1 

1.1.2 

Public Mtg. 1 

1.1.3 

Public Mtg. 1 

1.1.4 

Public Mtg. 1 

Questions were raised about whether the size 

of the NHS meets the Premier’s commitment 

of 66%. 

New infrastructure should not reduce the size 

of the NHS, nor impact it. 

The plan NHS concedes the development of 

Seaton rather than land banking the entire 

area and building intensively in South 

Pickering where some transit, roads and 

other infrastructure already exists. 

Reconsider the proposed development areas 

because these could be significant areas for 

wildlife habitat. 

In addition to the NHS which 

represents 53% of greenspace, 

the Seaton community contains 

parks, golf courses and open 

spaces which enhance the 

greenspace component. 

A separate servicing plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

(EA) will determine the location 

of infrastructure for Seaton. 

A land exchange with a set of 

private developers has been 

completed. The Province no 

longer owns most of the lands 

in Seaton outside of the NHS. 

To ensure compact urban form 

as the land is developed, the 

Province created the CPDP. 

The development areas were 

established through the 

undertaking and review of 

extensive research which 

This comment pertains to the 

larger Seaton project. The 

study area form the NHSMP + 

MTP is limited to the NHS as 

defined by MNR / TRCA 



CPDP allows for infrastructure 

to be located in the NHS. The 

CPDP recommends that 

impacts caused by 

infrastructure be minimized. 










1

1.1.5 

Public Mtg. 1 

1.1.6 

Public Mtg. 1 

1.1.7 

Public Mtg. 1 

Though the Seaton Plans are not your 

mandate, environmental integrity seems to be 

as is the Duffins watershed. The employment 

lands along #7 are planned for this area, 

which is the most significant for recharge for 

the watershed. Spills and pollution will enter 

the tributaries at point source and will be 

impossible to contain or remediate if aquifers 

become contaminated. If your mandate is the 

environment then these designated 

employment areas should be moved to 

already polluted areas within the existing 

urban boundary. 

All the people living in this area get their 

water from aquifers. The aquifers are 

replenished from both the green and white 

area and should be shown on the maps. Are 

there areas that are more of a recharge area 

and should they not be protected? Asphalt 

and cement will wipe out the recharge areas. 

There seemed to be an overriding theme and 

same response to the many questions raised 

by the public. The main response is that 

'development will occur'. To this point first 

protected natural heritage 

features first, then determined 

which lands were suitable for 

development. The 

development areas are 

established through provincial 

legislation and the CPDP. 

The location of the employment 

lands, as with all developable 

lands, were determined based 

on extensive research. The 

Ministry of the Environment 

has policies in place to prevent 

and control pollution and spills. 

In addition to this study a 

Master Environmental 

Servicing Plan (MESP) and 

Regional Environmental 

Assessment are being 

undertaken. Through the 

MESP issues related to ground 

water protection will be 

addressed. 

The CPDP protects aquatic 

features and ecologically 

sensitive lands by requiring 

buffer zones in addition to 
















2

1.1.8 

Public Mtg. 1 

and foremost I would like to respond. Overall 

if this last bit of unfragmented habitat, forest 

and watershed is developed it will be the 

biggest mistake our generation will ever 

make. More urban development is the last 

thing needed here in the GTA where 

overdevelopment and sprawl has devoured 

our landscape over the last twenty years 

leaving us a legacy of gridlock, urban sprawl 

and an endless expanse of concrete. Though 

you would like people to believe that this 

development will be different, the plans as 

they are, are hardly different from any other 

development that has taken place here. 

Timing of the Seaton Natural Heritage 

System Management Plan and Trail Master 

Plan: The preparation of the Seaton Natural 

Heritage System Management Plan and Trail 

Master Plan in advance of the Environmental 

Assessment and subsequent subdivision, 

road and infrastructure decisions, is of 

concern. This approach will require a great 

deal of flexibility within the Plan, as changes 

to the proposed road alignments will likely 

result from the Environmental Assessment 

process. Infrastructure decisions, particularly 

the location of water and sewer services, 

could provide opportunities for integration 

with trail locations to reduce costs and 

disturbance to the natural heritage system. 

Again flexibility in the plan is required. On a 

community scale, it is important to design the 

trail so that it links with pedestrian nodes and 

destination points within the proposed 

maintaining linkages and 

corridors of greenspace. 

These corridors minimize 

fragmentation and allow for the 

movement of wildlife. Seaton 

is an example of a sustainable 

urban community that is 

compact and transit supportive. 

The Natural Heritage System 

Management Plan and Master 

Trail Plan will provide the 

government with a series of 

recommendations for trail 

location and ecological 

management best practices. 

These recommendations will 

be made based on 

environmental planning 

principles and ecological 

planning approaches. Decision 

makers can then consider this 

information at any time, and 

apply the recommendations in 

conjunction with other sources 

of information, including the 

Regional EA. 


The NHSMP + MTP 

incorporates sections that 

provide recommendations to 

guide the implementation of 

both the Natural Heritage 

Management and Trails Master 

Plan components of the study. 

The implementation 

ecommendations address the 

need for integration with other 

study processes (MESP, EA 

and neighbourhood plans) 

3

subdivision plan. In support of, and to 

achieve the vision set out in the Central 

Pickering Development Plan, it would make 

more sense to develop an integrated Trails 

Master Plan in concert with an overall 

neighbourhood development plan. The 

proposed trails will not function in isolation, 

but rather as part of a concise and integrated 

subdivision circulation system. 

2.0 PRELIMINARY NHS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND GOALS 

2.1 General 


2.1.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

2.1.2 

Public Mtg. 1 

Study group members raised concerns about 

maintenance, access and vandalism. It was 

suggested that the project team consult with 

TRCA to gain an understanding of how the 

strategy for management of Altona Forest 

Reserve is progressing to provide cues to 

appropriate management of the Seaton NHS. 

The ecological-based analysis is an excellent 

premise but is being completed in isolation 

from the infrastructure planning. 

The trail system is in part a 

mitigation measure to minimize 

impacts from the anticipated 

urban development that 

provides access in desired 

locations in order to minimize 

impacts. Other access control 

measures (e.g., fencing the 

NHS) will be suggested in the 

Master Plan, but will not be 

addressed in detail until 

neighbourhood designs are 

developed. TRCA has been 

contacted for a copy of the Altona 

Management Plan. 

In an environmental planning 

approach ecological analyses 

are done at the outset such 

that they can inform and guide 

future development, including 

infrastructure. Some of the 

basic infrastructure has been 

The Altona Forest information 

was sourced and reviewed. 

Issues related tot eh need for 

temporary fencing and the 

mitigation of potential impacts 

are addressed in the draft 

document. 

There are several studies 

which are being undertaken 

concurrently. These include 

the Master Environmental 

Servicing Plan and Region 

Environmental Assessment. 

All of these studies combined 

4

conceptually established as 

part of the CPDP. This will be 

refined as the development 

process progresses, and will 

incorporate environmental 

concerns such as those that 

arise from this study and 

through the MESP process. 

will inform all final decisions 

related to the development of 

Seaton. 

The NHSMP + MTP 

incorporates sections that 

provide recommendations to 

guide the implementation of 

both the Natural Heritage 

Management and Trails Master 

Plan components of the study. 

The implementation 

ecommendations address the 

need for integration with other 

study processes (MESP, EA 

and neighbourhood plans) 

2.1.3 

Public Mtg. 1 

The plan focuses on human needs over 

wildlife habitat and biodiversity needs. 

The first step taken on this site 

as part of the Pickering Land 

Exchange was the 

development of the NHS to 

ensure that ecologically 

valuable lands were protected 

in a sustainable system. The 

protection of Natural Heritage 

is a key element in the CPDP 

and is articulated as the first 

goal in that Plan. Thus the 

environment was considered 

first in the development of the 

Seaton lands. 

Determination of the relative 

sensitivity of habitats within the 

NHS was the first step ion the 

process of developing the 

NHSMP + MTP. The draft 

document includes 

recommendations to restore 

cultural and agricultural 

landscapes within the NHS to 

enhance habitat and 

biodiversity. 

5

2.1.4 

Public Mtg. 1 

2.1.5 

Public Mtg. 1 

Link or include details of fisheries 

management plan in the NHS management 

strategy and address how they will evolve 

together. 

The whole concept is of landscape based 

natural heritage but the strategy is 

compromised by an arterial road that: 

• Is routed directly through an area of high 

natural heritage value with the most 

species of concern and regionally 

significant species; and 

• Acts as an amateur barrier to E/W wildlife 

movement. Fragmentation is noted as a 

major cause of habitat and species loss in 

the natural heritage movement, yet this 

barrier only adds to fragmentation. The 

arterial road could be routed to Taunton 

Road with an interchange or cloverleaf 

rather than river crossing. 

• There is no reduction of road impacts 

included. 

Management objectives and 

recommendations relating to 

fisheries will be drawn from the 

approved Fisheries 

Management Plan for Duffins 

and Carruthers Creeks and 

incorporated into the 

Management Plan. 

The general alignment of the 

major roads was established 

as part of the CPDP process 

and took into account the NHS. 

Alternative routes were 

considered during that process. 

The Management Plan will 

identify where there is potential 

for impacts from roadways and 

will identify guidelines and 

provide management 

recommendations to mitigate 

impacts to the extent that it is 

possible. It is not in the scope 

of the current study to 

rationalize the road system. 

The draft document sets out 

recommendations to guide 

fisheries management within 

the NHS. The accommodations 

are founded on the TRCA’s 

Fisheries Management Plan. 


larger Seaton project. It is not 

within the scope of the NHSMP 

+ MTP to address rationalize 

the configuration of the road 

system. 

2.2 Agriculture in the NHS 


2.2.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

Consider urban agriculture demonstration 

projects in the NHS agricultural lands to: 

• Demonstrate how cultivation and forested 

areas can support each other; 

• Enhance appreciation of agricultural 

heritage; or 

Urban agriculture, in the form 

of public organic garden plots 

was identified in the CPDP as 

a desirable use that integrates 

the NHS with the urban 

development. These are 

An acknowledgement of the 

compatibility of urban 

agriculture within the NHS is 

included in the draft document. 

6

• Showcase new methods of agricultural 

being studied such as aquaculture. 

permitted within the NHS, but 

will be sited outside sensitive 

NHS features and their buffers. 

2.3 Ground and Surface Water 


2.3.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

2.3.2 

Public Mtg. 1 

Groundwater Resources - There was no 

discussion of the aquatic component of the 

NHS and how it has or has not been 

accommodated to date. The best available 

products from the ongoing York-Durham- 

Peel-Toronto 3-D groundwater modeling 

(referred to on p. 61 of the Seaton Plan and 

in the Central Pickering Development Plan) 

should be used to inform planning and 

servicing decisions. We recommend that 

groundwater resources and avoidance of 

detrimental impacts from important 

components of this planning process as well 

as the associated Regional EA for water and 

wastewater infrastructure and the ongoing 

MESP. 

The plan should identify cold and warm water 

streams and creeks for management 

planning purposes. 

The Ministry of Natural 

Resources (MNR) and the 

Toronto and Region 

Conservation Authority (TRCA) 

considered the catchment 

areas of wetlands as part of the 

NHS delineation. Fisheries and 

surface water management will 

be based on the approved 

fisheries and watershed 

management plans. Additional 

work on water balance 

(including groundwater) is 

being undertaken by the 

Province and through the 

MESP process. Groundwater 

will continue to be addressed in 

the development of servicing 

and other infrastructure as the 

development process 

proceeds. 

The identification of cold and 

warm water streams can be 

included based on existing 

information. 





defined by MNR / TRCA. 


recommendations to guide the 

integration of the NHSMP + 

MTP with other studies. 

The locations of cold and warm 

water streams has been 


7

2.4 Wildlife 


2.4.1 

Public Mtg. 1 

2.4.2 

Public Mtg. 1 

The knowledge of species found in Seaton is 

limited and outdated. Update species data 

with more current sources/findings and 

confirm species at risk findings. The TRCA 

informed me that the species lists you used 

were at least 7 or 8 years old. Your chart on 

the project website 

(www.mah.gov.on.ca/centralpickering ) says 

there are only 8 "fur-bearing mammals", while 

I can name at least 22 species to be found 

there. You say there are 13 reptile and 

amphibian species, while I can name 15 

positively there. This calls into question your 

claims that there are only 3 or 4 species at 

risk in the area. 

There seems to be a lack of concern about 

how wildlife will move through the NHS. 

The most recent available data 

has been used in this study, 

and further fieldwork for this 

purpose is not necessary or 

within the scope of this project. 

The website was designed to 

provide public information 

regarding the preparation of 

the CPDP. 

The NHS boundaries were 

developed by MNR and TRCA 

and specifically responded to 

the need for wildlife movement 

across the site. Greenspace 

corridors linkages were 

incorporated to allow for 

movement of wildlife. 

Existing available data was 

used as the basis for the 

NHSMP in accordance with the 

Terms of Reference. Limited 

additional ground truthing was 

done by NSE. 

The NHSMP provides 

recommendations to enhance 

connectivity with the NHS 

through the reforestation of 

agricultural fields and cultural 

meadows. 

8

2.4.3 

Public Mtg. 1 

Settling ponds for stormwater management 

will pollute the creeks with warm, dirty water. 

They also fool birds and other animals into 

thinking they're natural ponds, which leads to 

the death of nestlings etc. when the water 

levels rise extremely and unnaturally rapidly 

with every rainfall and drown them. 

Although stormwater 

management facility design is 

not within the scope of this 

project, guidelines can be 

provided to minimize impacts 

to wildlife. Design will be 

undertaken as part of the 

development process in 

accordance with the 

requirements of TRCA, Ministry 

of the Environment (MOE) and 

other approval agencies. 

Current designs substantially 

reduce thermal impacts. Most 

urban shoreline nesters 1) 

establish nests in spring when 

water levels are high; 2) 

generally nest above the high 

water mark. Mortality resulting 

from water level fluctuation is 

rare for these species. 

It is not within the mandate of 

this study to address issues 

related to the location and 

design of SWM facilities. 

2.5 Natural Features Inventory (MMAH Website) 


2.5.1 

Public Mtg. 1 

1. Wetlands: It tells us that there are 170 

wetlands occupying 216 hectares. But does 

this mean within all the Seaton lands, or just 

within the NHS study area? It makes a big 

difference! How much wetland is actually 

within the NHS study area? 

2. Woodlands: 1214 hectares listed. Is this 

the total existing woodlands presently in the 

Seaton area, or is it the area that will be 

saved? 

The website was established to 

share information during the 

development of the CPDP and 

is not a website specifically 

designed for this project. 

Generally the locations and 

sometimes the identity of 

threatened and endangered 

species are not released to the 

public to avoid poaching and 

The NHSMP sets out 

recommendations to manage 

and restore habitat within a 

suite of “management units” in 

accordance with the Terms of 

Reference for the study. 

Existing available inventory 

data was utilized as the basis 

for the study. 

9

3. Iroquois Shoreline:120 hectares listed. 

How is the shoreline area calculated? 

4. Species at Risk: Nationally Endangered: 1, 

Provincially Threatened: 3 

But what are they??? Should this not make 

more of an impact on the plans? How will 

they be protected? 

5. Species Rare in Durham: 49 

But again, what are they? Why is this 

information kept secret? It seems you don't 

want people to know what will be lost. 

6. Plant Species (total) : 528 

What are they? What if I or others have 

discovered plants that are not on the list? The 

TRCA told me this list does not include 

mosses, lichens or non-vascular plants. 

Some of these are rare and endangered also. 

Why are they not included or studied? 

7. Amphibians / Reptiles: 13 

I have counted 15, and not being an expert, 

I've spoken with other naturalists who say the 

real number may be more than 19 species. I 

will attempt to verify this. 

8. Breeding Birds: 99 

Again, which birds are nesting there? And 

why are migratory birds ignored? Shouldn't all 

the bird species using the area be counted? 

Habitat loss is just as deadly to the migratory 

birds, where else can they go? 

9. Fish Species: 30 

Is this the present number, or information 

from seven years ago? How many will be lost 

if Seaton is developed? What is being done 

to protect them? 

disruption to habitat. 

The data this information is 

based on is maintained and 

owned by the TRCA. 

Requests for lists of species 

should be directed to the 

TRCA. 

There is no desire to “heat up 

the recharge areas of streams”. 

Recommendations to mitigate 

the potential impacts of 

urbanization will be developed 

in part through this study and 

through the MESP process as 

the development process 

proceeds. 

10

10. Fur Bearing Mammals: 8 

Why are you using this outdated term, which 

implies animals being trapped for their pelts? 

I know there are at least 22 species of "furbearing 

mammals" living in Seaton, not 

including the domesticated animals, or even 

the different types of bats, voles, moles, 

shrews, squirrels, etc. Again, how can you 

expect your information to be taken 

seriously? 

11. Large Mammals: 1 

I assume this would be white-tailed deer. But 

what is the cut-off for large mammals, what's 

the size or weight limit? It's quite an 

odd category to use, considering 

Seaton would've lost long ago any bear, 

moose, elk, etc. 

12. Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA's) 

by TRCA: 2 

How can there only be 2 on such a large area 

of land with all the woodlots, ponds, old 

shorelines, and micro-climates within 

Seaton? What is the size of these areas? 

Many would say the entire Seaton area is 

environmentally significant. 

13. Cold Water Streams: All 

But you and the MMAH seem to want to heat 

up the recharge area for these streams. 

14. Groundwater Seeps, Depressional 

Storage Areas, All Key Features: 1 

What is meant by these terms? What does 

"All Key Features" include? 

11

3.0 CULTURAL / HERITAGE / ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK 

3.1 Cultural / Heritage 


3.1.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

3.1.2 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

3.1.3 

Public Mtg. 1 

3.1.4 

Public Mtg. 1 

How will the cultural heritage resources in the 

Highway 407 Employment Lands Precinct be 

addressed in this study? 

Are there agricultural areas that will be 

preserved? 

Whitevale Road is recognized as a heritage 

district and there are opportunities to create 

an educational route that connects all 10 

communities within Seaton and highlights the 

100-year architectural history. There should 

be greater emphasis on interpretation as a 

mechanism to achieve the social, cultural and 

heritage goals for Seaton. 

The plan should include a cultural 

interpretation centre at Whitevale Road using 

an existing heritage designated home - an 

‘outpost’. 

This study will look at cultural, 

heritage and archaeological 

features and see how they 

relate to the trails system. 

The study team will develop a 

plan that takes into 

consideration both the 

ecological and agricultural 

history so that some 

agricultural features like 

viewscapes, continuity from 

settlement, family heritages of 

area are recommended for 

preservation. 

The Whitevale Heritage 

Conservation District (HCD) 

and roadscape were always 

deemed to be an important 

cultural heritage landscape 

elements. The interpretation of 

these resources is of primary 

interest in the interpretive 

planning. 

This idea will be considered but 

is dependent on property 

ownership. 

The draft document 

incorporates recommendations 

to integrate built heritage 

features and viewsheds with 

the trail system. 

An acknowledgement of the 

compatibility of urban 

agriculture within the NHS is 


Whitevale Road is envisioned 

as and important cultural 

heritage and interpretive 

resource within the trail 

network. 

This concept is acknowledged 

through the proposal to locate 

a primary trailhead with an 

interpretive component in 

Whitevale. 

12

3.1.5 

Public Mtg. 1 

3.1.6 

Public Mtg. 1 

3.1.7 

Public Mtg. 1 

I would like to meet with open minded experts 

to explore opportunities to make greater use 

of Whitevale Road to help meet social and 

cultural objective - more than just 

‘recognizing’ the road and its surviving 

cultural heritage attributes/ resources. 

Protecting five buildings over the entire 

Seaton lands just isn't enough. You're not 

saving our heritage when you develop the 

farms and woodlots that have been there for 

generations. These cannot ever be replaced 

once they're gone. 

Cultural Heritage 

The proposed plan appears to have missed a 

rather significant cultural heritage interpretive 

opportunity. We would suggest that the 5th 

Concession, from Brock Road to the Hamlet 

of Whitevale, is one of the most prominent 

cultural heritage features within the Seaton 

Development. This roadway and its many 

historical homes is a significant living record 

of Pickering’s past. It should be incorporated 

into a unique pedestrian parkway that takes 

advantage of its large trees, viewscapes and 

other rural features, while providing a variety 

of education and interpretation opportunities. 

This parkway system would create the 

backbone for the primary trail system within 

the Seaton lands. 

Ideas on opportunities to 

enhance the social and cultural 

objectives are welcome. 

This project looks to maximize 

the interpretation of the cultural 

heritage resources in the study 

area for the trail planning 

programme. 

Concession Road 5 (Whitevale 

Road) is a significant cultural 

heritage resource. The 

opportunity it provides is very 

important to developing a 

sound interpretive plan for the 

trail network and study area. 

The consulting team will 

recommend this cultural 

heritage resource will become 

an important aspect of any 

planning initiatives for Seaton. 

The importance of cultural 

heritage interpretation is 

addressed in the draft 

document. Recommendations 

to guide cultural heritage 

interpretation are provided. 

Whitevale Road is envisioned 

as and important cultural 

heritage and interpretive 

resource within the trail 

network. 

13

4.0 DRAFT CONCEPT MASTER TRAILS PLAN 

4.1 Trail System / Hierarchy 


4.1.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

Are the primary trail connectors identified in 

the proposed master trail plan set or will they 

change based on other plans? 

The proposed primary trail 

connectors are close to the 

‘right’ places based on avoiding 

the natural heritage features of 

the site and efficiency of 

moving from one residential 

area to the next. These 

primary trail connector 

locations are initially identified 

as 6m wide corridors enabling 

for some movement of the trail 

alignment within this corridor 

when the development plans 

are finalized. The proposed 

plan does accommodate some 

flexibility in trail alignment to 

enable congruency with other 

plans when they are ready. 

The primary neighbourhood 

connectors are illustrated in the 

plan. There is also an 

acknowledgment that 

adjustments may be required. 

The protocol. For adjusting 

these alignment is set out in 

the draft document 

14

4.1.2 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

Are there opportunities to connect the GO 

station to the trails? 

The road network has been 

used as the main connector to 

the GO station. This is one of 

the challenging pieces of the 

plan to address because the 

GO station is surrounded by 

wetland which means trail 

connections would require 

different design. The gateway 

connections we have included 

in the proposed plan are 

aligned through the path of 

least disturbance. 

Connections to the Go station 

are provided for in the plan. 

These proposed connections 

respect the sensitivity of 

adjacent habitat areas. 

15

4.1.3 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

Infrastructure - it was suggested that the 

hierarchy of trails and trail heads 

coincidentally be designed to allow access to 

Regional servicing infrastructure. From this, 

It would appear the Region may be intending 

to locate its water and wastewater systems 

within the valleys in the NHS. We recommend 

that through this planning process and the 

associated EA process, alternative non-valley 

servicing locations be detailed and 

considered (on tableland) as well as the 

location of the connection to the Big Pipe 

(York-Durham Sewage System), potential 

impacts on surrounding land uses and the 

capacity of Durham's proportion of the Duffin 

Creek sewage treatment plant to serve 


It is an objective to locate trail 

heads and align trails so that 

they coincide with proposed 

regional servicing 

infrastructure. To this end, the 

preliminary alignments for 

water and wastewater services 

that were set out in the CPDP 

were assessed and the trail 

alignments were located to 

coincide with these conceptual 

alignment. Notwithstanding, 

the precise location of servicing 

infrastructure will be 

determined through the EA 

process and therefore, the 

master trail plan will be 

developed with sufficient 

flexibility to address 

modifications necessary to 

coordinate with the final service 

relative to the NHS will be 

addressed as a component of 

the EA process. 

The draft document provides 

recommendations related to 

the desire to coordinate the 

alignment of trails with 

proposed service corridors to 

minimize potential impacts. 

The document does not speak 

to the location / alignment of 

service infrastructure as this 

will be addressed through other 

study processes (MESP, EA, 

neighbourhood Plan). 

16

4.1.4 

Public Mtg. 1 

A number of participants indicated they were 

concerned about the number of trails 

presented, particularly the primary and 

secondary trails that are 3m wide, because 

they segment the NHS, reduce availability of 

the core area and may adversely impact 

wildlife. 

80% of the proposed trails are 

located in agricultural fields, 

away from sensitive features. 

The plan includes restoration of 

the NHS. The trail width of 3m 

was included to allow for police 

and EMS access. 

A comparison of trail density 

between the proposed Seaton 

system and other trail systems 

within valleylands and natural 

areas that are situated in urban 

communities will be completed 

to demonstrate the adequacy 

of the trail network. The trail 

system was developed utilizing 

the environmental sensitivity 

mapping as a foundation with 

the goal of ensuring that core 

areas and sensitive natural 

heritage features are not 

fragmented by the trail system. 

The trail plan was scrutinized in 

an effort to minimize the 

number and width of trails. 

Comparative assessments 

were completed to confirm the 

adequacy of the proposed trail 

density utilizing other trail 

systems within the GTA as 

photo types. Trails have been 

located predominantly within 

the buffer areas of the NHS or 

on existing agricultural / 

cultural lands. 

17

4.1.5 

Public Mtg. 1 

Concern that the trail size was determined 

based on capital expense rather than a true 

(physical environment) hierarchy. 

For the primary and secondary 

trails, dimensions and 

surfacing recommendations 

were determined based on a 

number of factors including: 

• The need for conformity 

with the “Accessibility for 

Ontarians with Disabilities 

Act, 2005” 

• The need to accommodate 

a range of trail users 

including cyclists, roller 

bladers, hikers, people with 

strollers, etc. 

• The desire to have the trails 

maintained during the 

winter months to encourage 

all season use 

• The need to provide access 

for police, EMS and 

maintenance vehicles. 

The hierarchy was determined 

based upon the priority of the 

linkage, anticipated patterns of 

use and the above 

considerations as well as a 

recognition of capital and 

maintenance cost implications. 

The trial hierarchy has been 

refined to reduce to width of 

secondary connectors and 

recreational trails. Access for 

maintenance, barrier free 

access and access for 

emergency vehicles were all 

considered to be of importance 

in determining the 

recommended trail widths. 

Winter maintenance is 

recommended in the draft 

document. 

18

4.1.6 

Public Mtg. 1 

4.1.7 

Public Mtg. 1 

4.1.8 

Public Mtg. 1 

Suggestion that the team look for other routes 

for bike trails other than the proposed arterial 

road network/ systems as motorized vehicles 

may be a conflict. 

Suggestion that the transportation corridors 

for biking to employment areas should be 

provided by bike lanes that could be 

maintained by usual road maintenance. 

Why are there so many trails in the north end 

near Duffins Creek? Can we incorporate bike 

friendly road design in development areas? 

Can you recommend incorporating GO train 

access trails into sub-division/urban designs? 

I’m concerned about the amount of trees that 

will be cut to create these trails. 

It is proposed that bicycle trails 

that follow the alignment of 

arterial roads be physically 

separated from vehicular traffic 

to minimize potential conflicts. 

It is preferred that these 

primary bicycle routes follow 

the alignment of the arterial 

roads to take advantage of 

signalization and stop signs at 

intersections to aid in ensuring 

cyclists safety at road 

crossings. Consideration was 

also given to the Durham 

Region Cycling Plan. 

This concept will be integrated 

into the master trails plan in the 

process of refining the plan. 

Opportunities to modify the trail 

concept to minimize the density 

of trails at the north end of 

Duffins Creek will be explored. 

GO Station access trails will be 

recommended to be 

incorporated into the design of 

the subdivisions. The majority 

of the trail segments are 

located on existing cultivated 

lands in order to minimize the 

requirement for tree removal. 

Primary bicycle routes are 

recommended to be separated 

from vehicular traffic. 

North South bicycle routes 

have been integrated into the 

plan. 

The density of trails within the 

north end of the study area 

was scrutinized and refined. 

Several segments of trails were 

deleted. 

19

4.1.9 

Public Mtg. 1 

Proposed Trail Hierarchy: There are a 

number of trail types shown on the plan 

identifying a standard trail hierarchy 

system. However, the differences in that 

hierarchy relate specifically to the user group, 

as the width and surfacing (3 metre wide 

asphalt), are the same for the dedicated bike 

route, the primary neighbourhood connector 

path, the secondary neighbourhood 

connector path and the recreation trail. 

This would appear to be a case of overdesign 

in order to meet the consultant’s 

objective to provide vehicular access for 

policing and emergency vehicles on all trails. 

If this plan is realized, it would be impossible 

to distinguish one trail type from the other. If 

on the other hand the vast amount of the 

secondary trails being shown on the plan are 

“placeholders” for future trails (as has been 

indicated), why would they need to be shown 

at this time as part of an overall master plan. 

It is well know that once a line (trail) is shown 

to the public on a plan, it is very difficult to 

have that line removed. We feel a better 

approach would be to show only a well 

thought out Primary Pedestrian ring trail 

system that connects the neighbourhood cells 

off the proposed roadways. This would 

provide for safe and easy access between 

the development communities while being 

able to enjoy a natural experience. 

It was also assumed, by the consultants, that 

these trails will be maintained during the 

winter months and have some sort of lighting 

Trail width and surfacing 

requirements for primary and 

secondary trails and dedicated 

bike routes are dictated by: 

• User requirements 

• Ontario Accessibility Act 

2005 

• Public safety (multiple 

users and potential 

conflicts) 

• Maintenance, emergency 

vehicle and policing 

requirements 

Trails will be discernable based 

on hierarchy of trial heads and 

wayfinding signage systems. 

Secondary trails are 

“placeholders” but conceptual 

routing is necessary to 

illustrate to ensure that 

sensitive environmental 

features and cores are avoided 

and essential linkages between 

neighbourhoods are achieved. 

Winter maintenance will be 

recommended. 

The issue of trail lighting 

requires further consideration 

and consultation with both the 

The trial hierarchy has been 

refined to reduce to width of 

secondary connectors and 

recreational trails. Access for 

maintenance, barrier free 

access and access for 

emergency vehicles were all 

considered to be of importance 

in determining the 

recommended trail widths. 



document. 

20

4.1.10 

Public Mtg. 1 

4.1.11 

Public Mtg. 1 

to provide for the safety of users. All 

speculative assumptions when details of the 

responsibilities for trail ownership, capital 

investment and operational management and 

maintenance costs have not yet been 

determined. Another considerable cost, both 

capital and long term maintenance, would be 

the requirement for pedestrian bridges at all 

trail creek crossings to meet the requirements 

of the Toronto and Region Conservation 

Authority’s generic regulations. 

Proposed North South Trail Linkages 

Not all of the numerous proposed primary 

and secondary trail connections extending 

north across Highway 407 align with existing 

culverts or bridge overpasses. It is our 

opinion that some of the existing culverts 

used water conveyance through the 407 

right-of-way, may not be large enough to 

accommodate multi-use trails in many cases. 

The feasibility of constructing additional 

culverts and bridge overpasses is not 

practical at this scale. This aspect of the trail 

and its connection to neighbouring systems 

should be re-examined. 

Trail Design Suggestions: In principal, we 

support the idea of a sensitive and concise 

primary trail system between the proposed 

development cells. However, as identified 

earlier in this correspondence, without a clear 

indication of desire lines and destinations, a 

proposed braided network of trails is 

inappropriate in advance of other critical 

decisions associated with the detailing of the 

Steering Committee and the 

Province. This will be 

addressed as the study 

proceeds. 

The requirement for bridge 

crossings has been minimized 

through the utilization of road 

crossings that are proximate to 

the desired trail alignment. 

Opportunities to establish 

practical north/south 

connections across the 407 

corridor will be examined in 

further detail. It is agreed that 

the existing culverts beneath 

the 407 are not of sufficient 

size to accommodate a trail 

connection. 

Refer to Comment 4.1.9 

Justification for primary trail 

connections will be provided 

concisely in the report 

The concept plan largely 

incorporates a “ring” approach 

that follows the outside buffer 

The draft document provides 

an assessment of potential 

north/south linkages and sets 

out recommendations to direct 

the establishment of 

connections to the Highway 

407 employment lands. 

Justification was been provided 

in the report: 

• The trial hierarchy has 

been refined to reduce to 

width of secondary 

connectors and 

recreational trails. Access 

21

designated development cells. 

We recommend a more strategic review of 

the opportunities for realistically locating true 

primary, secondary and recreation trails, 

developing the appropriate design standards 

and guidelines for their use, and making an 

effort to reduce the land dedicated to the trail 

systems overall. There has been no 

indication as to why the primary trails have 

been located where there are shown, or what 

other options were considered. It may make 

better sense to articulate a “ring” system that 

generally follows the Natural Heritage buffer 

areas, and connects the various development 

cells together. This would greatly reduce the 

overall number of secondary trails that would 

be required to allow access. Any further 

discussions need to consider the creation of 

this neighbourhood ring trail (or similar 

concept), as well as the reduction in the size, 

location, and surfacing requirements for the 

secondary and recreation trails. This 

approach would be consistent with other 

successful trail systems existing in 

neighbouring local and regional 

municipalities. 

4.2 Ownership / Maintenance / Safety 

of the NHS however crossings 

of the NHS are required at 

certain locations to connect 

neighbourhoods effectively 

given the configuration of the 

development parcels in relation 

to each other. 

A comparative analysis of trail 

systems with adjacent 

municipalities will be 

undertaken to confirm the 

appropriateness of the 

proposed trail network and 

hierarchy. 

for maintenance, barrier 

free access and access for 

emergency vehicles were 

all considered to be of 

importance in determining 

the recommended trail 

widths. Winter 

maintenance is 


document. 

• The trail plan was 

scrutinized in an effort to 

minimize the number and 

width of trails. 


were completed to confirm 

the adequacy of the 

proposed trail density 

utilizing other trail systems 

within the GTA as photo 

types. Trails have been 

located predominantly 

within the buffer areas of 

the NHS or on existing 

agricultural / cultural lands. 


4.2.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

The primary trails are designed to connect 

neighbourhoods so that community members 

can get to schools, employment areas, etc. 

The experience in Pickering has been that 

kids and adults don’t use trails in the winter or 

Winter maintenance and 

lighting will be addressed as a 

part of the implementation 

strategy. 



document. 

22

4.2.2 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

4.2.3 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

4.2.4 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

at night unless they are well lit. 

The plan includes a lot of trails; who will own 

and maintain them from a financial 

perspective? 

Who will be responsible for trail 

Implementation? 

Is the Province going to ensure the safety of 

trail users, particularly after dark, based on 

Safe Growth principles? We recommend that 

Provincial Safe Growth principles be applied 

and extensive consultation with municipal 

parks staff be undertaken to learn from their 

experience with lighting, etc.. Ajax's parks 

staff can be available to provide suggestions 

upon request. 

Trail ownership and 

maintenance will be addressed 

in the Implementation Strategy. 

The Management Plan will set 

out implementation actions and 

priorities as well as order of 

magnitude construction and 

maintenance costs. The 

Management Plan will not 

resolve specific implementation 

issues related to responsibility 

but will describe a process to 

address these issues. There 

will be a need for dialogue 

between the province and local 

municipalities to determine the 

allocation of responsibility. 

The trail network considers the 

Provincial Smart Growth 

principles in so far as 

promoting walkable and well 

interconnected 

neighbourhoods and good 

accessibility from residential 

areas to open spaces to 

promote recreation and 

physical activity. This is 

commensurate to the principles 

of New Urbanism. 

The implementation strategy 

provides recommendations 

related to the ownership and 

maintenance of the trail 

system. 

The implementation strategy 

provides recommendations 

related to the ownership and 

maintenance of the trail 

system. 



public safety. The lighting 

issue has not yet been 

resolved but will be addressed 

in the final version of the 

document pending discussion 

with the Steering Committee. 

23

4.3 Interpretation / Education 


4.3.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

4.3.2 

Public Mtg. 1 

Ensure the plan includes access to natural 

features through interpretive trails so that 

schools can use these as educational walking 

trips/tours. Consider including boardwalks 

that allow good access to ecological systems 

so they can provide opportunities for nature 

appreciation and education. 

Participants suggested that First Nations 

interpretation could be part of the trail plan. 

Interpretive opportunities and 

techniques will be described in 

the final master trails plan. 

First Nations interpretation will 

be recommended as a 

component of the overall 

interpretive strategy for the trail 

system and NHS management 

plan. 

The importance of public 

education and natural and 

cultural heritage interpretation 

are acknowledged in the draft 

document. Recommendations 

to guide interpretive 

programming are provided. 

Recommendations and ideas 

related to First Nations 

interpretation have been 


24

4.4 Impacts on Whitevale Golf Club 


4.4.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

4.4.2 

Whitevale Golf 

Club 

4.4.3 

Whitevale Golf 

Club 

Safety concerns near Whitevale golf club due 

to ball encroachment at the north end of the 

proposed trail where it extends across the top 

of the driving range, and at the south end 

where there is a fairway close by. Study 

group members recommended that the 

project team meet with Whitevale Golf Club to 

view the site and work out potential solutions 

to these safety concerns. 

Regarding the trail crossover point on Golf 

Club Road – WGC does not want to see it 

located in close proximity to the WGC 

entrance road which is on the east side of 

Golf Club Road. 

Regarding the alignment of the proposed 

north south trail referred to in 5.0 of minutes 

(Study Team - WGC meeting) – certain areas 

adjacent to the WGC lands are in fact owned 

by TRCA and leased to WGC. Therefore, 

WGC’s interest in the final location of this trail 

remains. 

Further discussions were held 

with Whitevale Golf Club 

representatives to discuss 

safety concerns. 

It will be recommended that the 

trail crossover point will be 

shifted to avoid the entrance 

road. 

A meeting with representatives 

of the Whitevale Golf Club was 

convened to address the 

location of holes and their 

potential impacts on the NHS. 

Several proposed trails in the 

vicinity of Whitevale Golf 

Course have been deleted. 

Recommendations related to 

the integration of the Golf 

Course within the NHS have 

been provided. 

The cross-over point was 

shifted to address this 

comment. 

25

4.5 Environmental / Ecological / Wildlife Impacts 


4.5.1 

NHSSG Mtg. 2 

4.5.2 

Public Mtg. 1 

Should ensure integration with other plans 

that will promote enhanced habitat for native 

species by reducing the amount of 

asphalt/concrete and encourage people to 

walk from one neighbourhood to another. 

The plan includes corridors that are less than 

200 m in width and will include paved trails 

and potential lighting, which will scare most of 

the wildlife away. Winter maintenance that 

includes using salt on trails and lighting is not 

beneficial for wildlife. 

It is a fundamental objective to 

integrate the trail plan with the 

NHS natural heritage 

management strategy. 

The trail system was designed 

with the objective of providing 

practical connections that will 

encourage people to use the 

trail network in place of their 

cars when moving within and 

around the Seaton community. 

Potential impacts on wildlife will 

be addressed when 

considering the issue of 

lighting. 

The trails have been aligned to 

avoid fragmentation of sensitive 

features and habitats 

The potential requirement for 

the use of salt on trails will be 

addressed. 

The importance of the trial as a 

viable transportation system is 

stated in the draft document. 

Trail alignments illustration on 

the concept plan were further 

scrutinized with the goal of 

minimizing potential habitat 

fragmentation. The issue of 

lighting has not yet been 

resolved by Y will be 

addressed in the final version 

of the document. 

4.5.3 

Public Mtg. 1 

Concern that there are too many paved trails, 

and the effect these will have in segmenting 

the wildlife areas. 

Corridor widths were 

established by the MNR and 

TRCA prior to the 

commencement of this study. 

Trails are aligned to avoid 

fragmenting sensitive natural 

heritage features and are 




26

4.5.4 

Public Mtg. 1 

Potential Impacts to the Natural Heritage 

System: An estimate of 29 kilometres of 3 

metre wide asphalt trails within the Seaton 

development seems somewhat excessive 

with the potential for significant impacts to the 

natural heritage features that are supposed to 

be protected. It was also identified by the 

consultants, that within the allocated 30 metre 

buffer of the agricultural land added to the 

natural heritage system, trails are an 

accepted use. Science and our own 

experience with the existing Seaton Trail, 

indicates that buffer areas with a high level of 

public use, can result in a variety of negative 

impacts. Of specific concern is the spread of 

invasive plants, like dog strangling vine & 

common buckthorn, as well as edge 

specialist bird species and the impacts of 

domestic animal populations that will come 

with the Seaton development. The intensity 

and scope of trails has the potential to reduce 

the biodiversity of the overall natural heritage 

system. Trails also contribute to the 

disturbance of critical habitat and in this case 

situated primarily on 

agricultural lands that are 

outside the limit of existing 

woodlots and wetlands. 

The appropriateness of the 

proposed trail density in 

relation to other similar trail 

networks in an urban context 

will be verified. 

The CPDP identifies trails as a 

permitted use within the NHS 

and buffer areas. 

An appropriate trail design 

implemented in combination 

with vegetation management 

can help to mitigate impacts 

associated with trail use. 

Barriers / fencing may be 

required to prohibit public 

access to sensitive sites as the 

sites undergo restoration. This 

will be assessed as a part of 

the management planning 

processes. 
























27

may result in further fragmentation of the 

existing vegetation communities. For these 

and other reasons, we would support an 

overall reduction in the size and number of 

the secondary and recreation trail types as 

shown. 

Trails are being aligned to 

avoid critical habitat (this is a 

primary principle that guided 

the development of the concept 

plan). 

4.6 Integration with the Seaton Trail 


4.6.1 

Public Mtg. 1 

Concern that the existing Seaton Trail is 

exciting and challenging and would not lend 

itself to 3m pavement that could be policed. 

The existing Seaton Trail should not be 

paved. 

The Seaton Hiking Trail is not 

being proposed to be paved. It 

is not within the scope of this 

study, but the Toronto Region 

Conservation Authority and 

Oak Ridges Moraine Trail 

Association will be looking at 

its management in a parallel 

study. 

Statements regarding the 

integration of the Seaton hiking 

trail planning process with the 

NHSMP + MTP are addressed 

in the draft document. 

28

APPENDIX C.4 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan 

and Master Trail Plan: 

Community Meeting #1 

DRAFT Meeting Record 

December 5, 2007 

Pickering Recreation Complex 

Pickering, Ontario 

Schollen & Company Inc. ~ Unterman McPhail Inc. ~ North-South Environmental Inc. ~ 

Archaeological Services Inc. ~ Lura Consulting


December 5 th , 2007 Open House and Community Meeting Record 

1. ABOUT THE SEATON NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MASTER TRAIL PLAN 

The December 5 th community meeting was hosted by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 

(MMAH) to receive feedback from the community as part of the Seaton Natural Heritage System 

(NHS) Management and Master Trail Plan. Specifically, the meeting was designed to introduce 

the Seaton NHS Management and Master Trail Plan process to the community and seek feedback 

on preliminary management strategies for the NHS and the draft concept master trails plan. 

This summary report focuses primarily on the feedback and comments made by the meeting 

participants. It provides a high level summary of the key presentation points, group discussions and 

feedback received following the community meeting. 

Thirty-four participants with an interest in the Seaton NHS Management and Master Trail Plan 

attended the community meeting. A list of participants is included in Appendix A and the meeting 

agenda is found in Appendix B. Appendix C includes written comments from completed workbooks 

submitted by participants at the meeting. Maps of the ecological management framework and 

concept trail plan – as presented at the meeting – are available on request. If you have any 

questions or comments regarding this Meeting Record, please contact Susan Hall at: tel: 416-410- 

3888; fax: 416-536-3453; or email: shall@lura.ca 

2. COMMUNITY MEETING FORMAT 

OPEN HOUSE: The open house began at 6:00 p.m. Boards explaining the Seaton Natural Heritage 

System Management Plan in the regional context, as well as the conceptual master trail plan, and 

ecological management framework, were provided and Project Team staff were available to answer 

questions and receive feedback. Participants were encouraged to review the project boards and 

displays, and to speak to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and Project Team 

representatives about the project. 

PRESENTATION AND WORKSHOP: The presentation segment of the evening began at 7:00 p.m. The 

presentation is described in more detail in Section 4 below. Following the presentation, participants 

were asked to discuss the questions posed in the “Participant Worksheets” that were handed out 

upon arrival. Those who did not stay for the meeting were invited to fill out a booklet either at the 

event or at home and mail it in. 

3. WELCOME AND AGENDA REVIEW 

Gail Anderson from MMAH welcomed participants to the community meeting and thanked them for 

coming. She briefly explained the purpose of the meeting and encouraged participants to review 

and provide feedback on the work done by the project team to date. Ms. Anderson also indicated 

that the feedback received will be compiled, and noted that the project team will report back to the 

participants on the results of the meeting. 

Meeting facilitator, David Dilks also welcomed participants and explained that Lura has been 

retained to assist MMAH and the consulting team with the public consultation component of this 

project. He reviewed the agenda and explained that there would be a presentation followed by a 

question and answer period and roundtable discussion on the questions in the “Participant 

Worksheets”. 

Lura Consulting 1



4. PRESENTATION 

Project Overview and Context for the Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan – Mark Schollen, Schollen & Company 

Mark reviewed the project team organization, study goals and process. He indicated that the team 

is currently developing recommendations in Phase 2 of the study process, which involves consulting 

with the Steering Committee, First Nations, the Natural Heritage System Study Group (NHSSG) and 

the community before developing the implementation, operation and management plans. 

Seaton NHS Natural Features: Preliminary Ecological Management Framework – Mirek 

Sharp, North-South Environmental 

Mirek provided an overview of the ecological work to date and indicated that the project team has: 

• Assembled and summarized background data; 

• Prepared sensitivity mapping; 

• Compiled input to inform appropriate trail alignments locations and types and generate the draft 

master trails concept plan; 

• Prepared a draft NHS management framework. 

Mirek explained that the general management goal is to protect and enhance the biodiversity and 

ecological function of existing native plant and wildlife communities, and restore disturbed areas. 

He explained that the team’s approach to achieving this goal is to establish a series of management 

guidelines or prescriptions for each of the management units within the NHS. The team has 

organized the vegetation types into a series of 14 management units that include all vegetation 

types with similar management needs. He noted there are two broad groups of management units 

– those for native vegetation communities and those for culturally modified community management 

units as defined below. 

Management Units for Native Vegetation Communities 702 ha/ 45% 

Native Woodlands (FOD, FOM, FOC) 

Swamp Communities (SWC, SWD, SWM, SWT) 

Marsh Communities (MAM, MAS) 

Aquatic Communities (OAO, SAF, SAM, SAS) 

Beach/Bars (BBO, BBS, BBT) 

Bluffs (BLO, BLS, BLT) 

Sand Barrens (SBO, SBT) 

Clay Barrens (CBO) 

497 ha/ 32% 

80 ha/ 5% 

107 ha/ 7% 

10 ha/



Mirek indicated that for each of these management units there will be a series of prescriptions or 

guidelines that will be defined in the final management plan. 

Seaton NHS: Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Component –– Richard Unterman, 

Unterman & McPhail 

Richard provided an update on the project status for the cultural heritage and archaeological 

components. He indicated that the team has: 

• Completed field work to reconfirm previous study findings, investigated new undocumented 

viewscapes, and confirmed that viewsheds remained present and unchanged; 

• Integrated new study findings with previous study findings for built heritage and cultural heritage 

landscape resources; 

• Compiled maps and data related to all known archaeological sites; 

• Mapped known archaeological sites; and 

• Noted that detailed archaeological investigations are underway along Primary Neighbourhood 

Connector trails. 

He described cultural and heritage features in the study area, including important views, as shown 

on the map below. 

Study Area Heritage Features 

Lura Consulting 3



Richard noted that the interpretation strategy is being formed based on a series of themes, which 

could include: 

• First Nations heritage 

• Governance history 

• Early land settlement patterns 

• Cultural Heritage resources and 

landscape 

• Evolution of built heritage environment 

• Existing settlement 

• Agriculture 

• Industry 

• Transportation 

• Religion 

• Education 

• Family history 

He noted that the First Nations heritage interpretive options for the NHS could include: 

• Information plaques installed at key points along the trails; 

• Native art installations; 

• Plantings of traditional First Nations crops of squash, corn and 

beans accompanied by interpretive signage; and 

• Reconstruction of a First Nations settlement. 

Richard noted that the team would like participant feedback on the 

proposed themes presented and would welcome any thoughts on 

interpretation opportunities. 

Draft Concept Master Trail Plan – Mark Schollen, Schollen & 

Company 

Mark indicated that the draft concept master trail plan objectives are to: 

• Protect important natural heritage features; 

• Protect, respect and commemorate significant archaeological and cultural heritage resources; 

• Protect existing natural heritage features and functions; 

• Enhance connectivity, diversity and function; and 

• Capitalize upon interpretive opportunities. 

He noted that the proposed trail plan makes connections between neighbourhoods, uses existing 

road networks, links open spaces, uses the internal neighbourhood street fabric, and optimizes 

walking distances. He indicated that the concept includes 6 types of trails that serve different 

purposes, as listed below, and reviewed the purpose and features of each. 

• Primary Neighbourhood Connectors (off-road) 

• Secondary Neighbourhood Connectors / 

Recreational Trails 

• Dedicated Bike Routes 

• Primary On-Road Bike Route 

• Secondary On-Road Bike Route 


Mark indicated that there are two other related processes that influence the Seaton Master Trail 

Plan, namely the Seaton Hiking Trail planning process (Seaton Management Plan), which is 

underway with Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA), City of Pickering and TRCA; and the block 

plans for the employment lands. Mark indicated that in the Seaton Master Trail Plan the crossings 

for Highway 407 right-of-way will likely be confined to proposed north/south road locations as 

existing culverts are not of sufficient size to accommodate trail segments and that Highway 7 is 

proposed as major east/west spine to provide regional connectivity. 

Lura Consulting 4



Preliminary Management and Implementation Strategy for Master Trail Plan – Mark Schollen, 


Mark explained that the implementation strategy includes the following key components to be 

expanded upon in Phase 3: 

A. Alignment corridor determined through field assessment and stage II archaeological assessment 

to be completed as part of the NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan study process: 

• Primary Neighbourhood Connectors 

B. Alignment to be determined through future planning process 


• Primary On-Road Bike Routes; 

• Secondary On-Road Bike Routes; 

• Secondary Neighbourhood Connectors / Recreational Trails; and 


Mark noted that the future planning process may include: 

• EA process for roads and infrastructure; 

• Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) / neighbourhood planning process and subdivision 

approval process; 

• Site specific environmental studies to confirm appropriate assessment in consideration of 

sensitivity of natural heritage features and functions; and 

• Archaeological assessment. 

5. PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK 

This section provides an overview of the feedback received from participants at the community 

meeting. 

General Questions, Comments and Concerns: 

Immediately following the presentation, David asked participants if they had any questions or 

comments directly related to the presentation. The following summary identifies the participants’ 

input and response provided. 

Maps 

Q1: Where do the maps come from and how accurate are they? There are things that are on the 

maps that don’t exist today (e.g. Brock Rd and 5 th concession buildings). 

A: Mark Schollen – Each of the maps has different source. They include: 

Map 1 – Aerial photo base map of the NHS provided by the TRCA with mapping layers 

overlaid by North-South Environmental 

Map 2 – Aerial photo base map of the NHS provided by the TRCA with a topographic layer 

created by North-South Environmental 

Map 3 was provided through the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) 

Map 4 is an existing mapping with additional trails information provided by Schollen and 

Company 

Map 5 has the trail framework and was created from an existing map with roads/buildings 

then Schollen and Company added the trails. 

Lura Consulting 5



Size of Natural Heritage Area 

Q2: The Natural Heritage System (NHS) map is from Natural Resources and looks like the 1 st 

generation map; was there more natural heritage added on? 

A: Mark Schollen – This map has not been changed from the 52% natural heritage presented in 

the CPDP. 

Q3: The province’s goal is to have 66% of Seaton as natural heritage lands. How much natural 

heritage will there be with this plan? 

A: Gail Anderson - Parks, golf courses, buffer areas, and other green spaces all count towards 

the 66% green space goal for Seaton. We think this is still accurate. 

Impacts of Infrastructure 

Q4: If there is new infrastructure that goes through the natural heritage area, will it reduce the 

total amount of natural heritage? 

A: Gail Anderson - We will try to minimize the impacts of infrastructure to the natural heritage 

system. 

C: There should be natural heritage without interference. 

Q5: Are there other technologies to help eliminate the need for infrastructure that crosses the 

NHS? 

A: Gail Anderson – There will be a separate servicing plan and Environmental Assessment 

process to determine location of infrastructure for Seaton. 

Other 

C: I recommend that the plan identify cold water and warm water streams/creeks for 

management planning purposes. 

Q6: Sediment ponds do not provide sufficient space for fish habitat. Are you looking at other 

options? 

A: Gail Anderson – This will be looked at through the servicing plan and Environmental 

Assessment process. 

6. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 

The following provides highlights of the discussions at the community meeting as well as feedback 

provided through worksheets at, and following, the meeting. 

Participants were asked to address three questions: 

1. Thinking about the preliminary NHS ecological management strategies and goals… What do 

you like? What would you change or add? 


3. Looking at the Draft Concept Master Trails Plan…What do you like? What would you 

change or add? 

Participant feedback is summarized in the tables below. 

Lura Consulting 6



PRELIMINARY NHS ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND GOALS 

Concerns and Comments 

Participants indicated that they had the following concerns or comments: 

• The landscape of ecological-based analysis is an excellent premise but is being completed in 

isolation from infrastructure/ road footprint. 

• The arterial road is routed directly through the natural heritage area and impacts species of 

concern, regionally significant species, limits wildlife east-west movement and contributes to 

fragmentation. 

• The plan focuses on human needs over wildlife habitat and biodiversity needs. 

• The plan concedes the development of Seaton rather than land banking the entire area and 

building intensively in South Pickering where some transit, roads and other infrastructure 

already exists. 

• There is still a need for agricultural lands in close proximity to the GTA for people and wildlife. 

• The knowledge of species found in Seaton is limited and outdated. 

• The amount of natural heritage being preserved is insufficient (53% or less). 

• The plan includes corridors that are less than 200 m in width and will include paved trails and 

potential lighting, which will scare most of the wildlife away. 

Suggested Improvements 

Participants suggested the team: 

• Look at the proposed development areas because they could be significant wildlife habitat. 

• Link or include details of fisheries management plan in the NHS management strategy and 

address how they will evolve together. 

• Review connections because the NHS seems too fragmented with the proposed plan. 

• Reduce road impacts and consider moving the arterial road to Taunton Road with an 

interchange or cloverleaf rather than a river crossing. 

• Update species data with more current sources/findings and confirm species at risk findings. 


• A participant asked if placement of urban nodes could be changed. Mark indicated that there 

are no opportunities to change the location or size of the NHS in this study. He indicated that 

the proposed connections will be put in place in anticipation of land use. 

CULTURAL, HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK 

Comments on Interpretation 

Participants suggested that: 

• Whitevale Road is recognized as a heritage district and there are opportunities to create an 

Lura Consulting 7




educational route that connects all 10 communities within Seaton and highlights the 100-year 

architectural history. There should be greater emphasis on interpretation as a mechanism to 

achieve the social, cultural and heritage goals for Seaton. 

• The plan include a cultural interpretation centre at Whitevale Road using an existing heritage 

designated home - an ‘outpost’. 

• Seaton should focus on being a “green community” that benefits human use and wildlife. 

Comments on First Nations Considerations 

Participants: 

• Asked if the 1967 map of First Nations’ sites was used in the study. Richard indicated that it 

was. 

• Indicated that First Nations interpretation could be part of the trail plan. 

Positive Aspects 

DRAFT CONCEPT MASTER TRAILS PLAN 

Participants indicated that they liked: 

• The connections between neighborhoods that provide bike paths so people have an alternative 

to driving which will cut GHG emissions. 

• The attempts to add area to the NHS. 

Concerns and Comments 

A number of participants indicated they were concerned about the number of trails presented, 

particularly the primary and secondary trails that are 3m wide, because they segment the NHS, 

reduce availability of the core area and may adversely impact wildlife. Mark indicated that 80% of 

the proposed trails are located in agricultural fields, away from sensitive features, and that the plan 

includes restoration of the NHS. Mark added that the trail width of 3m was included to allow for 

police and EMS access. A participant indicated that access should be limited to service vehicles 

only. 

Participants were also concerned that: 

• The trail size was determined based on capital expense rather than a true (physical) hierarchy. 

• Asphalt trails, lighting, fencing and police cars would become part of a natural system. 

• The existing Seaton Trail is exciting and challenging and would not lend itself to 3m pavement 

that could be policed. 

• There seems to be a lack of concern about how wildlife will move through the NHS. 

• Winter maintenance that includes using salt on the trails and lighting is not beneficial for 

wildlife. 

Suggestions 

• A participant suggested that the team look for other routes for bike trails other than the 

Lura Consulting 8



proposed arterial road network/ systems as motorized vehicles may be a conflict. 

• Another participant suggested the transportation corridors for biking to employment areas 

should be provided by bike lanes that could be maintained by usual road maintenance. 

In addition, participants had a number of questions relating to trails that are presented below. 

Responses provided by Mark Schollen are presented unless otherwise identified. 

Trail Usage and User Types 

Q1: What are the anticipated users groups for each of the types of trails presented? 

A: Primary and secondary trails are designed as multimodal trails. They have the same 

dimensions (3m width), but differ in the types of materials used, anticipated users and 

phasing of implementation. The low impact trails are designed for hiking only and the 

dedicated bike routes are intended for bikes only with sidewalk system for pedestrians. 

Q2: How will you segregate users on the various trails? 

A: Some trails are intended for specific modes while others will be multimodal. 

Q3: How did you determine usage? 

A: We used neighborhood forecasts (recognizing that there are no specific plans yet). 

Trail Type, Size and Connectivity 

Q4: Why are there so many defined trails in the concept? We know people just go off the trails 

anyway, so why can’t we just let people walk where they want? 

A: Seaton has a lot of sensitive features, wetlands, and archaeological sites so we need to find 

ways to gently direct people to where we want them to go by using trails that will help protect 

these special features. 

Q5: Why are there so many trails in the north end near Duffins Creek? Can we incorporate bike 

friendly road design in development areas? Can you recommend incorporating GO train 

access trails into sub-division/urban designs? I’m concerned about the amount of trees that 

will be cut to create these trails. 

A: Councillor Littley - There are suggestions for trails in neighborhoods, but the details of urban 

design have not been completed yet. Pickering is incorporating bike-friendly elements in 

design standards. 

A: Mirek Sharp – In the NHS, 30m buffers were created around features specifically to allow for 

future trails. The amount of tree cutting required will be minimal, and will only occur in spots 

where there are no other options to connect neighbourhoods. There will also be low impact 

trails designed for natural appreciation. 

Q6: Not everyone from Seaton will work in the employment lands, and not everyone working 

there will be from Seaton; what percentage of trail usage will really be needed to provide 

access to these lands? 

A: There is a need for a regional bicycle network that links the employment lands. This plan 

provides that connectivity. 

Q7: How far is it from GO station to development areas? 

A: It is about 200-400m. 

Lura Consulting 9



Implementation and Maintenance Concerns 

Q8: Will there be snow removal on the trails? 

A: Issues relating to maintenance and implementation will be determined in Phase 3 of the 

study process, but my preference would be to provide snow maintenance on the primary 

trails. 

C: I don’t want the Seaton Hiking Trail to be paved. It does not lend itself to pavement, and trail 

users are looking for a different experience. 

A: We are not proposing to pave the Seaton Hiking Trail. It is not within the scope of this study, 

but the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Association 

will be looking at its management in a parallel study. 

C: If you look at areas where there are paved trails, you will find they end up with a network of 

ad hoc trails around them, so paving will not solve the problem. 

Q9: Will the trails be lit at night? 

A: Issues relating to lighting of trails will be determined in Phase 3 of the study process. 

Q10: Who will do the restoration work? 

A: Issues relating to restoration will be determined in Phase 3, but strategies could include the 

TRCA, partnering with First Nations, NGO/community groups. The Plan will identify what 

needs to be done, where it needs to be done and then make suggestions about who should 

be responsible. The ultimate decision on who is responsible will involve a series of 

discussions with the province, municipalities and others. 

Q11: What is the cost for the project in terms of planning and maintenance? 

A: The plan development cost is approximately $250, 000. The construction and maintenance 

costs will be determined in Phase 3. 

7. NEXT STEPS AND CLOSING REMARKS 

David Dilks thanked participants for their time and feedback and reminded everyone that they could 

submit additional comments by December 14 th , 2007. Gail Anderson also thanked participants for 

their time and feedback. 

Lura Consulting 10



Appendix A: List of Participants 

COMMUNITY MEETING PARTICIPANTS 

Name 

Organization (where provided) 

Tom Albani 

Metrus Development 

Michael Arnts 

Erika Babiuk 

Brian Bishop 

Phillips Engineering 

Michael Coakley 

John Connelly 


Steve Heuchert 


L. Hives 

Tyler Hoar 

Bob Johnson 

Colin Lathe 

Councillor Bonnie Littley City of Pickering 

Stu Logan 

Pasquale Malandrino 

Chris Matson 

Matson, Mc Connell Ltd. 

Rick McConnell 

Andy McKinnon 

Wolf Mueller 

Jason Murray 

Charles Neville 

Whitevale District Residents Association 

Terry Nuspl 

Kevin O'Connor 

Colin O’Neil 

W. O'Neill 

Chris Robinson 



Catherine Rose 

City of Pickering Planning Department 

Ken Rovinelli 

President Chair of Pickering and Ajax Citizens 

David Steele 

Together 

Lloyd Thomas 


B. Twiner Horticultural 

Al Williams 

CG Willson 

Owl's Eye Project 

Gordon Willson 

Greater Whitevale Deep Water Port Authority 

Bernadette Zubrisky 

Sierra Club 


Gail Anderson 


Jordan Harrison 


Ralph Eades 


Steve Gaunt 




PROJECT TEAM 

David Dilks 


Susan Hall 


Lura Consulting 11



Markus Hillar 

Mark Schollen 

Mirek Sharp 

Richard Unternan 



North South Environmental 


Lura Consulting 12



Appendix B: Agenda 


Community Meeting 

Wednesday, December 5, 2007 

Pickering Recreation Complex – O’Brien Rooms A & B 

1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering 


To introduce the Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan process to the community and seek feedback on preliminary 

management strategies for the Natural Heritage System and the draft concept 

master trails plan. 


OPEN HOUSE 

6:00 – 7:00 p.m. Opportunity to view displays and meet informally with Steering Committee 

and Project Team members 

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 

7:00 p.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks – Gail Anderson, Steering Committee 


7:20 p.m. Presentation - Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail 

Plan: Preliminary Management Strategies and Draft Concept Master Trail Plan 



8:20 p.m. Roundtable Feedback Session 

1. Thinking about the preliminary ecological management strategies and 

goals…What do you like? What would you change or add? 


3. Looking at the draft concept master trails plan…What do you like? What would 

you change or add? 

9:25 p.m. Closing Remarks and Next Steps – Gail Anderson 


Lura Consulting 13



Appendix C: Individual Workbook Comments 


What do you like? 

• The landscape of ecological based analysis is an excellent premise but was completed in 

isolation from infrastructure/ road foot print 

What would you change or add? 

Integration with the Transportation Grid 

Not at all linked or integrated with roads/ transportation grid. The whole concept is of landscape 

based natural heritage but the strategy is compromised by an arterial road that: 

• Is routed directly through an area of high natural heritage value with the most species of concern 

and regionally significant species; and 

• Acts as a amateur barrier to E/W wildlife movement. Fragmentation is noted as a major cause of 

habitat and species loss in the natural heritage movement, yet this barrier only adds to 

fragmentation. The arterial road could be routed to Taunton Road with an interchange or 

cloverleaf rather than river crossing. 

• There is no reduction of road impacts included. 

Fragmentation and Loss of Diversity 

• The fragmentation of this last bit of real intact green space left in the entire GTA. This plan 

focuses on human use for remaining green space, but what about other species? Species 

extinction from loss of habitat is in the Top 5 major environmental issues facing the planet. 

There is not enough room left for biodiversity 

Infrastructure 

• Why are there old school sewage systems instead of a sustainable grey water system? Grey 

water systems are easily created within each suburb and could really halt damage to the 

watershed. They would limit effects on watershed and are feasible and cost effective if 

compared to the cost of building infrastructure, plus cost to damaging water quality. 

• Building new infrastructure in Seaton will compromise the ecological integrity and will COST 

Pickering residents increased tax levies to pay for all the people who will compete with them to 

commute to Toronto. 

• Settling ponds for stormwater management will pollute the creeks with warm, dirty water. They 

also fool birds and other animals into thinking they're natural ponds, which leads to the death of 

nestlings etc. when the water levels rise extremely and unnaturally rapidly with every rainfall and 

drown them. 

Development 

• The plan concedes to the development of Seaton. Instead of designing trails around a new piece 

of urban sprawl the better choice is to land bank the entire area and build intensively in South 

Pickering where same transit roads and other infrastructure already exists. Multiple roads, 

human and pet intrusions will degrade the environment. 

Need for Agricultural Lands 

• We still need agricultural lands in close proximity to the current five million population of GTA. 

• You need to realize that the farm fields that presently exist in the area provide food for wildlife. If 

they're paved over and replaced with housing you will lose the wildlife, which depend on that 

Lura Consulting 14




food, especially in winter (deer and turkeys, to name two, eat the corn that has been left on the 

ground). 

Biological Inventory Data 

• This is an insufficient NHS plan. Your management plan is awful, you don't know what is living in 

the area, and the limited information you do have is outdated and vague. It's not even work from 

your own study, its secondhand information and even an EA study would have more detail. The 

TRCA informed me that the species lists you used were at least 7 or 8 years old. Your chart on 

the project website (www.mah.gov.on.ca/centralpickering ) says there are only 8 "fur-bearing 

mammals", while I can name at least 22 species to be found there. You say there are 13 reptile 

and amphibian species, while I can name 15 positively there. This calls into question your claims 

that there are only 3 or 4 species at risk in the area. 

Percentage of NHS in Seaton Lands 

• Premier McGuinty claimed that 66% of the Seaton lands were being saved. You've cut that 

down to 53%, but in reality it's much less than that. "Saved habitat" shouldn't include paved 

trails, golf courses, cemeteries, playgrounds, etc. All the land needs to be actually studied before 

you start dividing it. What is claimed on the website about what is being done to preserve the 

wildlife and ecology of the area is not the same as what you stated at the public meeting. 

• With 26 kilometres of trails, paved 3m wide and with an additional 1.5m clear cut on each side, 

I'm wondering what percentage of your 53% of "saved land" is subtracted by this? That land 

taken away for trails should not be included in the area of land you claim to be saving. 53% is 

not enough. 

Size of Corridors 

• You have wildlife corridors on your map that are definitely less than 200m wide according to the 

map scale, while you said at the meeting they'd be at least 600m wide. You plan on putting 

paved trails through them, and lights. This would scare most of the wildlife away. 

Green Community 


• Focus on Seaton as a “green community” 

• How will Seaton be a "green" or "sustainable" community? What are you doing any differently 

from existing developments? The white areas on your map will all be developed, re-graded and 

paved, and no longer will be available for use by most wildlife. 

Historical Interpretation 

• Historic Whitevale Road is a central heritage designated corridor – a ‘slow’ road a walking 

road (which it is now) that connects Pickering’s most intact architectural collection of heritage 

homes. 

• Establish a cultural interpretation centre using an existing heritage designated home- an 

‘outpost’ of PMV 

• I would like to meet with open minded experts to explore opportunities to make greater use of 

Whitevale Road to help meet social and cultural objective - - more than just ‘recognizing’ the 

road and its surviving cultural heritage attributes/ resources 

• Protecting five buildings over the entire Seaton lands just isn't enough. You're not saving our 

Lura Consulting 15



heritage when you develop the farms and woodlots that have been there for generations. 

These cannot ever be replaced once they're gone. 

What would you change or add? 

DRAFT CONCEPT MASTER TRAILS PLAN 

Roadways 

• Suggest look for other routes for bike trails than proposed arterial road network/ systems 

o Roads/ Roadways are for motorized vehicles conflicts? 

o Historical Whitevale Road should be the connecting (walk/bike) link road with all 10 

neighbourhoods 

o Limit vehicle access to service vehicles 

• The NHS Plan is severely impacted by arterial road, which fragments habitat. Roads are barriers 

that impact ecosystem integrity with footprints large than the asphalt. I would like the NHS team 

to sincerely address road footprint and not keep NH system in isolation from the implications of 

road networks. Very Good NHSMP! 

• Transportation corridors for biking to employment areas should be provided by bike lanes that 

could be maintained by usual road maintenance. 

Trail Material 

• There is far too much paved trail, and you are overly segmenting the wildlife areas with all the 

trails. 

• Asphalt trails are not natural trails. Lighting, fencing and police cars are not part of a natural 

system. 

Trail Design 

• This sounds like the most boring hiking trails ever contemplated. The existing trails are exciting 

and would not lend itself to 3m pavement that could be policed. Please just leave it alone. This is 

nothing wrong with walking single file. There seems to be no concern about how wildlife will move 

through the natural heritage system. Will they be sharing the 3m asphalt trails? Fencing and 

barriers are offensive. 

Winter Maintenance 

• Using salt on the trails and lighting them will not be beneficial for most things already living there. 

The rivers will not remain clean with salt from trails, not to mention all the residential streets, 

driveways and sidewalks that will run off. There are also industrial areas planned all along the 

upstream areas! How will this keep the water clean? 

Lura Consulting 16



Additional Comments 

Fisheries Management and Duffins Creek Integrity 

• Eventual detail on Fisheries Mgt. Plan is needed. How will NHS ecological mgt. strategy handle 

evolving FMP? 

• The Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program partners COFM, TRCA, MNR-Aurora 

District are undertaking stream restoration projects on Duffins Creek to enhance and increase 

native species habitat (Atlantic Salmon). We have in one instance has a project denied by NHS- 

MNR because the evaluation has not been completed to assess the NHS. We hope that soon 

these projects will be able to go ahead, given they have agency support and involvement. 

• Though Seaton Plans not your mandate, environmental integrity seems to be as is the Duffins 

watershed. The employment lands along #7 are planned for this area, which is the most 

significant for recharge for the watershed. Spills and pollution will enter the tributaries at point 

source and will be impossible to contain or remediate if aquifers become contaminated. If your 

mandate is the environment then these designated employment areas should me moved to 

already polluted areas within the existing urban boundary. 

• With all that we've lost and the relatively few clean rivers left flowing into Lake Ontario, not to 

mention the rarity of remaining cold water creek systems, you should be doing far more to save 

the Duffins Watershed. Talk of open "settling ponds" for the water runoff from paved areas (road 

salt, oil, gas and antifreeze spills, etc.) and people's yards (herbicide, pesticide, chemical 

fertilizer, dog feces, etc.), heating up and adding warm, dirty water to the cold creeks will destroy 

them as habitat for the rare species that live there now. This is wrong. 

Aquifer Protection 

• All the people living in this area get their water from aquifers. The aquifers are replenished from 

both the green and white area and should be shown on the maps. Are there areas that are more 

of a recharge area and should they not be protected. Asphalt and cement will wipe out he 

recharge areas 

Lura Consulting 17

APPENDIX C.5 

Meeting Report 

Meeting: 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan 

First Nations Meeting 

Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 

Location: 


777 Bay St. Room 2B 

Attendees: 


- Bruce Singbush 

- Gail Anderson 

- Jordan Harrison 


-Ralph Eades 


- Mark Schollen 

- Marcus Hillar 

Archaeological Services Inc. 

- Dr. Ron Williamson 

North-South Environmental 

- Mirek Sharp 

Huron Wendat Nation 

- Councillor Luc Lainé 

Gilberts LLP 

- David Donnelly 

Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation 

- Chief Kris Nahrgang 

Six Nations of the Grand River 

- Bill Woodworth 

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte 

- Chief Donald Maracle 

Rama Mnjikaning First Nation 

-Sheri Wilson 

William Treaties First Nations 

-Karry Sandy 


- Brian Agensky 

- Frank Dieterman 


- Carolyn Woodland 


- Steve Gaunt 


-Dorothy Skinner 

1. Introductions 

Bruce Singbush provided a summary of the meeting’s purpose and an overview of the agenda. 

David Donnelly stated that the Big Bay Point Resort judicial review brought forth by his clients is 

relevant to Seaton and to this consultation process. Bruce Singbush noted that this matter is before the 

courts and cannot be discussed at this time. 

2. Opening prayer 

1

APPENDIX C.5 

3. EA Status update 

Brian Agensky provided an overview of the status of the six outstanding EA mitigation measures that 

relate to First Nations and archaeological matters. 

• Protection of the four confirmed villages and retention of a First Nations monitor is now 

enshrined in the Central Pickering Development Plan under the Cultural Heritage Policies 4 

and 6b respectively. 

• Documents provided as part of the EA have been translated to French and circulated to the 

Huron Wendat. 

• The Huron Wendat and the current land owner plan to meet to further discuss Spruce Ridge II 

Site. 

• Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was retained to study the buffer area around the four 

villages. The report has been finalized, subsequently translated to French and circulated to the 

founding First Nation Circle members. 

• ASI has produced a model to determine the location of ossuaries, this report has also been 

translated to French and circulated. 

David Donnelly sought an official response to his client’s 7 point negotiation list. Bruce Singbush 

noted he had not received any final document outlining any such items, rather he had seen a draft 

dated August 14, 2007 on Gilbert’s letterhead. In reviewing the draft document, Mr. Singbush noted 

that many of the items have been addressed per the status update provided by the ORC, specifically: 

- Item 1 - protection of the four village sites and further investigation of the Spruce Ridge site; 

- Item 4 - ossuary model report; 

- Item 5 - village buffers; and 

- Item 6 - archaeological monitors. 

With respect to the remaining items, Mr. Singbush stated that: 

- Item 2 – landscape restoration of all protected sites - was being addressed through this 

process 

- Item 3 - curation facility- was somewhat unclear as to its intended purpose, scope and size. 

- Item 7 – financial compensation based on an enterprise liability charge – was unclear as to its 

purpose and scope. 

Action item - Mr. Donnelly agreed to send Mr. Singbush more details on items 3 and 7. 

4. Compensation and Consultation Discussion (all) 

Luc Lainé and David Donnelly stated that there should be compensation for the loss of artefacts that 

may be destroyed through construction, the loss of cultural heritage, and the loss of future 

opportunities to use the land or be connected to their ancestry. There was no agreement by other First 

Nations representatives on this concept. All First Nations representatives agreed that this is not the 

table to discuss this type of compensation because not all First Nations are present, and those who are 

have not received direction from their respective councils. The First Nations representatives 

concluded that this matter is one that the First Nations required further discussion on amongst 

themselves. Bruce Singbush was asked about the possibility of a provincially-funded First Nations 

conference or working-group to facilitate this type of discussion. Mr. Singbush replied that such broad 

issues are best addressed and coordinated through the new Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA). 

Action item - Mr. Singbush committed to identifying the appropriate contact within MAA. 

2

APPENDIX C.5 

David Donnelly requested that his clients be paid for their participation in this process. Mr. Donnelly 

referred to an agreement that the Huron Wendat had previously entered into with the Ontario Realty 

Corporation (ORC) for consultation services related to the class environmental assessment for the 

disposition of government-owned developable lands within Seaton and the acquisition of 

environmentally-sensitive lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Mr. Donnelly requested that a similar 

agreement be entered into by MMAH with the Huron Wendat and, potentially, all other First Nations. 

Bruce Singbush replied that he was not aware of the details of this contract. Mr. Singbush stated that 

he would need to understand the scope of the work being proposed and what expertise is being 

procured in order to determine whether it could be addressed. Bruce Singbush noted that he has no 

direction on the issue of compensation and, therefore, is not in a position to provide an answer at this 

meeting. 

Action item – Mr. Singbush committed to reply to the group in writing with respect to a participation 

payment for this process. 

5. Presentations 

Mark Schollen provided an overview of the study work completed to date (background data and 

sensitivity mapping), and discussed the progress made on the draft conceptual framework for the trail 

system since the last meeting. He noted that he is looking for feedback as he works through various 

concepts. 

Mirek Sharp provided an overview of the ecological component of this work. His findings have 

helped inform the proposed placement of the primary connector trails. He recognized the concept that 

has been proposed for a First Nations interpretive building, and expressed the opinion that the Seaton 

lands offer a unique opportunity to explore restoration initiatives that reflect traditional First Nations 

land management practices, and interpret those to the public. Mr. Sharp noted that First Nations 

involvement would be essential to fully develop this idea and committed that the Management Plan 

would allow and encourage its development if and when it is deemed feasible 

Ron Williamson described the approach used to address cultural heritage and archaeological resources 

in Seaton. He explained how the primary connector trails in the NHS were recently surveyed. Chief 

Nahrgang, who monitored the work, confirmed that the assessment was done to a very high standard. 

One stone structure was found outside of the proposed trail alignment which will be investigated 

further. A number of trails were not assessed because they had not yet been ploughed, so work will 

resume when the conditions are correct. 

6. General discussion (all). 

Ron Williamson relayed a concern he received from Angela Johnson (Scugog Island First Nation) that 

the archaeological record always seems to be that of the Huron Wendat. Dr. Williamson explained 

that there were Anishnabeg sites in the NHS and there could be more, however the Huron sites are 

often more visible because they are so large and result from longer term settlements. 

Chief Maracle stated he was concerned that all of Seaton had not had a thorough archaeological 

assessment. Ron Williamson explained that the developable land had been surveyed completely 

according to modern standards by three archaeologists and more than 70 sites were documented. The 

NHS has not been surveyed in its entirety in an effort to minimize disturbance. 

3

APPENDIX C.5 

Luc Lainé asked if biking and walking through the trails during the winter months was feasible. Mark 

Schollen replied that he will recommend ploughing the trails during the winter, which is costly but 

necessary to encourage people to use the trail system as an alternative to automobile travel. 

Chief Maracle asked about the deer herd within the NHS and whether there was the potential for 

culling. Mirek Sharpe replied that the over-population of deer is a common problem in southern 

Ontario and that from an ecological perspective, culling may be a good thing. He noted, however, that 

there was not a detailed assessment of the herd and that there are many difficult issues associated with 

culling in an urban setting. 

Chief Maracle recommended that Bruce Singbush and the consultants provide an NHS presentation to 

the Iroquois Caucus. 

Action item - Chief Maracle offered to speak to the chair of the Caucus to see if there is an interest. 

7. Closing prayer. 

Report prepared by: 

Jordan Harrison, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 

Gail Anderson, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 

4

Appendix C.6 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan 

and Master Trail Plan: 


DRAFT Meeting Record 

April 2 nd 2008 

Pickering Central Library – Auditorium 

Pickering, Ontario 

Schollen & Company Inc. ~ Unterman McPhail Inc. ~ North-South Environmental Inc. ~ 

Archaeological Services Inc. ~ Lura Consulting


April 2 nd , 2008 Open House and Community Meeting Record 

1. COMMUNITY MEETING PURPOSE 

The April 2 nd community meeting was the second hosted by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 

Housing (MMAH) to receive feedback from the community as part of the process to develop the 

Seaton Natural Heritage System (NHS) Management and Master Trail Plan. Specifically, the 

meeting was designed to: 

• Provide an overview of the Draft Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan; 

• Provide a summary of community input to date; and 

• Illustrate how the various comments have been responded to in the process of developing 

the final draft document. 

This Meeting Record focuses primarily on the feedback and comments made by the meeting 

participants at the open house and community meeting. Written comments received following the 

meeting will be documented and responded to using the same “issue-response” tables as were 

used during the previous round of consultations. 

Thirty-seven participants with an interest in the Seaton NHS Management and Master Trail Plan 

attended the community meeting. A list of participants is included in Appendix A and the meeting 

agenda is found in Appendix B. Appendix C includes written comments from completed feedback 

forms submitted by participants at the meeting. Maps of the ecological management framework and 

concept trail plan – as presented at the meeting – are available on request. 

If you have any questions or comments regarding this Meeting Record, please contact Jason 

Diceman at: tel: 416-536-7653; fax: 416-536-3453; or email: jdiceman@lura.ca 

2. COMMUNITY MEETING FORMAT 

OPEN HOUSE: The open house began at 6:00 p.m.. Display boards summarizing the Draft Seaton 

Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan were provided and Project Team 

staff were available to answer questions and receive feedback. Copies of key display boards were 

available as colour handouts to participants as they arrived at the meeting. CDs of the complete 

draft plan document were available on request. Participants were encouraged to review the 

materials and to provide comments at the meeting using feedback forms. For those who wished to 

provide more detailed comments on the draft plan, it was noted that comments could be provided up 

until April 15. (Editor’s Note – the deadline for comments on the draft plan was subsequently 

extended until April 30.) 

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION: The formal meeting began at 7:00 p.m. with opening remarks, 

following by a presentation by the Project Team, and concluding with a facilitated question and 

comment period. Highlights from the presentation and ensuring discussion are provided in the 

remainder of this report. 

Lura Consulting 1



3. WELCOME AND AGENDA REVIEW 

Bruce Singbush, Chair of the project’s Steering Committee, welcomed participants to the community 

meeting and thanked them for coming. He briefly explained the purpose of the meeting and 

encouraged participants to review and provide feedback on the work done by the Project Team to 

date. Mr. Singbush mentioned that this study is being conducted ahead of other studies to ensure 

early consideration of how best to protect and enhance the Seaton Natural Heritage System before 

development of the Seaton community occurs. He noted that the Steering Committee aims to 

complete this project by May 2008. 

Meeting facilitator, David Dilks, also welcomed participants and explained that Lura has been 

retained to assist MMAH and the consulting team with the public consultation component of this 

project. He reviewed the agenda and explained that there would be a presentation followed by a 

question and answer period and facilitated discussion. 

4. PRESENTATION 

Highlights of the Draft Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail 

Plan – Led by Mark Schollen, Schollen and Company 

Mark Schollen reviewed the Project Team organization, study goals and process to develop the 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan. He indicated that the 

team is currently developing recommendations in Phase 3 of the study process, which involves 

producing the implementation, operation and management plans and consulting with the Steering 

Committee, First Nations and community before delivering the final report. 

Mark gave an overview of the comments received by MMAH and the Project Team during previous 

consultations via consultation meetings and written submissions. He explained that all comments 

were documented, consolidated and responded to using customized “issue-response” tables. The 

comments received were consolidated into the following themes: 

1. General / Overarching Issues 

2. Preliminary Management Strategies and Goals 

i. General 

ii. Agriculture in the NHS 

iii. Ground and Surface Water 

iv. Wildlife 

3. Cultural / Heritage / Archaeological Work 

i. Cultural Heritage 

4. Draft Concept Master Trails Plan 

i. Trail System / Hierarchy 

ii. Ownership / Maintenance / Safety 

iii. Interpretation /Education 

iv. Impacts on Whitevale Golf Club 

v. Environmental / Ecological / Wildlife Impacts 

vi. Integration with Seaton Trail 

Lura Consulting 2



Some examples of responses provided by the Project Team to the comments include: 

• Wording has been provided in the document to address the potential for continued 

agriculture in the NHS. Allotment gardens are permitted within the NHS and the idea of First 

Nations agricultural practice demonstration sites is promoted. 

• Guidelines related to the location and designs of stormwater management facilities are 

provided. 

o Recommendations to guide the protection and enhancement of wetlands and 

o 

restoration of riparian zones have been provided. 

Maximizing the area of the NHS in natural cover promotes groundwater infiltration 

(with subsequent benefit for wetlands and watercourses) 

• Monitoring recommendations address the need for ongoing wildlife inventory work in the 

future. 

• Habitat restoration recommendations are provided. 

• Prioritization of restoration areas responded to the need to maintain/improve linkage across 

site prior to development. 

• The trail plan was scrutinized and segments of trail were deleted where possible. 

• Ownership and management roles and responsibilities have been provided. 

o The provision of winter maintenance has been recommended. 

o A recommended strategy to address the lighting issue has been provided. 

• An interpretation strategy has been developed and included in the document. 

o Natural and Cultural Heritage interpretation opportunities have been identified. 

o Recommendations to guide the development of a comprehensive interpretive plan 

have been provided. 

• Modifications to the proposed trail system in the vicinity of the Whitevale Golf Club were 

made to address public safety concerns. 

• The trail plan was scrutinized in detail to ensure that areas of encroachment have been 

absolutely minimized. 

o 

o 

Trail alignment was overlaid on NHS and refined to minimize intrusion into existing 

features. 

Trails are located predominantly on agricultural / cultural lands and buffers within the 

NHS. 

• Maps illustrating potential connections between the Seaton Hiking Trail and the proposed 

MTP have been included in the document. 

Mark explained that a number of comments transcended the scope of the Seaton Natural Heritage 

System Management Plan and Master Trail Plan project. These comments were documented but 

could not be addressed as they were outside the Project Team’s mandate. 

In the latter half of Mark’s presentation he summarized the main sections and sub-sections of the 

draft plan document, and encouraged participants to review the draft plan in detail and provide 

additional feedback. 

Mirek Sharp of North-South Environmental joined Mark to present several slides on the NHS 

Ecological Management Guidelines. He spoke about how the Project Team proposes to maintain 

natural units and restore the disturbed units of territory by setting clear goals and prescriptive 

actions. 

Mark completed his review of the draft plan contents and stressed that the recommended provisions 

for maintenance and monitoring of the NHS were key to the long term success of the project. 

Lura Consulting 3



Mark completed his presentation with a summary of the future process: 

• Review of the draft plan by: 

– Province 

– Region of Durham 

– City of Pickering 

– Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 

• Opportunity for feedback from: 

– Natural Heritage System Study Group members 

– First Nations representatives 

– Community members 

• Finalization of document – May 2008 

• Endorsement by Province and Region of Durham and City of Pickering 

Participants were invited to take or request a copy of the draft plan on CD. It was also explained that 

The Central Pickering Development Plan is available on The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 

Housing web site: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page329.aspx 

5. FACILITATED DISCUSSION 

Following the presentation, Facilitator David Dilks asked participants if they had any questions or 

comments on the material presented. The following summary identifies the participants’ questions 

(Q) and comments (C), along with responses (where provided). 

Q1: Can we get a copy this plan in print format? 

A: Copies are currently only being offered in CD format. (Editor’s Note – arrangements were 

made to provide hard copies to several participants who requested these following the 

meeting.) 

Q2: The Premier promised 2/3 of Seaton would be reserved for the Greenbelt. How much is set 

aside? 

A: Two thirds is to be set aside for green lands, but that issue is beyond the scope of this study. 

This study proposes a management plan for the Natural Heritage system that has already 

been identified. 

Q3: When will we see a 3D ground water / surface water analysis model? 

A: A separate technical study of “water balance” is being conducted by the Province. See Bruce 

Singbush for more details and documentation on this separate study. 

Q4: (Provided slides) I live in the agriculture reserve. I think the existing Seaton Hiking Trail 

should be realigned for safety concerns: it’s too narrow, steep, and not accessible. There 

are illegal ski jumps, cut trees, etc. People cross my property on ATVs, dirt bikes, etc. 

A: The study scope does not include analysis of the existing Seaton Hiking Trail, although some 

thinking has been done to consider how to integrate the existing Seaton Trail with the new 

proposed trail system. Steve Gaunt from the Steering Committee added: there is a planning 

Lura Consulting 4



process underway to consider what to do with the Seaton Trail, but it is on a slower track 

than this project. One public meeting has been held so far. 

Q5: Could you clarify the number of trail kilometres and if there is a plan to salt the trail? 

A: The draft plan recommends approximately 72 km of trail. The plan does not recommend 

using salt. It suggests using sand and snow removal to make paths passable in the winter. 

Q6: How did you make the “walkability” decisions for path routes? 

A: The design aims to connect proximate neighbourhoods and to allow for travel via the trail 

system to popular locations, such as schools and places of worships. 

Q7: Few residents use the Seaton Hiking Trail. Are there any plans for promotion of the trail 

system? 

A: The draft plan includes a way finding strategy, obvious trail heads, and an interpretative plan. 

All these should help promote frequent use of the future trail. 

Q8: What are the plans for the white parts of the map (referring to the display boards)? 

A. The City of Pickering has to decide how these lands will be developed in the future. 

Q9: I thought stormwater management ponds are not ecologically sound. Why are they included 

in the plan? 

A: Another separate process will decide on servicing plans including stormwater management 

ponds. If there is a decision to use stormwater management ponds, the draft plan includes 

provisions of how to deploy them in a manner that aims to reduce potential negative impacts. 

Q10: When housing developments and infrastructure are built, will it cause our taxes to rise? How 

will we pay for this? 

A: A City of Pickering Councillor responded: Durham Region has a user pay system for water 

and sewage. 

Q11: How will they pay for management? We can’t afford higher taxes. 

A: The draft plan does address the need for funding to maintain the NHS and trail system. 

Q12: How are golf courses and cemeteries included as part of the natural heritage system? They 

are exempt from pesticide by-laws and are not natural. 

A: The NHS boundaries were provided to the Project Team by the Province. 

Q13: I am concerned about stormwater management, ecological connectivity and endangered 

specifies in the white areas of the map. 

A: The project does not have a mandate to address the white areas. You are invited to let 

TRCA, MNR, and the City of Pickering, etc. know about any endangered species you find. 

Within the green areas of the map we are striving to improve ecological connectivity. 

Lura Consulting 5



C1: I think that the trail paths are too large. There is too much surface area and too much to 

maintain. We need to consider road area. It is importance to reduce intrusions and 

fragmenting in the NHS. 

Q14: Could you recommend more trails with permeable surfaces? What about considerations for 

protecting animal habitats? 

A. Not all paths are asphalt. Many are soft surface, along with boardwalks and 

recommendations for designated wildlife crossings. 

C2: I think the more trails the better. I’m a walker. They should not be all asphalt. 

Q15: I am concerned about the sustainability of stormwater management in the built up areas. 

What consideration is there for fisheries? 

A: Fisheries are part of the study process to ensure streams are protected. Yes, there will be 

impacts from urban areas. We should be proud that this greenspace is one of the largest in 

Ontario. This plan is the best we can do within an urban setting. The plan includes 

recommendations to mitigate effects of stormwater and to address aquatic resources. 

Q16: Isn’t there a conflict of “natural” vs. “urban”. More than half of these paths are asphalt. Why 

do we need so much trail system? 

A: The reality is that 70,000 people will be living and working in Seaton. Many of these people 

will be using the trails and we need to ensure the trails are accessible and encourage users 

to stay on the trail. 

C3: I feel like this public consultation was just window dressing. I feel that others feel the same 

as me and do not agree with the trail creation mandate in general and such an extensive 

amount of trails in particular. 

A: The comments gathered today will inform the Management Plan for Seaton’s Natural 

Heritage and Trail System. There have been key themes discussed tonight and the 

consultants will consider the comments in finalizing the work on the Management Plan. 

6. NEXT STEPS AND CLOSING REMARKS 

Bruce Singbush thanked participants for their time and feedback. He mentioned that interest in 

stormwater management and the concern that there are still too many trails were common themes. 

He reiterated that the purpose of the study was to get expert advice from the Project Team, which 

will serve as recommendations to the Province and public bodies. Elected decision-makers will then 

scrutinize and debate the suggestions, ensure linkages with other related studies, and decide on 

how to proceed. David Dilks added that a report will be prepared by Lura summarizing the feedback 

received during the meeting. 

Lura Consulting 6



Appendix A: List of Participants 

COMMUNITY MEETING PARTICIPANTS 

Name 

Organization (where provided) 

Alex Maggiacomo 


Angela Gibson 

Town of Ajax 

Barb and Joe Vranic 

Citizens 

Barbara Twiner 

Bernadette Zubrisky 

Sierra Club of Canada 

Bohdan Kowalyk 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

C. Beattie and A McKinnon 



Dena Lewis 


Finley McLachlin 

Finley W McLachlin 

Fountain Siu 

Greg Bender 

MMM Group for Bell Canada 

Jason Murray 

Durham Mountain Bicycling Association 

Jim Robb 

Friends of the Rouge Watershed 

Joe Dickson 

Ajax – Pickering MPP 

John Connolly 


John Hourihan 

Kevin O’Connor 

Friends of the Range Watershed 

Libby Racansky 

Friends of the Farewell 

M Mahany 

Marion Thomas 

Mary Drummond 


Mellissa Clements 

Hardy Stevenson and Associates 

Micheal Coakley 


Murray and Eleanor Nash 

Nancy Mather 

Stonybrook Consulting 


Whitevale and District Residents’ Association 

Peter Whitfield 

Philip Yeung 


Reid Scott 

Judge Provincial Court Ontario 

Rick Johnson 

Regional Councillor (City of Pickering) 

Rob Lyon 

Shirley Curkan 

Heritage Pickering 

Steve Heuchert 


Terri Fancy 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

Tim Rance 


Tom Albani 


Lura Consulting 7



Gail Anderson 

Gary Bowen 

Heather Gardiner 

Ralph Eades 

Steve Gaunt 


David Dilks 

Jason Diceman 

Markus Hillar 

Mark Schollen 

Mirek Sharp 

Richard Unternan 








PROJECT TEAM 





North South Environmental 


Lura Consulting 8



Appendix B: Agenda 

Seaton Natural Heritage System 

Management Plan and Master Trail Plan: 


Wednesday, April 2, 2008 

Pickering Central Library – Auditorium 

1 The Esplanade, Pickering 


To provide an overview of the Draft Seaton Natural Heritage System Management 

Plan and Master Trail Plan; to provide a summary of community input to date; and to 

illustrate how the various comments have been responded to in the process of 

developing the final draft document. 


OPEN HOUSE 

6:00 – 7:00 p.m. Opportunity to view displays and meet informally with Steering Committee and Project 

Team members 

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 

7:00 p.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks – Bruce Singbush, Chair, Steering Committee 


7:20 p.m. Presentation – Highlights of the Draft Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and 

Master Trail Plan – Led by Mark Schollen, Schollen and Company 

7:45 p.m. Facilitated Discussion 

8:25 p.m. Closing Remarks and Next Steps – Bruce Singbush 


Lura Consulting 9



Appendix C: Feedback Forms 

Three sets of comments on the presentation were received and are provided verbatim 

below: 

Good time-keeping. 

Should provide more handouts for the public. 

It is good to have an open house session before the presentation. 

Comments will follow receipt of summary of tonight’s meeting and better examination of the 

documents supplied. 

A very useful and important matter and meeting. I will look forward to the summary and will 

certainly be pleased to comment on my experience with such process procedures in other 

areas. A very useful presentation. But my questions were not answered because if time 

constraints. 

I’ve reviewed the minutes for meeting one. I have only one concern. On page 9 it states 

that the low impact trails won’t allow cycling. This will push recreational cyclists onto the 

dedicated cycling paths that will primarily be used by community or utilitarian cyclists. This 

missing of use is less than ideal and not necessary. Witness the success of the waterfront 

trail. 

The Dedicated Bike Routes have N-S routes only at the edges of the development i.e. 

Brock & Whites. A connector needs to be in place in the middle of the community ultimately 

connecting to Liverpool or another road close by for access to the PTC, city center & Go 

Transit. 

There are no N-S primary on-road bike routes that leave the development. There are very 

few N-S links within the development. Hopefully the dedicated bike routes will provide for 

adequate traffic flow, but this should be explored as a fall back option. 

Everything is paved! This does not provide for a natural experience. Explore other surfaces 

such as crushed compacted granite (used in Whistler). Maintenance of paved sections will 

be costly. 

The instructions to developers are to have the trails “meander”. I hope this becomes more 

clearly specified. Developers are not trail specialists; neither for that matter are landscape 

architects. For a well designed trail, system specialists in trail design, construction and 

maintenance should be used and developers should be required to either demonstrate such 

expertise or employ a subcontractor who can. 

Lura Consulting 10

Appendix C.7 

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trails Plan 

MARCH 2008 

Consolidated Stage 3 Steering Committee Comments and Responses 

GENERAL / OVERARCHING ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................... 2 

1 - A VISION FOR THE SEATON NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 11 

2 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 

3 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 21 

4 - OVERALL STUDY APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 

5 - DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD VERIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 25 

6 - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM – ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ......................................................................... 31 

7 - MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 47 

8 - CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................... 47 

9 - SEATON MASTER TRAIL PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 

10 - DESIGN GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................................................................... 58 

11 – INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 65 

12 - IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR NHSMP AND MTP ............................................................................................................ 68 

13 - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................. 75 

14 - MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................. 76 

15 - REALIZING THE VISION FOR THE NHS ...................................................................................................................................... 79 

Notes: 

• The numbers in the “Source” column reference comment numbers provided in each original comment source document. 

Where comment numbers were not provided, the source document was revised with comment numbers added in sequence. 

These revised source documents have been provided. 

• A concerted effort was made to group comments under the correct chapter and heading in the Draft Plan. 

• Many of the original source documents included greater introductory context and summary details not fully duplicated in this 

report, although an effort was made to capture the key points under “General / Overarching Issues”. 

• Within MMAH comments words in italics are suggested to be added to the text. 

APPENDIX C.6 - Public Meeting 2 - Report 1 of 79

GENERAL / OVERARCHING ISSUES 

No. / Source Comment / Issue Response 

Durham 

1. 

Overall, we found the draft to contain very comprehensive information. 

However, with so much detail, the flow/direction of the Study becomes 

clouded. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Consultant consider 

reorganizing/ restructuring/ summarizing portions of the Study, in order to 

present a more concise document. A great deal of the detailed information 

The report has been 

restructured accordingly. 

Durham 

2. 

Durham 

3. 

Durham 

4. 

could perhaps be included as Appendices. 

We continue to be concerned about the potential increased costs associated 

with infrastructure crossings, capital works, policing and operations within 

such an extensive and sensitive NHS within an urban context. Although the 

draft presents a host of considerations, mitigation measures/prescriptions 

and recommended future actions to implement the Central Pickering 

Development Plan’s (CPDP) vision for Seaton and its NHS, funding sources 

and the human resources necessary for implementation remain uncertain 

and unknown. The Region has long raised this apprehension. In addition, 

the draft Study fails to identify mechanisms available to the Province for 

long-term funding commitments that are necessary to operate and maintain 

Seaton’s NHS. 

As previously indicated in our letter of August 31, 2007, in response to the 

preliminary Trail Hierarchy Concept Plan, the introduction of bikeways within 

arterial road rights-of-way substantiates the Region’s interests in protecting 

for adequate right-of-way widths for each category of arterial road. That 

being said however, the Region does not currently have a position 

concerning a Regional Cycling Plan. It is anticipated that the matter will be 

brought forward to Regional Council in September. The Region’s current 

position on cycling infrastructure is that the Region will not provide cycling 

lanes within the paved portion of a Regional right-of-way. 

If an area municipality, or other agency, wish to provide for a multi-use trail 

within the boulevard of a Regional right-of-way, the cost of the trail is to be 

borne by the area municipality or other agency, provided that there is 

sufficient right-of-way to accommodate such a trail, and that such a trail is 

deemed appropriate. The Region may provide an appropriate platform (i.e. 

land, grading, bridge work) for such trails if Regional road construction is 

undertaken. 

In view of the limited amount of developable land in Seaton, and the large 

expanse of the NHS within an urban context, we are concerned that the draft 

Study contains recommendations to locate facilities associated with the 

APPENDIX C.6 - Public Meeting 2 - Report 2 of 79 

The Region’s concern for 

future funding has been noted. 

Additional recommendations 

for long-term funding have 

been included in the report for 

consideration. 

The inclusion of dedicated and 

on-road bike lanes within the 

rights of way of arterial roads 

is an important component of 

the integrated trail network for 

Seaton especially with respect 

to commuter biking. There has 

been considerable public 

resistence to increasing 

amount of trails within the NHS 

which leaves little room other 

then the rights of way of roads 

to accommodate cycle routes. 

The figures have been revised 

to include all trail heads within 

the NHS.


NHS, outside of the NHS (i.e. parking areas for trailheads; NHS 

maintenance facility). The CPDP is already very restrictive in terms of the 

uses permitted in the NHS -- but it does permit such facilities if they are 

associated with the NHS and trails. We are also concerned that the draft 

Study does not appear to acknowledge that all “infrastructure” as defined by 

the CPDP, is permitted within the NHS (i.e. reservoirs, pumping stations). 

Durham 

5. 

TRCA 

1. 

MMAH 

i 

MMAH 

ii 

The draft Study does not contain options or a comprehensive set of 

recommendations on the future of existing tenancies within the NHS, cost 

estimates for each phase of implementation or innovative revenue sources. 

Both the Terms of Reference and the Consultant’s Proposal for Services 

include these work items as deliverables. It is therefore requested that this 

work be undertaken, and included in the Study. As a Steering Committee 

member, I suggest that the Province and the Consultant ensure that all 

deliverables in the Province’s Terms of Reference and all tasks listed in the 

Consultant’s Work Plan have been undertaken. 

Table of Contents. The document should be reorganized to improve flow and 

readability. There is considerable repetition and the figures are often not well 

explained until later in the text or information is not properly cross-referenced to 

the appropriate sections. The reader is often left wondering if information is 

absent until finally it is located later on. The numbering system is also 

confusing. Although we leave it up to the consultants to reconsider the 

organization structure, we recommend that the document include three major 

sections. 1) Natural Heritage System; 2) Cultural Heritage System; and 3) 

Master Trails Plan. The various sub-sections integral to those sections, such as 

summaries of existing information, overall study approach, data collection and 

field verification, cost estimate, implementation, etc. can be focused separately 

within each of the three major sections. 

This management plan needs to be both flexible and responsive to funding 

mechanisms for the future, and instead of assigning specific roles and 

responsibilities to each municipality, Ministry, or agency, we recommend that 

this area be restructured into three “spheres” of action: Public sector, private 

sector, and community involvement (grass roots). A venn diagram illustrating 

this may be a useful option. 

It is critical therefore, that the NHS +MTP provide clear direction for the City. 

This is further reinforced in the Deliverables section of the Terms of Reference, 

which requests “recommendations for policies…to address the goals and 

objectives of the CPDP in the NHS”. This could be achieved in a chart [with 

headings: Goal; Recommendation; Action; Priority; Monitoring] 


The list of permitted uses 

within the NHS has been 

revised to match the list within 

the CPDP. 

The continued occupancy of 

the built heritage resources 

within the NHS provides the 

best interim measure to protect 

the existing resources. In the 

longer term when a defined 

interpretive plan is articulated 

for the cultural heritage 

resources then the potential to 

curate these properties can be 

considered. UMA 



Section 13.0 of the report has 

been revised to reflect the 

comment. 

Tables have been provided in 

section 13.0 summarizing 

recommendations, priorities, 

actions and timing based on 

influencing factors like


neighbourhood build out. 

MMAH 

iii 

MMAH 

iv 

MMAH 

v 

MMAH 

vi 

The various priorities should be consolidated in one section, and then 

consistently prioritized (even as basic as high, medium, and low). We 

appreciate that there are priorities which may cross MU boundaries, such as the 

removal of hazardous trees or debris; however, each section could have an 

appropriate heading to clarify this for the reader. For example: the three 

headings could be MU Maintenance Priorities, Restoration Priorities, and Cross- 

Boundary Maintenance Priorities. 

The urban context also needs to be acknowledged as outlined in the 

Infrastructure section of the CPDP. The CPDP allows SWM ponds and 

infrastructure to be located in the NHS. On the other hand, fencing of the NHS 

(other than a living fence) is not encouraged. While we understand that 

temporary fencing may be part of a restoration initiative, permanent chain link 

fencing is not acceptable, and the language around the fencing must be 

softened/ clarified to reflect this. 

There are a number of tenanted properties in the NHS area, and 

recommendations regarding those tenancies need to be articulated as per the 

Terms of Reference. Should the buildings of cultural value be maintained as a 

future interpretive centre, this should be noted. It should also be noted where 

existing leases could be appropriately transitioned back to the Natural Heritage 

System on expiration. 

The First Nations consultation also needs to be highlighted. In sections where 

there is discussion of cultural heritage features, the appropriate aboriginal 

heritage discussion needs to be addressed. 

Same as above 

Text has been added to 

section 11.2.1 to clarify the 

requirement for fencing. 

The buildings in the NHS 

should be maintained for future 

interpretive use whether as 

interpretive centres or nodes 

along trails. The tenanted 

properties should remain is 

use until a final interpretation 

plan and Conservation Plans 

are developed. Transitioning 

back should occur when the 

development of the NHS plan 

is mature enough to 

incorporate the resources. 

UMA 

We have added some text 

where appropriate in the 

following responses but we 

need to be mindful that while 

we certainly informed those 

that attended meetings of our 

progress, First Nations input 

with respect to cultural 

heritage feature interpretation 

was minimal. 



MMAH 

vii 

Acknowledgements: Need to add First Nations 

The following First Nations 

have been acknowledged in 

the report: 

Alderville First Nation, 

Chippewas of Georgina Island, 

Huron-Wendat Nation, 

Kawaratha Nishnawbe First 

Nation, Mohawks of the Bay of 

Quinte, Rama Mnjikaning First 

Nation, Six Nations of the 

Grand River, and the William 

Treaties First Nations 

Pickering 

i. 


ii. 


iii. 

The Integration of Environmental, Social and Economic Objectives for Seaton: 

A significant concern is that the Draft Report emphasizes environmental 

protection to such an extent that it does not properly support the other 

sustainable objectives for the Seaton Community: those for social and economic 

factors. ... This study should not seek to further restrict the infrastructure uses 

permitted in the NHS. 

Specifically, the Draft Report does not address some of the infrastructure uses 

permitted by the CPDP such as renewable energy facilities and the GO station 

and recommends against the location of one such use inside the NHS 

boundaries (stormwater ponds). The Draft Report also recommends a series of 

principles for land uses at the edge of the neighbourhoods in order to further 

buffer the NHS from intrusion despite an already adequate buffer for sensitive 

natural features. 

Ownership/Governance/Implementation/Financing 

... The Draft Report makes comments about possible roles of the partners in 

very general terms, but no specific recommendations are provided, despite this 

being set out as a deliverable in the Request for Proposals for this study. The 

Report does not provide analysis of the most suitable partner to carry out all or 

any one of the many activities to implement the management plan. More 

specific recommendations should be provided. 

The Draft Report does not provide a “phasing strategy that establishes short, 

medium and long term management actions” for all of the implementation 

elements of the study, except in the most general terms. More detail is 

required. 

... 

The Report should also analyse and make recommendations about the most 

Given the nature of the study, 

it is to be expected that the 

report almost exclusively 

addresses environmental 

issues - this reflects the main 

intent of the NHS in the CPDP 

and the intent of its authors – 

The MNR and TRCA 

A chart has been provided in 


recommendations, priorities 

and timing. 



recommendations, priorities 

and timing. 



suitable partner or other delivery agent to implement the initial and the ongoing 

implementation roles. 


iv. 


v. 

Relationship with Other Seaton Studies 

The Draft Report oversteps its mandate... includes recommendations and 

assumptions in both the cultural heritage and the master trails components that 

propose outcomes and standards for parts of Seaton that are outside the NHS. 


The Cultural Heritage sections of the Draft Report have not fulfilled the 

requirements of the Request for Proposals for the study in two major respects. 

Firstly, findings and recommendations are made respecting not just the NHS 

lands, but also the developable lands and the Hamlet of Whitevale, which are 

not within the mandate of this Study. 

It was important to look 

beyond the Seaton NHS and 

indeed the Study Area of 

Seaton to identify opportunities 

for trail linkages and 

connections to the Seaton 

hiking Trail and hamlets 

adjoining the NHS. However, 

where design guidelines are 

concerned, the prescriptions 

should stay focussed to trails 

within the NHS with the 

exception of urban interface 

guidelines which provide 

suggestions of how to deal 

with the urban edge of the 

NHS. 

UMA 

The relationship between the 

Hamlet of Whitevale and 

developable lands is linked 

through historic settlement 

which is linked culturally to the 

NHS. 

Secondly, a number of required deliverables listed in the Request for Proposals 

for this Study have not been provided, including: 

• mapping or comment about built heritage resources within the NHS; 

• recommendations on actions to address cultural heritage goals and 

objectives of the CPDP within the NHS; 

• assessment of non-heritage structures in the NHS; and, 

• recommendations respecting existing tenancies within the NHS. 

The Report should address the foregoing missing items. 

Tenancy should be maintained 

until such as time as the 

Interpretation Plan is 

articulated to enhance the 

cultural heritage resources 

within the NHS. 

Mapping of the Cultural 

Heritage Resources is being 

prepared for use in the study. 


Non- heritage resources are 

not considered to enhance the 

cultural heritage environment


within the NHS. 

The cultural heritage resources 

identified within the NHS 

should follow the goals and 

objectives of the CPDP for 



vi. 

MMAH 

May 7 email 

i 

MMAH 

May 7 email 

ii 

MMAH 

May 7 email 

The Master Trails Plan 

The Draft Report recommends that a 15 metre cross section be implemented for 

Primary Off-road bike trails within the NHS and for portions that are to be 

located within arterial and collector road allowances. The provision of such 

large rights-of-way on the arterial and collector roads conflicts with the objective 

to provide a pedestrian oriented engaging streetscape for Seaton. While it is 

recognized that the Report will provide advice to the Province and the other 

partners who will build Seaton, the City of Pickering will reserve the right to 

adopt rights-of-way widths and trail cross-sections that best serve all of the 

objectives for a sustainable community. 

The amount of detail in the document is great and this presents challenges as to 

how to organize the recommendations and priorities. There needs to be clear 

direction, such as a chart which can assist in giving the reader a jumping off 

point. It would also be practical to separate out the Trail Plan from the NHS, for 

separate distribution in the future. 

Urban context: Discussion of the NHS needs to be framed in an urban context 

at key points in the document. Infrastructure is allowed in the NHS under the 

CPDP, particularly if it serves the NHS. SWM ponds are permitted, although 

they will be located outside of valley lands etc. where possible. 

Permanent fencing will be required in certain locations (residential), but where 

the NHS abuts public uses, single loaded roads, employment lands, etc., the 

Notes have been added to trail 

cross-sections in section 10.4 

of the report to indicate the 

preliminary nature of the 

design guidelines for bike 

routes. A separate statement 

has been added in section 

10.4 which states that the “City 

of Pickering reserves the right 

to adopt rights-of-way widths 

and trail cross-sections that 

best serve all of the objectives 

for a sustainable community.” 


Section 13.0 which organizes 

prescriptions based on 

implementation priority and 

timing. The report has been 

restructured into NHS 

Management, Master Trails 

Plan and Cultural Heritage 

Management to enable 

partitioning of the report if 

required. 

Sections 1.0 and 3.0 reinforce 

this reality. Requirements for 

infrastructure within the NHS is 

also mentioned in smaller 

subsections which discuss 

management units (MU’s) and 

permitted uses. 



iii NHS will not be fenced. Agreed fencing will be required 

where the NHS abuts private 

lands – however the NHS 

should also be fenced next to 

schools. We need to be 

flexible as to where fencing 

occurs outside of this as until 

draft plans are produced, it is 

hard to say where fencing is 

required. 

MMAH 

May 7 email 

iv 

MMAH 

May 7 email 

v 

In the roles and responsibilities section, it would be helpful to discuss the 

current/traditional roles and responsibilities of the major players. 

The existing tenants need to be addressed as appropriate. 

Yet to be included 

UMA 

Tenant shall be allowed too 

remain until both an 

Interpretive and Cultural 

Heritage Conservation Plans 

are completed and 

implemented. 

PIR 

1. 

Ownership 

The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) refers to Natural Heritage 

lands remaining in public ownership. The NHS Plan makes reference to 

continued provincial ownership. All references should be changed to public 

ownership, consistent with the CPDP. Public ownership could include the 

Province or its designated agency such as a Conservation Authority or 

Commission to manage or oversee the management of the lands. 

All references have been 

revised to read “public 

ownership”, consistent with the 

CPDP. 

Check trail and cultural 

sections 

PIR 

2. 

Permanent Protection 

In addition to the Seaton lands, the Province owns other considerable land 

holdings in different municipalities that are also being and/or will be permanently 

protected. PIR is engaged with Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) and several 

conservation authorities to determine best practices for managing these 

important natural heritage lands. Permanent protection can be maintained 

through ownership, conservation easement or other instruments including but 

not limited to long term land lease. Seaton’s management plan recommends a 

framework that is, in principle, quite comprehensive and will be taken under 

advisement as the PIR considers long-term strategies for optimal natural 

heritage management. 

Noted 

PIR Aboriginal Interests Noted 



3. The Provincial and Federal Governments are reviewing multiple Land Claims by 

and Treaties with aboriginal people. Seaton is within the area covered by the 

Williams Treaty and discussions are underway with the Ministry of Aboriginal 

Affairs and other stakeholders reviewing this and other Treaties. PIR remains 

committed to ensuring that these interests are paramount in any long-term area 

management plan. 

PIR 

4. 

MNR 

i. 

MNR 

ii. 

Ongoing Costs 

PIR recognizes that there may be ongoing costs associated with the designated 

NHS lands. While the study suggests timeframes and associated budgets, PIR 

will consider these recommendations in the context of its overall strategy for 

Seaton, and work with your Ministry and others to identify and confirm 

appropriate investments. 

This Ministry would suggest that the final Natural Heritage System Management 

Plan and Trails Master Plan may be easier to read if there is a separation 

between the master trail information from the natural heritage information. It 

would also be beneficial if a new section could be added to either the beginning 

or end of the document that would list all of the recommendations in one place 

as a quick reference. 

The draft plan’s restoration recommendations have a reforestation focus. It is 

suggested that it may be beneficial to have a member of the Ontario 

Professional Foresters Association involved in any on-site prescriptions for 

forest management. This person would be able to determine which trees would 

be best suited for a particular area of the Seaton NHS based on soils, 

surrounding woodland character, etc. 

Noted 

Tables have been provided in 

Section 13.0 which organize 

prescriptions according to 

priority, action and timing. The 

report has been restructured to 

enable partitioning of the 

report if required. The report 

has been restructured 

accordingly. 

A recommendation has been 

included in accordance with 

the comment – namely that a 

forester be consulted as part of 

the development of any forest 

management prescriptions. 

MNR 

iii. 

Atlantic Salmon and Redside Dace: 

From this Ministry’s review of the draft plan, the emphasis on restoration is more 

directed towards terrestrial restoration with some direction on aquatic 

restoration. MNR has been promoting the restocking of Atlantic salmon, with 

the Duffins creek watershed being one of the three watersheds chosen that 

drain to Lake Ontario. Although it is recognized that the draft plan contains 

restoration targets for aquatic restoration in general (Section 6.2), and even 

recommends the removal of fish barriers, it would be beneficial if the draft plan 

could be expanded to include restoration targets related to Atlantic salmon and 

Redside dace specifically. The Duffin’s Creek Fisheries Management Plan 

provides direction for both Atlantic salmon restoration and Redside dace 

recovery. Both species may require riparian restoration requirements that may 

be slightly different than the terrestrial restoration requirements outlined in the 

We will address the reintroduction/management 

of 

Atlantic Salmon and R-S Dace, 

and include a summary of the 

material provided recently by 

TRCA. However, we note that 

it was our intention all along 

not to re-iterate the existing 

Fisheries Plan, since the 

Management Plan defers to it 

for Fisheries issues. The 

emphasis is on the terrestrial 

component because so much 



draft plan. Section 6.4.3 could be expanded upon by including a restoration 

prescription that would target Atlantic salmon and Redside dace. 

has already been prepared 

and approved for the aquatic 

system. 

MNR 

iv. 

MNR 

v. 

Built Structures: 

Throughout the draft plan there has been no discussion as to whether there are 

built structures within the NHS and if so what are the recommendations with 

regards to treatment. From a cursory review of airphotos for the area, there 

does appear to be a number of buildings located within the NHS. Are these 

structures of heritage significance, do they have tenants in them, should these 

tenants remain in the NHS, can these buildings be removed and the lands 

restored or be used for something else? All these questions should be 

answered in the draft plan. 

Implementation: 

The initial priorities for the NHS should be the need for barrier plantings where 

development is being proposed and the creation of some of the trails. This 

should be carried out on a phased process that could correspond with the 

phasing for the neighbourhoods. 

There does not appear to be any phasing schedule included in the draft plan 

that sets out short, medium and long term management requirements to 

implement the NHS. This phasing schedule should include the priorities for 

restoration, construction of the trail system, tenancy, etc. 

In the tables associated with this section there is a breakdown of all the costs 

associated with implementation of the NHS. This Ministry would recommend 

that these costs be broken down by the priorities and phases of implementation. 

From reviewing the tables as prepared, one could assume that all the work 

identified would be done all at once. There should also be a recognition that a 

good portion of this work could be done by in-kind service such as tree planting 

days, and by allowing restoration to occur naturally. A portion of the monitoring 

such as the routine inspection of trails could be carried out by volunteers such 

as a “Friends of the Seaton NHS”. By involving volunteers, especially local 

residents, local buy in for the protection and management of the NHS is created. 

Volunteer involvement could also significantly decrease the costs outlined in the 

tables. This potential should be factored into the overall costs listed. As well, 

UMA 

There are built heritage 

resources of local significance 

and merit located within the 

NHS which will be mapped. 

When a final interpretive plan 

is prepared these resources 

can be included in the NHS to 

represent the cultural heritage 

settlement of the study area. 

The determination of property 

tenanacy can be considered 

for the Plan. Tenanted 

properties offer protection from 

vandalism. 

A chart has been provided 

which organizes 


actions and timing.The report 

has been restructured to 

enable partitioning of the 

report if required. The report 

has been restructured 

accordingly. 

Reference to volunteerism has 

been included in section 13.0 

of the report; however, the cost 

estimate has not been revised 

to reflect potential savings 

through in-kind work as the 

degree of this sort of service 

has not yet been established 

nor can it be specifically 

determined until the phasing of 

development has been 



the costs as proposed for implementation of the NHS may pose as a deterrent 

to other municipalities from carrying out NHS planning within their jurisdictions 

due to the potential capital and maintenance costs associated with the 

protection of a NHS. 

established. 

1 - A VISION FOR THE SEATON NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM 

Durham 

1. 

Durham 

2. 

TRCA 

2. 

It would appear that Figure 1 as contained in the draft is not the correct Figure. 

Also, it is suggested that the text make reference to the Figures that are relevant 

to the discussion (i.e. Figures 1 and 2 are not mentioned in Section 1.0 of the 

text). In addition, it is suggested that the “Purpose of the Study”, “Study Area 

Context” and “Adjacent Land Uses” Sections of the draft document be 

combined/condensed, and be brought forward in the text, possibly following 

Section 1.0 Vision. 

Consider the use of Appendices for the details related to the Watershed Plan for 

Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek; Fisheries Management Plan; lengthy listings 

of reports etc. This detailed information appears to present “flow” problems with 

the document, as the important findings/recommendations of the document get 

lost in the mix. 

Section 1.0, Page Nos. 1 - 2. We understand that there is a desire to maintain 

open grassland to support native species of open habitat, however it should be 

recognized that there will be large areas of open habitat until restoration and 

natural succession takes hold. There needs to be consideration for phasing of 

restoration targets and they will change with the fullness of time. 

Reference ambiguities have 

been reviewed and the first 

sections revised accordingly. 

The list of studies provide a 

roadmap to discussions further 

on in the document, however, 

they have been moved to a 

more relevant position in the 

document. The main points of 

the Fisheries Management 

Plan have been left in the body 

of the report due to their 

importance to the TRCA. 

Fair comment, however, if we 

leave the open areas that are 

intended to be grassland they 

will be woodland in 15-20 

years and it may be difficult to 

get approval to cut trees at that 

time – woody material needs 

to be periodically removed to 

ensure maintenance of 

grassland habitats. 

TRCA 

3. 

TRCA 

4. 

Section 1.0, Page Nos. 1 - 2. Please add “…and 35,000 jobs…” after “residents” 

in the second to last paragraph. 

Section 1.0, Page Nos. 1 – 2. Please describe how the timing of trails will be 

phased in relation to development and occupancy. Perhaps some may not be 

necessary until immediately prior to completion of the development. 

The text has been revised 

accordingly. 


accordingly. 


MMAH 

1. 

MMAH 

2. 

MMAH 

3. 

MMAH 

4. 

Needs to include a statement about the vision for the trail system – second last 

paragraph on page 2 has some wording that alludes to a vision for the trail 

system, and it needs to be brought forth and highlighted 

Not sure if the map on page 3 is necessary here, just the map on page 4, and if it 

is used, it should relate back to the vision statement. 

First paragraph contains a considerable amount of information that is likely to 

have been true, and should be rephrased as such (reads now if it is factually true 

and complete) 

Given that there were perhaps 5000 First Nations people in the area, it likely that 

it was less forested and more agricultural 


accordingly. 

Map clarified and cross 

referenced 


accordingly. 

This is actually a very complex 

issue. Some portions of the 

study area would have been 

first cleared in the twelfth and 

thirteenth centuries AD with 

perhaps a kilometre or two of 

corn fields around major 

settlements. By the late 

fourteenth and fifteenth 

centuries, however, fields 

would have extended around 

major settlements for 4 to 5 

kilometres. After about AD 

1580, the previously cleared 

fields would have returned to 

forest. In the 1660s through 

1680s, there would have been 

field clearance and agricultural 

fields near the mouth of the 

Rouge to accommodate the 

Seneca village and thereafter 

for a brief period for some 

Mississauga occupation. 

Field clearance throughout this 

600 year period would have 

been substantial around the 

villages but would not have 

encompassed most of the 

study area. It would have been 

patchy with fields in various 

stages of succession as 

communities moved villages to 

deal with soil infertility after 


MMAH 

5. 

MMAH 

6. 

MMAH 

7. 

MMAH 

8. 


1. 

After the 3 rd paragraph, there needs to be a CPDP context paragraph: The 

Seaton lands were acquired by the Province in the 1970s for urban development 

in conjunction with a federal airport. Although the federal airport has not yet 

proceeded, the Province agreed to exchange the Seaton lands to preserve 

environmentally sensitive lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine. As part of an 

“environment first” approach to urban development, a natural heritage system 

was defined and retained in public ownership. The Central Pickering 

Development Plan (CPDP) was passed in May 2006, and it required certain 

studies be completed prior to development. In order to protect, enhance and 

manage the Natural Heritage System, CPDP required a Natural Heritage 

Management Plan be completed, together with a Master Trail Plan. This Plan will 

guide how to best protect and enhance the natural heritage system, and where 

and how to best locate a trail system, within its urban context. 

The last three paragraphs need to be more balanced with the recognition that the 

NHS is part of the urban community, and will be crossed by infrastructure and 

related uses. Also, the market garden idea is missing from this area. 

Some additional suggested wording below for the vision (and should be echoed in 

the roles and responsibilities section): 

This Plan is not static. The timing and details related to its implementation, 

particularly the nature and level of funding for recommended programs, can and 

should evolve through continued community consultation and detailed technical 

studies when and where appropriate. At the same time, however, the extensive 

Regional, City and community effort that established the overall directions and 

strategies for the Natural Heritage system should be respected. 

Page 2. The paragraph beginning with “In recognition” should specify that 

recommendations on cultural heritage features and landscapes will be provided 

only for those within the NHS. 

about 10 to 12 years. 

I would suggest just noting that 

in the five hundred years prior 

to European contact, there 

would have been extensive 

clearing and cultivation of 

lands by Aboriginal people, 

centred around their major 

settlements. 

Note that this is also relevant 

to the text that appears in 

Section 11.4.7. 

The paragraph has been 

inserted into the report. 

A statement about the future 

urban context of the NHS as 

well as garden plots have been 

incorporated into the section. 

See next point 

Similar wording has been 

incorporated both in the vision 

and roles and responsibility 

sections of the document. 

The statement has been 

amended accordingly. 



2. 

Page 3. The last paragraph should note that Seaton is to be a model of 

sustainability (social, economic and environmental – not just environmental). 


added to the paragraph. 

2 – INTRODUCTION 

MMAH 

9. 

MMAH 

10. 

MMAH 

11. 

MMAH 

12. 

MMAH 

13. 

MMAH 

14. 

MNR 

1. 

Section 2.0 could be retitled “Planning Context” or “Planning Framework” and 

should be one to two paragraphs long, and the 8 goals of the CPDP should be 

placed up front. 

2.0 Introduction - In the first paragraph, delete “under the ownership of the 

Province of Ontario and managed in part by the Ontario Realty Corporation and 

the crown.” 

2.0 Introduction - In the first paragraph, the last sentence should state the lands 

are intended to be developed and managed in a sustainable fashion incorporating 

tight knit residential, employment and mixed use developments around a 

permanently protected, restored …. 

2.0 Introduction - It would also be beneficial if there is policy direction to establish 

the Natural Heritage System as a destination in itself, specifically the trails system, 

to further support and strengthen the development of the trails system up front. 

2.0 Introduction - The legislative basis (in section 4.3) could be added here (see 

comments on section 4.3 below) to provide a framework and direction for the 

policies 

2.0 Introduction - In the 5 th paragraph delete the reference that the NHS covers 

53% of Seaton 

Figure 2 Future Vision for Seaton NHS, page 4: 

There appears to be a “hole” in the data layer for the landscape units that should 

be assigned a unit on the east side of Sideline 26, north of Taunton Road. 



Statement has been deleted. 



A policy statement has been 

added to reflect the trail 

network as a regional 

drawcard for the Seaton 

community and neighbouring 

hamlets and communities 

alike. 

Section has added the 

legislative basis for the 

framework of the policies. 

The reference has been 

deleted. 

It is not a hole. There is a 

private residence there and we 

omitted it from the 

Management Units as we do 

not know if it is a tenancy or 

permanent residence. The 

same "hole" appears in the 

TRCA ELC layer, 

meaning this was not classified 

iwhich leads to the assumption 

that this is likely a private 

residence. 


TRCA 

5. 

Durham 

3. 

Section 2.0, Page No. 5. The role of the TRCA has not been accurately described 

in some instances. Although TRCA was instrumental in identifying the NHS and 

had an influence on the final CPDP, the decision-making was still the 

responsibility of the Province. For example, in the introduction, it states that the 

limits of the NHS were delineated jointly by the TRCA and MNR on the basis of 

field reconnaissance and research. However, at the end of the day, it was up to 

MMAH, MNR, and (in some cases) ORC to decide where the limits of the NHS 

would fall. This needs to be clarified. 

Section 2.1.1. - Permitted Uses Within the NHS - The Central Pickering 

Development Plan (CPDP) permits “infrastructure” within the Seaton NHS (page 

35, Policy 4). More specifically the CPDP states that “Infrastructure includes: 

sewage and water systems, electric power generation and transmission including 

renewable energy systems, communications/ telecommunications, transit and 

transportation corridors and facilities, oil and gas pipelines and associated 

facilities.” (CPDP Page 35 – Policy 4 f)). 


amended to clarify this point. 

The CPDP statement has 

been added to the paragraph. 

The draft document’s 7th bullet of Section 2.1.1 suggests that only infrastructure 

“crossings” are permitted within the NHS. As such, the draft should be revised 

to more closely reflect the range of uses/facilities that are permitted within 

Seaton’s NHS by the CPDP. It is also noted that none of the Management Units 

(Sections 6.2.1 – 6.3.7 of the draft document) appear to include “infrastructure” as 

“Permitted Uses”. This needs to be reconciled. 

Also, it is suggested that the 8th bullet of Section 2.1.1 be clarified, as it is not 

understood. 

MNR 2. 2. Section 2.1.1 Permitted Uses Within the NHS, page 9: 

Last bullet point – It should be noted that the Seaton portion of the Central 

Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) is not governed by the Greenbelt Plan and 

that the NHS within the Seaton portion has been designated with the primary 

TRCA 

6. 

Durham 

4. 

TRCA 

7. 

designation. 

Section 2.1.2, Page No. 9. We understand from the City of Pickering that the City 

is no longer pursuing a request for an operations yard in the NHS. Please remove 

this section. 

In addition to the utilitarian, educational and recreational opportunities the Master 

Trail Plan would offer, it is suggested that, where appropriate, the Study should 

also place emphasis on the health benefits and the inclusiveness (“accessibility 

for all”) of the proposed trails system. These aspects would appear to be of 

Provincial interest, and are important elements in developing communities. 

Section 2.1.3, Page No. 11, Figure 3. Please add a legend and limits of TRCA 

landownership to the figure. 


We will clarify that 

infrastructure can be located 

within the NHS where 

necessary, per the CPDP. 

The point has been included in 

section 2.1.1. 

The section has been deleted. 

Statements about the health 

benefits of trail use have been 

added into the introduction 

section of the Master Trails 

Plan. 

A legend has been added and 

TRCA boundary limits clarified 

on the figure. 

Durham Section 2.1.3 – Whitevale Golf Course - The first sentence of this Section states The point has been clarified.

5. that parts of the Whitevale Golf Course fall within the NHS overlay designation of 

the CPDP. It is my understanding that the Golf Course is designated “Existing 

Private Open Space”, and is surrounded by the “Natural Heritage System – 

Primary Designation”. This should be clarified. 

MMAH 

15. 

MMAH 

16. 

MMAH 

17. 

MMAH 

18. 

MMAH 

19. 

MMAH 

20. 


3. 

2.1 The Natural Heritage System defined - The first sentence should read: The 

NHS is central to achieving the environmental sustainability sought in Central 

Pickering. 

The sentence has been 


2.1 The Natural Heritage System defined - Limit this section to what the NHS 

encompasses, and how it was achieved 

The section has been tailored 

to address the NHS only. 

2.1 The Natural Heritage System defined - Remove discussion of permitted uses Permitted uses are stated from 

as the list in the CPDP is NOT flexible 

the CPDP. 

2.1 The Natural Heritage System defined - Delete section 2.1.2 (Operations yard) The section has been deleted. 

2.1 The Natural Heritage System defined - This section should also acknowledge 

the cultural heritage resources, including the Whitevale buffer in the CPDP 

(section 4.2.2 on p. 40) 

2.1 The Natural Heritage System defined - This section should also include 

aboriginal heritage resources, although we did not get the amount of input from 

the First Nations we had hoped for, we can still discuss some of the ideas and 

information that we learned about the area 

Page 9. In Subsection 2.1.1, the second last bullet point should note that 

the permissible range of infrastructure includes “sewage and water systems, 

electric power generation and transmission including renewable energy systems, 

communications/telecommunication, transit and transportation corridors and 

facilities, oil and gas pipelines and associated facilities”. 

Renewable Energy Systems 

Cultural heritage resources 

and the Whitevale 

Conservation district are 

mentioned in separate 

sections to this. 

The following has been 

included in section 2 “Four 

significant Late Woodland First 

Nation village sites, found 

during the archaeological 

assessments carried out for 

the Oak Ridges 

Moraine/Seaton Class EA 

were added to the NHS 

following consultation with First 

Nations groups.” 

See response to Pickering 4. 

The development of Seaton provides an opportunity to achieve a better level of 

sustainability by employing renewable energy, which is recognized in the CPDP 

as a permitted use in the NHS. Accordingly, the Report should include 

recommendations to accommodate such uses within the NHS. 

See response to Durham 3 



4. 

Stormwater Ponds 

During the development of the Central Pickering Development Plan, Pickering 

was able to convince the Province to include stormwater ponds within the NHS 

lands in order to allow more of the developable lands to be used for residential 

and other urban uses. It is the position of the City of Pickering that stormwater 

ponds should continue to be permitted within the NHS. 

The City respects that sensitive natural features should not be impacted by the 

ponds, that archaeological assessments should be conducted, and other 

considerations should be satisfied before final decisions are made about the 

location of individual stormwater ponds. 

Page 9. In Subsection 2.1.1, the third last bullet point should list stormwater 

management systems and facilities; 

The Report should provide guidance for the location and design of water 

reservoirs, renewable energy systems, gas-regulator type facilities and 

transit/transportation facilities. 

The points ‘stormwater 

management facilities’ and 

‘Infrastructure [crossings] to 

service the new communities’ 

have been added 


5. 


6. 

Page 9. Subsection 2.1.2 should be deleted as the City is no longer 

pursuing an operations centre in this location. 

Page 9. 

Subsection 2.1.3, respecting Whitevale Golf Course: 

The most significant portion of Whitevale Golf Course is designated in the Central 

Pickering Development Plan as Private Open Space and some edge lands are 

designated as Natural Heritage System. Despite this, Section 2.1.3 suggests that 

when the City of Pickering amends its Official Plan to conform to the Central 

Pickering Development Plan, zoning should also be changed to make all parts of 

the golf course legal non-conforming use. 

It is our view that Whitevale Golf Course provides active recreational use that 

improves sustainability by offering recreational and social opportunities to the 

residents of Seaton and the broader community. The NHSMP and MTP should 

respect the contributions of the Whitevale Golf Course to the sustainability of the 

community and restrict its recommendations to the lands designated as Natural 

Heritage System in the CPDP. Determinations of legal tools such as a future 

Official Plan conformity amendment and zoning for this private property will be 

made once all parts of the planning for Seaton are completed, including the 

Environmental Assessment for the infrastructure, the Neighbourhood Plans and 

Section has been deleted. 

‘The legal non-conforming’ 

zonation will not occur 

according to MMAH 21 so this 

has been taken out of the text. 



7. 

MMAH 

21. 

MMAH 

22. 

MMAH 

23. 

MMAH 

24. 

MMAH 

25. 

MMAH 

26. 

the Master Environmental Servicing Plan and should not be addressed in the 

Report. 

The discussion about appropriate treatment of the edge parts of the golf course 

that are within the NHS should be clear that it only pertains to the parts that are 

designated as NHS. Since the golf course is a contributor to the sustainability of 

all of Seaton, recommendations should not be made that will interfere with the 

continued golf course uses of the lands owned or under long term lease to the golf 

course, while the ownership or leases remain in force. 

Page 9. In Subsection 2.1.3 a reference should be added that temporary 

use zoning permits a golf driving range at the north end of the golf course lands. 

2.1.3 Whitevale Golf Course - The Whitevale golf course is incorrectly identified as 

being within the overlay designation of the CPDP. It is designated “existing 

private open space”. It is also not operating as a legal non-conforming use, nor 

will it in the future, and this reference needs to be removed. Suggest you delete 

the first paragraph in its entirety. 

2.1.3 Whitevale Golf Course - you have included examples of management 

prescriptions and priorities that should be included and titled properly in that 

section 

2.2.2 Study Area context - Limit the context to the location of the NHS –provide an 

amalgamation of figures 5 and 6 

2.2.2 Study Area context - The First sentence should read…as well as 

developable land areas that have largely been transferred… 

2.2.2 Study Area context - You noted that there were 3 river valleys that are part 

of the NHS, and then listed 5 rivers 

2.2.2 Study Area context - There are a number of errors on Figures 4-7, if you 

need to use fig. 4, then please outline the study area as identified in the legend, 

and re-label it as NHS study area, rename the airport as “Federal Airport Lands”, 

and it would be more helpful to identify the area labelled as Greenbelt as the 

Rouge Park 

The point has been added to 

the subsection. 

Edges of the course will be 

within the overlay designation 

(NHS), however, the reference 

to the majority of the course 

designated ‘existing open 

space’ has been clarified. The 

reference to ‘legal nonconfirming’ 

has been taken 

out. 

The management prescriptions 

and priorities have been 

moved to more appropriate 

sections of the report that deal 

with these items. 

The Planning Framework and 

Planning Context Figures have 

been combined, however, the 

Ag Preserve has been left for 

context as suggested in 

MMAH 30. 





The figures have been 

reviewed and the errors 

corrected accordingly. 


MMAH 

27. 

MMAH 

28. 

MMAH 

29. 

MMAH 

30. 

MMAH 

31. 

MNR 

3. 

2.2.2 Study Area context - On fig. 5, please correct Seaton lands as the NHS 

study area 

2.2.2 Study Area context - Item 4 shown below figure 5 on p. 14, not sure why 

these goals/ objectives are part of the context section, and should be 

appropriately relocated or deleted, if already stated elsewhere 

2.2.2 Study Area context - Items 1. to 10. in section 2.2.2., need to review these 

points and suggest rewording as a second paragraph, as it is, these points are too 

confusing to follow, some are context, some are goals, etc. Delete #8. 

2.2.2 Study Area context - Fig. 6 shows the NHS area as bordered in a black line, 

but it is labelled as Pickering. The Seaton boundary should be appropriately 

shown and labelled. Add the Ag. Preserve lands to figure 5 

2.2.2 Study Area context - Need a final trail plan and context as well, use the one 

on page 33 or 34 (can we combine them and fix the following errors?) On p. 33, 

the airport site is not shown on the plan, although it is in the legend, the 

conservation areas are not detailed in the legend, and the City of Pickering label is 

shown on the airport lands, and would be more useful if it is labelled over the 

South Pickering area 

Section 2.2.2 Study Area Context, page 12: 

First paragraph – There are five valley systems listed not three. 

Point number 4 on page 14 – In the first sentence suggest replacing the word 

“provide” with “contribute towards”. 

Section 2.2.3, Page No. 16, Figure 11. Please add a legend and explain the two 

colours on the Federal Lands. 


The point has been corrected 

on the figure. 

The item is intended to 

introduce some of the benefits 

of the NHS and not provide 

goals and objectives. This has 

been clarified in the item. 

The points that describe goals 

have been moved to section 

2.0 and the wording of other 

points revised to reflect context 

only. 

The label has been changed to 

Seaton Study Area. The label 

noting the Ag Preserve has 

been added to figure 4. 

Now that the report has been 

restructured into three 

component parts (NHS, Trails 

and Cultural Heritage) Figures 

8A and 8B are better left with 

the description of background 

studies for the Trails 

component of the report to 

remain consistent with the 

other two components. A 

reference to these plans has 

been added at this section. 

The plans have been revised 

to correct labelling. 

The reference to valley 

systems is removed as it is 

described by point 1. 

TRCA 

8. 

A legend has been added. The 

colours are actually the same 

however one part is obscured 

with a hatch overlay and so the 

colour appears different (the 

hatch represents the Rouge 

Park) 

MMAH Section 2.2.3 and Fig. 7 delete The map provides useful land

32. use context information and 

has been left in the document. 

MMAH 

33. 

Section 2.2.4 - Re name as “Recommendations” and give a more prominent 

section i.e. 3.0 Recommendations of NHS + MTP 

This section identifies the 

‘policies’ which are included in 

the CPDP. The document has 

been structured to provide 


each of the three component 

parts of the management plan 

(cultural, ecological and trails) 

rather than be listed in one 

particular area of the report. 

Recommendations are given 

MMAH 

34. 

MMAH 

35. 

MMAH 

36. 

MMAH 

37. 

MMAH 

38. 

MMAH 

39. 

MNR 

4. 

Section 2.2.4 - Clarify the recommendations 

Section 2.2.4 - Bullet point 3 should say “link with the ….” Instead of consider 

linkages to”… 

Section 2.2.4 - Need a goal of ecological restoration 

Section 2.2.4 - Bullet point 7 should be deleted as it is a given 

Section 2.2.4 - Need cultural and aboriginal heritage recommendations 

Section 2.2.4 - Last bullet point is not a goal as worded 

Section 2.2.4 Policy Considerations for the NHSMP and MTP, page 17: 

8 th bullet point – Page 2 of the draft plan states that current agricultural and 

culturally disturbed lands be reduced to zero. If that is the case, then how does 

the possibility of organic farming occur? 


further on in the report. 

Some of the policies have 

been adapted from the CPDP 

and others through the 

consultation process - this has 

been noted at the end of the 

section. 


revised. 

Has been added 

The point has been deleted. 

The following bullet point has 

been added to the end of the 

section: 

Avoid the locations of known 

archaeological sites and carry 

out archaeological 

assessments of any areas of 

new developments related to 

the trail system and involve 

First Nations in this work. 

The point has been deleted. 

The addition of the point added 

to satisfy MMAH 36. enables 

for the provision of garden 

plots (which is noted in another

MMAH 

40. 

MMAH 

41. 

MMAH 

42. 


8. 

Section 2.2.4.1 - Policies for Cultural Heritage (soften to Considerations for 

Cultural Heritage or a similar word, just not policies) 

Section 2.2.4.1 - This section needs to advise the Province on how we can 

achieve the goals, not how you achieved the goals, and needs to be reworded to 

reflect this. 

Section 2.2.4.1 - Need aboriginal considerations in this area as well 

Page 17. Subsection 2.2.4.1 should not dictate what happens on 

developable area. The second bullet point should be changed to replace 

“integrating” with “promoting integration” and the third bullet point changed to 

replace “Ensuring” with “recommend guidelines”. 

point already) 

The title has been amended to 

say ‘Considerations for 

Cultural Heritage.’ 

These are adapted from the 

CPDP and community 

consultation. A section has 

been added following 2.2.4.1 

describing this. 

The following has been added 

to the last bullet point so that it 

reads “Avoiding disturbance of 

archaeological sites and 

consulting with First Nations in 

the development of interpretive 

plans. 

The text has been modified 

accordingly. 

3 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING INFORMATION 

TRCA 

9. 

Section 3.1.1, Page No. 18. Please add State of the Seaton Lands. A Report on the 

Enhanced Seaton Lands Aquatic Habitat Assessment, TRCA, 2006 to the list of key 

studies. 

The reference has 

been included. 

TRCA 

10. 

Durham 

6. 

Section 3.1.3, Page No. 20. The Fisheries Management Plan is presented in great length. 

However, management directions for the Seaton lands in response to the FMP are for the 

most part missing. 

Section 3.3 Master Trails Plan – Background Information - It is not understood why 

the Region of Durham’s Council Approved Regional Trail Network is not included in 

the reports/trails that were reviewed. Also, it is not understood why the Durham 

Region Council Approved Regional Trail Network is not illustrated as 

approved/proposed routes on Figure 8. The following link provides details on the 

Council Approved Regional Trail Network: 


Our intent is not to 

repeat the FMP, but to 

defer to it. We have 

added information on 

the Atlantic Salmon reintroduction 

and R-S 

Dace. 

Figure 8B has been 

amended to 

incorporate the 

proposed linkages 

defined in the Regional 

Trail Network approved 

by Durham Region

http://www.region.durham.on.ca/planning.asp?nr=/departments/planning/dtcc/dtcc.htm 

Council. 

Durham 

7. 

MMAH 

43. 

MMAH 

44. 

We note however, that the Trails Concept Plan is consistent with the Council 

approved Regional Trail Network, illustrating a linked on-road bike route and 

secondary connection route between Highways 7 and 407, which appears to end 

approximately at the easterly Study Area boundary. This trail route implements the 

conceptual east-west future trail linkage along the Highway 407 corridor identified in 

the Regional Trail Network. However, the Regional Trail Network illustrates a 

continued east-west trail linkage beyond the Seaton Study Area. Accordingly, to 

assist in the implementation of the Regional Trail Network, we ask that this trail 

route be illustrated as continuing east, beyond the Study Area. 

In addition, it is suggested that the Legend contained in Figure 8A more accurately 

describe/reflect the features illustrated on Figure 8A, and vice-versa (i.e. Figure 8A 

contains reference to the Pickering Airport Site in the Legend, but it is not delineated 

on the Map; Rouge Park Trails, Conservation Areas and Forests are illustrated on 

Figure 8A, but not included on the Legend). 

Section 3.3.2 Review of Transportation Schedule 3 – CPDP – Please note that Schedule 

3 of the CPDP illustrates future and existing roads. Figure 9 should also make this 

distinction. 

The report document 

describes Hwy 7 as the 

preferred route for a 

major east-west multiuse 

trail connection 

rather than the Hwy 

407 corridor. The 

Master Trail Plan has 

been revised to 

illustrate this 

connection continuing 

both west and east 

beyond the Seaton 

Study Area. 

The legend and 

illustration on Figure 

8A have been 

amended to more 

closely reflect one 

another. 

Existing roads have 

been added to the 

figure. 

3.0 Summary of Existing Information - This section should be put in an appendix The information has 

been left intact at the 

request of TRCA to 

more easily locate the 

information. 

3.0 Summary of Existing Information - Table 1 is not referenced in the text. If the column 

for the Seaton NHS is left blank, then the column should be deleted, and I question the 

necessity of the table (perhaps in an appendix) 

The column has been 

removed and the table 

(now table 2) 

referenced in the text. 

MMAH 

45. 

3.2 Cultural Heritage Resource Management - The background studies listed in section 

3.2.1 should be amalgamated with the list in section 3.0 

A separate list of 

studies have been 

provided for each of 

the three sections of 

the report – ecological, 

cultural and trails. 


MMAH 

46. 

MNR 

5. 

MMAH 

47. 

TRCA 

May 14 

1. 

3.2 Cultural Heritage Resource Management - Section 3.2.3 picture – is it Seaton related? Yes the photograph of 

the artifact in question 

comes from a site in 

Markham, however the 

occupants of this site 

were directly related to 

those in the Seaton 

area. 

Section 3.2.3 General Assessment of Archaeological Potential and Intergrity, pages 

28/29: 

Second paragraph on page 29 – This paragraph speaks to draft standards for consultant 

archaeologists as it relates to engaging First Nations. It is unclear as to why this is 

needed. Recommend removing this part of the section from the report and adding it as a 

reference. 

3.3 Master Trail Plan - The background studies listed in section 3.3.1 should be 

amalgamated with the list in section 3.0, and put in an appendix 

Chapter 3- Summary of Existing Information, refers to the current Fisheries Management 

Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek in Section 3.1.3 of the document, and Tables 

listing the FMP Recommendations which could be applied to the Seaton lands NHS are 

included in that section. Although Section 3.1.3 contains the statement that “The NHSMP 

+ MTP fully supports the initiatives set out in the Fisheries Management Plan”, chapter 6- 

Ecological Management Guidelines, does not contain a section on Management of 

Aquatic Resources. There is extensive information on management of vegetation 

communities and restoration prescriptions for a variety of terrestrial communities, but no 

information on management of aquatic resources. Interestingly, the power point 

presentation from the April 2 Public Meeting contains a slide ( # 48, on pg 24 of the 

handout ), which covers the Content of the Document. The topic of Natural Heritage 

System Ecological Management Guidelines is shown to have 2 components: 1. Ecological 

Restoration/Management Prescriptions and 2. Fisheries Management. However, the 

actual document does not presently have a Fisheries Management component in Chapter 

6. The material listed on slide 48 should be incorporated into Chapter 6. In particular, the 

projects relating to Atlantic salmon restoration and Redside dace recovery have been 

initiated since the completion of the 2004 FMP. Up-to-date information on the importance 

and relevance of these initiatives to the management of the NHS on the Seaton lands 

should be incorporated, and management prescriptions specific to these fisheries 

management projects should be prepared. 


Agreed. It is out of 

place here.It has been 

moved to a section of 

the report that deals 

exclusively with 

Archaeological 

Heritage. 

A separate list of 

studies have been 

provided for each of 

the three sections of 

the report – ecological, 

cultural and trails. 

As noted elsewhere, 

the intent is not to 

repeat the FMP 

recommendations in 

the management plan, 

as it defers to the FMP. 

However, included are 

the sections on the 

Atlantic Salmon and R- 

S Dace. 

MNR Figure 8A, page 32: The item has been

6. The map shows a trail system through the Rouge Park south of Steeles Avenue; however 

the trail is not identified in the legend. 

MNR Figure 8B, page 33: 

7. The legend needs to be altered by replacing the reference “Existing Provincial Park” with 

“Seaton Natural Heritage System”. By using the words “Provincial Park” on the legend, it 

could give the impression that these lands are an official Provincial Park under the 

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. 

added to the legend. 

The legend item has 

been revised. 

4 - OVERALL STUDY APPROACH 

MNR 

8. 

Durham 

8. 

Durham 

9. 

MMAH 

48. 

MMAH 

49. 

MMAH 

50. 

MMAH 

51. 

MMAH 

52. 

Section 4.2 Concurrent Studies – Seaton Community, page 35: 

With regards to the Wetland Water Balance Evaluation, the company that 

undertook that study was Morrison Environmental Limited and not Gerber 

Geosciences. 

Section 4.3 Assumptions and Acceptance of Base Information, page 36. Based 

on our comment contained in item 1 above, Figure 1 should be renumbered, 

and brought into this Section of the Study. 

Section 4.4.3 First Nations Consultation –2nd sentence – Three (3) First Nations 

meetings have been held. The third Meeting, which took place on April 1, 2008, 

is missing from this Section. 

4.3 Assumptions… - Accurate references for legislation as follows: Planning 

Act R.S.O. 1990 c.P. 13, the Provincial Policy Statement (2005), the Ontario 

Building Code Act S.O. 1992 c.23, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities 

Act S.O. 2005 c.11 

4.3 Assumptions… - The last sentence of this paragraph identifies that the 

document defines an implementation and management regime, and it would be 

helpful to identify where to find this info. In the document (section 6? 8?) 

4.4 Consultation Process - In the first sentence add …model for community and 

First Nations consultation. 

4.4.3 First Nations consultation - First sentence needs to read …As required 

by the CPDP, Region of Durham’s Official Plan… 

4.4.3 First Nations consultation - First sentence states that “consultation was 

held as required…” and I believe we held meetings with the First Nations 

because it was integral to understanding the cultural heritage of the NHS, and 

creating a more complete Plan that acknowledged and celebrated the First 

Nations in the area (i.e. not because we had to). 



amended. 

The figure has been 

renumbered and relocated to 

this section in the document. 

The following sentence has 

been added: 

“A third meeting was held on 

April 1, 2008 to provide an 

opportunity for representatives 

of First Nations to provide 

input into a proposed 

interpretive program for the 

study area.” 

References have been 


A reference has been added. 






changed to: 

“First Nations consultation 

was undertaken to present the 

Draft Plan, and to encourage

MMAH 

53. 


9. 

4.4.3 First Nations consultation - 3 meetings were held with the First Nations, 

the final meeting being held on April 1, 2008, to present the Draft Plan, and 

encourage feedback and maintain dialogue for future opportunities to 

acknowledge and celebrate cultural heritage resources. The final Meeting 

Report was sent to your office on April 28, 2008. 

Page 35. 

Table 2 should be amended to delete the Province as a 

proponent of fiscal impact studies. 

feedback and maintain 

dialogue for future 

opportunities to acknowledge 

and celebrate the rich cultural 

heritage resources of the NHS. 

All archaeological fieldwork 

was also monitored by a First 

Nation observer.” 

As above. 

The note has been removed 

from the table. 

5 - DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD VERIFICATION 

MMAH 

54. 

MMAH 

55. 

MMAH 

56. 

MMAH 

57. 

5.0 Data collection and Field verification - This section should go with the 

background info. Identified in section 3, and placed in an appendix 

5.0 Data collection and Field verification - This section contains information that 

goes beyond data collection and field verification. It addresses what was 

collected (interior forest units), how it was defined (100 m from a forest edge) 

how it was applied (polygons) and what was the result (no area was so sensitive 

so as to preclude human access entirely) 

5.0 Data collection and Field verification - This section concludes that 9 areas 

were identified as being “very sensitive” and a further 18 areas were identified 

as being “sensitive” and identified that trail were avoided in this area except for 

educational and interpretive use. Conclusions and recommendations like this 

need to be identified and not lost in a data collection section. 

5.0 Data collection and Field verification - This section also contains 

management prescriptions, such as ground water recharge can be enhanced 

and improved by ceasing agricultural activity and restoring the lands with native 

vegetation, and should be appropriately relocated 


A review of background info 

section (now 4.1) has been 

added which is relevant to this 

section of the report. 

This section (now 4.0) has 

been amended to discuss 

methodology only. 

This section is part of 

methodology that fed into the 

delineation of trail locations. 

This section has been moved 

later into the document where 

sensitivity mapping in relation 

to sensitive flora and fauna are 

discussed as it pertains to trail 

alignments. 

This section has been 

reworded to clarify the intent 

and address the comment 

TRCA Section 5.0, Page No. 38. Please provide a description of the methodologies A description of the

11. used by North-South Environmental to complete the ecological data collection. 

This section generally needs to be better explained and described. 

TRCA 

12. 

TRCA 

13. 

TRCA 

14. 

TRCA 

15. 

TRCA 

16. 

Durham 

10. 

MNR 

10 

Section 5.1.1, Page No. 38. Please change “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” 

to “Environmentally Significant Areas.” 

Section 5.1.1, Page No. 38. Please clarify that TRCA provided the data to the 

Province because it was available from the work we did in support of a broader 

regional program. There seems to be some confusion by the public that TRCA 

was contracted by the Province to complete the inventory work in Seaton. This 

was not the case. 

Section 5.1.1, Page No. 38. Please summarize the 1997 and 2006 Aquatic 

Habitat data by MNR and TRCA. 

Section 5.1.2, Page No. 39. Please confirm that there is only one provincially 

significant species within the Seaton lands, as we believe there are more 

(hooded warbler, redside dace, butternut, Acadian flycatcher). These are also 

federally listed SAR. Also, this section refers to Section 4.4.2, but we believe 

that this is incorrect. 

Section 5.1.2, Page No. 39. We are unclear who determined that there is “no 

place in Seaton...judged to be too sensitive to accommodate a segment of the 

trail network.” Please describe what criteria were used to make this 

assessment. We may disagree with this statement. 

Section 5.1.3 Identification of Areas Sensitive to Human Intrusion – 4th 

sentence – Delete “Proposed” in describing the Central Pickering Development 

Plan (CPDP). 

Section 5.1.4 Mapping of Sensitive Areas, page 40 and Figure 11 Significant 

Natural Features, page 42: 

It is unclear as to what is meant by provincially significant for birds and plants in 

this section and figure. Does this include Threatened, Endangered and Special 

Concern species or does it refer to provincially rare – S1-3 level species only, or 

both? This should be clarified as there is little discussion regarding the 

protection of Species-at-risk such as Redside dace and butternut. If this does 

methodologies have been 

provided 

Reference has been 

modified. 

Clarification has been provided 

in section X 

The following report was made 

available late in the project 

and should be reviewed in the 

context of the Management 

Plan. 

TRCA 2006. State of the 

Seaton Lands: A Report on the 

Enhanced Seaton Lands 

Aquatic Habitat Assessment. 

We will check and correct this 

if necessary. We were not 

given the Acadian Flycatcher 

record, and as far as we know, 

there are no current R-S Dace 

records from Seaton. All the 

data we used were provided 

by TRCA. 

An additional description on 

how this conclusion was 

reached has been provided in 

section 5.1.2. 


revised. 

We will define ‘significant’ and 

clarify how this was used in 

the analysis 

We will modify the figure so 

that species-specific 

information is not included – 


TRCA 

17. 

Durham 

12. 

TRCA 

18. 

TRCA 

19. 

Durham 

13. 

TRCA 

20. 

refer to Species-at-risk, there is the concern regarding the possible identification 

of these species on the map as this information is considered sensitive. 

With regards to turtles, a high percentage of the turtle species in Ontario are on 

the species-at-risk list. If any of the turtles that are identified on the map are on 

the Species-at-risk list then the concern outlined above would also apply here. 

Figure 11, Page No. 43. The rationale behind the “sensitive area” designations 

needs to be more clearly articulated. It seems that some of the areas with 

“exceptionally high richness of species guilds” were considered “sensitive” in 

some cases, whereas some “highly sensitive” areas appear to have lower 

species diversity. While it is understandable that there will be some judgement/ 

subjectivity associated with these designations, there should be a strong 

rationale as to the thought process involved in the designations, such that 

another ecology professional would come to the same conclusion. 

Section 5.1.4 Mapping of Sensitive Areas – Suggest that the title of this Section 

be changed to “Mapping of Significant Natural Features and Sensitive Areas”, 

as this title better reflects what is shown on Figure 11. It is also suggested that 

Figure 11 be re-titled as such. Further, the 1st sentence in this section should 

clarify that most all of these features are located within Seaton’s Natural 

Heritage System. 

Section 5.1.4, Page No. 43. We gratefully acknowledge that the consultants 

gave our comments consideration by stating that “should after further 

investigation, a trail be deemed to be inappropriately traversing sensitive 

features, the right is reserved for these authorities to realign the trail alignment 

or even omit the trail segment should a suitable alternative route not be found.” 

Section 5.1.4, Page No. 44. The Seaton Wetlands Water Balance Evaluation 

Report, prepared by Morrison Environmental Limited, dated March 27, 2008 and 

commissioned by the Province is now available. Although TRCA staff has not 

had a chance to review this document, we suggest that the general 

recommendations of such could be referenced in the last paragraph of this 

section. 

Section 5.1.5 Identification of Management Units – 4th sentence – This 

sentence states that 30 ELC classifications are illustrated in Figure 10 (ELC 

Mapping), however on Figure 10, there are 30 categories of “ELC 

Classifications – TRCA” and 13 “ELC Classifications – NSE”, which causes 

confusion. It is therefore suggested that the text and map be clarified to indicate 

that “NSE” denotes North-South Environmental Inc.’s ELC Classifications (i.e. 

do not use acronym on Figure 10). 

Section 5.1.5, Page No. 45, Figure 12. It is difficult to distinguish between units 

due to the colours chosen. Please consider breaking the small scale maps into 

larger scale blocks for ease of interpretation. 

the extent of data that can be 

shown has been clarified with 

TRCA (who supplied the study 

team with the data) 

An additional description has 

been provided on the 

rationale. 

The title of the figure and 

section has been amended to 

Significant/Sensitive Species 

and Areas. 

Noted 

We have included a reference 

to the Morrison report. 

This has been clarified on the 

figure and in the text. 

We have selected different 

colours and overlay hatches to 

distinguish the blocks more 

clearly. We have also provided 

a large foldout map at the back 


MNR 

9. 

MMAH 

58. 

MMAH 

59. 

MMAH 

60. 

MMAH 

61. 

MMAH 

62. 

Figure 12 Ecological Management Units, page 45: 

Under the Legend, the reference to “quarry” sites should be changed to “pit” 

sites as these areas are old sand and gravel pits and not quarries. There is also 

a pit missing from the map in the area north of Whitevale on the west side of 

North Road. 

This figure should not be identifying features outside of the system. There is an 

aquatic community located north of Whitevale Road, and west of Sideline 20. 

5.1.5 Identification of Management Units - This section contains the beginnings 

of the Management Plan and should be given more prominence, perhaps it 

could be renamed “Developing a Management Plan” – or it should be in section 

6.0 

5.1.5 Identification of Management Units - In this section, you state that “given 

that a prime objective of the management plan is to restore areas that have 

been subject to human disturbance in the past”…..however, this information has 

not yet been introduced in the plan 

5.1.5 Identification of Management Units - The following statement outlines the 

organization of the Management Plan, and it should be more visually prominent 

“the MUs were classified into 2 fundamental groups; those areas that are 

predominantly comprised of native communities, and those with a history of 

disturbance” , perhaps you could add a chart of this information to have it “pop” 

off the page 

5.1.5 Identification of Management Units - You then introduce the goals of these 

two distinct communities; and this also needs to be made more prominent. 

5.1.6 Identification of Areas of Open Habitat - The last sentence in the first 

paragraph is the goal. It should be stated up front, and made more prominent 

(put a border around it?)and the rationale can follow after 

5.1.6 Identification of Areas of Open Habitat - The minimum area of the open 

habitats, plus their perceived value as having lesser environmental significance 

are a challenge/constraint, if there are other challenges/ constraints with respect 

to implementing the entire NHS +MTP, could they be grouped together 


of the document for legibility. A 

reference is included in the 

11x17 map to the large map at 

the back. 

The wording has been 

changes and the feature 

outside the NHS removed from 

the map. 

The section has been left as 

Identification of Management 

Units – as it is methodology, it 

should remain in this section, 

but we re-iterate it briefly in 

section 6. 

We are not sure we 

understand the comment. We 

will ensure the objective has 

been previously stated, but we 

do not see the need to have 

described the areas that have 

been previously disturbed. 

We agree that this is a 

fundamental organizing 

principle and have attempted 

to emphasize it. 

Agreed – response is same as 

above 

Agree. Revision has been 

made 

MMAH 

63. 

We will consider summarizing 

challenges/constraints. We do 

not see the open areas as 

having lesser significance and 

have clarified this in the text 

MMAH 5.1.7 Priority Restoration Areas - This section should also be more prominent. This section has been left,

64. however, priorities are only 

introduced here and a 

reference is provided to a 

more detailed section 

‘implementation’ which 

described all priorities of the 

NHSMP + MTP. 

MMAH 

65. 

Durham 

11 

TRCA 

21. 

MMAH 

66. 

5.1.7 Priority Restoration Areas - If you are recommending areas adjacent to 

development be restored first (or as development occurs), is this the same as 

the 15m edge strip? If so, then that should be stated 

Section 5.1.7 Priority Restoration Areas – Should the text in this section give 

reference to Figure 14 – Priority NHS Management Areas? Also, should there 

be additional references to Figure 14 in Section 6? 

Section 5.1.7, Page No. 46. There is some debate as to whether the priority 

areas should be those that are vulnerable to impacts from future development or 

those that require immediate work to enhance their size, shape or matrix 

influence. Given that the phasing of development is unknown 1 , it may be more 

appropriate to prioritize based on the latter. Regardless, the section should 

address the details of how restoration phasing will be tied to development. 

5.2 Cultural heritage - First Nations information should be summarized in here 

too 

Clarification has been 

provided. 

References have been added 

We are not sure who is 

debating. Our 

recommendation is to prepare 

for the impacts of development 

as a first priority. We have 

added discussion to clarify 

how this could happen. 

The following text has been 

added: 

“Archaeological Services Inc. 

carried out a Stage 1 

archaeological assessment as 

part of the overall NHS 

Management Plan and Master 

Trail Plan. Based on this 

research, it was concluded 

that all areas within the NHS 

that may be impacted by any 

trail or related facility 

development must be subject 

to Stage 2 archaeological 

assessment. 

A Stage 2 assessment was 

then carried out for the 

1 However, please note that the City of Pickering and TRCA have received two planning applications for lands located south of Taunton Road at Sideline 22, and two planning 

applications for lands located north of Taunton Road at Sideline 26. 


proposed primary 

neighbourhood connector 

trails, where these cross the 

NHS lands. This work was 

monitored by a First Nations 

representative.” 


10. 

MNR 

11. 

MNR 

12. 

MMAH 

67. 

MMAH 

68. 

MMAH 

69. 

Durham 

14. 

Page 47. 

In Subsection 5.2.1, the Existing Whitevale Heritage District 

should be mapped. While Council did pass the resolution to do a study in the 

context of the neighbourhood planning program, it should be significantly 

downplayed. Fundamentally, it conflicts with the land use designation in the 

CPDP, and would significantly affect the ability for the City to achieve the 

population of 70,000. An expansion is not likely. The NHSMP report should not 

make any assumptions on the outcome of the study. 

Section 5.2.1 Whitevale Heritage District, page 47: 

This section refers to Figure 52 which is not listed in the Table of Contents. 

Section 5.3.1 Existing Trails and Access Points, page 48: 

This section refers to Figures 13.1 and 13.2 which are found in the report as 

Figures 13A and 13B. 

The WHCD outline is 

illustrated on the Cultural 

Heritage Management Plan, 

Figure XX. Reference to the 

possible expansion of the 

WHCD has been downplayed 

in the section. 

The reference was to Figure 

XX Cultural Heritage 

Management Plan which has 

now been incorporated into the 

document and added to the 

list. 


revised to correlate with the 

figures. 

5.3 Master Trails Plan – Background Data - This should be in section 3.0 A separate description of 

background data have been 

provided for each of the three 

sections of the report – 

ecological, cultural and trails – 

as required by the 

restructuring of the report. 

5.3.1 Existing Trails and Access Points - This section should be in section 3.0, 

perhaps there also needs to be a section(s) entitled “Existing Linkages and 

Existing Challenges 

5.3.1 Existing Trails and Access Points - Before you deal with the trail plan, you 

change direction at this point and move into ecological management guidelines, 

the trail plan info should be all in one section if you can 

Section 5.3.1 Existing Trails and Access Points – 2nd paragraph – In the 

sentence beginning with “The Master Trails Plan illustrates the various trail 

 


restructured into distinct 

sections for NHS 

management, master trail plan 

and cultural and 

archaeological resource 

management. 

Reference has been included. 


TRCA 

22. 

types proposed…”, it is suggested that reference to Figure 30 be included 

Section 5.3.1, Page No. 60, Figure 13B. We continue to suggest a meeting 

between the Seaton Trail Management Committee and the consultant to ensure 

that both groups are working from similar mapping. For the most part the 

linkages suggested in the tables appear to be satisfactory, but it is difficult to 

assess with the mapping provided. For example, we question the labelling of 

the “ATV Trails” and whether these are formal trails or not. We also suggest 

that potential trails on private lands be identified in another colour and will be 

subject to landowner authorization. 

References on the plans to 

ATV trails have been revised 

to ‘informal trails.’ 

6 - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM – ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 

MMAH 

70. 

MMAH 

71. 

MMAH 

72. 

MMAH 

73. 

MMAH 

74. 

6.0 NHS – Ecological Management Guidelines - Section 5.1.5 should be in this 

section 

6.0 NHS – Ecological Management Guidelines - You could introduce and 

explain Figures 14-19 here too, and your priority management areas 

6.0 NHS – Ecological Management Guidelines - You need to organize all of 

section 6 better, as the information does not flow logically from one section to 

the next, in particular, it is not clear how section 6.3 MUs management goals 

are different from section 6.4 Restoration Prescriptions and how the priorities in 

section 12.0 fit in 

6.0 NHS – Ecological Management Guidelines - What we need to see in this 

section is: where we are, where we are going, and how we can get there. It 

would be easier to follow if it were organized this way. 

6.0 NHS – Ecological Management Guidelines - It would be helpful if the 

Priorities listed in the various MUs need to be prioritized further, for example 

(not that you have to use these, just an example): high - done prior to 

development, medium – done within 5 years of development, and low – done 

after 5 years of development, this is moving from science to recommendations, 

and you have done enough research to make that leap 


Ecological Management 

guidelines are summarized 

here but the methodology 

behind the creation of the MUs 

is fully described in section 5.1 

Management priorities have 

been described for all sections 

of the report, in the 

implementation section of the 

report. 

This has been achieved 

through the restructuring of the 

document. 

We have added this in a 

generic way at the outset, but 

because it will be similar for 

most MUs, we do not think it is 

appropriate to state this for 

every MU individually. 

Because much of the medium 

to low priorities will be 

influenced by future 

opportunity, it may be difficult 

to clarify these lower priorities. 

An attempt has been made at 

prioritizing all prescriptions 

found in the implementation 

section of the document where

MNR 

13. 

Durham 

15. 

MMAH 

75. 

MMAH 

76. 

MMAH 

77. 

MMAH 

78. 

MNR 

14. 

Section 6.0 Natural Heritage System – Ecological Management Guidelines, 

pages 48/49: 

The footnote at the bottom of page 49 regarding the reference for the Ecological 

Land Classification (ELC) should be moved to Section 5.1.1 where ELC is first 

mentioned. 

Section 6.1 Ecological Management Units: Native Vegetation Communities – 

The text contained in this section appears to also apply to Culturally Modified 

Vegetation Communities. As such, it is suggested that the “Section 6.1 

Ecological Management Units: Native Vegetation Communities” title be moved 

from page 49 to page 50, to follow the “Long Term Management Vision” (which 

should be renumbered to be Section 6.1.). 

6.1 Native Vegetation Communities - Introduce all sections here instead of 

fragmenting them: eg: Native Vegetation Communities, Native Woodlands, 

swamp communities, marsh communities, aquatic communities, Beach bars, 

bluffs, sand barrens, clay barrens, cultural communities 

6.2 Long Term Management Vision - Instead of Permitted Uses, suggest using 

Recommended Uses 

6.2 Long Term Management Vision - Your vision, not CPDP, are you trying to 

increase all of the areas, or are you recommending that we maintain what is on 

the ground or is this how we should management these different ecological 

units? Please explain. How does each of these management units tie into the 

vision? Why does this have a separate vision, and why is this vision after 

section 6.1? 

6.2 Long Term Management Vision - You have explained how the TRCA info. 

Formed the basis for the development of Management Guidelines, and this is 

important info that needs a heading, and referenced in the Table of Contents 

(Ecological Basis for Management Guidelines?) 

Figures 13A and 13B, pages 50/51: 

Both of these figures are supposed to refer to each other. However, they 

instead refer to Figures 9.1 and 9.2. 

tables and descriptions of 

priorities go into more detail. 

The footnote has been moved 

to correlate with the section on 

ELC. 

Has been revised to suit 

We do not understand the 

comment – the section 

organizes the communities, we 

do not see how they are 

fractured. 

Text edit provided 

The quoted vision IS from the 

CPDP and is not ours. The 

section title may not be 

appropriate and we have 

changed it to “Overall 

Approach and Long Term 

Management Vision.’ The 

prescription for each MU is 

guided by the Vision, and this 

should be self evident. We will 

clarify this. It was felt 

providing the vision 

immediately before the 

prescriptions would assist 

readers in linking the two. 

We will consider this, bearing 

in mind that the heading may 

change as suggested above. 

References have been 

correlated to one another. 


MNR 

15. 

MMAH 

79. 

TRCA 

23. 

TRCA 

24. 

TRCA 

25. 

TRCA 

26. 

TRCA 

27. 

Section 6.2 Long Term Management Vision, page 52: 

The second bullet point under Terrestrial Resources should be modified. The 

term “vulnerable” has been replaced by the term “special Concern”. As a result, 

the term “vulnerable” should be deleted and the word “special” should be added 

before the word “concern”. 

6.2 Long Term Management Vision - The footnote on page 53 is important 

information and captures the importance of different communities yet it is lost in 

a footnote – this section speaks to the importance of larger areas, interior 

communities, edges, and connections 

Section 6.2, throughout. We support the approach to long term management in 

principal. Unfortunately the consulting team did not meet with TRCA’s technical 

staff to discuss our approach to long term management and enhancement of 

riparian, wetland and woodland habitat. For example, TRCA’s Restoration 

Services staff has recently prepared a Duffins Creek Wetland and Riparian 

Opportunities Plan. This Plan is an evolution of the habitat implementation 

planning (HIP) process which was initiated in 2003 as a means to strategically 

implement and catalogue restoration projects throughout the jurisdiction. We 

continue to recommend that the consulting team meet with TRCA technical staff 

to discuss our approach to long term management and include refinements 

arriving from such in Section 6.2. Failing this, further examination of TRCA’s 

approach should be a recommendation of the Management Plan. 2 

Section 6.2, Page No. 52. Under terrestrial resources, there should be 

recognition of the management target to accept and plan for adaptation to 

changes as they occur with the fullness of time. One example is climate 

change. Under aquatic resources, “a more stable flow regime” should be 

changed to read “a more natural flow regime,” and “maintain and lower 

temperature” should be changed to “maintain and restore natural stream 

temperature.” 

Section 6.2, Page No. 53. Under stream morphology, please add the principle 

of minimizing instream erosion structures, unless they are needed to protect 

existing infrastructure (i.e. not new trails as trails should be planned well away 

from natural erosion sites). 

Section 6.2, throughout. Under Areas of Special Consideration, please clarify 

what special consideration these areas will be given (ie. will there be trails or 

recreation uses allowed here and which areas will be off-limits). 

Section 6.2, throughout. It may be useful to describing habitat enhancement 

structures (e.g. bird boxes, snake hibernacula, sunning logs, etc.) that can be 

used as part of stewardship activities in each community. If so, please describe 

Edit has been made 

The information has been 

moved from the footnote to an 

appropriate section in the 

document. 

We met with TRCA throughout 

the process through steering 

committee meetings and 

assumed that relevant 

information was being 

provided to us. 

Notwithstanding this, we have 

met with TRCA staff and will 

integrate the information 

provided into the report, and 

also leave the door open for 

future incorporation of TRCA’s 

programs. 

Text edits made. However the 

changes provide less direction 

by leaving the term “natural” 

undefined – without knowing 

what is meant by natural, the 

statement is somewhat 

ambiguous 

Text has been revised 

accordingly. 

Revised 

We have looked at the 

feasibility of this and 

incorporated examples where 

2 

Please see TRCA Authority Board report for April 25, 2008, Page No. 33 at: www.trca.on.ca/Website/TRCA/Graphics.nsf/Graphics/Agenda03- 

08Authority/$file/AuthorityAgenda03-08-April25_2008.pdf 


MMAH 

80. 

MMAH 

81. 

MMAH 

82. 

TRCA 

28. 

TRCA 

29. 

TRCA 

30. 

when and where they can be used. 

6.2.1 Native Woodlands - The last sentence of the introductory paragraph states 

“restoration initiatives for this management area are aimed at increasing the 

overall area of individual forest patches in order to create conditions to increase 

interior forest area and….” However, the management goals listed below this 

statement do not mention increasing the forest area at all, rather maintaining the 

forest area. This inconsistency needs to be fixed. 

6.2.2.-6.2.8 Sections - In areas where you have stated that “there are no 

specific management goals for this feature. Are these features not important 

enough to at least maintain? Could we state that these areas should be 

retained and allowed to evolve naturally? 

6.2.2.-6.2.8 Sections - In section 6.3.7 footnote 3, you state that “MUs are 

mutually exclusive and that there is no overlap among them.” This is an 

important note and should be noted up front in section 6.0 

Section 6.2.3, Page No. 55. The principle of allowing SWM ponds to outlet to 

marshes if pre-development water balance is maintained and thermal loading is 

minimized is discussed in this section. There are some marshes that this would 

not be permitted in, but where it is acceptable wetland hydrology must be 

maintained (i.e. maintain quantity, flow paths, and hydroperiod/monthly water 

balance). Water quality is also a concern. Tertiary treatment would be required 

prior to discharging to acceptable marshes. For example, please address how 

will salt use affect the marsh given that chlorides cannot be removed by SWM 

ponds. 

Section 6.2.5, Page No. 57. Under beaches/bars, no management guidance is 

provided for this management unit. However, like bluffs, beaches/bars are 

dynamic and trails should be located away from these areas. 

Section 6.2.5, Page No. 57. Under bluffs, please confirm that the long-term 

stable slope line has been applied to the erosion areas adjacent to 

development. This, plus a 30 m buffer should accommodate for hazards. As 

long as the trails respect these allowances, natural erosion processes should be 

permitted to continue. 

appropriate 

Agreed – also added 

qualification that patches are 

increased only within the NHS 

Beach/Bars and Clay Barrens 

are the only sections without 

goals and reasons are given 

for this, however, we will reexamine 

this in light of the 

comment, we can at least 

clarify that the intent is to 

retain them and let them 

evolve in the absence of any 

detailed information. 

We do not see this as a major 

point, but it has been noted in 

section 3.2.3 addressing the 

development of the MUs. We 

may remove the statement 

from the footnote. 

We will qualify the statement 

and may provide examples, 

but will not be providing 

detailed discussion of how 

SWM facilities impact wetlands 

Agreed 

We have not determined 

stable slopes – the 

communities were identified 

from TRCA ELC data. We will 

note the need to do this in any 

area where development is 

proposed adjacent to slopes, 


TRCA 

31. 

TRCA 

32. 

MMAH 

83. 

MMAH 

84. 

MMAH 

85. 


12. 

MNR 

16. 

Section 6.2.7, Page No. 58. If the indicator flora associated with sand barrens is 

present at a site, then the MU should be treated as such regardless of whether 

they originated from anthropogenic or natural disturbances. Because of the loss 

of soil, these areas will likely continue to persist as sand barrens for a long time. 

We agree that these areas are sensitive to human encroachment (i.e. erosion, 

dumping, etc.) because they are perceived as waste places, and public access 

to them should be avoided. We recommend that management for these areas 

should consist of leaving them undisturbed. 

Section 6.2.8, Page No. 58. Clay barrens constitute such a small component of 

the overall vegetation community composition that, in the interest of maintaining 

vegetation community diversity, impacts to this area should be avoided and 

human access should not be permitted. 

6.3 Ecological Management Units: Culturally Modified Vegetation Communities - 

You need to define what they are, (vegetation communities that are not natural 

and have been modified….) 

6.3 Ecological Management Units: Culturally Modified Vegetation Communities - 

You need to summarize what they are: cultural meadows and thickets, cultural 

woodlands, plantations, hedgerows, agricultural communities, manicured 

communities, aggregate areas 

6.3.1 Cultural Communities (CUM, CUT) - Under Management Goals, need to 

address Market Gardens 

Page 59. In Subsection 6.3.1, the Management Goals/Permitted Uses for 

Cultural Communities should include the full range of infrastructure uses 

permissible by the CPDP, including renewable energy systems, stormwater 

ponds and community gardens. This section should recommend separate 

management guidelines for each of these uses. 

Section 6.3.1 Cultural Communities (CUM, CUT), page 61: 

Under the heading of Management Guidelines, the first bullet point states that 

“unless indicated otherwise in figure 12, restore to woodland”. Figure 12 shows 

the existing management units. None of the culturally modified vegetation 

communities identify any future restoration opportunities. Maybe the wrong 

figure is proposed. 


per TRCA policy. 

Agreed. Text has been revised 

accordingly. 

Agreed. Text has been revised 

accordingly. 

In introductory/explanatory 

sentence has been added at 

the start of section 3.2.5 

Text has been modified to 

declare culturally modified 

MU’s as ‘cultural thicket’ and 

‘cultural meadows’ consistent 

with the ELC. 

Has been included and cross 

referenced this to the 

appropriate section 

We will ensure the permitted 

uses are consistent with the 

CPDP, and can give some 

general management 

guidance, but will not be giving 

detailed guidelines for each 

potential use. This can be 

done if and when the use is 

proposed and at that point the 

goal of the MU should be 

considered. 

The figure has been adjusted. 

TRCA Section 6.3.4, Page No. 63. We understand that the intent is to protect The text has been

33. hedgerow vegetation (e.g. as they can contain SAR, large tree specimens, seed 

sources, corridors, etc.), and we agree with this approach. However, this needs 

to be more clearly articulated. Under management goals, please add “…except 

when adjacent management units are open habitat.” 

MNR 

17. 

TRCA 

34. 

TRCA 

35. 

MMAH 

86. 

MMAH 

87. 

MNR 

18. 


13. 

TRCA 

36. 

MNR 

19. 

Section 6.3.5 Agricultural communities (Ag), page 64: 

Same comment as for Section 6.3.1 regarding Figure 12. 

Under the heading of Management Guidelines, the fourth bullet point states that 

areas suitable for public garden plots are best determined through the MESP 

process. Shouldn’t the NHS Management Plan be determining the best location 

for this type of use? 

Section 6.3.5, Page No. 64. We continue to disagree with the use of garden 

plots within the NHS. However, given that this use is permitted in the NHS under 

the CPDP, the NHSMP should outline some clear rules around garden plots 

within the NHS, particularly since the location of these facilities will occur 

through the MESP process. There need to be criteria for where, how large, 

what the configuration will be, where ancillary structures can be located (i.e. tool 

sheds, greenhouses), the required organic growing practices, and what the 

source of irrigation can be for these facilities. Another consideration is the 

potential for garden produce to be destroyed by wildlife. 

Section 6.3.5, Page No. 64. There are two sets of permitted uses listed here 

and one should be removed. 

6.3.5 Agricultural communities - Under Management Goals, need to address 

Market Gardens 

6.3.5 Agricultural communities - Bruce, you questioned whether a potential First 

Nations interpretive facility was a permitted use in the CPDP, and it is (p 35. 

CPDP policy 4.1 d) 

Section 6.3.6 Manicured Communities (Man), page 65: 

Same comment as for Section 6.3.1 regarding Figure 12. 

Page 64. Subsection 6.3.6, Manicured Communities makes no clear 

recommendations about retention of homesteads or the uses of the NHS 

portions of the Whitevale Golf Course. Subsection 6.3.6 should address these 

topics at this point in the Report. 

Section 6.3.7, Page No. 65. Please clarify why “maintaining pavement” is a 

management goal 

Section 6.3.7 Aggregate Pit Sites, page 65: 

Footnote 3 should be modified to replace the word “quarry” with the word “pit”. 

incorporated into the report. 

The MP can provide general 

guidance (e.g., only in cultural 

MUs) but the exact location of 

Garden Plots will in part be 

determined by the design of 

the proposed development and 

cannot be fully addressed 

here. 

Some guidance has been 

provided here to ensure the 

MESP addresses the 

appropriate issues. 

Redudancy has been 

addressed 

Reference to garden plots has 

been added 

No action required? 

Same response as MNR 17 

Mention of homesteads and 

uses within the Golf Course 

have been added 


clarified. If there is open, 

exposed bedrock this 

constitutes another habitat 

type and it should be 

recognized. 

Term has been revised 


MMAH 

88. 

MMAH 

89. 

MNR 

20. 

Durham 

16. 


14. 

6.4 Restoration Prescriptions - This section is titled Restoration Prescriptions, 

but it talks about Restoration Plans, and section 6.4.1 is really the introduction to 

this section 

6.4 Restoration Prescriptions - How are we supposed to know when a 

Restoration Plan (RP) is necessary or not? What are the criteria we can use to 

evaluate whether an RP is necessary? 

Section 6.4.2.3 Plantings – All Sites, page 70: 

For restoration using nucleation cells, are there any examples as to where in 

Ontario this has been applied? 

This section should specify the types of trees that are proposed to be used. 

Figure 12 – Ecological Management Units – It is suggested that the term 

“Quarry Sites” be changed to “Aggregate Pit Sites”, for consistency with the text 

contained in Section 6.3.7. 

Page 67. In Subsection 6.4.1.1, the requirement in the second bullet point 

for a chain link fence along the boundary of the NHS will do little for its 

integration with the community. This is most disappointing as it does not 

support the CPDP policy on page 37 to strengthen the relationship of the 

Natural Heritage System with the urban areas to ensure natural areas form part 

of everyday life in the community. Will there be many gates for people to get 


issue, the section provides 

prescriptions and also 

identifies where detailed plans 

are needed – this is not 

contradictory. 6.4.1 is 

introductory and this is 

reflected in the title. Removing 

the heading would detract from 

the report structure. 

We will do our best to indicate 

where plans are needed, and 

at least provide some criteria. 

Examples of this nature of 

restoration strategy has been 

used at the Rouge Park, 

however, implementation is 

relatively recent and the 

plantings not mature enough to 

learn much from. 

The exact prescription to the 

level of which trees should be 

selected cannot be done in this 

document – this would be the 

subject of a site-specific 

Restoration Plan. This has 

been noted in the text. We 

have however in Appendix A1, 

provided a list of candidate 

restoration species from which 

to draw. 

The term has been revised 

accordingly. 

Fencing will only be 

recommended where the NHS 

abuts private land holdings, 

and public school yards. In 

our opinion, it is essential to 

prevent encroachment and 


TRCA 

37. 

MMAH 

90. 

MMAH 

91. 

MMAH 

92. 

MMAH 

93. 

MMAH 

94. 

MMAH 

95. 

out of the NHS? Is there an expectation the fence would be installed first, or 

after the developer has graded his site and planted the buffer? 

Section 6.4.1.1, Page Nos. 66 – 67. We support the approach to restoring the 

buffers. A figure may be useful here. 

6.4.1 Overall Approach…. - This section includes priorities (restoration of 15 m 

buffer adjacent to development, linkage areas that are currently agricultural), 

and the rationale for these priorities (so they can begin to provide an ecological 

linkage function), you have called them factors to be considered, which is not 

accurate (the only factor to be considered that you have indicated, is the size of 

the restoration area, however, another factor that you have indicated in section 

6.4.1.2 is the possibility of human intrusion into the NHS) 

6.4.1.1 Approach for Restoring Buffers - This section is a key component of the 

NHS Management Plan that you are proposing and should be stated up front 

6.4.1.1 Approach for Restoring Buffers - The buffer is already in public 

ownership and is to remain in public ownership, and that is not clear in this 

section (same with Linkages) 

6.4.1.1 Approach for Restoring Buffers - You have identified a hierarchy of 

restoration initiatives, but you have listed them as bullet points 

6.4.1.1 Approach for Restoring Buffers - Your first sentence identifies that “it is 

normal practice in most southern Ontario municipalities and areas within the 

TRCA jurisdiction that the planting of a buffer and fencing along the rear lot lines 

adjacent to natural features be undertaken as a developer responsibility”….You 

need to check with TRCA and MNR, as I believe that this is not standard 

practice, although TRCA may occasionally require this. Fencing is rarely 

advocated by TRCA (unless you mean a living fence). When the boundary of 

the NHS was defined, it already included the buffers in public realm, so 

additional setbacks (or buffer areas) were not needed. What was in the NHS 

was in, and what was not in the NHS was developable. The first 2 sentences 

should be deleted, and the 3 rd sentence should clarify that the buffer areas were 

included in the public realm. 

6.4.1.1 Approach for Restoring Buffers - Check with MNR and TRCA, as I’m not 

sure that a chain link fence is desirable, and perhaps there are alternative 

measures, such as signage 

limit inappropriate use. Gates 

could be provided in school 

yards, but not behind 

residences. 

No action taken 

We do not understand what 

the TRCA is asking here. We 

will look again at our use of the 

word “factors”. 

This is just one of many 

components, we cannot put 

every important component up 

front. 

The text has been amended to 

reflect this concern. 

We can changed the bullets to 

numbers 


We will check with the TRCA, 

but each time we have worked 

with TRCA (and other 

agencies) on this issue we 

have agreed that fences are 

preferred along lot lines to 

control access. We strongly 

object to the removal of the 

first two sentences. 

Implementing authorities can 

choose to ignore our 

recommendations if they wish. 

We have clarified that the 

buffers are within the NHS. 


There are no alternatives that 

we know of. We will check 


MMAH 

96. 

MMAH 

97. 

MMAH 

98. 

MMAH 

99. 

MMAH 

100. 


15. 


16. 

6.4.1.1 Approach for Restoring Buffers - You have gone into a lot of detail in 

section 6.4.2.2 to 6.4.2.6 as to how to restore Agricultural Lands and Cultural 

communities; I believe that your intention is to include the buffers and linkages 

in this area, however this is not clear 

6.4.1.2 Approach for Restoring Linkages - You mention the problem of human 

intrusion in this area, but could it not affect all areas (buffers too?) 

6.4.1.2 Approach for Restoring Linkages - You need to define what the Linkages 

are, are buffer areas part of the Linkages? 

6.4.1.2 Approach for Restoring Linkages - In the third bullet point, you mention 

an “edge definition strip for linkages” and you need to define/explain this term, 

you also mention that it is 15m – 30m in depth, but you also state the it is 15m 

wide, you also need to show where these areas are 

6.4.1.2 Approach for Restoring Linkages - The fourth bullet point is an outcome, 

not a restoration prescription, and is therefore, misplaced 

Page 69. We have the same comment for Subsection 6.4.2 as for page 59. 

Also, on Page 76, the recommendations for the restoration of Open Habitat 

provide an opportunity to also implement renewable energy systems. 

Page 69. Subsection 6.4.2.2 B speaks to preparing the site for restoration 

by excavating/regrading to create “pit and mound topography” to establish 

microhabitats. Would this not be more disruptive to the environment and 

possible existing pioneer plant species than leaving the existing site as is and 

providing additional plantings? In theory, they would need to strip the topsoil in 

with TRCA. 

Buffers and Linkages are 

addressed in 6.4.1.1 and 

6.4.1.2 – we will clarify this in 

the text. 

Yes, but other areas where 

features exist are protected to 

some degree by the buffers. 

In buffers, intrusion is not as 

great a concern as higher 

human use, albeit controlled, is 

anticipated in the buffers. We 

have tried to clarify this. 

This has been clarified in 

section x. 

The term has been explained 

and the width clarified. 

This has been corrected. 

MMAH comments are 

referenced by section and the 

pagination is not consistent 

among copies – we do not 

know what comment is being 

referred to. 

Renewable energy systems 

are permitted within the NHS. 

This was based on discussion 

at the time the CPDP was 

developed regarding the 

potential for wind energy. This 

is covered in Section x with the 

inclusion of ‘infrastructure’ in 

the last point. 

Restoration of pit and mound 

topography is an accepted 

restoration approach – the 

short-term disturbance is 

overwhelmingly compensated 



17. 

TRCA 

41. 

TRCA 

42. 

TRCA 

43. 

MNR 

21. 

MNR 

22. 

MNR 

23. 

TRCA 

44. 

the whole area to excavate the subsoil to create the pits and mounds and then 

spread the topsoil back for adequate topsoil cover. This seems like a lot of work 

for trying to establish microhabitats. In addition, archaeological assessment 

should be undertaken for any lands subject to this process. 

Page 70. Subsection 6.4.2.2 makes reference to Green Ash. These trees 

are not being planted in the City of Pickering currently due to threats from the 

Emerald Ash Borer. This same comment applies to the listing of Green Ash 

trees in Appendix A, table 2: F and 2:G. 

Section 6.4.2.2., Page No. 69. We are encouraged by the promotion of the “pit 

and mound” restoration technique. However, in order to limit compaction of soil 

and disturbance to the site, we recommend that the use of small machinery (i.e. 

bobcat) be employed for this work. 

Section 6.4.2.3, Page No. 70. Wire tree wraps may be necessary to control the 

impact of beavers on plantings in riparian areas. 

Section 6.4.2.5, Page No. 71. Please clarify how direct seeding will be applied 

to the site. 

Section 6.4.2.5 Restoration Using Direct Seeding, page 71: 

The US Department of Agriculture website listed is more of a tree guide similar 

to the Trees in Canada book. It is unclear from this reference the information 

required to determine seed viability and how to prepare seeds for planting. 

With regards to the main elements of the prescription described, amount of seed 

per hectare that produces so many seedlings per hectare will depend on the 

species of tree. 

Section 6.4.2.6 Restoration Using a Native Coniferous Nurse Crop, page 71: 

Recommend that the reference to “seedling tubes” be changed to “bare root 

seedlings” as the “bare root seedlings” are most commonly planted in Southern 

Ontario. 

With regards to the reference to red and white pine, it is the preference that 

more white pines be planted than red pines. Red Oak, Black Cherry and Black 

Walnut can also be planted in the mix. 

Section 6.4.3 Restoration of Riparian Areas, page 72: 

Under the heading Planting – All Sites, “Berb’s Willow” should be changed to 

“Bebb Willow”. It should be noted that Hackberry is rare in Durham. White 

Pine, Burr Oak and White Spruce can also be added to the list of tree species. 

Depending on the restoration requirements, it is also recommended that trees 

species be emphasized over shrub species. 

Section 6.4.3, Page No. 72. Many of the streams within Seaton have been 

targeted for redside dace in the Fish Management Plan, which are mostly 

associated with more open (grass and shrub) habitat, as opposed to forest. 

There should be special consideration made for this species at risk in the 

by the long term result (see 

TRCA comment 41). An 

archaeological assessment 

would be required before 

restoration and we will note 

this. 

Reference has been removed. 

Agreed and noted in the text. 

This has been noted. 

This has been addressed in 

the text. 

We have provided more 

relevant reference sources. 

References have been revised 

accordingly. 

We have made the correction, 

deleted hackberry and added 

the suggested species. We 

have defered to TRCA on the 

actual plantings, consistent 

with their riparian restoration. 

Agreed. We have 

acknowledged this in the 

report. 


TRCA 

38. 

Durham 

17. 

MNR 

24. 

TRCA 

39. 

Durham 

18. 

MMAH 

101. 

MMAH 

102. 

MNR 

25. 

management prescriptions for riparian areas. 

Section 6.4.3, Page 71. See comment No. 23, above. A figure illustrating the 

location of priority riparian restoration sites would be useful. 

Section 6.4.3 Restoration of Riparian Areas – Restoration Prescription – It is 

suggested that the reference to Figure 16 in the text be consistent with the title 

that is shown on Figure 16. It is noted that the text does not indicate that 

Riparian Areas are “Priority” Management Areas. 

Section 6.4.4 Restoration of Cultural Woodlands, page 74: 

Under the heading Restoration Prescription, first bullet point, conifers can also 

be added with the hardwoods. 

For the second bullet point, small canopy openings of approximately 10 m may 

be too small. 20 m may be a more appropriate opening. 

Section 6.4.4, Page No. 74. Please clarify why only “hardwoods” are targeted 

for underplanting. 

Section 6.4.4 Restoration of Cultural Woodlands – Defining the Issue – 

Reference to Figure 17 in the text “Restoration of Cultural Woodland Areas” 

should be consistent with the title shown on Figure 17 “Management Areas – 

Restoration of Cultural Communities”. 

6.4.4 Restoration of Cultural Woodlands - In the section “Defining the Issue” you 

state that “Owing to the ecological functions non-native cultural woodlands 

provide, restoration is of a lower priority.” This goes beyond defining the issue 

and begins to discuss how it is prioritized. 

6.4.4 Restoration of Cultural Woodlands - On Figure 17, you mention that the 

trail should be located in the 30m buffer, where is this information found in the 

trail section? 

Section 6.4.5 Restoration of Open Habitat, page 77: 

Under the heading Plantation, it states that a very limited area of plantations is 

proposed to be removed. It is unclear as to why portions of plantations needs to 

be removed to create open habitat, when there is existing open areas that would 

be available for restoration to open habitat. It would be helpful if a number could 

be given to the amount of plantation that is proposed to be removed. As an 

alternative to removing, would thinning of the plantation achieve the same goal? 

We have not determined this 

and assume it will be done as 

part of implementing the FMP. 

We do not think that the 

riparian areas are a priority, 

other than where they would 

be subject to impacts from 

adjacent development. The 

title and reference to this in the 

report text have been 

correlated. 

Revised accordingly. 

This has been described in the 

report text. 

Text has been edited to reflect 

the figure. 

The note has been left and a 

reference provided to the 

implementation section of the 

report which contains a table 

which lists all priorities for 

management. 

This has been described in 

section X. 

The area identified for open 

habitat was rationalized in the 

report – we capitalized to the 

extent possible on existing 

open areas, but some are 

unsuitable owing to proximity 

to planned development, size, 

shape, etc. We picked the 


TRCA 

45. 

MMAH 

103. 

MMAH 

104. 

TRCA 

40. 

TRCA 

46. 

Section 6.4.5, Page No. 77. We are confused as to why plantations would be 

suggested for restoration to open habitat, when on the following page it is stated 

that “conifer plantations can provide an ideal nurse crop to re-establish native 

hardwood and mixed forests.” We are unclear as to why it is recommended to 

remove existing tree cover (particularly native trees such as red and white pine) 

when these vegetation units can be used to recruit (other) native trees. Instead, 

cultural meadow or cultural thicket (e.g. buckthorn or black locust groves) 

should be used, since removal of the invasive shrubs and trees will need to 

occur anyway. 

6.4.5 Restoration of Open Habitat - In the third paragraph under “Defining the 

Issue” section, you state “Open habitats should be a minimum of 15 ha and ….” 

This paragraph contains restoration prescription and should be moved to that 

section. 

6.4.5 Restoration of Open Habitat - The last paragraph on page 77 should be in 

the maintenance and monitoring section (p.187) 

Section 6.4.5, Page No. 76. It is stated that the restoration to tallgrass habitat 

(i.e. prairie or savannah) is not recommended due to the ongoing maintenance 

required to retain a restored tallgrass community on the landscape. While we 

agree that this maintenance can be more intense and complex than restoration 

to meadow, the Seaton lands provide a unique opportunity to achieve tallgrass 

restoration for two reasons, which may make this extra effort worthwhile or at 

least worth exploring. First, the sandy soils of the former Lake Iroquois 

Shoreline afford a unique opportunity to restore the globally rare tallgrass 

habitat that may have historically existed. Given the soils, tallgrass communities 

may be more ecologically appropriate than meadow habitat. Second, taking 

advantage of First Nations involvement in the Seaton process would enable: a) 

confirmation of whether tallgrass communities were traditionally maintained by 

First Nations people in Seaton and, if so; b) facilitating engagement of and/or 

leadership by First Nations in stewardship activities promoting restoration of 

tallgrass communities. We note that although prescribed burns require complex 

coordination and administration, they are successfully carried out in an urban 

environment at both High Park in Toronto, and at the Royal Botanical Gardens 

in Burlington. 

Section 6.4.6, Page No. 78. Plantations can also be important for certain 

species of hawks and owls. 

areas to achieve the required 

sizes and minimize removal of 

plantation. Thinning would not 

achieve the same goal. 

See reply to MNR 25 

The text has been moved 

under the prescription heading. 

We cannot determine which 

paragraph the comment refers 

to (pagination is inconsistent) – 

we have looked for any out of 

place paragraphs 

We agree the tallgrass 

restoration would be preferred, 

but some agency will have to 

take the long-term 

responsibility and liability 

(burning in urban area) for the 

maintenance. We very much 

doubt that FN will be able to 

assist in determination of a). 

We have amended the text to 

leave the door open for this 

option. 

This has been revised 

accordingly. 


MNR 

26. 

MMAH 

105. 

MMAH 

106. 

MNR 

27 


18. 

MMAH 

107. 


19. 

Section 6.4.6 Restoration of Plantations, page 78: 

Under the heading Restoration Prescription, the second bullet point identifies 

three sizes of clearings. It is recommended that the largest clearing being >50 

m be deleted as this size is more appropriate for large plantations. 

6.4.6 Restoration of Plantations - Define/discuss what a plantation is, perhaps 

you can put a definition section at the end of the document and inc. definitions 

there 

6.4.6 Removal/Rehabilitation of Areas with Human Disturbance - The items 

listed as 1-10 show a hierarchy yet reading points 2, 3, 9, and 10 are not 

hierarchical 

Section 6.4.7 Removal/Rehabilitation of Areas with Human Disturbance, page 

81: 

Under the heading Restoration Prescription, the first point speaks to the 

breeding season for ground nesting birds. This point should not focus just on 

ground nesters, but to all breeding birds. 

Pages 84/85. Subsection 6.5, Tables 3 & 4 should include actions to control 

existing invasive species and details about the form of “eradication”. 

6.5 Management Activities - This section and section 6.4 likely affect all areas of 

the NHS, is there a way to separate out issues like this and cover them off 

under a separate heading? These 2 sections could be in a section titled 

Hazards and included with other hazards such as flood plains, road crossings, 

development and infrastructure interface, stormwater management 

Page 86. In Subsection 6.6, the paragraph beginning “In addition”, 

considering the third bullet point, by definition, since storm sewers outfall to 

creeks, how is erosion prevented and how can we confine it to road crossings? 

This has been revised 

accordingly. 

A description of what 

plantations are present and 

why they are there is 

introduced at the beginning of 

the section. More information 

is provided in Appendix F2. 

This is section 6.4.7. The 

intent was to simply list points 

to be considered in restoration 

and has been clarified 


adjusted. 

Some removal strategies for 

the more common aggressive 

invasive plants have been 

included in Appendix X 

6.4 does not affect all areas. 

We have looked at the 

structure of 6.5 and have 

grouped headings under a 

banner heading of 

“management 

recommendations – 

development (or 

neighbourhood) interface.” 

Reference to the section which 

describes approaches to 

erosion mitigation has been 

added. 

Pickering Page 87. In Subsection 6.6.1, the report should clarify when and by whom A suggested approach has 

20. the determination of the type of wildlife crossing will be made. Should it be 

addressed in the Region’s Class EA, the Seaton MESP, at the subdivision 

been provided on pg 79 of the 

document. 

approval stage, or in all 3 processes? 

MNR Section 6.6.2 Stormwater Management Infrastructure and Facilities, pages The point has been clarified, 


28. 90/91: 

Under the heading Stormwater Management Facility Integration 

Recommendations, the second bullet point includes a reference that ponds can 

be integrated as recreational, aesthetic and ecological amenities adjacent to the 

NHS. It is unclear as to what ecological amenities this speaks to. 

It should be noted that the primary purpose of a stormwater management facility 

(pond) is for containing and cleaning stormwater before release to a waterbody. 

It is not for habitat creation or for wetland creation. These facilities need 

periodical cleaning out as they tend to contain contaminants. If this is what is 

meant by ecological amenity, this should be clarified. 

Recommend adding a bullet point to the first set of bullet points on page 91 that 

recognizes the principle that there will be a buffer between the stormwater 

management facility and the natural heritage feature(s). 


21. 

Durham 

20. 

Page 90. Subsection 6.6.2 SWM Infrastructure & Facilities – SWM Facility 

Integration Recommendations: One of the general recommendations to guide 

the implementation of SWM facilities on lands adjacent to and within the NHS 

states that a “means of evaluating the implications of development and 

stormwater initiatives using up to date modelling methods in a standardized 

process” should be adopted. It is unclear what is meant by this statement. Who 

would be responsible for this evaluation? What is envisioned? When would it 

be done – at MESP or neighbourhood planning levels? 

Section 6.6.1 Road Crossings – 2nd paragraph – 1st sentence – Suggest that 

the last word in this sentence be changed from “morality” to “mortality”. 

however, SWM facilities do 

provide habitat for wildlife 

albeit not ideal, 

notwithstanding ongoing 

maintenance. 

Bullet point has been added to 

pg 81 in accordance with the 

comment. 

A water balance and 

appropriate SWM design 

should be done as part of the 

MESP a means of evaluating 

the function of the SWM facility 

should be developed. The 

statement has been left and 

revised to provide flexibility in 

the development of the 

evaluation process. 

Text has been corrected 

TRCA 

47. 

TRCA 

48. 

TRCA 

49. 

MMAH 

108. 

Section 6.6.2, Page No. 90. The use of tertiary treatment needs to be strongly 

encouraged when discharging stormwater to the NHS. 

Section 6.6.2, Page No. 91. Please revise the first bullet to state: “The location 

of stormwater management ponds in the natural heritage system, although 

permitted by the CPDP, is strongly discouraged. Where this situation is 

unavoidable, stormwater management ponds should be located outside of: 1) 

valley corridors; 2) areas where the groundwater table can intercept the invert of 

the pond; 3) existing features such as woodlots and welands; and 4) agricultural 

areas targeted for restoration to form primary linkages between existing 

features.” 

Section 6.6.2, Page No. 91. Please also refer to the latest study by Morrison in 

the last paragraph. See Comment No. 19, above. 

6.6.2 Stormwater Management…. - SWM ponds are allowed in the NHS and we 

CANNOT state that they are strongly discouraged. The first bullet point should 

begin SWM facilities are allowed within the NHS… 

A bullet point has been added 

to Pg 82 

See MMAH 108 

Agreed 

Text has been amended 

accordingly 


MMAH 

109. 

MMAH 

110. 

MMAH 

111. 

MNR 

29. 

TRCA 

50. 

6.6.2 Stormwater Management…. - On page 91, you note that stormwater 

ponds should coincide with trail head locations and it would be helpful to explain 

why these items should co-locate 

6.6.2 Stormwater Management…. - On page 91, you reference the Trail Head 

mapping as Figure 46, however, it appears to be Figure 38 

6.6.2 Stormwater Management…. - On page 91, the section title Wetland 

Management Prescription is unclear as to what it is you are referring to, as the 

section appears to refer to Stormwater Ponds/ Runoff, and then discuss 

wetlands and the relationship between the 2 are not explained 

Table 5: Main Wetland Types in Seaton based on Hydrology, page 92: 

This table states for riparian wetlands, they are small in size with no significant 

standing water and have small number of functions, although it is not clear as to 

what functions these are. The table goes on to state that if water inputs are 

increased, then the functions of these types of wetlands may be enhanced. It is 

unclear as to why there needs to be an increase in function for these wetlands. 

These wetlands are one of many features that currently exist in the landscape. 

The overall function of the system should be looked at and not just one 

particular feature. 

Section 6.7, Page No. 93, Table. One of the major management units targeted 

for restoration is open habitat. As far as we can tell, this will only mean meadow 

and we encourage exploration of other habitats not listed, such as tallgrass 

prairie or savannah, per Comment No. 40, above. In addition, there may be 

opportunities to create wetland communities through tertiary treatment of 

stormwater or through the elimination of tile drains in agricultural fields. Finally, 

in areas where hedgerows bisect open habitat management units, we 

understand that they will be maintained as hedgerows. Therefore, the Projected 

Area for hedgerows should not be zero. 

A rationale has been given 

which indicates that SWM 

ponds will have an 

access/service road to and 

around them that may be 

utilized for public trails and the 

naturalized areas around the 

SWM pond should be 

attractive and resistant to 

human use 


revised. 

This has been clarified. 

We have provided text that 

better outlines the function of 

small riparian wetlands that 

have developed in the existing 

agricultural landscape and why 

if additional water from SWM is 

directed to these areas their 

ecological functions may be 

enhanced. 

We have noted the option of 

encouraging prairie as noted 

above. We did not see any 

opportunity for wetland 

creation and would not 

encourage it unless there is 

some distinct reason. 

However, we have also left the 

the option open for this in case 

future abandonment of 

agriculture reveals opportunity. 

We do not envisage the 

hedgerows remaining in the 

open areas – if we are 

managing for species that 

require true open habitat, the 

hedgerows are a deterrent. 


MMAH 

112. 

MMAH 

113. 

MMAH 

114. 

MMAH 

115. 


11. 


22. 

6.7 Long Term State of the NHS... - This section belongs with the vision in 

section 1.0 

6.7 Long Term State of the NHS... - The table on page 93 shows the total 

elimination of agricultural communities in the NHS, however, one of the policies 

of the CPDP is to allow organic farming and community garden plots, and this 

type of agricultural activity may appropriately locate within the NHS (see policies 

6 and 10 of the CPDP, on pp 36 and 37) 

6.7 Long Term State of the NHS... - Part of the aboriginal heritage resources 

may include aboriginal forest management practices, and agricultural practices 

as well, and the opportunity to include these is eliminated in this Table 

(Agricultural Communities are shown to be completely eliminated) 

6.7 Long Term State of the NHS... - Is the intention to have the Whitevale golf 

course become naturalized? If it is a manicured community, then all manicured 

communities are shown to be eliminated. 

An issue that should be addressed in Section 6 is the whole issue of developers 

stripping top soil and piling it up during construction, which can cause run-off 

and siltation. The Report should provide management recommendations on this 

issue. 

Page 91. The subsection on stormwater management facilities clearly 

shows the primacy of environmental issues as the only important part in 

sustainability in this Report. The small amount of remaining table land for 

development should also be recognized, and the “design of ponds and 

stormwater management facilities as recreational, aesthetic and ancillary 

ecological amenities” should be encouraged in the NHS to integrate community 

facilities and use into the NHS. This will allow more table land to be used for 

development. 

This section is a result, which 

is why it follows the 

prescriptions. This is 

introduced at the end of 

Section 1.0. 

The area of garden plots is 

anticipated to be insignificant 

in the big picture and was not 

included in this general vision 

of the future state, however 

their presence has been noted 

in the text. Some general 

guidelines are provided in 

section x 

A note has been added 

referencing a section within the 

document which describes an 

interpretive opportunity for 

integrating aboriginal 

demonstration garden plots. 

See response to MMAH 113 

Figure 1 has been amended to 

more clearly show the 

manicured landscape intact in 

the future state. 

This should not occur in the 

NHS and thus should not be 

an issue for the management 

plan. However, a note has 

been added within the 

guidelines with respect to 

sediment control during 

construction procedures. 

This comment speaks to 

broader planning issues, not 

management. From our 

perspective, although allowed 

where necessary, SWM 

facilities should be minimized 

in the NHS and definitely not 

encouraged. 


7 - MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

MMAH 

116. 

MMAH 

117. 


23. 

7.0 Management of Archaeological Resources - This section seems out of 

place, and has a different “voice” and structure from the rest of the document 

7.0 Management of Archaeological Resources - The bulk of the background 

material should be either in the background section or in an Appendix 

Page 94. 

Section 7.0 should address whether the developers who 

are recommended to do the planting in the 15 metre buffers adjacent to new 

development should also be responsible for undertaking archaeological surveys 

prior to grading and planting. 

Noted. No action taken. 

Background information has 

been moved to Appendix E. 

A new opening sentence has 

been added to section 7.2 and 

the word “Identified” has been 

deleted from the section title: 

MMAH 

118. 

7.2 Protecting Identified Sites from Impact - In the paragraph at the bottom of 

page 97, you suggest the use of zoning by-laws to restrict the future activities, 

however, this does not make sense as the lands are protected by the CPDP and 

zoning won’t affect this 

“Any area within the NHS that 

may be impacted by any form 

of facility development, or by 

grading/subsurface 

disturbances required for 

establishing buffers between 

the NHS and the development 

lands and/or by any other form 

of habitat restoration, must be 

subject to Stage 2 

archaeological assessment. 

Impacts to any sites 

discovered as a result of such 

work must be appropriately 

mitigated.” 

The last paragraph has been 

removed on page 97 following 

the bulleted entry for 

“Preservation”. The last 

bracketed clause of the last 

sentence in “Preservation” has 

been amended to read: “(the 

latter only in special 

circumstances). 

8 - CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 

MMAH 

119. 

8.0 Cultural Heritage Resources Management Plan - You need to introduce and 

explain what you are covering in this section. It would be helpful if you defined 

An introductory paragraph has 

been added. 


MMAH 

120. 


24. 

what cultural heritage resources are in this document. 

8.1.1 Cultural Heritage Resource Management - Figure 41 is not included nor is 

there a bookmark for it. 

Existing Occupied Properties 

Although the request for proposals directed that the Seaton Natural Heritage 

System Management Plan and Master Trails Plan Study include 

recommendations on how to resolve existing tenancies within the NHS, this 

topic has not been addressed in the March 2008 Draft Report. 

The Report should show where the existing tenanted properties are located, 

assess suitability of the homes and farms for continued use and occupancy, 

assess their heritage value and their potential to serve interpretive or other 

functions supportive of other recommendations for ecological management or 

master trail plan implementation. Lastly, recommendations should be provided 

for continued tenancy, removal, or adaptive re-use of both agricultural and 

residential buildings on each property. 

The Draft Report is silent on how properties that could continue as tenanted 

residences would be serviced within the Neighbourhood planning framework 

and their impact on the objectives of supporting the ecological functions 

proposed for the Management Units in the remainder of the Draft Report. 

This figure X Cultural Heritage 

Resources has now been 

added. 

Tenancy- For the protection of 

built cultural heritage 

resources, the tenanted 

properties must remain 

occupied until an interpretive 

plan is developed to articulate 

the value of these collective 

cultural heritage resources 

within the Hamlet of Whitevale 

crossroads community and the 

NHS. A collective resource 

interpretive plan is the best 

method to link the resources to 

the community, the NHS and 

the history of the area. 

Adaptive re-use insitu of the 

built cultural heritage 

resources is the preferred 

model of preservation. Where 

this is not possible then 

relocation to a nearby site in 

proximity to the original 

location is recommended. 


25. 

Page 98. 

In Subsection 8.1.1, in the first sentence, replace “through 

the delineation of” with “within”. 

Edit has been made to the 

text. 


9 - SEATON MASTER TRAIL PLAN 

MMAH 

121. 

MMAH 

122. 

MMAH 

123. 

MMAH 

124. 

MMAH 

125. 

TRCA 

51. 

9.0 Seaton Master Trail Plan - In practical terms, the NHS Management Plan 

and the Trail Plan should be able to be copied/handed out as separate 

documents 

9.0 Seaton Master Trail Plan - A vision for the trail and the need for trails up 

front (prior to development) could be established 

9.0 Seaton Master Trail Plan - The trail system, if well designed and connected, 

could be a destination for GTA cyclists, runners, etc., - was there consideration 

given to this? It would strengthen the argument for Seaton trails if they become 

a showcase for trail systems in the GTA 

9.0 Seaton Master Trail Plan - If the trail system becomes a focal point or 

destination in its own right, then trail network supporting uses could be 

encouraged, such as water fountains, commercial ventures such as bike shops/ 

rental centres, restaurants, connections to other municipal facilities, such as 

pools, rec centres, parking lots, etc. If we don’t suggest this, and encourage it, it 

will not happen, there needs to be direction for this in the neighbourhood 

planning exercise/ design charrette. 

9.0 Seaton Master Trail Plan - Sidewalks etc. in the urban area are necessary to 

make connections with the NHS trail system to encourage trail use in the NHS, 

and although this is outside of the NHS, it would be useful to have a paragraph 

that would encourage trail use and its connection with the urban system 

Section 9.0, Page No. 101. We are supportive of the trail hierarchy and trail 

types that are outlined in the Master Trails Plan, including the approach of 

primary and secondary neighbourhood connectors. As there is some confusion 

in the text regarding the trail types, the trail hierarchy, and the trail functions, we 

recommend that this section begin with providing a list of the trail types that are 

to be included in the Plan (i.e. dedicated bike routes through to low impact 

trails). We suggest adding a table, near the beginning of Section 9.3 that 

outlines the types of trails, length, function and specification (width, surface type, 

etc.) along with typical plan and cross section diagrams. 

The document has been 

restructured so it can be 

portioned. 

An introductory paragraph has 

been added – GTA access 

See MMAH 122 

See MMAH 122 

A paragraph has been added 

to describe this. 

A table has been added to 

summarize all the trail types 

and functions at the beginning 

of the section 10.3.2 

MMAH 

126. 

MMAH 

127. 

MMAH 

128. 

9.1 Master Trail Plan Framework - On Figure 17, you note that the trail is located 

within the 30m buffer, if this is the case, that should be noted in the text here 

9.1 Master Trail Plan Framework - The Trails first approach (i.e. put the trails in 

before development occurs should be noted up front here) 

9.1 Master Trail Plan Framework - Need to define the CPTED acronym and tie it 

to the Appendix 


Noted in section 10.2.1 

The point has been moved to 

the front of section 10.2 – 

Master Trail Plan Design 

Principles 

The acronym has been 

described and a reference to 

the appendix provided. 

MMAH 9.1 Master Trail Plan Framework - You should introduce Figure 22 here A reference to the figure is

129. provided at the beginning of 

the section. 

MMAH 

130. 

9.2 Master Trail Plan Design Principles - One of the principles you mentioned in 

the Public meeting was to maximize connections yet minimize distances (or 

Text has been added to clarify 

the rational in section 10.2.4 

TRCA 

May 14 

3. 

TRCA 

52. 

TRCA 

53. 

Durham 

19. 

density), and this should be mentioned here 

Section 9.2-Master Trails Plan Design Principles suggests that low impact uses 

and activities that are compatible with protecting the NHS will be promoted, but 

does not list angling as an activity to be considered. Section 9.2.1 suggests that 

sensitive natural heritage features will be avoided by the trail design. Although 

recreational activities such as walking, jogging, cycling and roller blading are 

listed, fishing is not specifically mentioned. Interpretive trails will connect areas 

of natural interpretive value to the various neighbourhoods. The typical 

behaviour pattern of anglers, who tend to walk along the side of a stream 

searching for habitat holding fish, needs to be considered in the trail design. 

Erosion-sensitive stream banks need to be protected and defined fishing access 

points, possibly with fishing platforms, need to be incorporated into trails along 

the streams. 

Section 9.2, Page No. 103. The photo of tract housing is inappropriate and 

should be replaced with one illustrating a community with pedestrian and bicycle 

access. 

Section 9.2, Page No. 104. Providing the appropriate land uses to serve the 

users of the trails is critical. We recommend adding another point on Page No. 

104 entitled “G. Locate appropriate land uses near trailheads to serve cyclists 

and pedestrians.” This new point could include a discussion of the need to 

make provision for uses such as restaurants, cafes, bicycle shops etc. outside of 

the natural heritage system near trailheads as part of the neighbourhood 

planning process. These facilities could provide shared parking and other 

facilities for trail users. This should be a recommendation for the neighbourhood 

planning process to consider. 

It is acknowledged that the Management Prescriptions/Guidelines and Master 

Trails Plan contained in the final Study will be useful input to the Regional 

Infrastructure EA (water, wastewater, transportation) process. Accordingly, this 

Study should be included as reference material for the purposes of the Region’s 

Class EA for Infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation). Our Works 

Department will address this. 

On page 104 (Section 9.2.4 – Make the Connections – F. Utilize Corridors of 

Opportunity), the draft Study states that, although the precise location of service 

corridors and roads will be determined through the completion of EA, MESP and 

Neighbourhood Planning processes, “consideration should be given in the 

infrastructure planning process to the potential to integrate trails within the utility 

corridors and to locate trailheads/nodes coincident with major built infrastructure. 

Figure 21: Opportunities to co-locate Trails with Service Crossings provides an 


Angling opportunities have 

been included but no specific 

reference to location. 

The photo has been replaced. 

An additional paragraph has 

been added to elaborate on 

appropriate land uses near 

trailheads. 

Agreed. 

Figure 21 has been 

incorporated in the report.

Durham 

21. 

Durham 

22. 

illustration of the locations where trails proposed as a product of the Master 

Trails Plan are proposed to be co-located with proposed roads and service 

corridors.” Unfortunately, at the time of reviewing this draft, Figure 21 was not 

provided/available. Also, as previously stated in our letter, we continue to have 

concerns with respect to potential increased costs associated with 

infrastructure crossings, capital works, policing and operations within 

such an extensive and sensitive Natural Heritage System. 

Section 9 SEATON MASTER TRAIL PLAN – As previously indicated in our 

letter of August 31, 2007, in response to the preliminary Trail Hierarchy 

Concept Plan, the introduction of bikeways within arterial road rights-ofway 

substantiates the Region’s interests in protecting for adequate 

right-of-way widths for each category of arterial road. 

Section 9 SEATON MASTER TRAIL PLAN - If an area municipality, or 

other agency, wish to provide for a multi-use trail within the boulevard 

of a Regional right-of-way, the cost of the trail is to be borne by the 

area municipality or other agency, provided that there is sufficient right-of 

way to accommodate such a trail, and that such a trail is deemed 

appropriate. The Region may provide an appropriate platform for such 

trails if Regional road construction is undertaken, in accordance with the 

2008 Servicing and Financing Study (Report #2007-J-53, Recommendation 

#5).1 

The Region’s current position on cycling infrastructure is that the 

Region will not provide cycling lanes within the paved portion of a 

Regional right-of-way. In accordance with the Region’s Transportation 

Master Plan, the Region initiated a Regional Cycling Plan Study which 

would: 

• Focus activity on the Local Municipal road and path systems; 

• Connect Local Municipal bicycle systems together; 

• Integrate with other modes of transportation, especially walking and 

transit; 

• Consider the need for bicycle facilities within Regional Road corridors; 

• Identify facilities that may be required on the Provincial Highway 

network to achieve network continuity, which may be subject to 

municipal funding; and 

• Define an implementation strategy, identifying public education and 

marketing initiatives, costs, financing sources and responsibilities. 

Noted. 

A note has been added to the 

responsibility and cost section 

of the document. 

Subsequently, the Region retained a consultant to undertake the Study, and 

in January 2007, the consultant submitted to the Region their recommended 


Regional Cycling Plan Study. Although the consultant’s Study provided for a 

new approach to planning cycling facilities within Regional Road corridors, 

staff identified a number of concerns related to the extent of the proposed 

network, potential risks and liabilities, and the cost of the proposed network. 

In June 2007, Regional Council released the consultant’s recommended 

Regional Cycling Plan Study for review by the area municipalities. It is 

anticipated that Regional staff will bring forward a report to Regional Council 

addressing this matter in September. Therefore, without the benefit of a 

Council adopted Regional Cycling Plan at this time, we offer the following 

comments on the network proposed in draft Study: 


26. 

• With respect to the Proposed Dedicated Bike Routes illustrated on 

Figure 23A, which are proposed to be 3 metre wide asphalt trails that 

would be within the boulevard - - some of these facilities will be located 

within Regional right-of-ways but outside the paved roadway. At this 

time, the responsibility for the cost for these facilities would be the 

responsibility of the City of Pickering or the Province. Sufficient 

right-of-way would be required to accommodate these facilities. Regional 

Roads should be planned in accordance with the criteria contained in 

Schedule E – Table E7 of the Region’s Official Plan and the Central 

Pickering Development Plan. Consideration will be given for cycling 

facilities through the Region’s Class EA for Infrastructure (water, 

sewer, transportation). 

• With respect to the On-road Bike Routes shown on Figure 24a - - these 

routes do not appear to be on roads under Regional jurisdiction, except 

for segments on Regional Road 1 and Regional Road 27. At this time, 

in accordance with our current position, the Region would not 

support the introduction of on-road facilities on these Regional 

Roads. 

Page 104. Subsection 9.3.1 should be strengthened to provide greater detail 

on locations and alignments of trail segments, trailhead locations and crossing 

locations of built and natural barriers. 

Noted. 

Some text has been integrated 

to define the criteria. 

MMAH 

131. 

MNR 

30. 

9.4 Trail System components - Figure 21 is missing Figure 21 has been 

incorporated in the report. 

Figure 22 Master Trails Concept Plan, page 107: 

The colours have been 

The colours in the legend do not match up with the map. The legend identified correlated on the map and 

the golf course as being public open space and it is not clear where the private legend and the note relating to 

open space is on the map. It is also somewhat difficult to distinguish between the golf course has been 


MMAH 

132. 


27. 

MMAH 

133. 

MMAH 

134. 

MMAH 

135. 

MMAH 

136. 

the various shades of greens on the map. 

9.4 Trail System components - Figures 23A, 24A, 26A, 27A, and 30 need a 

legend 

Page 105. Subsections 9.4.1 through 9.4.6 – Routes and design standards: 

Although not yet adopted by Regional Council, the Regional Cycling Plan 

includes a different set of design standards, cross-sections and rights-of-way for 

pedestrian and cycle routes than those proposed in the Draft NHS Master Trails 

Plan. Similarly, the MESP and the Neighbourhood Plans have not yet been 

completed and may have recommendations about cycling and pedestrian 

paths/trails along both Regional and City roads within Seaton. Since standards 

affect costs and responsibilities for costs of the different possible standards and 

cross-sections, final design standards may not be determined at this stage of the 

planning process for Seaton for the Regional and City components of the 

pedestrian and bike trail system. 

Accordingly, the design standards, cross-sections and rights-of-way proposed 

for all parts of the Master Trail Plan may be suitable for implementation within 

the NHS lands, whereas, different standards may be adopted for the parts of the 

system in the Neighbourhoods and on Regional roads at a later time. At that 

time, details of integration of any different standards will have to be determined. 

9.4.4 Multi-Use Trail… - You state that “the maximum length of the Primary 

Neighbourhood Connector is 400 m ….for creating walkable neighbourhoods”, 

whereas the intention as reflected in the CPDP p. 52, is to “plan a community 

such that 90% of residents will be within a 400 metre (5 minute) walk of a transit 

route.” Instead of establishing maximum lengths, the intention of the policy is to 

provide a density of connections to encourage walkable distances that are 

transit supportive. 

9.4.5 Secondary Neighbourhood Connector - You mention that these trails are 

similar to a Primary Neighbourhood connector but that these trails “will serve a 

recreational purpose”. Limiting these trails to this kind of use may weaken the 

argument for building a trail system that is designed to connect neighbourhoods, 

schools, shops etc. 

9.4.5 Secondary Neighbourhood Connector - You need to explain why you have 

chosen the 2.4 m width (instead of 3.0 m) 

9.4.6 Low Impact Trail - If this trail type is intended to be “low impact”, (meaning 

low impact on the natural environment), then the type of trail will be restricted 

because of its design (woodchips/gravel) and location (in a sensitive area) rather 

changed to “private open 

space.” 

Legends have been added to 

the maps. 


cross sections for trails to 

address the flexibility in their 

design. 

The two principles are 

applicable and can work in 

concert with one another in the 

plan to create walkable 

neighbourhoods. The 400m 

criterion is based on New 

Urbanism planning principles. 

These trails are multi-use 

supporting destination-driven 

or commuter use as well as 

recreational use. The trail 

density defines the 

interconnectivity of schools, 

shops, places of worship, 

parks etc. Text has been 

added to address this point. 

A rational has been provided 

in the text. 

This is consistent with an 

‘environment first’ approach to 

trail planning which is 


MMAH 

137. 

TRCA 

54. 

TRCA 

55. 

TRCA 

56. 

than restricting it to certain types of users (walkers and hikers). 

9.4.7 Connections between the Seaton Neighbourhoods and the Employment 

Lands - This is an example of where the vision appears at the end of the 

section, where you state ”creating strong and practical connections to the 

employment lands is of fundamental importance to ensure that opportunities for 

residents of the Seaton community to cycle to work are optimized.” It would be 

better to put this statement up front, and reinforce it, and then list the 

constraints/challenges. 

Sections 9.4.5 and 9.4.6, Page Nos. 112 – 114. There are a number of 

secondary neighbourhood connectors illustrated in Figure 27A shown as 

crossing the NHS. There is no ecological rationale or justification provided, and 

some of these connectors traverse areas that have been deemed to be “highly 

sensitive.” We recommend that there should be an additional trail type between 

secondary neighbourhood connector and low impact trail. The secondary 

neighbourhood connector trails are paved, wide and extensive. There are very 

few low impact trails, and they are intended for highly sensitive and/or wet 

areas. There needs to be a type of trail added that is soft surface, multi-use and 

recreational. This trail should be granular or surfaced with screenings. This 

would provide a transition trail for passive users such as hikers and bikers who 

want a more nature-based setting for their trail experience. 

Section 9.4.9, Page Nos. 113 – 118, Figure 27A. Further to Comment No. 54, 

above, secondary neighbourhood connectors that connect to the Seaton Hiking 

Trail should not be paved. These connections should be soft surface, multi-use 

trails that provide a transition between the wide, paved secondary 

neighbourhood connector trails and the soft surface, recreational hiking trails of 

the Seaton Hiking Trail. 

Section 9.4.6, Page No. 114. There is no overall map showing the Low Impact 

Trails, as shown for the other trail types. Please provide for review. 

important in the most sensitive 

parts of the NHS where low 

impact trails will occur. 

Signage should be 

incorporated on these trails 

reinforcing the restriction on 

motorized vehicle use and 

cycling uses. 


moved up front of the section. 

Noted. 

Noted. 

These trail locations are 

subject to further analysis at 

the Neighbourhood Planning 

process as noted in the report 

and cannot be determined at 

this stage. Locations of 

boardwalk or sensitive trail 

design are noted in figure 42 


MMAH 

138. 

MMAH 

139. 

MMAH 

140. 

MMAH 

141. 

MMAH 

142. 

MMAH 

143. 

MMAH 

144. 

MMAH 

145. 

Durham 

23. 

TRCA 

57. 

9.4.8 Trails utilizing Hydro and Rail Corridors - On p. 116 you reference Figure 

8, when the Figure is labelled as Figure 8A 

9.4.8 Trails utilizing Hydro and Rail Corridors - The uses in existing Hydro 

corridors are generally planned by ORC in concert with the Regional and local 

municipalities, (Hydro One staff tends to be involved in the technical operations 

of their lands). If you are suggesting that the enforcement, monitoring, 

education and safety would be the responsibility of the City of Pickering, then 

this should be noted in the Roles and Responsibilities section 

9.4.8 Trails utilizing Hydro and Rail Corridors - Protecting trail connections to the 

GO station and south Pickering are of critical importance and this should be 

reinforced 

9.4.8 Trails utilizing Hydro and Rail Corridors - In previous sections, 9.4.4 – 

9.4.6 you have discussed the hierarchy of trails and their sizes, whereas 

sections 9.4.7, 9.4.8, 9.4.9 relate to location only, suggest that the type of trails 

in these areas needs to be addressed to tie the sections together (Primary 

connectors?) 

9.4.8 Trails utilizing Hydro and Rail Corridors - In the final paragraph, you 

mention the need to include a trail in the vehicular underpass proposed at Brock 

Road and Taunton Road, and the wording should be stronger to ensure that this 

option is secured. 

9.4.10 Composite Trail Network - This section does not flow from the previous 

sections, consider discussing the whole network up front, then the individual 

components explained in more detail. 

9.4.11 Comparative Assessment - This section does not flow from the previous 

section, and although it is valuable information in justifying the trail system, it 

may not need to be in the final document (it could be in an Appendix). 

9.4.12 Potential Illumination… - Lighting and the opportunities and constraints 

associated with it, is more appropriately dealt with in the design guidelines 

Section 9.4.10 Composite Trail Network – It is suggested that reference to 

Figure 30 be included in the text. 

Section 9.4.11, Page No. 121, Figure 31. The trail density comparison 

assessment is not clear because the assessment does not account for trail type. 

For example, most if not all of the trails in Glen Major would be considered “low 

impact” by the proposed Seaton trail hierarchy. However, as far as we can tell, 

the trails provided in the Seaton example are all connector-type trails (2.5 m 

wide asphalt trail or larger), with none of the “low impact” trails shown. The 

as trails through 

marsh/swamp. 


changed to Figure 8A and B. 

Text has been added to the 

responsibilities section to 

address the comment. 

Note added. 

A table has been provided at 

the beginning of the section 

which relates location, 

hierarchy, width. 

The preferred option has been 

reinforced in the text. 

The location of the plan as a 

‘composite’ of component 

parts seems more appropriate 

where it is currently located. 

It is important to leave this 

figure where it is in the 

document to draw a logical link 

to the rationale provided. 

Lighting reference has been 

moved to the guideline 

section. 

Reference added. 

This level of detail is not 

required for the purposes of 

this comparison. 



32. 


33. 

TRCA 

58. 

MMAH 

146. 

MMAH 

147. 

MMAH 

148. 

assessment should show a break down according to trail type to provide a direct 

comparison. 

32. Page 120. Subsection 9.4.12 – Potential Illumination of Trails: 

Currently the City of Pickering trails are not illuminated for the most part. I 

understand that this item is still under consideration with safety, cost and 

efficiency being factors in the discussion. 

Page 120. In Subsection 9.4.12, regarding illumination of trails, where 

illumination is necessary, such as the primary connectors, the edges of these 

trails could be maintained for more open area species. 

Section 9.4.12, Page No. 120. We are unclear which trail types are considered 

to be “utilitarian.” If utilitarian refers only to on-road trails then we do not have a 

particular issue with trail illumination. However, if this term includes trails that 

will traverse the NHS, then we would generally not support trail illumination. 

Trails within the NHS need to establish that the potential impacts on birds, 

wildlife and habitats are the highest priority. There needs to be better clarity of 

which trail types will require lighting and under what circumstances. Also, a 

discussion of low impact lighting would be useful here. The photo on Page No. 

120 is not appropriate as it illustrates light spill over well into the natural area. 

9.5 Master Trail Plan – Implementation Priorities and Strategies - You need 

introductory sentences such as: The Trail Plan is shown on Figure xx. The 

exact location of the trails may be adjusted to reflect natural heritage features, 

sensitive areas, and local terrain conditions etc. The implementation strategies 

are….The priorities are… 

9.5 Master Trail Plan – Implementation Priorities and Strategies - These 

sections address neither trail implementation priorities nor strategies, unless the 

trail types that you have listed (A-F) are the order in which the trails are to be 

implemented, in which case, you need to discuss this and justify it. 

9.5 Master Trail Plan – Implementation Priorities and Strategies - If these are the 

trail types (A-F), how do they relate to sections 9.4.4 – 9.4.6? 

For information. 

I don’t see the connection to 

illumination. I do not believe 

this linear sort of ‘open area’ 

adjacent trails provides the 

right environment for 

grassland species as these 

areas are intended to be 

periodically slashed for safety 

reasons (visibility). However, 

native meadow seed mixes 

could be incorporated. 

Utilitarian refers exclusively to 

bike routes and primary trail 

connectors only. This point is 

clarified in table X 

Introductory sentence added. 

Priorities section has been 

moved to the implementation 

section. 

A caveat has been added to 

the section about 

implementation priorities for 

trails. 

Trail types and their 

implementation have been 

separated in the documented 

so the distinction between the 

two should be clear – trail 

types describe the function 


MMAH 

149. 

MMAH 

150. 


28. 


29. 


30. 


31. 


34. 

9.5 Master Trail Plan – Implementation Priorities and Strategies - In sections A- 

F, you discuss alignments, and work that needs to be done, and other issues 

which need to be separated out and appropriately relocated 

9.5.1 Integration with Public Open Space within the Seaton Neighbourhoods - 

This is an important section and should be part of the issues raised in section 

9.0 

Once the Regional Cycling Plan is adopted by Regional Council, it will be 

appropriate for the Master Trails Plan for Seaton to be amended to integrate 

with or conform to the Regional Cycling Plan. 

Further review of Figures 23A, 24A, 26A and 27A will be undertaken and the 

results forwarded later. 

Following from the earlier point, neither the Regional Cycling Plan nor the 

Master Trail Plan of Pickering (1996) have adopted similar wide rights-of-way to 

separate bikeways from side walks by a separate landscaped area. 

31. More detail should be provided about provisions for safety between 

pedestrians and cyclists on proposed multi-use trails within the NHS. It is 

suggested that further detail be provided about strategies to prevent conflict 

between pedestrians and cyclists within the NHS, including pavement markings, 

signs, etc. 

The consultants should provide further guidance on how to address potential 

pedestrian and bicycle conflicts as well as with vehicles for consideration in 

formulating design standards within the Neighbourhoods in Seaton. This will 

assist the City of Pickering and its partners in establishing appropriate design 

standards and integration strategies for bike and pedestrian routes within the 

Neighbourhoods. 

Page 122. The second bullet point: from a safety perspective within the 

NHS, the decision on lighting within the NHS primary connectors has nothing to 

do with the neighbourhood lighting. There are always roads with streetlights in 

the neighbourhood that can be chosen as an alternative for safety reasons. 

and alignment of trails and the 

implementation the timing. 

Since the implementation of 

trails is associated with the 

design and build out of the 

neighbourhoods through the 

neighbourhood planning and 

subdivision approvals 

processes further refinement 

and confirmation of alignments 

should take place. 

Has been moved into section 

9.1 

Noted. 

Noted. 

For information. 

A section has been added to 

the guidelines. 

The section in the guidelines 

about lighting addresses this. 


10 - DESIGN GUIDELINES 

TRCA 

59. 

TRCA 

60. 


35. 

Section 10.0, Page No. 126. While there is discussion around trail closures, 

there is no discussion around new trails. We highly recommend that a principle 

of “carrying capacity” or “trail equilibrium” be established for trails. If a new trail 

is proposed, then there needs to be a protocol developed for who reviews the 

proposal, the impact assessment of the trail, and most importantly, a 

requirement that an old trail of equal length needs to be decommissioned and 

restored. The photo on Page No. 126 is not appropriate as it suggests the area 

is appropriate for dumping. 

Section 10.2.6, Page No. 128. We are unclear for which trails the trail amenities 

are permitted. Please clarify if these include trails that traverse the NHS. 

Page 130. 

Subsection 10.3.1 – Bridges Over Small Drainage Courses: 

One main priority that should be implemented into the proposed crossing 

location should be the fluvial geomorphology of the creek. Proper siting of 

crossings can eliminate a lot of erosion problems/maintenance in the future. A 

crossing shouldn’t be placed at a bend or an active erosion site in the creek, as 

this would mean that more money would have to be spent on monitoring and 

maintaining this site and possibly replacing the structure and/or realigning the 

trail. 

The process of who and how a 

new trail will be designed and 

implemented as well as old 

trails identified and closed has 

been addressed in the text. 

Trail amenities (benches and 

signage only) are for all 

primary and secondary multiuse 

trails. Washrooms, bike 

racks etc. should occur at 

some trailheads only (outside 

the NHS where possible). Text 

has been clarified accordingly. 

Additional provisions for the 

siting of creek crossings has 

been added to the text. 


36. 


37. 

TRCA 

61. 

This is a topic upon which the NHSMP and MTP has an opportunity to provide 

guidance to the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan and the 

Environmental Assessment for Regional Infrastructure. 

Page 131. Subsection 10.3.2 – Raised Trail & Boardwalk Structures: 

A water resources engineer and a geotechnical engineer should provide input to 

the design, not a hydrologist and a geotechnical consultant as stated. 

Page 133. Subsection10.3.3 – Mitigation Measures for Water Crossings: 

Will need TRCA permits for all in-stream works including any channel 

realignments, bank stabilization/restoration etc. Should state sediment & 

erosion control (not just sediment control). Any natural channel designs must 

be completed by an engineer and/or a qualified fluvial geomorphologist. 

Section 10.3.1. Page No. 130. A permit may or may not be required from 

TRCA depending on who the proponent is. For example, the Province and 

Text revised accordingly. 




TRCA 

62. 

TRCA 

63. 


38. 


39. 

other agents of the Crown would be exempt. However, they may need to seek 

approval from DFO. Regardless, TRCA would expect to conduct a full review of 

all proposals within areas regulated under Ontario Regulation 166/06. In 

addition, discussion of “compensation” with respect to watercourses implies that 

a harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) will occur. 

Trails and bridges should be located and designed to avoid encroachments or 

realignments of creeks and avoid a HADD. If trails and bridges are threatened 

by erosion, then the proposed location of the structure should be revised rather 

than hardening the creek. 

Section 10.3 – 10.4, starting on Page No. 131. Some of these figures depict 

examples where hardening of the creek bed and banks is permitted. This is not 

appropriate for a new trail system where trails can be located well away from 

creek banks and allow for natural migration. 

Section 10.4, starting on Page No. 133. Groundwater discharge zones or 

seepage zones that would otherwise be encountered during trail alignment 

should be avoided entirely. This is generally not appropriate for a new trail 

system and the first mitigation measure is to avoid sensitive areas and the trail 

should be located to another alignment. 

Page 133. Subsection 10.4 – Guidelines for Slope Restoration Adjacent 

Trail Construction Within Seepage Zones: 

It states that certain techniques have been proven to be effective to mitigate 

impact on seepage zones and shallow groundwater discharge areas. It is not 

clear how these techniques have been proven, or who proved them to be 

effective. These techniques are typical for mitigating impacts and should be 

reviewed by qualified professionals (giving names and qualifications – such as 

Geotechnical engineers). Moreover, the TRCA has guidelines for completing a 

geotechnical study and when it is required. 

Page 133. Subsection 10.4 – Guidelines for Slope Restoration Adjacent 

Trail Construction Within Seepage Zones 

Figures 37A, B, C, D, E & F should be labelled as typical, as depth and diameter 

The depiction is for areas 

where it is not possible to 

avoid a marsh/swamp feature 

to make a key connection. For 

bridge crossings creek 

stabilization may only be 

required locally to mitigate 

erosion resulting from 

construction. 

Where a trail is proposed to 

make a key connection or is 

aligned to circumnavigate 

other sensitive features, this 

design parameter may be the 

only solution. Wording to this 

effect has been provided as 

well as the principle to route 

trails away from these 

sensitive sites where possible 

to avoid seepage zones. 


accordingly. 

’Typical’ has been noted in the 

caption for the diagrams. 


MNR 

31. 


40. 


41. 

TRCA 

64. 

MNR 

32. 

Durham 

24. 

of stone could be different from site to site. Moreover, different typical designs 

could be used for different conditions (i.e. Higher areas of flow or erosion 

conditions may require different depths and diameter of stone etc.). 

Section 10.4 Guidelines for Slope Restoration Adjacent Trail Construction 

Within Seepage Zones, page 133: 

The first principle for these areas should be that new trails should avoid these 

areas if at all possible. These guidelines should be used more for existing trails. 

Page 133. Subsection 10.4.1 – Riverbank Restoration Areas: 

Some areas may require more than just biotechnical stabilization to stabilize 

banks and prevent further erosion (i.e. Geotechnical stabilization). A qualified 

geotechnical engineer and/or fluvial geomorphologist may be required to 

provide input into the design to ensure that what is proposed is adequate. 

Page 135. Subsection 10.4.3 – Biotechnical Slope Stabilization: 

As stated above, geotechnical slope stabilization may also be required. This 

section should be renamed to include Geotechnical, or a new section added to 

deal with the geotechnical issues. 

Figure 38, Page Nos. 137 - 139. Multiple trailhead locations are illustrated and 

we are unclear what the difference between each trailhead is and what they will 

consist of (i.e. parking lot, hardened surfaces). In our opinion, there are too 

many primary trail head locations (23). Primary trail heads should refer only to 

main trail heads that include trail head kiosks with signage, major trail 

entrances, and potentially parking. It is stated that parking areas “should” be 

located in an adjoining public park “if possible” and not in the NHS. However, if 

the principle of “no trailheads in the NHS” is not established (and we are of the 

opinion that it should be), then clear rules around the footprint size, acceptable 

locations, configurations, and other design elements should be outlined in the 

Master Trails Plan. The remaining trailheads should be reduced to secondary 

entrances. 

Figure 38: Trail Head Locations, page 138: 

There seems to be a lot of trail head locations. Are all of these areas needed? 

It appears that some of these proposed trail head locations are in close 

proximity to one another. 

It appears that design considerations/principles/guidelines are contained 

throughout the Study. Consideration should be given to ensuring that all design 

principles and guidelines are contained in one place (i.e. Section 10), so that 

future users (who may not read the entire Study) can quickly locate all pertinent 

design requirements. For example, Section 9 contains trail design principles and 

trail hierarchy, with illustrations, that should perhaps, be contained in Section 

10. Also, it is noted that most all information pertaining to trailheads is contained 

in Section 10, including locational criteria and principles (see Section 10.5). 

Wording to route trails away 

from these potential hazard 

sites has been added to the 

text. 

Section 11.3 has been added 

and provides guidance about 

slope stabilization assessment 

and techniques. 

Section 11.3 has been added 

and provides guidance about 

slope stabilization techniques. 

Trail head locations and 

hierarchy have been amended 

on the Master Trail Plan. 

Many higher order trail heads 

which have a lot of amenities, 

have either been removed or 

demoted to lower order trail 

heads. 

Guidelines have been 

separated into the three 

components of the report 

under ecological, cultural and 

trail master plan sections. In 

terms of the Trail system they 

are quite specific as they relate 

to design. 


Durham 

25. 

The above suggestion is made, because it is anticipated that the Seaton NHS 

Management Plan and Master Trails Plan Study will be consulted by many 

different stakeholders, well into the future, for guidance in undertaking the 

assortment of studies, processes and activities necessary for the development 

of Seaton. In short, the more “user-friendly” the final NHS Management 

Study is, the better chance it will be understood, and implemented as 

envisaged. 

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Terms of Reference for this 

Study, dated July 7, 2006, calls for recommendations on existing tenancies 

within the NHS as one of the deliverables. Accordingly, the Consultant’s 

Proposal of Services, dated July 27, 2007, (Tasks 2.5.2 and 2.5.4 of the 

Work Plan) includes the development of options and a comprehensive set of 

recommendations regarding the future of existing tenancies in the NHS as a 

work item. The draft Study does not contain options or a comprehensive set 

of recommendations on this subject. It is therefore requested that this 

deliverable be undertaken, and included in the Study. 

Noted. 

Durham 

27. 

In this regard, as a Steering Committee member, I suggest that the 

Province and the Consultant ensure that all deliverables in the 

Province’s Terms of Reference and all tasks listed in the Consultant’s 

Work Plan have been undertaken. 

Section 10.5 – Trail Head Locations and Design Guidelines –It is noted that 

parking areas for Primary Trailheads are recommended to be located 

outside of the NHS. Table 6C (Cost Estimate – Trailhead Facilities) indicates 

that 23 Primary Trailheads are proposed, each to accommodate 30 cars. 

The potential impact this recommendation has on the limited land 

supply available for development in Seaton does not appear to have 

been considered. The ongoing Master Environmental Servicing Plan and 

Neighbourhood Planning process will need to account for the land required 

for such parking facilities, if this recommendation is accepted. 

Our interpretation is that walking trails and paved multi-use cycling/walking 

trails, and facilities associated with such uses, such as trailheads and 

parking areas, are permitted uses within the NHS according to the CPDP 

(Policy 4, page 35). Therefore, in the context of an urbanizing area, and 

given the strict limitations on land uses that have been imposed on 

53% of Seaton’s land area, it would be prudent to permit parking areas 

for Primary Trailheads (with permeable pavement) within the NHS, in 

the event that the parking area cannot be shared with another community 

facility (i.e. public parks) that is located outside the NHS. 


The text has been revised to 

recommend the inclusion of 

such facilities within the NHS 

where appropriate (buffers and 

away from any sensitive 

features). The text will also 

recommend the shared use of 

such facilities where feasible to 

reduce cost and hard 

pavement within the NHS.

TRCA 

65. 

TRCA 

66. 

TRCA 

67. 

TRCA 

68. 

MNR 

33. 

We also note that the maintenance facility that is being recommended, is to 

be established “in proximity” to the NHS (Section 12.4.1). Again, we are 

concerned that more and more of the land that is needed to 

accommodate the population and employment planned for this 

community is being taken up by uses that are associated with the NHS. 

Why can’t this facility, if developed in an environmentally sensitive manner, 

be located in the NHS? It could be used to represent all the “green” 

technology and demonstrate that some development, if done correctly, can 

co-exist in such settings – perhaps a demonstration project from the 

Province? 

Section 10.7, starting on Page No. 142. Please consider relocating this section 

to the section describing the mitigation of impacts to the NHS. 

Section 10.7.1, Page No. 143. Please provide a more detailed definition of 

“Neighbourhood Interface Zone.” 

Section 10.7.2, Page No. 144. The visual focus noted in Principle No. 1 should 

consider the landscape aesthetic that will develop over time, such as areas that 

are now agricultural but will eventually be re-naturalized. 

Section 10.7.2, Page Nos. 144 - 146. We suggest that a continuous public 

façade along the NHS noted in Principle No. 3 should be the default in order to 

avoid the need for establishing a neighbourhood interface zone. Base on our 

extensive experience and recent independent research, we note that 

neighbourhood interface zones are often unsuccessful unless said zone is 

controlled by a condominium corporation or other single entity and subject to 

strict maintenance requirements. As such, we recommend that the 

neighbourhood interface principals strongly discourage lot configurations where 

freehold lots back directly onto the NHS. Where freehold lots are required to 

back directly onto the NHS, then said lots should be multiple family, mixed-use 

or non-residential and include a neighbourhood interface zone managed by a 

single entity. Figure Nos. 40B and 40C should be revised to reflect this. Also, 

Figure No. 40A, Sections A + B do not accurately illustrate the 30 metre buffer 

from the NHS feature (ie. from the top of bank and edge of vegetation). 

Figure 40B: Linear Park Adjacent NHS, page 146: 

For cross sections A and B it is not clear where the NHS starts. There is a 

strong possibility that there will be fencing of rear properties which makes it 

difficult to justify the requiring of the rear properties to be used as buffer to the 

NHS. It has been MNR’s position that any required buffers be placed in the 

same designation and ownership as the corresponding feature that it is suppose 

to protect. 

At the bottom of each cross section, it states that the 15 m linear park is to be 

managed by the developer. It is not known if any developer would wish to 


References to a maintenance 

facility has been removed from 

the document. 

Section has been relocated to 

the NHS management section. 

Definition provided. 

A sentence has been added to 

acknowledge the views to and 

from future development areas 

as well as reforested areas. 

The figures have been revised 

to reflect the descriptions more 

accurately. A caveat has been 

added about minimizing 

situations where interface 

zones are required but that 

they are applicable in certain 

situations. 

Fencing is proposed at the 

rear of lots backing onto the 

NHS. The text has been 

amended.

TRCA 

69. 

MMAH 

151. 

MMAH 

152. 

MMAH 

153. 

MMAH 

154. 

MMAH 

155. 

MMAH 

156. 

MMAH 

157. 

MMAH 

158. 


42. 

remain after the development is completed to continue to maintain parks. 

Section 10.7.2, Page No. 148. Please replace the word “buffer” with “areas” as 

this can be misinterpreted. 

10.0 Design guidelines - Need to be in an Appendix, with the exception of 

section 10.5, as you need to separate out trail head locations from the design 

guidelines 

10.7 Neighbourhood Interface Guidelines - Roads, SWM ponds, 

etc.infrastructure should be addressed 

10.7.1 Urban Design and Built Form - This section would be more appropriately 

titled Urban Design and Land Use, as built form is not discussed 

10.7.1 Urban Design and Built Form - Directions and recommendations for land 

use including requiring the City of Pickering to undertake design guidelines 

could be relocated to the Roles and Responsibilities section 12.3.1.1 (and at 

least need to be referenced there) 

10.7.1 Urban Design and Built Form - You mention that these guidelines are 

intended to apply to three types of land uses, and I suggest that this section be 

deleted as there aren’t any land uses that should be omitted from NHS interface 

principals 

10.7.1 Urban Design and Built Form - You mention that the developer should be 

responsible for implementing the management prescriptions, and suggest that 

this needs to be included in the Roles and Responsibilities section under the 

City of Pickering as they manage land development through development 

agreements 

10.7.2 Neighbourhood Interface Principles - Figures 40 A, B, and C show a 

development form of low density residential and cul-de-sacs which is not 

desirable nor sustainable, these details either belong in an appendix or are the 

responsibility of the City to consider during their neighbourhood planning 

exercise 

10.7.2 Neighbourhood Interface Principles - Principal 4 - You suggest the 

creation of a linear park in addition to the NHS, and suggesting additional lands 

are necessary weakens the argument that the NHS is complete 

Page 143. Subsection 10.7 addresses Neighbourhood Interface Guidelines. 

The first paragraph on the page refers to the Neighbourhood Interface 

Guidelines directing the form of development on adjacent lands. The NHSMP 

should only suggest the Neighbourhood Planning Program have regard for the 

Guidelines (as is used later in the document). 

The Neighbourhood Interface Guidelines appear to assume a much different set 

of ‘edge’ conditions than exists within the Seaton NHS. On page 145, Figure 

40A, and on page 146, Figure 40C, shows forested edges relatively close to the 

lot line. The 30 m buffers secured adjacent to features is not illustrated. The 

The text has been replaced 

No action taken. 

A discussion of infrastructure 

has already been incorporated. 

The title has been adjusted. 

A reference has been made in 

the responsibilities section. 

The section has been deleted. 

A reference has been made in 

the responsibilities section. 

Higher densities have been 

shown adjacent the NHS and 

cul de sacs have been 

removed. 

The creation of a linear park 

provides a venue to mitigate 

against additional fencing. See 

MNR 33. 

The 30m buffer has been 

incorporated into the figures, 

however, it should be 

recognized that these in time 

will become forest. Higher 

densities have been shown in 

some of the figures. 



43. 


44. 


45. 


46. 

TRCA 

May 14 

4. 

guidelines to further buffer the interface/edge is not logical or necessary. Also, 

the illustrations all suggest low density, grade related housing form – rather than 

a predominantly medium density, transit supportive sustainable community, 

which is more likely to be the urban form. The illustrations should be revised 

and the ‘interface’ guidelines completely re-examined. 

Page 145. Considering Principle No. 3, given the finite amount of 

developable land, and the need for parkland associated with the development to 

provide for active facilities, the concept of a linear park adjacent to NHS should 

be deleted. The NHS is intended to provide many opportunities for passive use. 

Page 146. Considering Principal No. 4, given that the significant features 

have all been protected by a 30 metre buffer already, which is going to be 

planted, further reinforcement by a requirement to plant the first 15 metres 

adjacent to the developable area is unrealistic as is the suggestion that private 

development should be further restricted in what they can do. 

Pages 147/148. Subsection 10.7.2 – Neighbourhood Interface Principles – 

Principle No. 6 – Locate Public and Semi-Public Recreation Uses Adjacent to 

NHS: 

Figure 40E shows the SWM facility adjacent to school and park blocks. Due to 

safety concerns SWM facilities (namely wet ponds and wetlands) should not be 

located next to: 

(i) elementary school blocks, 

(ii) any walkway routes that lead to elementary school blocks, 

(iii) tableland park blocks and/or elementary school blocks that 

contain children’s playground facilities. 

In addition, due to vandalism concerns, SWM facilities (namely wet ponds and 

wetlands) should not be located next to high school blocks. 

Page 148. Considering Principle No. 7, given that the features are 

surrounded by 30 metre buffers (agricultural fields), the principle of requiring the 

visual setbacks, landscaped buffers, and presumably restricting building height 

and orientation is unnecessary. 

Chapter 10-Trail Design Guidelines, has some excellent guidelines for 

implementing trails in sensitive sites, and provides detailed information for 

constructing water crossings and boardwalks, and for restoring river banks and 

protecting seepage areas. A similar level of detail could be incorporated into the 

plan in the Ecological Management Prescription Section with management 

The use of a linear park is a 

recommended approach to 

mitigate impact adjacent the 

most sensitive sites within the 

NHS. it is also a place to 

locate active uses within the 

community and locate 

trailheads/parking. 

For information. No action 

taken. 

The text on the figure explains 

that school and/or park uses 

are good to locate next to the 

NHS and that park spaces are 

ideal to locate SWM. 

It this referring to linear parks. 

If so this is only a suggestion 

and a way of providing a place 

to incorporate active uses and 

trailheads next to the NHS. 

There was never an intent to 

provide detailed restoration 

prescriptions that would 

require detailed field 

investigation to develop. The 


prescriptions for instream fish habitat restoration projects. 

11 – INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES 

MMAH 

159. 

MMAH 

160. 

11.0 Interpretive Guidelines - In section 11.1 Recognition and Partnership 

Building, you mention the NHS Heritage Committee and you should direct the 

reader to the appropriate section 

11.0 Interpretive Guidelines - Aboriginal consultation is important to the 

Province and should be mentioned here (as well as in section 11.4.7 

MP defers to the TRCA’s FMP 

for fish habitat restoration. 

A reference has been 

provided. 

Section 11.1 4 th paragraph, 

2nd sentence has been 

amended to read: 

MMAH 

161. 

11.2.1 Interpretive Strategy Development Process - The First Nations 

participation, like public participation, is an evolving process. I question why you 

would limit stakeholders to individuals or groups who have attended previous 

meetings in the list of opportunities. It would be more appropriate to encourage 

First Nations consultation and the appropriate contacts made at the time of 

engagement. 


The interpretive plan 

should be generated with a 

recognition of the intertwined 

relationships between the 

resources of the NHS and the 

activities and aspirations of the 

Province, Region of Durham, 

City of Pickering, public 

agencies and stakeholders, 

including First Nations. 

Section 11.4.7 concluding 

statement has been revised to 

read: 

The pursuit of this initiative is 

consistent with the overall 

intent of the management plan 

and it should be pursued, with 

First Nations input and 

involvement, in the future, with 

refinements made to the 

NHSMP+MTP as needed. 

Agreed, but it is unclear as to 

what text this specifically 

refers to.. 

MMAH 11.2.1 Interpretive Strategy Development Process - The Interpretive A reference has been provided

162. Strategy/Plan should be appropriately listed in the Roles and Responsibilities 

section 


48. 

Page 152. In Subsection 11.2.3.2, delete the phrase “and to support the 

broadening of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District to encompass all of 

Whitevale Road”. This would be in conflict with the CPDP land use and road 

designations. 

in the Roles and 

Responsibilities Section for the 

City. 

Wording about the expansion 

of the WHCD has been 

removed from the section. 

MNR 

34. 


49. 

Section 11.3 Interpretive Themes, page 154: 

Under the Potential Themes – Natural Heritage heading there is some concern 

with points 5 and 6. Both of these points deal with species at risk and their 

identification and location are considered sensitive. These two points should 

only be discussed in general terms without describing or directing individuals to 

the actual species or their habitat. 

The Potential Themes – Built Heritage Resources subsection states that the 

historical residences are all located outside of the NHS. However, from 

reviewing airphotos of the area, there appears to be numerous buildings located 

within the NHS. What are the proposed recommendations regarding these 

buildings? 

Page 155. In Subsection 11.4.1, it should be clarified that where these 

viewsheds overlook the developable area, the cultural landscape will change. In 

addition, viewscapes outside of the NHS are outside the mandate of the 

NHSMP & MPP jurisdiction. 

The built cultural heritage 

resources located within the 

NHS should be maintained 

and preserved. The potential 

for future historical 

interpretation and conservation 

is an opportunity to convey the 

past. 

. 

While the viewscapes may 

exist outside the study area, 

the consideration of the 

importance in the larger 

Seaton cultural heritage 

landscape merits recognition 

in future planning initiatives. 

Pickering Page 156. Subsection 11.4.5 – Whitevale Road: 

The reference was to pertain 

47. Converting Whitevale Road to an exclusive trial/pedestrian pathway, although 

an interesting design option, would have significant transportation implications. 

only to the portion of Whitevale 

Road west of Sideline 22 and 

has been clarified in the text. 

The reference also has been 

revised to reflect the 

recommendation to narrow the 

existing pavement for 

vehicular traffic while 

integrating a multi-use trail 

system. 

MMAH 11.4.8 Agricultural/ Garden Plots - You mention that Organic Garden Plots be The text has been revised to 


163. administered by the agency responsible for managing the NHS. Although the 

Province will continue to own the NHS, local programs within it may be 

appropriately delegated or some sort of partnering arrangement may occur. 

This level of detail is inflexible to future options. 

TRCA 

70. 

Durham 

26. 

Durham 

28. 

Durham 

29. 

Section 11.4.8, starting on Page No. 158. More direction/description is required 

around garden plots. Questions include: How will allotment occur? What are 

the size and quantity thresholds for garden plots? How will fencing that may 

pose a barrier to the migration of flora be minimized? How will invasive species 

be managed, both into and out of plots? How will “nuisance wildlife” be 

managed? Will creek flows be used for irrigation? Will parking within the NHS 

be permitted? See Comment No. 34, above. 

Section 11.4.8 Agricultural/Garden Plots – It is suggested that the sites of 

agricultural/garden plots could double as interpretive areas, educating the 

residents on the value of locally grown food. 

According to Table 6C, Regional Trailheads are to provide parking areas to 

accommodate 200 vehicles, and are to be located along arterial roads at 

intersections with the Regional Trail Network and designated Transit Hubs. 

Three such Trailheads are recommended. However, the draft Study does 

not indicate whether the 200 parking spots are in addition to the Transit Hub 

parking areas, or if the intent is to take advantage of the planned parking 

area that is required to service the Transit Hub. Clarification in the text of the 

document is required. It is also recommended that the text provide a better 

description of the trailhead hierarchy, number of trailheads proposed, 

locational criteria, etc., rather than rely on Table 6C to provide most all of the 

information related to trailheads. 

Table 6 – Cost Estimates – Based on our Review of Tables 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D 

and 6E, the estimated costs of implementing the recommendations 

contained in the draft Study are as follows: 

• NHS Restoration $95,527,521 – $110,598,421 

• Trailhead Facilities $ 3,357,602 

• Bike Routes $14,326,963 

• Trail Network $12,161,000 - $15,763,470 

• Studies/Activities $ 638,400 

As such, the total estimated cost of restoring Seaton’s NHS and constructing 

the trails and associated facilities is in the order of $126.01 M - $144.68 M. 

Table 8 provides cost estimates, on an annual basis, for monitoring and 

maintaining the trails system, as follows: 

allow more flexibility in the 

administration of gardening 

plots. 

The section has been revised 

to elaborate on 

recommendations for 

gardening plots. 

The suggestion has been 

added to the Interpretive 

Recommendations Section 

@@. 

The parking recommendation 

has been clarified in the text. 

Trail head hierarchy has been 

described in more detail in the 

text and a table has been 

added. 

A table has been provided in 

the implementation section 

which organizes 


and timing. This table and the 

cost table should be read 

together to identify the 

timeframe in which the costs 

for implementation are to be 

applied. 



50. 

TRCA 

May 14 

5. 

• Trails Monitoring $ 358,550/annum 

• Trails Routine Maintenance $4,292,000/annum 

As such, the total estimated cost of monitoring and maintaining Seaton’s 

Master Trail System is in the order of $4.65 M. However, the mechanisms 

available to the Province for long-term funding commitments to 

operate and maintain Seaton’s NHS are not addressed. 

The costs, as presented in the draft Study, are useful in so far as providing 

an appreciation of the estimated total costs necessary to achieve the vision 

for Seaton’s NHS and trail system. However, it would be useful to present 

the cost estimates by timeframes and by the “Implementation 

Priorities” presented in Section 12.4 of the draft. Also, the manner in 

which the cost estimates are presented in the draft Study do not recognize 

that implementation will be a lengthy process (minimum of several decades). 

In addition, it is noted that Task 3.9 of the Consultant’s Work Plan includes 

the preparation of an “Administration and Financing Strategy”, including cost 

estimates for each phase of implementation and innovative revenue 

sources. This work does not appear to be included in the draft Study. 

Page 158. In Subsection 11.4.8, the section on agricultural/garden plots is 

out of place in this section. It should not be viewed as a cultural/interpretive 

activity, but rather a key community sustainability element. A broader view of 

sustainability is required. 

Chapter 11-Interpretive Opportunities, provides excellent guidance for 

developing an interpretive plan for the NHS. One of the Potential Natural 

heritage Themes (#11) is “Cold and warm water streams/Fish communities/Fish 

Migration/Return of salmon species/Fisheries Management/Life cycle of fish. 

Signage to provide information on this theme should be incorporated into the 

design of an angling access trail along the stream corridor. 

Agreed. The section has been 

moved to a more appropriate 

part of the document, however 

has been included in the 

interpretive recommendations 

to acknowledge the 

environmental benefits of such 

plots. 

The theme has been added to 

the list of potential interpretive 

opportunities. 

12 - IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR NHSMP AND MTP 

Durham 

30. 

Section 12.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR NHSMP AND MTP - 

The draft Study recommends numerous studies and activities be 

undertaken, and that numerous new Committees be formed to 



implement the Study, as follows: 

• Enter into an agreement with the Province, City and TRCA to formalize 

relationships and confirm roles and responsibilities (Section12.4.1); 

• Establish New Committees: 

i. Seaton NHS Management Committee (Section 12.3.1.7) 

ii. Seaton NHS Trails Committee (Section 12.3.1.8) 

iii. Seaton NHS Cultural Heritage Committee (Section 12.3.1.9) 

iv. Seaton Aboriginal Heritage Interpretation Committee (Section 

12.3.1.9) 

v. Seaton NHSMP Review Committee, for 5 Year Review (Section 14.7) 

• Prepare Studies/Strategies/Programs: 

i. Lighting Strategy for the Trail Network (Section 9.4.12) 

ii. Cultural, Environmental and Archaeological Interpretive Plan (Section 

11.1) 

iii. Natural Heritage Resources Maintenance Program (Section 14.1) 

iv. Natural Heritage Resources Monitoring Program (Section 14.1) 

v. Cultural Heritage Monitoring Program (Section 14.2) 

vi. Trail Network Maintenance Program (Section 14.4) 

vii. Trail Network Monitoring Program (Section 14.4) 

viii. Trail Network Monitoring Program “Report Cards”(Section 14.4.) 

ix. Community Monitoring Program (Section 14.5) 

x. 5 year Review of Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trails 

Plan (Section 14.6) 

xi. Long Term Monitoring Program for Cultural and Natural Heritage 

Resources and Trails (Section 14.8.1) 

xii. Invasive Species Management Plan (Table 6E) 

xiii. Hazard and Risk Assessment Study for Proposed Trails (Table 6E) 

xiv. Trails Safety, Emergency Access and Lighting Strategy (Table 6E) 

xv. Phase II Archaeological Assessments, with First Nations Monitor 

(Table 6E) 

xvi. Prepare Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report 

• Participate in Other Activities: 

i. Identify and monument monitoring sites (Section 14.3) 

ii. Develop a comprehensive database to serve as a clearing house of 



52. 

MMAH 

164. 

MMAH 

165. 

MMAH 

166. 

MMAH 

167. 

MMAH 

168. 

MMAH 

169. 

MMAH 

170. 

information on the Seaton NHS (Section 14.3) 

iii. Interview prospective non-government individuals and groups to 

participate in Monitoring Program (Section 14.3) 

iv. Undertake Annual Monitoring (Section 14.3) – Vegetation Health and 

Resources; Aquatic Resources; Water Resources; Terrestrial 

Resources; Open Habitat Management Units; and produce “Report 

Cards” (Section 14.3) 

v. Monitor Slope Stabilization Plantings; Restoration Plantings, as 

required (Section 14.3) 

Apart from the material (capital) costs associated with implementing the Study 

recommendations, the costs associated with human resources/staff necessary 

to fulfil the above tasks appears daunting, particularly since the source of 

funding for all of these activities is unknown (i.e. there has been no commitment 

from the Province). Also, the Consultant must acknowledge that Conservation 

Authorities, such as the TRCA, are funded by municipalities (i.e. the Region of 

Durham), and as such, the more projects/programs a Conservation Authority 

undertakes, the more funding is requested from municipalities. Funding that 

becomes the responsibility of the Conservation Authority (TRCA) will ultimately 

become a municipal cost to taxpayers. 

Page 159. In Subsection 12.1, the first sentence, after “the CPDP,” should 

be revised to read as follows: “the Neighbourhood Planning process has been 

initiated as well as the preparation of the MESP for all of Seaton”. 

12.1 Subsequent Planning Processes - Replace the Word “policies” with 

“recommendations” 

12.1 Subsequent Planning Processes - This section gets into too much detail, 

suggest you hit the high points 

12.1 Subsequent Planning Processes - The MESP is not the Neighbourhood 

Planning Process, it is a Master Environmental Servicing Plan that will inform 

the Neighbourhood Planning Process 

12.1 Subsequent Planning Processes - The Neighbourhood Planning process is 

set to begin, and the Official Plan should include wording to ensure that the 

Natural Heritage System Management Plan is implemented 

12.1 Subsequent Planning Processes - Hydro One, CP, ORC (Ontario Realty 

Corporation) manage the Hydro corridor/ CP rail line, and need to be added to 

the Roles and Responsibilities section 

12.1 Subsequent Planning Processes - The roles and responsibilities for 

Maintenance and Monitoring programs listed in section 14.0 should be included 

in this section 

12.2 Implementation Directions - You note that the NHS needs to be protected 

from encroachment, and the CPDP already offers this protection. 


accordingly. 


accordingly. 


This has been clarified in the 

text. 


accordingly. 

Sections have been added. 

A paragraph has been added 

into this section. 



MMAH 

171. 

MMAH 

172. 

MMAH 

173. 

MMAH 

174. 

MMAH 

175. 

MMAH 

176. 

MMAH 

177. 

MMAH 

178. 


53. 


54. 

MMAH 

179. 

MMAH 

180. 

12.2 Implementation Directions - In this section, you specifically direct the 

developer to be responsible for the NHS management prescriptions within 15 m 

from the limit of development, and therefore, the City of Pickering should be 

directed to require this in their development agreements, and to have policies in 

their OP to support this 

12.2 Implementation Directions - You reference guidelines in section 8.9, 

however, this section does not exist 

12.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Seaton - Delete this paragraph and replace 

it with the paragraph in section 12.3.1 

12.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Seaton - The following notes identify errors 

and raise questions as to the roles that are assigned. Perhaps it would be 

better to step back from the details and identify which areas would be the 

responsibility of the public and private sectors. If you choose to work with the 

current structure, the information is presented “backwards”, needs to be 

presented from the top down (Province-Region-City) 

12.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Seaton - The information contained in this 

section is generally too detailed. 

12.3.1.1 Implementation by the City of Pickering - In order for the NHS 

Management Plan and Trail Plan to have status, its vision, policies and 

directions will have to be incorporated into the Official Plan, and this should be 

required here 

12.3.1.1 Implementation by the City of Pickering - Any new zoning regime 

developed for the Seaton lands will need to be in keeping first with the City of 

Pickering Official Plan. 

12.3.1.1 Implementation by the City of Pickering - For clarity, delete the 

reference to Region of Durham as it does not have a role in zoning by-laws 

(they are strictly a local matter). 

Page 159. In Subsection 12.3.1.1, A. Official Plans, in the first paragraph, 

the last sentence starting with “New servicing” should be replaced with “The City 

anticipates completing amendments to its Official Plan and recommending 

amendments to the Regional Official Plan as part of the Neighbourhood 

Planning Program”. 

Page 162. In Subsection 12.3.1.1, respecting B. Zoning By-laws, in the 

second paragraph, encroachment controls and trail development standards are 

not usually contained in a zoning by-law. 

12.3.1.2 Implementation by the Region of Durham - The final sentence is 

incorrect. The City’s planning process does not assist in shaping the Region’s 

OP, rather it is top down (starting at the Province with the CPDP). 

12.3.1.2 Implementation by the Region of Durham - Delete the phrase “Once 

the intent to implement the management plan is confirmed by the Province”…. 

The points have been added to 

the responsibilities section of 

the report. 

The reference has been taken 

out. 

Section has been deleted and 

replaced. 

The section has been 

restructured – “top-down.” 


A requirement for the 

incorporation of the vision, 

goals and objectives of the 

ecological, cultural and trail 

management plans has been 

incorporated into the section. 

Noted 


deleted. 


accordingly. 


accordingly. 


accordingly. 

The phrase has been deleted. 


MMAH 

181. 

MMAH 

182. 

MMAH 

183. 

MMAH 

184. 

MMAH 

185. 

TRCA 

71. 

Durham 

31. 

12.3.1.3 Implementation by the Province of Ontario - The NHS Management 

Plan and Master Trail Plan is considered as advice to the Province, and cannot 

have status as a guideline (it would have to have wider application to do so), 

delete the first bullet 

12.3.1.3 Implementation by the Province of Ontario - ORC (the Ontario Realty 

Corporation) manages the Province’s real estate assets, and reports directly to 

the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (PIR) 

12.3.1.3 Implementation by the Province of Ontario - You mentioned that the 

Province should be responsible for Garden plots, etc, and perhaps the wording 

could be “The Province, in conjunction with appropriate service providers, will 

determine the administrative structure for establishing programs such as 

Garden Plots, etc.” 

12.3.1.3 Implementation by the Province of Ontario - The last bullet point should 

be replaced with this : The Province in conjunction with other municipalities, 

agencies and stakeholders will consider the long term implications of additional 

acquisitions of privately owned lands within the NHS 

12.3.1.5-9 Committees - Suggest producing one committee (Such as the Task 

Force to Bring Back the Don in Toronto, which has sub-committees), and in this 

current format you need to address where/ who these committees are 

accountable to 

Section 12.3, starting on Page No. 163. The implementation section is 

somewhat weak. Unfortunately TRCA staff was not consulted with respect to 

the roles and responsibilities for implementation. TRCA Watershed 

Management, Restoration Services and Property staff has many years of 

experience owning and managing conservation lands, and administering multistakeholder 

agencies. We can provide input on our expertise in these areas. 

In our opinion, the function of the three recommended committees will be 

compromised unless there is one oversight agency (possibly the Province or the 

TRCA) and there is committed funding to administer and staff the committees 

for a number of years prior to and during development of the Seaton lands. 

The roles of the various agencies are not particularly clear. The section 

basically says that the agencies should coordinate but does not clearly identify 

the talents each agency can bring to the table nor does it make 

recommendations on sources of funding. For example, the TRCA is being 

asked to allocate funding for the management and monitoring of natural heritage 

resources but there is no indication as to where said funding would come from. 

As noted in the Region of Durham’s comments, base funding for Conservation 

Authorities comes from limited municipal levies. 

Section 12.3.1.1 Implementation by City of Pickering – B. Zoning By-laws – 2nd 

paragraph – The Region of Durham does not administer zoning by-laws. 

The bullet has been deleted. 


accordingly. 

Text amended. 


TRCA 

72. 


55. 


56. 


57. 


58. 

TRCA 

73. 

TRCA 

74. 

Section 12.3.1.3, Page No. 163, last bullet. We are of the understanding that 

the entire Seaton NHS was already in public ownership. 

Page 163. In Subsection 12.3.1.3, add another action for the Province “to 

conduct EA’s for the use of the NHS in accordance with recommendations of 

the NHSMP and MTP”. 

Page 163. In Subsection 12.3.1.4, the last bullet point assumes TRCA has 

been given the funding for management and monitoring functions. There is no 

basis for this assumption. 

Pages 164 – 165. The number of proposed committees and relationship 

between them needs simplifying. While the collaborative/multi-stakeholder 

approach is supported, a single committee should be overseeing all activities 

(although there may be subcommittees). An integrated approach is required. 

Text has been clarified. 

The reference is noted in the 

text. 


accordingly. 

We disagree. The vested 

interests and funding sources 

will be different for each 

Committee. An overseeing 

Committee or body could be 

considered. 

Page 165. In Subsection 12.3.2, ORC Class EA’s will be required as well. The reference is noted in the 

text. 

Section 12.3.1.4, Page No. 163, second last bullet. Please add Environmental The text has been revised. 

Assessments to “…when reviewing…”. 

Section 12.3.1.4, Page No. 163, bullets. The recommended implementation by A note has been added 

TRCA focuses on monitoring and mapping. One of TRCA’s strengths is its recommending TRCA 

Restoration Services section. This group has considerable expertise in renaturalizing 

involvement in restoration and 

conservation lands and building trails and other facilities. The possible funding initiatives. 

TRCA can be instrumental in implementing the restoration recommendations 

and constructing some of the trails identified in the Management Plan, pending 

the appropriate funding. TRCA currently has a limited stewardship program in 

Durham Region, but funding is heavily reliant on limited short term external 

grant programs. 

TRCA 

75. 


51. 

TRCA 

76. 

In addition, TRCA’s Property section has considerable expertise in managing 

conservation lands. However, if TRCA was asked by the Province to manage 

the lands per the Management Plan, then the appropriate lease agreement and 

long-term base funding for restoration, maintenance and administration would 

be required. 

Section 12.3.2, Page 165. Please note that TRCA Planning and Development 

has prepared a Procedural Manual that may assist with information 

requirements. This document is available at www.trca.on.ca. 

Page 166. Subsection 12.3.2 – Approval and Permitting Requirements: 

Geotechnical and/or slope stability stabilization assessments (by a geotechnical 

engineer) should be added to the list of supplemental information that may be 

required for approvals. 

Section 12.4.1, Page No. 166, second last bullet. See Comment Nos. 62 and 

63, above. If there is no infrastructure at risk then we question the need for 


A section has been added in 

Section 11.3 to address slope 

stabilization requirements 

We agree, the 

recommendation will be 


MMAH 

186. 

MMAH 

187. 

MMAH 

188. 

MMAH 

189. 


59. 

MMAH 

190. 

repairing areas of acute erosion. 

12.4.1 Natural Heritage System Restoration and Management Priorities - These 

priorities need to be amalgamated with all of the other priorities in one complete 

section/area (MU priorities etc.) 

12.4.1 Natural Heritage System Restoration and Management Priorities - You 

suggest the “restoration of agricultural lands and cultural landscapes”, could you 

please refer back to a specific Figure? (12?) 

12.4.1 Natural Heritage System Restoration and Management Priorities - You 

have identified the top three priorities, however, that leaves a considerable 

amount of restoration which need to be prioritized 

12.4.1 Natural Heritage System Restoration and Management Priorities - A key 

priority in ensuring the NHS Plan moves forward is to ensure that the City of 

Pickering establish policies in its Official Plan that support and protect the ideas 

in this document 

Page 167. In Subsection 12.4.2, respecting Priority 3, it is our view that this 

work has already been documented through both the preparation of the CPDP 

and background work on landscapes for the NHSMP and that this study would 

include any remaining collation and integration of existing assessment work into 

a set of recommendations not just for the documentation of the assets but also 

for their celebration and possible re-use in situ for built heritage. 

12.4.3 Master Trail Plan Implementation Priorities - It would be helpful to refer to 

a map of the Priority Areas 

qualified 

Priorities have been 

amalgamated under section x 

of the report. 

A figure reference has been 

provided. 

Our understanding of the need 

was to identify the actions that 

should take priority, not rank 

every management 

recommendation. Many, if not 

most management actions will 

be either in response to 

development phasing or on the 

opportunistic availability of 

financial or human resources, 

thus it is not possible to rank 

all actions. Notwithstanding 

this, we have provided some 

guidance as to the relative 

importance of management 

recommendations 

A point has been added under 

this section to address the 

comment. 

The protection, 

commemoration, 

enhancement, interpretation 

and the re-use of the cultural 

heritage resources identified in 

the NHS is a primary goal of 

the Plan. Documentation of the 

existing cultural heritage 

resources allows for a 

collective vision to be prepared 

for the management of the 

resources. UMA 

Since implementation of trails 

are to be based on trail 


MMAH 

191. 

MMAH 

192. 

12.4.3 Master Trail Plan Implementation Priorities - On p. 169 you point out that 

secondary trails that connect to major intersection points….”should be 

considered to be a high priority”, however this type of trail is not included on the 

list on the previous page of priorities 

12.4.3 Master Trail Plan Implementation Priorities - How do the priority areas 

relate to the cost estimates? 

hierarchy Primary trails, 

secondary trails etc. a 

reference has been provided 

to the Proposed Master Trail 

Composite Plan, pg xx and 

Trail Head Location Map, pg 

xx 

These trails have been added 

to the table which lists 

prescriptions and their 

priorities. 

Trail costs were completed 

based on trail type (rather than 

individual segments based on 

a phasing strategy). Since trail 

implementation priorities are 

affected by the timing of other 

processes (MESP) and 

development build out, it is not 

possible to define a phasing 

strategy for trails and so it is 

difficult to correlate costs for 

individual trails for any given 

time. 

13 - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – IMPLEMENTATION 

TRCA 

77. 

Section 13, Page 169, Table 6C. It appears as though the total estimate for this 

table is quite low when compared to the individual costs of the components. For 

example, the primary trailheads are estimated to cost at least $91,800 per 

trailhead, for a cost of at least $2 million for 23 primary trailheads. However, the 

total estimate for all the trailhead facilities is only $3,457,602. As noted in 

Comment No. 65, above, there are too many primary trailheads identified, 

especially given the extent of supporting infrastructure that is suggested in this 

table. The main primary trailheads should be prioritized and take advantage of 

shared infrastructure while the others should be reduced to secondary 

trailheads and costs reduced accordingly. 

Section 13.1, Page No. 170. Figure 20 appears to be missing. 


The trail head hierarchy has 

been revised and the cost 

estimate accordingly. 

TRCA 

78. 

Figure 20 has now been 

incorporated into the 

document. 

TRCA Section 13.2, Page No. 170, second item. Please note that we recall Funds have been added to the

79. encountering some areas that may be contaminated (e.g. refrigeration 

graveyard, paint/oil cans) and will likely require remediation. Perhaps some 

funds should be set aside for at least a Phase 1 assessment, especially if 

another agency like TRCA may manage the lands under lease agreement. 

14 - MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING 

MMAH 

193. 

14.0 Maintenance and Monitoring - In section 14.1 you state that “to ensure the 

vision is achieved…maintenance of the various Management Units within the 

NHS will be required.” This does not address the priorities that you have 

identified in section 12.0. 

cost estimate. 

The reference “An important 

long-term priority will be the 

maintenance and monitoring of 

restoration areas” has been 

added to the section. 

MMAH 

194. 

MMAH 

195. 

TRCA 

80. 

TRCA 

81. 


64. 

14.0 Maintenance and Monitoring - The City of Pickering has an Office of 

Sustainability, have you considered this office as being appropriate for the NHS 

monitoring program? 

14.0 Maintenance and Monitoring - On page 178, you list a Maintenance 

Program to be undertaken as a high priority. This section needs a heading. 

Section 14.1, Page No. 177, bullets. We suggest that the monitoring Scope of 

Work and appropriate staffing needs be identified first, using base funding from 

the Province. Funding to implement the monitoring program should then be 

identified following review and approval of the Scope of Work by the various 

agencies involved. TRCA has extensive experience with aquatic and terrestrial 

monitoring through our Regional Monitoring Program and Terrestrial Natural 

Heritage program and would be pleased to discuss being the lead agency for 

implementation, pending the appropriate funding. Pleased be advised that a 

monitoring program will be identified as part of the Terms of Reference for the 

MESP. The consultants should discuss with Sernas Associates as well as with 

Scott Jarvie, TRCA Manager, Regional Monitoring Program at xt. 5312 and 

Dena Lewis, TRCA Manager, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology at xt. 5225. 

Section 14.1, Page No. 178, last few bullets. Dying or dead plant material and 

hazard trees should not be removed from the site. These should be retained as 

snags or cut down and used as coarse woody debris for habitat. 

Page 177. In Subsection 14.1, a “legacy” or perpetual fund should be 

established for the management, maintenance and monitoring of the Seaton 

We will amend the text to 

indicate that priority actions will 

also have to be implemented 

to achieve vision 

A reference has been added. 

A reference to the 

implementation section where 

priorities are described has 

been added. 

Noted 

A note has been added to 

remove the hazard but make 

provision for snags etc. for 

habitat. 




65. 


66. 

TRCA 

82. 

TRCA 

83. 

TRCA 

84. 

TRCA 

85. 

MMAH 

196. 

MMAH 

197. 


60. 


61. 

NHS. 

Page 177. Considering Subsection 14.1, #3 and last bullet point: the 

organizing body referred to in # 3 should be the Seaton NHS Management 

Committee, the same body that should be responsible for overseeing 

management, maintenance and monitoring, as this is a more integrated 

approach. 

Page 177. In Subsection 14.1, in principle, a collaborative/multi-partner 

approach is supported. It can be inferred from bullet point two that City staff and 

equipment may be involved directly in maintenance and monitoring. From bullet 

point four, funding for this would be required. 

Section 14.3, Page No. 181, Figure 43. TRCA is in the process of establishing 

long-term terrestrial monitoring plots. Some should/will be established in the 

Duffins watershed. These should eventually be added to the figure. 

Section 14.3, Page Nos. 182 - 186. This section was added after TRCA staff 

raised a concern with the lack of an aquatic habitat section in the Management 

Plan. Much of the information presented in this section is development-related 

and will be addressed in the MESP. Rather, the aquatic habitat section should 

include specific recommendations from the Fish Management Plan, the Duffins 

Watershed Plan, the aforementioned Report on the Enhanced Seaton Lands 

Aquatic Habitat Assessment, and the aforementioned Duffins Creek Wetland 

and Riparian Opportunities Plan. 

Section 14.4.1, Page No. 189. Dog off-leash zones should be established 

outside of the NHS. 

Section 14.4.1, Page No. 190. The use of de-icing salt should not be allowed 

for trails that are located within the NHS. 

14.2 Cultural Heritage… - At the beginning of p. 179, replace ORC with the 

Province 

14.3 NHS Monitoring Recommendations - It would be helpful to introduce the 

various types of Monitoring Program Recommendations, such as Vegetation 

Health Resources, Aquatic Resources, Terrestrial Resources, etc., this could 

also be done for the Trail Monitoring Program 

Page 179. Subsection 14.3 – Natural Heritage System Monitoring 

Recommendations: Figure 41 shows the monitoring sites within Duffins Creek 

watershed. Please confirm with TRCA that this information is up-to-date as 

more sites may have been added (I believe more stream gauges have been 

added.). 

Pages 182-184. Subsection 14.3 – Natural Heritage System Monitoring 

Recommendations: 


comment. The bullet point 

provides this direction. 

This has been added to the 

bullet point. A requirement for 

funding has been added to the 

cost estimates for 

maintenance equipment. 

Noted. No action was taken. 

We will review and summarize 

the information on Atlantic 

Salmon and R-S dace 

provided by the TRCA, 

however, as we have stated 

before, we will defer to the 

FMP and Watershed plans for 

management of aquatic 

habitats and do not see the 

value repeating it in this 

document. 

Notation has been added to 

text. 

Statement provided within 

existing text 

Text has been revised. 

No action taken 


figure that it was provided by 

TRCA at the end of March 30, 

2008. 

See below 



62. 


63. 


67. 


68. 


69. 


70. 


71. 

Page 184 discusses the monitoring of the stream morphology, groundwater and 

baseflow contributions. It is my understanding that a monitoring program will be 

established as part of the development plans (i.e. MESPs, neighbourhood 

plans) that would include the monitoring of the stream morphology, groundwater 

and baseflow conditions. As the most significant impacts will come from the 

development, it only makes sense that the developers pay for the monitoring 

and any mitigation measures that are required. 

Pages 185/186. Subsection 14.3 – Natural Heritage System Monitoring 

Recommendations: The report states that one of the most important initiatives is 

to establish a water budget for Duffins watershed. It is my understanding that 

this has been done at various levels by various people (TRCA, City, developers 

etc.), more specifically, it will be completed by the developers at the MESP 

stage and refined at the neighbourhood plans. It is unclear why this report is 

going into such detail discussing groundwater/water budget calculations when 

other reports will deal with it. Moreover, it is unclear why this report is 

suggesting that targets be based on pre-settlement conditions. Has this been 

discussed and approved by TRCA, as we are currently working with the 

development team for the MESP. 

Page 189. Subsection 14.4.1 – Trail Maintenance Program – Environmental 

Sustainability: The report states that the use of pesticides and herbicides should 

be avoided in the maintenance of the trail. Given the recent provincial 

announcement on the proposed pesticide law as well as Pickering’s proposed 

pesticide by-law (expected to be adopted by council soon) this section should 

be revised. 

Page 190. No information is provided on who is expected to undertake 

winter maintenance of trails. 

Page 190. Subsection 14.4.1 – Trail Maintenance Program – Winter 

Maintenance of Trails: The report states that sanding should be used in lieu of 

salt for the trails located within the NHS. The use of sand is also not 

recommended as this could add a great amount of sediment to the creek, at 

very sensitive locations or be swept up in the spring by maintenance staff if it 

doesn’t wash off into the creeks. 

Page 190. In Subsection 14.4.2, the trail monitoring component should also 

include collection of information on users (frequency of use, purpose of travel, 

satisfaction, etc) and also for the NHS lands and the cultural heritage programs. 

A broader view of sustainability is required. 

Page 191. Subsection 14.4.1 Trail Maintenance Program – Steep/Hazard 

Slopes: It is unclear why geotechnical issues were not mentioned until page 

191 of the report. The issues discussed here are exactly why I commented that 

References have been revised 

to defer monitoring to the 

MESP. 

References has been revised 

to defer water budget to the 

MESP. 

Noted 


section XX to link actions, 

priorities and timing which 

includes winter maintenance of 

trails. 

We continue to support the 

use of sand and have added 

spring maintenance of trails to 

the list of maintenance 

requirements for the 

municipality. 

Trail user data collection has 

been added to the list of 

monitoring actions. 

A section has been added in 

Section 11.3 to address slope 

stabilization. 



72. 

a new section within Section 10.4 should be added to discuss geotechnical 

slope stabilization. 

Page 191. Subsection 14.4.1 – Trail Maintenance Program – Structures: 

The report states that a structural engineer should assess the conditions of the 

structures annually. It is unclear who would do this, as the City does not have 

the resources to complete these inspections. 

This is a common requirement 

to minimize public liability and 

should be left in. The 

responsibility belongs to the 

authority that will manage the 

structures. 

Appendix A 

MNR 

35 

Appendix A Plant Materials: 

This is an extensive list of plant species. It is recommended that only the native 

species that already exist in Seaton be used for restoration projects in the NHS. 

In the appendix of MNR’s report “Seaton Lands/Duffins-Rouge Agricultural 

Preserve, Natural Heritage System, City of Pickering” there is a list of plant 

species that have been found in the Seaton lands that could be used as a 

reference. 

The existing plant list has been 

replaced with the suggested 

plant list. 

15 - REALIZING THE VISION FOR THE NHS 

No comments submitted directly relating to this chapter. 

-- END -- 


Appendix C.8 

Seaton NHS Management Plan and Master Trail Plan: 

Consolidated Stage 3 Public Comments and Responses 

March 2008 

Seaton NHS Stage 3 Issue Response Table (public) FINAL.doc 

This table includes a summary of the comments and responses given at the public meeting #2 on April 2 nd 2008 and public 

comments submitted in writing during the comment period following the April 2nd meeting. Comments from steering committee 

members are in a separate document. 

The numbered sections correspond with the chapters from the Seaton Natural Heritage System Management Plan and Master Trails 

Plan DRAFT. Only those chapters that had related comments are included. Comment numbers are arbitrary for reference purposes. 

This table was prepared by Jason Diceman of Lura Consulting and is currently a draft to be finalized. 

GENERAL / OVERARCHING ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................... 2 

1 - A VISION FOR THE SEATON NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 4 

3 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 

5 - DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................................ 6 

6 - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM – ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ........................................................................... 8 

8 - CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................... 16 

9 - SEATON MASTER TRAIL PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 

10 - DESIGN GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 

11 – INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 24 

13 - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................. 25 

14 - MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................. 25 

MISCELLANEOUS (WHITEVALE GOLF COURSE) ............................................................................................................................. 28 

Seaton NHS MP & MTP: Consolidated Stage 3 Public Comments and Responses 1 of 29

GENERAL / OVERARCHING ISSUES 

No. Source Comment / Issue Response 

0.1 Public Mtg. 2 The Premier promised 2/3 of Seaton would be reserved for the Greenbelt. 

How much is set aside? 

The Central Pickering 

Development Plan is law. Two 

thirds is to be set aside for 

green lands, but that issue is 

beyond the scope of this study 

0.2 Public Mtg. 2 When will we see a 3D ground water / surface water analysis model? A separate technical study of 

“water balance” is being 

conducted by the Province. 

See Bruce Singbush for more 

details and documentation on 

this separate study. 

0.3 Public Mtg. 2 (Provided slides) I live in the agriculture reserve. I think the existing Seaton 

Hiking Trail should be realigned for safety concerns: it’s too narrow, steep, 

and not accessible. There are illegal ski jumps, cut trees, etc. People cross 

my property on ATVs, dirt bikes, etc. 

0.4 Public Mtg. 2 What are the plans for the white parts of the map (referring to the display 

boards)? 

0.5 Public Mtg. 2 How are golf courses and cemeteries included as part of the natural heritage 

system? They are exempt from pesticide by-laws and are not natural. 

0.6 Public Mtg. 2 I am concerned about stormwater management, ecological connectivity and 

endangered specifies in the white areas of the map. 

The study scope does not 

include analysis of the existing 

Seaton Trail, although some 

thinking has been done to 

consider how to integrate the 

existing Seaton Trail with the 

new proposed trail system. 

Steve Gaunt from the Steering 

Committee added: there is a 

planning process underway to 

consider what to do with the 

Seaton Trail, but it is on a 

slower track than this project. 

One public meeting has been 

held so far. 

City of Pickering has to decide 

how these lands will be 

developed in the future 

The NHS boundaries were 

provided to the Project Team 

by the Province. 

The project does not have a 

mandate to address the white 

areas. You are invited to let 

TRCA, MNR, and the City of 



Pickering, etc. know about any 

endangered species you find. 

Within the green areas of the 

map we are striving to improve 

ecological connectivity. 

0.7 Written We have concerns about inaccuracies in GIS data and other figures. 

Submission 

0.8 Written Was there any public consultation before the province decided which areas MMAH 

Submission to sell to the developers? 

0.9 Written Concern about rare and endangered species in Seaton, many occurring Noted 

Submission 

0.10 Written 

Submission 

0.11 Written 

Submission 

0.12 Written 

Submission 

outside the NHS. 

All your cover photographs were taken outside of Seaton and the NHS! Top 

left, going clockwise: photo is existing Seaton Trail outside the NHS. 2nd 

photo is of the stormwater management pond near Brock Landfill (a.k.a. 

"Duffin Heights"!), outside Seaton. 3rd photo is another of the Seaton Trail 

south of Taunton but again, outside your supposed study area. Last photo is 

of Forestream Trail, a public road at Whites and Taunton, also outside the 

NHS. 

Regarding the CD itself, it is extremely difficult to navigate, so much so that I 

don't have enough time to finish reading it and making sense of it before 

your deadline for comments. I can't find the chart where you claim to have 

addressed concerns and questions submitted by the public after the Dec. 

5 meeting, even though you briefly projected it on the screen at the last 

meeting and said it could be found on the CD. It should be in Appendix C, 

but I don't see any answers on the chart containing questions from the public 

as submitted from the workbook. 

You haven't provided a paper copy of your report anywhere for the public to 

view. 

There are too many agencies involved and responsible for different aspects 

of the Seaton plans. It makes it difficult for concerned citizens’ and our 

comments to really be heard by the whole and our suggestions utilized. 

Many of us are volunteers who take much time out of our lives to attend 

public consultations, read through the massive amounts of data in relatively 

short periods of time, make notes and write up our response. We would like 

to have hope that our efforts are not in vain. 

Noted 

The draft report was posted on 

the MMAH website for public 

review MMAH?? 

Noted 

0.13 Written 

Submission 

66% of Seaton being kept natural has not been kept by the province. Closer 

to only 53 of that promised 66% is going to be called natural. That 53% is 

set to include golf courses and parks which are not natural, do not act as 

MMAH 



habitat and will cause the demise of many native species. 

0.14 Written 

Submission 

When the NHS areas are analyzed according to the laws of ecology they are 

simply found to be too fragmented to be able to survive the projected impact 

Noted 

0.15 

Written 

Submission 

0.16 Written 

Submission 

of 70,000 people. 

It would appear that although comments are invited from the public, very few 

of them will have any effect on the Master Trail Plan. The government is 

proceeding with its own objectives. Most people (residents/taxpayers) at the 

meetings, have objected extensively to many aspects of the trail system. 

However, it seems that we (the public) don’t have our views valued. 

I can’t help but comment after five years of attending public consultations for 

Seaton that most decision makers involved have been men. Perhaps if more 

women had been included in the planning process there might have been a 

lighter and more sensitive approach to the planning process. However 

stereotypical this comment may sound I was acutely aware of the lack of 

female presence and influence involved. 

1 - A VISION FOR THE SEATON NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM 


1.1 Written 

Submission 

Page 3: In regards to cultural heritage and archaeological studies that were 

underway as of Dec. 5/07 meeting, along "Primary Neighbourhood 

Connector Trails" - you claim to have changed the alignments and 

placement of the trails since the Dec. 5 meeting. Are new studies being done 

along the new alignments? 

Noted 

Noted 

The archaeological studies 

were completed on the most 

up-to-date proposed 

alignments of the primary 

neighbourhood connections 

1.2 Written 

Submission 

Section 1, page 1 sets out the NHS vision and goal to be, “a predominately 

forested, robust ecological system that supports a diverse assemblage of 

native plant and animal communities. In order to achieve this vision, the 

management plan sets forth recommendations to guide the maintenance 

and enhancement of the existing natural heritage features within the NHS as 

well as the restoration of agricultural fields and other areas previously 

modified by human use. The management prescriptions set out in the 

NHSMP+MTP were developed with the goal of restoring agricultural and 

human modified landscapes to a forested condition... The only caveat to this 

general direction is the desire to retain some areas of open grassland to 

support native species of open habitat that will supplement the biological 

diversity of the site.” 

The caveat should be revised to include retention or restoration of non- 

Text modified to incorporate 

comment related to species at 

risk. Permitted uses within the 

NHS are addressed in 

Section@@ of the final report. 


forested habitats to support species at risk, where identified and to 

accommodate stormwater management facilities and other required 

servicing infrastructure consistent with CPDP policies as identified through 

the MESP”. 

3 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING INFORMATION 


3.1 Written 

Submission 

Fisheries Management 

Section 3.1.3, pages 21-26, Table 1.-The last column has not been filled in. 

Therefore, we cannot comment on the proposed methods for implementing 

the recommendations of the Fisheries Management Plan. Please forward a 

copy of the complete table for our review and comment. 

(NSE) The column ‘Seaton 

NHS Management Trail Plan’ 

has been removed from the 

table as it is unclear at this 

time how the fisheries 

management 

recommendations will apply to 

the NHS. 

I am OK with this response – 

honestly I cannot recall why 

that column was ever added - 

MJS 


5 - DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD VERIFICATION 


5.1 Written 

Submission 

5.2 Written 

Submission 

5.3 Written 

Submission 

RE: Wetland classification (p. 39) There are discrepancies between the 

two methods used and it references figure 10 which is not included in the 

rough draft I have been reading. My concern is that there are incomplete or 

improper designations for wetlands. In another regional plan outline I was 

shown re: Seaton plans recently the number of wetlands that were mapped 

did not accurately depict the real number of wetlands found on the site. I 

was very concerned about the inaccuracy of wetland mapping given that 

they are among the most at risk of ecosystems. Also much of my 

knowledge is based on knowing this land like the back of my hand. I have 

hiked and foraged on it all my life. 

Many wetlands that actually exist are vernal (seasonal) in nature but are 

super important. Vernal ponds are home to species like fairy shrimp and 

are at risk in all of Eastern North America. These creatures can be 

compared to the plankton of the Eastern forest and the start of the food 

chain. Wiping them out will have long standing repercussions for the entire 

food chains they sustain. Seasonal wetlands could easily been missed 

depending on what time of year the data was gathered or if missing in the 

ELC data used by the TRCA or that used by the MNR. Perhaps many 

vernal wetlands were not included in surveys or maps so that development 

would not have to be altered to accommodate them. 

Document what species are already in the area. 

Section 5.1.1, page 39, notes that the TRCA ELC mapping did not cover the 

whole study area. Consequently, additional work was done by Schollen to fill 

the gaps. It is further stated that MNR wetland mapping was used to refine 

the TRCA mapping, to identify additional wetlands. 

Using GIS, we compared the TRCA layer to the data provided to us by 

(NSE) Wetland locations and 

designations were provided by 

TRCA and were based on 

several years of field 

investigations. Some wetlands 

were also derived from ELC 

data, also based on several 

years of work undertaken by 

the TRCA and MNR. These 

methods are described in the 

report. If there are addition 

wetlands known to the 

reviewer, he/she should inform 

TRCA of their location. 

Wetlands in the NHS will not 

be developed. in general, a 

“hands-off” approach to 

management is recommended 

for these systems. 

(NSE) Species inventory was 

based on existing information 

from various individuals and 

agencies collected over 

several years, supplemented 

by some additional inventory 

undertaken by NSE during the 

course of this study. Species 

lists will be appended to the 

report. 

(NSE) The process 

undertaken to identify wetlands 

is accurately described in the 

report. We cannot comment 

on the reviewers analysis. 


5.4 Written 

Submission 

Schollen, and the two layers are virtually identical. There appears to have 

been no additional mapping nor re-classification of wetlands. Please confirm 

as this information is important for our knowledge/use in the MESP. 

Mapping of Sensitive Areas 

Section 5.1.4 addresses the mapping of sensitive/significant features. This 

is of interest with respect to potential locations where SWM facilities could 

be located in the NHS. 

The relationship between richness and diversity, and high and medium 

sensitivity is not articulated. The authors state that “this process is 

somewhat subjective” (page 43, 1 st paragraph). • This becomes very 

important when related to the priority areas for restoration (listed on page 43 

but discussed later in the report). 

What is the difference between ‘high’ and ‘medium’ sensitivity and 

what is the relationship between these sensitive areas and priority 

restoration of, for instance agricultural lands, as suggested by 

paragraph 3? 

This confusion is carried forward on page 46 (Section 5.1.7, Priority 

Restoration Areas, page 46) where it states “These priority areas generally 

are those that will be most vulnerable to impact from future development.” 

As agriculture and cultural meadows are priority areas, is the meaning of 

this statement that, without management, these areas will not naturalize as 

desired or that these areas have ‘sensitive’ resources? Clarification of this is 

important, especially with respect to location of SWM facilities within the 

NHS, as per the CPDP. 

(NSE) We will clarify the 

difference between the 

sensitivity analysis used to 

assist in the trail plan, and the 

priority areas for restoration. 


6 - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM – ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 


6.1 Public Mtg. 2 I thought stormwater management ponds are not ecologically sound. Why 

are they included in the plan? 

Another separate process will 

decide on servicing plans 

including stormwater 

management ponds. If there is 

a decision to use stormwater 

management ponds, the draft 

plan includes provisions of 

how to deploy them in a 

manner that aims to reduce 

6.2 Public Mtg. 2 I am concerned about the sustainability of stormwater management in the 

built up areas. What consideration is there for fisheries? 

6.3 Written 

Submission 

RE: Site Grading 6.4.2.- I found the section confusing. Overall, the concept 

of grading land to make development easier is leading to a monotonous flat 

landscape that is not what Ontario was. Done for ease it is aesthetically 

unpleasant and interferes with groundwater patterns. If done to replicate 

and maintain Ontario’s rolling hills and topography created by glaciation and 

to create environmental conditions for what some species depend on, that is 

a different concept altogether. Overall the need to manage and control 

every aspect of nature is disturbing. Humans need to learn to allow the 

natural world to simply be. 

potential negative impacts. 

Fisheries are part of the study 

process to ensure streams are 

protected. Yes, there will be 

impacts from urban areas. We 

should be proud that this 

greenspace is one of the 

largest in Ontario. This plan is 

the best we can do within an 

urban setting. The plan 

includes recommendations to 

mitigate effects of stormwater 

and to address aquatic 

resources. 

The grading referred to in this 

section does not relate to 

proposed development but 

rather preparation of 

agricultural fields to support 

restoration plantings with the 

objective of enhancing 

diversity through the creation 

of varied soil moisture 

gradients, drainage and 

microclimate conditions. 

6.4 Written RE: Management of Invasives 6.5 - Though the threats of invasive species Invasive species exist within 



Submission are well identified the energy and money involved anticipated to control 

them are directly linked to Seaton’s design that will encourage them to take 

up residence. Better planning relating to less fragmentation again will save 

energy and money and give what will remain of the natural world a better 

chance to survive the impacts of 70,000 humans and their domestic 

baggage. 

6.5 Written 

Submission 

Many of these issue would have been addressed if the ‘Part II Bump Up’ 

have been granted by the MOE as citizens were promised in the 

consultation process. Anytime I brought up important points at public 

consultations for Seaton that were not addressed by the current plans I was 

told that if I applied for a Bump Up to the EA that they would be addressed. 

I took this in good faith, applied for the Bump Up as directed by the panel of 

rep’s from the MAH and other consultants and it never happened. All 

requests from various environmental organizations and citizens were denied 

by the Minister of the Environment. This means that many concerns have 

been ignored in the planning process and citizens attending public 

consultations were misled. 

What precautions will be considered in the Seaton Plan regarding the 

Atlantic salmon introduction project in Duffins Creek? 

the NHS at the present time as 

well as in other adjacent 

natural areas such as Rouge 

Park and the Rouge/Duffins 

Corridor. Management is 

required to address existing 

invasive species as well as 

those that will migrate into the 

NHS from nearby sources of 

seed. 

The design of the NHS itself 

was set by the province prior 

to this study and its refinement 

was not part of the mandate of 

this study. 

(MMAH) 

6.6 Written Was recent climate changes effects on precipitation/or lack of it considered (MMAH) 

The NHSMP+MTP 

recommends the 

establishment of buffers 

adjacent watercourses and the 

removal of existing in-stream 

barrier to fish migration to 

assist in achieving recovery 

objectives. 

The TRCA, who are 

implementing the Atlantic 

Salmon introduction, will 

remain involved throughout the 

future development process 

and will ensure that all 

precautions possible are 

taken. (NSE) 



Submission during the Water budget assessment? 

6.7 Written 

Submission 

You've talked about putting fences around sensitive areas to keep the public 

out. Fences are dangerous and disruptive to wildlife. One of the main 

reasons for saving the NHS is to provide habitat for wildlife, isn't it? If you 

block the free movement of wildlife, it defeats the purpose. Besides that, the 

fences will serve to draw attention to whatever they're protecting, showing 

the public where they might find valuable things to steal, such as rare plants 

and archeological finds. And people always find a way through or around a 

fence when they're determined. Conversely, people who respect and 

appreciate nature, and wish to feel connected to it on their walks through the 

area won't feel very happy about walking through a fenced corridor. 

Fences are only proposed to 

protect new restoration 

plantings until they are selfsustaining 

or to close existing 

trails or ad-hoc trails that form 

in areas of sensitivity. 

Permanent fences are 

proposed along private 

property lines where they 

interface with the NHS to limit 

unauthorized encroachment or 

dumping. 

Experience with projects in the 

past has shown that fencing 

adjacent to private property 

and schools is essential to 

control human access and 

minimize encroachment. 

(NSE) 

6.8 Written 

Submission 

RE: Fencing (p.66) - I am concerned about the amount and type of fencing 

and not clear if this simply refers to some areas being chained off or whole 

fences put in place. It claims that it will be the developer’s responsibility. 

Though some areas should be chained off to limit human trespass, whole 

fences fragments habitat and limit species movement. Also the type is 

important. I have seen fawns who have tried to jump over fences impaled 

on metal fences and left to rot by seasonal home owners who hardly visit. 

Height is of concern and sharp points need to be avoided. 

Chainlink fence in proposed 

along the interface of private 

property and the NHS to limit 

encroachment and dumping 

and define the limit of public 

land. Other fencing proposed 

will be cedar post and paige 

wire fencing and this will be 

used to limit access to newly 

planted areas or sensitive sites 

that are being impacted by 

trails. Fencing may also be 

required at organic garden plot 

sites to limit wildlife browsing. 

and around school yards to 

control children accessing the 

woodlands. (NSE) 



6.9 Written 

Submission 

6.10 Written 

Submission 

Use of Marshes as Receiving Bodies for Treated Stormwater 

The ‘Permitted Uses’ section for Marsh Communities (page 56) states 

that marshes can be used as receiving bodies for stormwater that has 

been treated in a stormwater management facility, “where there are 

no other options.” This comment is provided in the marsh section 

only. 

We recommend that this comment be removed and a general 

comment provided that any NHS management unit may receive 

treated stormwater subject to the review/analyses of the MESP. 

We disagree with the wording, “where there are no other options” 

since evaluation of existing surface water and groundwater inputs to 

marshes and other management units must be understood before any 

recommendations are made regarding future drainage outlet locations 

to any management unit. Outlet locations should not be precluded by 

the NHSMP+MTP without the understanding of existing water sources 

to various management units. 

The Report notes that, “Restoration of a 15m buffer in the NHS and 

adjacent to development is considered to be a developer 

responsibility and this restoration should be undertaken at the time of 

the development of the lands adjacent to the NHS” (page 66), and, 

“At the time of development a chain link fence should be erected 

along the NHS boundary and a 15m buffer should be restored within 

the NHS consisting of low shrubs, tall shrubs and trees as 

appropriate.” (page 67). 

We do not agree that any NHS restoration should be a developer 

responsibility and request that this recommendation be removed from 

It is not correct that any 

Management Unit can receive 

stormwater. It would be poor 

management to introduce 

storm run-off to upland areas. 

SWM units will need to 

discharge to low points, where 

there are usually wetlands or 

watercourses. No specific 

location for SWM discharge 

has been precluded by the 

study. 

This recommendation is 

important to establish the 

appropriate interface between 

private / development lands 

and the NHS. MMAH supports 

the recommendation. 



the report. 

6.11 Written 

Submission 

6.12 Written 

Submission 

Timing of Linkage Restoration 

Section 6.4.1 lists several factors to be considered when determining 

an appropriate restoration approach for any particular area In the 

NHS. One of the listed factors is, “Linkage areas that are currently 

agricultural lands and lack any natural features should be restored as 

soon as possible so that these areas can begin to provide an 

ecological linkage function by the time development occurs”. 

Section 6.4.1.2 also deals with the approach for restoring linkages. 

The third bullet (page 67) notes that the edge definition strip for 

linkages, “should be planted as soon as possible so the linkage is 

visually defined before development occurs” and the fourth bullet 

states, “when development occurs linkage area will have a 30m 

planted strip that will define the edge.” 

These factors must be reconsidered/rewritten to de-link development 

timing with any restored ecological linkage function. It is not 

appropriate or necessary to link restoration to development timing. 

There are numerous outstanding issues associated with the 

implementation of restoration that may not be resolved in a timely 

manner. 

Storm Sewer Outfalls at Road Crossings 

Section 6.6 (page 86) lists several general recommendations to guide 

the location of infrastructure through the NHS. It notes that, “storm 

sewer outfalls should be located away from creeks and should, where 

possible, be confined to road crossings.” 

While we do not disagree that outfalls should be combined with road 

crossings where possible, we note that there are relatively few road 

The intent of these statements 

is to stress the importance of 

ensuring that the NHS is a 

recognizable entity and that 

restoration has been initiated 

prior to the development of the 

adjacent lands. This is 

essential to minimize impacts 

of development on the NHS. 

(NSE) The statements have 

been retained but the wording 

has been modified to 

accommodate variability 

between the timelines for 

forestation of these sites and 

the schedule for development. 

The wording “where existing 

drainage pattern allow” has 

been added to the bullet point 



crossings compatible with existing drainage patterns to make this 

possible. 

6.13 Written 

Submission 

Factors Affecting Road Crossing Design 

Section 6.6.1 (page 87) lists a number of factors to direct the design 

of mitigative measures for road crossing design. The list includes, 

“Known movement patterns of wildlife, daily and seasonally, and the 

types of species most likely to cross”. The CPDP does not require this 

detail of study, nor is the level of data noted typically a requirement of 

road crossing design. Existing wildlife data may suffice. 

We request that this bullet be rewritten to say, “Road crossing design 

to accommodate wildlife requirements”. 

The report notes another design factor to be, “Hills along the edge of the 

road that may facilitate movement over the roadway via a contrasted 

wildlife overpass”. Based on our understanding of the habitat and general 

wildlife in the area, the species and terrain present and primary wildlife 

movement corridors do not support the need for any wildlife overpasses. 

We request that the references to wildlife overpasses be removed. 

Further, the report notes that Figure 20 illustrates ‘Potential Wildlife 

Crossing Locations’ where “wildlife crossing strategies need to be 

addressed’ yet this figure is not provided. 

Please forward this figure for our review. 


modified to read “road crossing 

design should accommodate 

wildlife movement patterns and 

requirements” 

Bullet point deleted. 

(NSE) 

The development and 

installation of wildlife crossings 

(overpasses/ underpasses) to 

facilitate a variety of plant and 

animal movement 

requirements is an evolving 

field. A review of current 

literature would suggest there 

are many strategies currently 

being implemented in N.A and 

elsewhere. 

The report should refer to 

wildlife crossings, recognizing 

that detailed site specific 

studies are required to 

determine the most 



appropriate and most up-todate 

wildlife design(s) that may 

be used in Seaton. 

6.14 Written 

Submission 

SWM Facilities Are Permitted Uses in the NHS 

Section 4 of the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) sets out 

permitted uses in the NHS including, “Storm water Management 

systems/facilities” (page 35). This is acknowledged in Section 2.1.1 of the 

NHSMP+MTP, however, other sections of the report are inconsistent with 

CPDP policies. 

For example, the report does not include SWM facilities as a permitted use 

in any of the management units presented in Section 6.2. Further, Section 

6.6.2, page 91 • notes that, ‘The location of ponds, although permitted in 

the NHS is strongly discouraged. Where this situation is unavoidable, 

SWM facilities should remain outside valley corridors and existing 

features such as woodlots and wetlands as well as agricultural lands 

that are targeted for restoration to form primary linkage amongst 

existing features. Notwithstanding, the final location for stormwater 

management facilities will be subject to an appropriate evaluation on 

a site-specific basis in consideration of environmental Implications as 

well as technical merits. This review process may be undertaken as 

part of the MESP and/or Neighbourhood Planning process for the 

Seaton Community (underlining added). 

Section 6.6.2, page 90, states, ‘The integration of stormwater 

management ponds as recreational, aesthetic and ecological 

amenities adjacent to, but outside of the limits of, the NHS” 

(underlining added). 

Further, Section 10.7.1, page 143, point 6 states, ‘Locate stormwater 

The figure has been provided 

in the revised document 

Text revised to address this 

issue 

Text revised to address this 

issue 

Wording “adjacent the NHS” 



management facilities and ponds adjacent the NHS to serve as deleted 

gateways to the proposed trail system.” (underlining added), and, 

Section 10.7.2, page 147, principle No. 6 states, “Large scale municipal 

parks, schools, places of worship, stormwater management facilities Wording “stormwater 

management facility” deleted 

or other uses possessing a high proportion of open space should be 

located adjacent the NHS” (underlining added). 

The underlined portions of all of these statements are not acceptable 

commentary as they contradict clear direction in CPDP policy. It is our 

opinion, all of these sections must be revised to acknowledge that SWM 

facilities are a permitted use within the NHS provided that they do not 

materially impact on any of the natural heritage features within the NHS. 

The determination of the location of the SWM facilities will be determined 

through the MESP. 

It is our opinion that this report should have addressed, in principle, 

acceptable locations in the NHS for SWM facilities, major overland flow 

discharge points and other related water management facilities (e.g. in 

existing agricultural, cultural meadow or manicured areas where they can be 

implemented in an environmentally acceptable manner) or, preferably, 

acknowledged that SWM systems/facilities as permitted uses in the NHS 

and referred the issue of SWM facility locations in the NHS to the MESP. 

Also, with respect to the discussion on page 91 (noted above), our MESP 

consulting team would appreciate knowing the location of “agricultural lands 

that are targeted for restoration to form primary linkage amongst existing 

features.” 

We will provide general 

guidance for the location of 

SWM, which will in general 

simply be to avoid, wherever 

possible, existing natural 

features. (NSE) 

It is not our position to illustrate 

SWM locations within our 

management plan. MESP 

should handle this. 

In the final report Figure 12 

illustrates agricultural 

restoration sites and Figure 14 

priority agricultural restoration 

sites. 



6.15 Written 

Submission 

SWM Design Principles 

SectIon 6.6.2, page 91, lists several design principles. Some of these 

principles have been addressed in previous comments. One of the 

principles states, “Stormwater out falls should be located away from the 

edge of watercourses and should outlet into a plunge pool prior to 

discharging into watercourses.,.” 

This statement, requiring plunge pools at every outlet, is inappropriate and 

should be removed. The MESP or subsequent studies/designs will address 

appropriate locations and outfall designs. 

Wording modified to delete 

reference to plunge pools. 

6.16 Written 

Submission 

Another principle states that SWM ponds, “…should be designed as 

recreational, aesthetic and ancillary ecological amenities”. 

Who and in what forum will the recreational design requirement be 

determined? 

Wetland Types Based on Hydrology 

Table 5 presents three different wetland types, comments on their sensitivity 

to development and presents general management recommendations 

relating to hydrology. Several management recommendations are unclear 

and require rewording to clarify their meaning. For example, what is the 

meaning of, “protect adjacent surface water sources” and “protect 

recharge areas upstream”? 

The word “passive” has been 

added to define the 

appropriate suite of 

recreational activities to be 

considered in the design of 

SWM facilities 

We will examine the text in this 

table and revise to clarify the 

intent. 

8 - CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 


8.1 Written 

Submission 

Section 8.1.2, point 4, page 100 addresses requirements where new 

development replaces significant former built heritage resources. 

Does this recommendation address development inside or outside of the 

NHS? 

New development will not 

displace built heritage 

resources within the NHS. 


9 - SEATON MASTER TRAIL PLAN 


9.1 Public Mtg. 2 Is there a plan to salt the trail? The plan does not recommend 

using salt. It suggests using 

sand and snow removal to 

make paths passable in the 

winter. 

9.2 Public Mtg. 2 How did you make the “walkability” decisions for path routes? The design aims to connect 

proximate neighborhoods and 

to allow for travel via the trail 

system to popular locations, 

such as schools and places of 

worship in consideration of a 

desireable walking distance of 

400m. 

9.3 Public Mtg. 2 I think that the trail paths are too large. There is too much surface area and 

too much to maintain. We need to consider road area. It is important to 

reduce intrusions and fragmenting in the NHS. 

9.4 Public Mtg. 2 I think the more trails the better. I’m a walker. They should not be all 

asphalt. 

Trail dimensions are dictated 

by a range of parameters 

including modules for 

accessibility, need for 

maintenance or public safety 

concern. Recommendations 

to use the road rights-of-way 

are provided in this document. 

Primary and Secondary trails 

are proposed to be asphalt, 

low impact trails will be soft 

surface. 

9.5 Public Mtg. 2 Isn’t there a conflict of “natural” vs. “urban”. More than half of these paths 

are asphalt. Why do we need so much trail system? 

The reality is that 70,000 

people will be living in Seaton, 

plus those who visit frequently 

for employment. Many of 

these people will be using the 

trails and we need to ensure 

the trails are accessible and 

encourage users to stay on the 

trail as well as to minimize 

ongoing maintenance 



requirements. 

9.6 Written 

Submission 

9.7 Written 

Submission 

9.8 Written 

Submission 

Most trails follow the outline of NHS on both sides. Do the trails have to 

follow all the way around some NHS? Wouldn't this be a deterrent to 

flora/fauna movement? 

Some are concerned with the amount of trails, I am not. I found it clever that 

you did a density comparison with other trail systems in the general area. 

But where that comparison falls short is that you compared a paved trail 

system that is not in (but rather near) forested areas (i.e. the Seaton NHS 

trails) with trail systems that are all, or predominantly, natural surface (i.e. 

dirt) trails in the middle of a forested area. A useful comparison would have 

been to Ajax's paved trail system, the trails in Uxbridge's City center, or 

others. 

People want to experience nature by being in the middle of it, not simply on 

the outside looking in. There are numerous mentions of techniques to 

discourage and prevent people from accessing the NHS, but no discussion 

at all of how to allow people to access it in a manner compatible with the 

spirit of the plan. The people living in the Seaton community are going to 

want to do more than look at the lovely green spaces from afar. Some will 

even go exploring on their own regardless of fences, obstacles, etc. Then 

we will be confronted with numerous ad-hoc social trails that are "built" 

inadequately, and traversing inappropriate locations. A much better 

approach in my mind would be to accept that fact that people will want to 

explore the forest and plan for it just like has been done with the rest of the 

trail plan. Decide what the positive and negative control points are and 

develop a natural surface trail system that meets the needs of the residents. 

You have already started to do this in a limited way with the low impact 

trails. However I have two problems with the suggestion. 

First is to do with a suggested construction technique. Wood chips! I've 

previously sent comments explaining why wood chips are a very bad 

construction option. Properly constructed natural surface trails are a much 

Trails were located to follow 

the perimeter of the NHS to 

avoid fragmenting the NHS as 

much as possible 

Seaton is unique in that the 

trail system is envisioned as 

an integrate component of the 

transportation network rather 

than an after thought. The trail 

density comparison was of 

assistance in evaluating the 

impact of trail density on 

fragmentation. In reality, there 

is no system in the GTA that is 

prototypical of Seaton. 

The decision of the trail system 

attempts to establish a balance 

between human interaction 

and preservation / 

enhancement of sensitive 

natural features. The 

interpretive overlay seeks to 

afford visitors / residents the 

opportunity to experience the 

natural attributes of the NHS 

while protecting sensitive sites. 

The low impact trails are 

intended to offer the 

experience of nature. 

We agree that woodchip trails 

are problematic and 

references to this have been 

deleted. 



better option. I've spent a fair amount of time building such trails in the Don 

Valley, Glen Major, and elsewhere. The techniques exist and work very well 

and we should be using them here. 

9.9 Written 

Submission 

9.10 Written 

Submission 

9.11 Written 

Submission 

The second problem is with the accepted use on these trails. It is explicitly 

stated that only walkers and hikers should be using the low impact trails. No 

doubt this is because of the historical mistaken belief that mountain biking is 

no low impact. Here I define mountain biking in its simplest terms, riding a 

bike on dirt, not the stuff you see in adventure movies, not racing, just the 

local kids, and adults, who want to ride on something other than pavement. 

Over the past decade the evidence has been mounting that mountain biking 

has similar impact as hiking and that the biggest impact on the environment 

by far is trail design, not trail use. You can find much more here: 

http://www.imba.com/resources/science/index.html 

One of the concerns that we have as a result of this meeting is the fact that 

it appears that all of the trails are of a “braided” nature; short, numerous and 

go from Point A to Point B, this of particular concern in the southeast corner. 

Our fear here is that we could create a problem like the Glen Major Trail 

system where you could end up with more trails than green space. The 

other concerns with the abundance of “braided” trails is that there is an 

absence of “loop” trails where you start at Point A and return to Point A, with 

different size loops going from ½ hour, to 1 hour to 2 hour walks but all 

returning to Point A. We are also concerned about the length and number of 

the secondary, recreational and low impact trails. 

Proposed North South Trail Linkages: Not all of the numerous proposed 

primary and secondary trail connections extending north across Highway 

407 align with existing culverts or bridge overpasses. It is our opinion that 

some of the existing culverts used water conveyance through the 407 rightof-way, 

may not be large enough to accommodate multi-use trails in many 

cases. The feasibility of constructing additional culverts and bridge 

overpasses is not practical at this scale. This aspect of the trail and its 

connection to neighbouring systems should be re-examined. 

Proposed Trail Hierarchy: There are a number of trail types shown on the 

plan identifying a standard trail hierarchy system of primary, secondary and 

The steering committee 

expressed concerns about 

“mountain biking” being a 

promoted use on the low 

impact trials due to potential 

conflicts with other trail users. 

We agree that responsible, 

passive cycling does not 

present a problem, however 

intensive “active mountain 

biking” can pose issues related 

to impact on vegetation, slope 

stability and soil compaction. 

The trail plan has been 

scrutinized and further 

refinements / deletions have 

been made to eliminate 

duplicate or braided trails. 

Loop trails have been provided 

to provide neighbourhoods 

with recreational circuits of 

varying lengths. 

The interface of trails at 

Highway 407 has been 

reviewed. Trail connections 

are located primarily with 

existing and proposed road 

crossings. 

Trail width and surfacing are 

dictated by a number of 



low impact trails. However, it appears that all trails including the low impact 

trails are paved in either 2.4 or 3 metre asphalt. This would appear to be a 

case of over-design in order to meet the consultant’s objective to provide 

vehicular access for policing and emergency vehicles on all trails. If this plan 

were realized, it would be impossible to distinguish one trail type from the 

other. If on the other hand the vast amount of the secondary trails being 

shown on the plan are “placeholders” for future trails (as has been 

indicated), why would they need to be shown at this time as part of an 

overall master plan. It is well know that once a line (trail) is shown to the 

public on a plan, it is very difficult to have that line removed. We feel a better 

approach would be to show only a well thought out Primary Pedestrian ring 

trail system that connects the neighbourhood cells off the proposed 

roadways. This would provide for safe and easy access between the 

development communities while being able to enjoy a natural experience. 

parameters including the 

Access for Ontarians with 

Disability Act and maintenance 

requirements. The hierarchy 

will be more legible in the field 

once the overlay of trailheads 

and orientation signage is in 

place. Illustrating the 

proposed alignment of 

Secondary trails is necessary 

at this time to ensure that the 

alignments avoid sites of high 

natural and low cultural 

heritage sensitivity. 

Roads are utilized where 

possible to accommodate trail 

connections but the scale of 

the site requires intervening 

trails to accommodate practical 

connectivity. 

9.12 Written 

Submission 

9.13 Written 

Submission 

9.14 Written 

Submission 

When people think of trails in a natural heritage area, they sure don’t expect 

such a vast network of trails, and even worse to have them mostly asphalt 

covered. There will certainly be enough streets in the neighbourhoods with 

connecting gridwork. Sure some trails are reasonable and make sense. 

However 72 kilometres of paved “roads” (aka “trails”) are far too much 

alteration for any of what’s left to be called natural. 

It is not at all confirmed by the City of Pickering that the planned trails will be 

cleared of snow. Thereby vastly reducing their functionality. 

Concern that 78 km to 72 km is not enough of a reduction in trails to 

address the public concern. 

The trail network has been 

reviewed and any 

redundancies removed. The 

trail network is of the 

appropriate scale and design 

to accommodate the proposed 

population of Seaton. 

The document promotes winter 

maintenance to encourage 4 

season use. 

The trail network has been 

reviewed and any 

redundancies removed 

resulting in a further reduction 

of 3km to 69km. The trail 



network is of the appropriate 

scale and design to 

accommodate the proposed 

population of Seaton. 

9.15 Written 

Submission 

9.16 Written 

Submission 

9.17 Written 

Submission 

9.18 Written 

Submission 

Reducing paved surface is essential. 

RE: 9.4.7 Connections Between Neighbourhoods and Employment lands. - 

Though designed as walkable, realistically the customer base to make 

money for the stores here will come from not only Seaton but from outside. 

There will be heavy traffic along Highway #7, the most sensitive headwater 

and recharge area of the Duffins Watershed along with garbage dumped 

that will enter the ecosystem. Other than for small purchases, the residents 

of Seaton will still drive the short distance from their homes in order to cart 

back their large purchases as well. The projected ecological and carbon 

footprint of building on such an area will be too large and heavy for such a 

sensitive land-base. It would have made much more ecological sense to 

position such an area to the south of Seaton close to existing markets, 

infrastructure and roads that really would make a difference environmentally 

speaking. 

RE: Final decision on location of primary and secondary neighbourhood 

connectors. - Your plans should be considered while development of 

neighbourhood will take place, but shouldn't the final decision on these be 

decided by the future residents? Their physical and property safety should 

be taken into consideration when making the final decision on connectors 

location? This may be less attractive to future home purchasers. 

This plan is forward thinking especially in regards to the bicycle lanes is 

commendable. We hope that this forward thinking will continue when we get 

Pavement width / surface has 

been reduced as much as 

possible while still 

accommodating functional and 

maintenance requirements. 

(MMAH) 

The location of Primary 

Connectors is dictated by 

practical parameters such as 

avoidance of sensitivity sites, 

minimization of fragmentation 

and optimization of inter - 

neighbourhood connectivity. 

Generally future residents will 

not be impacted by trail 

alignments since the majority 

will be located at least 15m 

away from lot lines. 

Agreed 



to the implementation of the transportation network; GO trains, buses, 

roads; bypasses, and main arteries that will attract residents not dependent 

on two cars to commute to work. 

9.19 Written 

Submission 

Bike Routes 

Dedicated bike routes, primary on-road bike routes and secondary 

on-road bike routes are proposed on various roads without Seaton. 

Section 9.4 presents typical bike route configurations and locations, 

yet Section 9.5 addressing trail implementation notes that the 

alignment of Dedicated Bike Routes will be determined through the 

EA and MESP processes, the location and configuration of on-road 

primary bike routes will be determined through the MESP and 

Neighbourhood Plans, and the alignment of secondary on-road bike 

routes will be determined in conjunction with the MESP and 

Neighbourhood Plans. 

The configurations of the suggested bike routes have significant 

implications to right-of-way widths, design and cost that are not 

supported by the Landowner Group. 

The configuration and alignment of all types of bike routes throughout 

Seaton should be addressed through the MESP and/or the 

Neighbourhood Plans. They should not be determined through the 

NHSMP+MTP process. These types of details should be addressed in 

conjunction with the consideration of other urban design issues, not in 

isolation of other planning considerations. 

It is agreed that the actual 

location and alignment of 

bicycle routes will be 

determined through the MESP 

and EA processes, however, it 

is fundamental to the creation 

of a functional connected trail 

system that offers a true 

alternative to automobile use 

that the NHSMP+MTP 

promote on-road trails and 

dedicated bike routes within 

rights-of-way as a means to 

achieve Seaton’s sustainability 

mandate. 

We request that notes be added to the specific bike route cross 

sections and location (Figures 23A, 23B, 24A, 24B and 25) confirming 

their very preliminary nature that is to be addressed through the 

MESP/Neighbourhood Plans. 

Notes have been added to the 

figures as requested. 

10 - DESIGN GUIDELINES 


10.1 Public Mtg. 2 Few residents use the Seaton Walking Trail. Are there any plans for The draft plan includes a waypromotion 

of the tail system? 

finding strategy, obvious trail 


10.1 Written 

Submission 

Neighbourhood Interface Guidelines 

Section 10.7.1, page 143 sets out principles, “intended to help shape 

the form of public and private development interfaces with the NHS.” 

The report notes that these principles “should be integrated within the 

City of Pickering’s urban design guidelines and applied in the 

development of the future communities.” 

Principles include: 

-- The NHS becomes a strong visual focus within the Seaton Community; 

-- Continuous public façade along the NHS; 

-- Protect the NHS from encroachment at the interface with Environmental 

Sensitive Areas; 

-- Linear parks adjacent to NHS; 

-- Establish a Neighbourhood Interface Zone; 

-- Locate social centres of new neighborhoods adjacent the NHS; 

-- Locate public and semi-public recreation uses adjacent to the NHS; 

-- Compatible built form along the edge of the NHS. 

Some portions of the text note that these principles should be considered, 

while other text states that they should be integrated within the urban design 

guidelines. 

Page 144, Section 10.7.1 states: 

“It is recommended that the developer be responsible for 

implementing the management prescriptions that have been 

developed for the appropriate Management Unit for these interface 

areas. Prescriptions for the planting of native species/reforestation 

described in Section 8.3 will apply.” 

It is unclear what is recommended to be the responsibility of the developer 

here and why. There is no Section 8.3 — does this refer to the management 

prescriptions on pages 83, 87, & 91? Or does it refer to the management 

guidelines and goals in Sections 6.2.1 through 6.3.7? 

heads, and recommendations 

to develop an interpretative 

plan. All these should help 

promote frequent use of the 

future trail. 


It is our opinion that these principles could be provided as input for 

consideration during the preparation of the City’s urban design guidelines. It 

is premature to identify these principles for implementation without the 

benefit of understanding all urban design issues and weighing implications 

to overall community design. 

We request that the discussion on form of development adjacent to the NHS 

be deferred to the City’s urban design exercise. 

11 – INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES 


11.1 Written Public gardening may introduce more invasive species to the NHS. How do 

Submission you plan to prevent this or remediate it? 

11.2 Written 

Submission 

11.3 Written 

Submission 

RE: 11.2 Cultural Interpretation - Though the concept of credit to former 

residents and cultural themes is respectful will the real stories be told? 

There is a dark history to the land going back to the First Nations groups 

who exterminated the original Huron for not wanting to join their groups and 

to eliminate in order to gain access to fur trade routes. Original families 

such as mine from Green River lost our family farms through expropriations 

for Seaton and the Proposed Pickering Airport. The Seaton Hiking trail 

wasn’t designed as such but was my fathers’ old hunting trails. Poverty hit 

many locals there heavily after the depression. He gathered most of the 

food his family ate from this land, taught me these skills and instilled an 

understanding of how connected we are to the earth we walk. If we treat it 

disrespectfully it will no longer nourish us. If stories are going to be told 

there must be truth. 

Integrating Viewscapes in Development Design 

Section 11.4.1 • page 155 identifies that there are “a number of identified 

views that carry important cultural heritage attributes and that, “it is 

imperative that the process for planning the new Seaton 

neighbourhoods respect and integrate these viewscape as a means 

to preserve and build awareness of significant cultural heritage 

resources within Seaton”. 

Our comment to item 11 above also applies to the viewscape 

recommendations. 

Text has been added to 

promote public education of 

the threat of invasive species 

that could be inadvertently 

introduced by gardeners. 

The real stories deserve to be 

collected and recounted. This 

study tries to illustrate the 

settlement history from a more 

general perspective. 

Our discussion of viewscapes 

relates to the cultural heritage 

landscape evolution within the 

study area. However, we 

appreciate the interest in the 

application of the integration of 

the viewscapes into the urban 

design exercise. 


We request that the discussion on the integration of views be deferred to 

the City’s urban design exercise for the same reasons noted above. 

13 - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – IMPLEMENTATION 


13.1 Public Mtg. 2 When housing developments and infrastructure are built, will it cause our 

taxes to rise? How will we pay for this? 

A City of Pickering Councillor 

responded: Durham Region 

has a user pay system for 

water and sewage. 

13.2 Public Mtg. 2 How will they pay for management? We can’t afford higher taxes. The draft plan does address 

the need for funding to 

maintain the NHS and trail 

system. 

13.3 Written 

Submission 

A considerable cost, both capital and long term maintenance, would be the 

requirement for pedestrian bridges at all trail creek crossings to meet the 

requirements of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s generic 

regulations. 

Bridge crossings are essential 

to achieve trail connectivity 

objectives given the number of 

watercourses with the Seaton 

NHS. Several bridge 

alternatives are available that 

will meet TRCA requirements 

while remaining both relatively 

inexpensive and durable. 

14 - MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING 


14.1 Written 

Submission 

NHS Maintenance and Monitoring 

Section 14 addresses NHS maintenance and monitoring 

recommendations. This section lists groups/agencies that should be 

involved. 

It should be stated explicitly that this “Maintenance and Monitoring” 

program is not the responsibility of the developers. 


The only exception is the reference to the MESP in “C. Water Budget 

Calculations” (page 185), which is understood. 

In addition it should be specifically noted that the developers are not 

responsible for the preparation for: 

-Vegetation Health and Resources (subheading in Section 14.3 

Natural Heritage System Monitoring Recommendations, page 182), 

and, 

-- Aquatic Resources (subheading in Section 14.3 Natural Heritage 

System Monitoring Recommendations, page 182). 

The document could state that the information obtained by the MESP for the 

Water Resources (subheading in Section 14.3 Natural Heritage System 

Monitoring Recommendations, page 183) and the Groundwater Resources 

(page 184) may form the baseline information. However, if noted, it should 

be clear that additional effort beyond the CPDP direction as part of the 

MESP (as confirmed by the MESP Terms of Reference) to provide the 

baseline is not a requirement of the developers. 

The Terrestrial Resources monitoring (page 186) relates to the NHS. 

The inventory work and analysis work that has been completed to 

date does not appear to meet the baseline requirements. It should be 

clarified that it is not the requirement of the developers to provide this 

information. 

Overall, with respect to monitoring, the report should provide clearer 

direction about who would provide the baseline information and undertake 

the monitoring of the various components of this monitoring program. 

It is our expectation that the 

inventory provided with the 

MESP will be at an appropriate 

level of detail to undertake the 

necessary design and provide 

the baseline for future 

monitoring requirements. 

Where the inventory 

undertaken by TRCA and 

others fulfils this requirement it 

could be used. However, 

some of this information is 

dated, in some places 

incomplete, and in others not 

of a suitable detail. We 

presume it will be the 

developer’s responsibility to 

provide all the data required a 

the MESP level. This should 


e established with the TRCA 

at the outset of the study. 

14.2 Written 

Submission 

Water Budget Calculations 

Section 14.3 page 185, Water Budget Calculations, notes that it is expected 

that a water budget or water balance be provided as part of the MESP for 

the Seaton Area. While we concur with this requirement, we do not agree 

with the requirement (page 186) that, “Water budgets should be developed 

with targets based upon pre-settlement conditions rather than prodevelopment 

conditions in recognition of the fact that much of the 

watershed was cleared of forest cover to accommodate agricultural 

activities”. 

It is not the intent of the NHSMP+MTP to address water resources related 

targets. This work is more appropriately done as part of the MESP. 

We request that this requirement be removed from the document. 

We agree “pre-settlement” is 

not the appropriate target. 

However, we also feel it is 

appropriate dor the 

NHSMP+TP to address water 

resources as these are critical 

to the long term health of the 

NHS 

The appropriate factors to 

consider in regard to water 

budgets are the predevelopment 

landscape and 

the NHS as it currently exists 

and in its fully restored state 

(i.e. conversion of fields to 

forests and wetlands) 

14.3 Written 

Submission 

Monitoring of Restoration Plantings 

Notwithstanding our opinion regarding the responsibilities for restoration 

plantings (see item 3), Section 14.3, page 187, bullet two notes that 

restoration plantings should be inspected on a bi-weekly basis for the first 

Wording modified to refer to a 

2 month initial monitoring 

period 


growing season. This is a much greater frequency than normally 

undertaken. Perhaps this level is required in the first month following 

planting; however, it is not necessary for the entire growth season, 

especially given that the first bullet already states that plants are to be 

“watered as required”. 

The fifth bullet (page 188) requires “additional restoration planting of areas” 

after start of the second growing season. What does this mean and what 

are the implications? 

In summary we believe that many of the current recommendations within 

the report are not supported by and/or are not consistent with the policies in 

the CDPD and also make recommendations that should be the subject of 

other on-going studies such as the Regional Master EA, the MESP and the 

Neighbourhood Planning exercise. 

We recommend that the Province carefully review the capital and long term 

maintenance costs of the recommendations contained within the draft 

report. In our opinion, these costs are not sustainable and the 

recommendations need to be reconsidered to make them such and still 

provide for the goals outlined for the NHS. 

bullet point deleted 

(MMAH) 

(MMAH) 

MISCELLANEOUS (WHITEVALE GOLF COURSE) 


20.1 Written 

Submission 

With regard to the trail running along the east side of Golf Club Road it 

appears to cross over the road after our entrance road. You will recall that I 

had some concerns about the pedestrian safety relative to vehicular traffic 

entering and exiting our property at this location. 

20.2 Written I do not think WGC would like to have a trail on its property for a variety of 

Submission 

20.3 Written 

Submission 

20.4 Written 

Submission 

reasons e.g. Safety and Liability. 

With regard to the location of the possible future access road WGC intends 

to look at all of our long term options including the possibility of constructing 

holes on our property to the north of our existing access road and to the 

east of our new reservoir. 

The NHS designated areas actually overlap many portions of WGC owned 

and leased lands. This is unacceptable. We are of the opinion that the 

overlapping will seriously diminish the value of our lands for Appraisel 

MMAH 



purposes that will be required for future capital improvements eg. the 

proposed new Clubhouse. 

20.5 Written 

Submission 

20.6 Written 

Submission 

20.7 Written 

Submission 

20.8 Written 

Submission 

20.9 Written 

Submission 

20.10 Written 

Submission 

WGC has been told verbally that the intent is to allow WGC to continue with 

its normal day-to-day operations but we are concerned that the 

recommendations contained in the report will significantly increase our 

course maintenance expenses. 

The suggestion that areas on the golf course be re-forested presumably is 

an expense to be borne by others. 

Any areas on the WGC owned and leased lands that require monies to be 

spent to comply with the reports recommendations must be at the expense 

of others. 

Currently the owned and leased lands are zoned by the City of Pickering to 

permit all uses normally associated with the operation of a Golf Club 

including all accessory uses. We fail to understand why the report assumes 

that we will operate under a 'legal non conforming use in the future'. Please 

explain your rationale. 

We understand that the March 2008 report is 95% complete. What is the 

expected date of the 100% complete report and how long will we have to 

forward our comments to you? WGC is looking forward to continuing its 

working relationship with the MMAH and the City of Pickering during the 

process to achieve a satisfactory resolution concerning our comments and 

those of all Interested parties. 

Figure # 3 incorrectly identities the WGC lands ownership and zoning 

MMAH 

MMAH 


deleted from the document. 

This issue has been 

addressed through direct 

contact between the Golf 

Course and MMAH. 

Figure 3 has been amended in 

relation to the RPlan that was 

provided by Marshall Macklin 

Monaghan. 


APPENDIX C.9 - Seaton Natural Heritage Stakeholder List 

Contact Organization Address Phone Number E-mail 

AGENCIES 

Anton Pojasok – Vice Ontario Realty Corporation 77 Wellesley Street West 11th 416-212-5175 

President(A) Asset Review 

Floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2G3 

C/O City of Pickering Pickering Local Architectural 

and Conservation Advisory 

Committee 

One The Esplanade, Pickering, 

ON L1V 6K7 

Carol Oitment – Policy 

Advisor, Sport & Recreation 

Branch 

Ministry of Health Promotion 

777 Bay Street, 18th Floor, 

Toronto, ON M7A 1S5 

Central Regional Office Ministry of Transportation 1201 Wilson Ave, 7th FL. 

Building D Downsview, ON 

M3M 1J8 

Chris Daffern, Asset 

Manager, Property 

Operations & Land 

Management 

Chris Darling - Principal 

Planner, Policy Planning & 

Special Studies re: Regional 

Trails Network 

Craig Burch – Director of 

Education 

David Smith – General 

Manager (A), Environment & 

Cultural Heritage, Asset 

Review 

Donna Mundie – Land Use 

Policy Specialist 



Regional Municipality of 

Durham 

Durham District School 

Board 


Ministry of Agriculture, Food 

and Rural Affairs 


Durham 

900 Bay Street M1-72, 

Macdonald Block, Toronto, ON 

M7A 1N3 

Planning Department, 605 

Rossland Rd. E., P.O. Box 623, 

Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 

400 Taunton Road East, 

Whitby, Ontario L1R 2K6 

77 Wellesley Street West 11th 

Floor, Toronto, ON M7A 1N3 

1 Stone Road West, Guelph, 

ON N1G 4Y2 




416-326-8475 

416-327-0459 

905-668-7711 x2548 chris.darling@region.durham. 

on.ca 

905-666-5500 or 1- 

800-265-3968 

416-326-3724 

519-826-3120 

905-668-4113 x2577 dorothy.skinner@region.durh 

am.on.ca 

Last updated March 12 2008

Frank Dieterman, Cultural 

Heritage Manager, Asset 

Review 




Gary Bowen / Dena Lewis Toronto and Region 

Conservation Authority 

5 Shoreham Road, Downsview, 

Ontario, M3N 1S4 

Gary Polonsky- President Durham College 2000 Simcoe Street North, 

Oshawa, ON L1H 7K4 

Jeff Brooks - Principal 

Planner, Transportation 

Planning & Research re: 

Regional Cycling Plan 

John MacKenzie – General 

Manager, Planning, Asset 

Review 

John Presta - Director, 

Environmental Services re: 

Regional Water, Wastewater 

Infrastructure and ongoing 

Environmental Assessments 

Joseph Lin – General 

Manager, Surveys & 

Geomatics 

Mary Simpson - Director, 

Financial Planning re: 

Financial 

Michael Johnson, Manager 

Heritage Operations 


Durham 



Durham 



Durham 

Ministry of Culture 










Floor, Toronto, ON M7A 1N3 




400 University Ave, 4th Floor, 

Toronto, ON M7A 2R9 

416-325-3591 

416-661-6600 

905-721-2000 

905-668-7711 x2540 jeff.brooks@region.durham.o 

n.ca 

416-212-6456 

905-668-7711 x3520 john.presta@region.durham.o 

n.ca 

416-327-3691 

905-668-7711 x2301 mary.simpson@region.durha 

m.on.ca 

416-314-7144 

Mollie Kermany 

Mr. Paul Allore - Director, 

Planning & Development 

Services 

Ontario Secretariat for 

Aboriginal Affairs 


720 Bay Street, 4th Floor, 

Toronto, ON M5G 2K 

65 Harwood Avenue South, 

Ajax, Ontario L1S 2H9 

416-326-4761 

905-683-4550 Paul.Allore@townofajax.com 


Naren Doshi 

Norma Forest - Senior 

Associate, Inter-ministerial 

Initiatives 

Patricia Manson – Director of 

Education/ Treasurer 

Patricia Short-Galle – 

Regional Manager, Pickering 

Lands, Green Space, and 

Planning 

Ramesh Jagannathan - 

Manager, Transportation 

Planning & Research 

re:Regional Roads/Transit 

Sgt. Ed Beeton - Unit 

Leader, Corporate Planning 

and Development Unit 

Steve Gaunt – Senior 

Planner 

Susan Siopis - Director, 

Transportation & Field 

Services re: Regional 

Roads/Transit 

Tim Lambe – Manager, 

Policy 

Tom Farrell – Coordinator, 

Strategic Planning and 

Information Management 

FIRST NATIONS 

Greater Toronto Airport 

Authority 

Ministry of Public 

Infrastructure Renewal 

Durham Catholic School 

Board 



Durham 

Durham Regional Police 

Services 



Durham 

P.O. Box 6031, 3111 Convair 

DriveToronto, ON L5P 1B2 

Ontario Growth Secretariat, 777 

Bay Street, Toronto, ON M5G 

2E5 

Administration Office, 650 

Rossland Road West, Oshawa, 

ON L1J 7C4 

Pickering Lands Site Office, 

5070 Sideline 22, Claremont, 

ON L1Y 1A4 




Police Headquarters, 605 

Rossland Rd. E. P.O. Box 911, 

Whitby, Ontario L1N 0B8 


ON L1V 6K7 




Town of Markham Anthony Roman Centre, 101 

Town Centre Blvd., Markham, 

ON L3R 9W3 

Ministry of Natural 

Resources 

Aurora District Office, 50 

Bloomington Road West, 

Aurora, ON L4G 3G8 

416-776 -3008 

416-325-7346 

905-576-6150 

905-649-5725 shortgp@tc.gc.ca 

905-668-7711 x2555 ramesh.jagannathan@region. 

durham.on.ca 

905-579-1520 x4305 EBEETON@drps.ca 

905-420-4660 x2033 sgaunt@city.pickering.on.ca 

905-668-7711 x3535 susan 

siopis@region.durham.on.ca 

905-477-7000 

905-713-7367 


Alan Ozawanimke, Chief 

Executive Officer 

Angus Toulouse, Ontario 

Regional Chief 

Chief Brett Mooney 

Anishinabek Nation/Union of 

Ontario Indians Nippissing 

First Nation 

Chiefs of Ontario 

Chippewas of Georgina 

Island 

P.O. Box 711 North Bay, Ont. 

P1B 8J8 

Fort William First Nation R.R. 

#4, Suite 101, 90 Anemki Dr. 

Thunder Bay, ON P7J 1A5 

RR 2, PO Box 13, Sutton West, 

ON L0E 1R0 

705 497-9127 Toll Free: 1-877-702-5200 

807-626-9339 

705-437-1337 

Chief Bryan LaForme Mississaugas of the Credit RR 6, Hagersville, ON N0A 1H0 905-768-1133 

Chief David General 

Six Nations of the Grand PO BOX 5000, Ohsweken, ON 519-445-2201 

River 

N0A 1M0 

Chief Gregory Cowie Hiawatha First Nation RR 2, Keene, ON K0L 2G0 705-295-4421 

Chief Irvin Knott Curve Lake General Delivery, Curve Lake, 705-657-8045 

ON K0L 1R0 

Chief Jim Bob Marsden Alderville First Nation PO Box 46, Roseneath, ON 905-352-2011 

K0K 2X0 

Chief R. Donald Maracle Mohawks of the Bay of RR 1, Deseronto, ON K0K 1X0 613-396-3424 

Quinte 

Chippewas of Mnjikaning 5884 Rama Road, Suite 200, 705-325-3611 

Chief Sharon Stinson Henry First Nation (Rama) 

Rama, ON L0K 1T0 

Chief Tracy Gauthier Mississaugas of Scugog 22521 Island Road, Port Perry, 905-985-3337 

Island First Nation 

ON L9L 1B6 

Chief: Rodney Monague Jr Beausoleil General Delivery, Cedar Point, 

ON L0K 1C0 

705-247-2051 

Grand Chief Magella Gros- 

Louis 

John Stonefish, Office 

Manager 

Huron Wendat Nation 

255 Place Chef Michel Laveau 

Wendake, PQ G0A 4V0 

387 Princess Ave., London, 

Ont. N6B 2A7 

Association of Iroquois and 

Allied Indians 

David Sanford 59 Sundial Court, Toronto, ON 

M4A 2J7 

Metis Nation of Ontario 500- #3 Old St. Patrick Street, 

Ottawa, ON K1M 9G4 

MNO Region 8 Office 404-403 Richmond Street East 

Toronto, ON 

418-843-3767 

519 434-2761 jstonefish@aiai.on.ca 

416-615-2754 

613-798-1488/TF: 

800-263-4889 

416-977-9881 

www.metisnation.org 


LAND EXCHANGE 

OWNERS 

Bruce Fischer Metrus Development Inc. 1700 Langstaff Road, Suite 

2003 Concord, ON L4K 3S3 

Eric Spencer – J.M. Holdings Uxbridge Valley Inc. 

Lloyd Cherniak Lebovic Enterprises 12045 McCowan Road, P.O. 

Box 1240, Stouffville, ON L4A 

8A2 

Randy Peddigrew Mattamy Development Corp. 

NGOs 

Burkhard Mausberg - 

Executive Director 

Dan McDermott - Chapter 

Director 

Dan McRae - Secretary 

Friends of the Greenbelt 

Foundation 

Sierra Club of Canada, 

Eastern Chapter 

Durham Region 

Astronomical Association 

68 Scollard Street, Suite 201 

Toronto, Ontario M5R 1G2 

24 Mercer Street, Toronto, ON 

M5V 1H3 

728 Anderson St. N., P.O. Box 

59007, Whitby, Ontario L1N 

0A4 

David Donnelly Environmental Defence 317 adelaide Street West, Suite 

705, Toronto M5V 1P9 

Doug Lockery, President Pickering Naturalists P.O. Box 304, Pickering, ON 

L1V 2R6 

Jack McGinnis 

Durham Environmental 

Network 

1709 Highway #7, Brougham, 

ON L0H 1A0 

Jim Robb 

Rouge Duffin Green Space 

Coalition 

1 Braeburn Blvd., Scarborough, 

ON M1J 2P9 

Kevin Rich Ducks Unlimited Canada 566 Welham Road, Barrie, 

Ontario L4N 8Z7 

Lewis Yeager- General Rouge Park 

50 Bloomington Road West, 

Manager 

Aurora, ON L4G 3G8 

Mary Drummond 

Durham Region Community 22 Coulton Court, Whitby, 

Garden Network 

Ontario L1N 7A9 

Michael Scott - Executive 

Director 

Oak Ridges Moraine 

Foundation 

13990 Dufferin Street North, 

King City, ON L7B 1B3 

416-960-0001 

www.ourgreenbelt.ca 

905-721-7450 secretary@drastronomy.com 

www.drastronomy.com 

416-323-9521 www.environmentaldefence.c 

a 

jimrobb@sympatico.ca 


Paul Thompson – President Green Door Alliance P.O. Box 97586, 364 Old 

Kingston Road, Scarborough, 

ON M1C 4Z1 

Shirley Curran Pickering Heritage 459 Churchwin Street, 

Whitevale, ON L0H 1M0 

Durham Conservation RR#5, Claremont, ON L1Y 1A2 

RATEPAYERS 

ASSOCIATIONS 

Bruce Flattery 

Mike Fearon 

Sandy Rider 

Association 

Ontario Nature 

Pickering Ajax Citizens 

Together for the Environment 

Inc. (PACT) 

Cherrywood Ratepayers 

Association 

Greenwood Area Ratepayer 

Association 

Whitevale and District 

Residents Association 

Altona West Community 

Association 

Claremont & District 

Community Association 

Dalebrook Neighbourhood 

Association 

Fairport Beach 

Neighbourhood Association 

Friends of Altona Forest & 

Petticoat Creek 

Green River Residents 

Association 

Kinsale and Area Residents 

Association 

366 Adelaide Street West, Suite 

201, M5V 1R9 

966 Timmins Gardens, 

Pickering, ON L1W 2L2 

3620 Westney Road, 

Greenwood, ON L0H 1H0 

P.O. Box 28, Whitevale, ON 

L0H 1M0 

1559 Oakburn Street, 

Pickering, ON L1V 6W1 

5275 Brock Road, Claremont, 

ON L1Y 1A4 

1021 Dalewood Drive, 

Pickering, ON L1V 4P4 

507 Cliffview Road, Pickering, 

ON L1W 2N8 

1434 Rougemount Drive, 

Pickering, ON L1V 1N1 

RR#1 Locust Hill, ON L0H 1J0 

3840 Kinsale Road, Pickering, 

ON L1Y 1E3 

905.471.1920 scurran@trebnet.com 

416-444-8419 www.ontarionature.org 


Liverpool West Community 

Association 

Marshall Farms Community 

Association 

Pickering East Shore 

Community Association 

Rougemount Drive 

Ratepayers Association 

Steeple Hill Ratepayers 

Association 

Whites Grove Community 

Association 

Woodview/Pinegrove 

Association 

1811 Fairport Road, Pickering, 

ON L1V 1T2 

1104 Timber Court, Pickering, 

ON L1X 1T4 

1218 Monica Cook Place, 

Pickering, ON L1W 4A4 

1450 Rougemount Drive, 

Pickering, ON L1V 1N1 

552 Steeple Hill, Pickering, ON 

L1V 5Z3 

700 Amaretto Avenue, 

Pickering, ON L1X 1L6 

1803 Woodview Avenue, 

Pickering, ON L1V 1L3 

UTILITIES 

Anthony J. Ierullo, Senior 

Planning Eng. 

Hydro One Networks Inc. 483 Bay Street, North Tower, 

15th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 

2P5 

Bernie Visser Rogers Communications 301 Marwood Drive, Oshawa, 

ON L1H 1J4 

John LaChappelle Bell Canada 100 Borough Drive, Floor 5 – 

Blue, Toronto, ON M1P 4W2 

Mike Wolczyk GO Transit 20 Bay Street, Suite 600, 

Toronto, ON M5J 2W3 

Nick Coleman - 

Environmental Manager 

Canadian National Railway 

1 Administration Road, P.O. 

Box 1000, Concord, ON L4K 

1B9 

Orest Rojik Canadian Pacific Railway 40 University Ave., Suite 200, 

Toronto, ON M5J 1T1 

407 ETR 6300 Steeles Ave. West, 

Woodbridge, ON L4H 1J1 

Canada Post 

456 Dixie Road, Mississauga, 

ON L4W 1S2 

905-436-4136 

416-869-3600 

416-595-3116 


OTHERS 

Chairperson, Long Range 

Planning Core Committee 

Enbridge Inc., Environmental 

Department 

Ontario Power Generation 

Inc. 

Trans Canada Pipelines 

Trans Northern Pipelines 

Union Gas Ontario Inc., 

Environmental Department 

Veridian Corporation 


500 Consumers Road, North 

York, ON M2J 1P8 

c/o Pickering Information 

Centre, 1675 Montgomery Park 

Road, P.O. Box 160 Pickering, 

ON L1V 2R5 

450-1 Street S.W. Calgary, AB 

T2P 5H1 

310-45 Vogell Road, Richmond 

Hill, ON L4B 3P6 

425 Memorial Ave., Orillia, ON 

L3V 6K2 

55 Taunton Road East, Ajax, 

ON L1T 3V3 

P.O. Box 30, 2985 Golf Club 

Road, Whitevale, ON, L0H 1M0 

905-294-9600 info@whitevalegolfclub.com 

Doug Summers Pickering Golf Club Ltd. 

Keith Ward (Chair) LRP Core Committee 1279 Abbey Road, Pickering, 

ON L1X 1W5 

NHSSG 

Kris (Chief) Nahrgang 

Alan Dunn 

Kawaratha Nishnawbe First 

Nation 

Sernas Association 

Alex Maggielomo 


Andy (Councillor) Hoggarth Kawartha Nishnawbe F.N. 1482 Hetherington Dr., 

Peterborough, ON, K9L 1V7 

905-831-7856 

khward@auracom.com 

Box 1432 Lakefield, K0L 2H0 info@spiritofthestone.ca 

100 Scotia Court, Unit 41 

Whibty Ont. L1N8Y7 adunn@sernas.com 

2985 Golf Club Rd. Whitevale, 

Ont. alex@whitevalegolfclub.com 

ahoggarth@cogeco.ca 

Durham Catholic District 652 Rossland Rd. W. Oshawa, 

Anne Dobos 

School Board 

On anne.dobos@dcdsb.ca 

Bill McLean City of Pickering bmclean@city.pickering.on.ca 


Brian T. Daly 

Mississaugas of Scugog 

Island First Nation 

McKenzie Lake, 300 Dundas 

St., London, Ontario 

daly@mckenzielake.com 

Carol Sulton CA, City of Pickering 

Catherine Axford cafa_to@yahoo.ca 

Chris Reid Lawreid@ad.com 

Dave Pickles Dave Pickering 

David Grey Eagle Sandford Wapiti Alliance 59 Sundial Court., Toronto, ON, 

greyeagle@sympatico.ca 

M4A 2J7 

Dena Lewis TRCA 5 shoreham Drive 

Doris Chee City of Pickering dchee@city.pickering.on.ca 

Gail Anderson G MMAH (SC) 

Gary Asselin Durham Region Finance Box 623, Whitby, On gary.asselin@region.durham. 

on.ca 

Glenda Jones Rickerina Naturalist Group glendaj@sympatico.ca 

Gord Weeden Rouge Park Alliance 88 Sherwood Glen, Holland 

Landing, L9N 1R3 

Harold Sellers – Executive 

Director 


Gate Howe, 13990, Dufferin St. 

N., L7B 1B3 

gord_weeden@rougepark.co 

m 

execdir@oakridgestrail.org 

Hodan Egeh 

ORC 

77 Wellesley St. W. Toronto, 

On Hodan.Egeh@orc.gov.on.ca 

Jim Mc Gilton 

Region or Durham - Works 

605 Rossland Rd. Whiby, On. 

L1N6A3 

jim.mcgilton@region.durham. 

on.ca 

John Conolly Transport Canada 4900 Yonge St. Connoly@tc.gc.ca 

Joseph A Longo 920 Yonge Street, Suite 900, 

Toronto, Ontario 

jlongo@tibollo.net 

Kathey Waren Kathey Whitevale Golf Club Izhward@auracom.com 

LIlli Duoba Town of Markham lduoba@markham.ca 

Marten Wind Durham Regional Police mwind@drps.ca 

Micael D'Angelo DRAA draatreasurer@drastronomy.com 

Michael Cole michael.cole@orc.gov.on.ca 

Mirek Sharp 

North South Environmental - 

project team 

Murray Johnston RVF 14 Allanford Rd, Agincourt, ON 



Whitevale & District 

750 Whitevale Rd. RR1 Locust 

peterhome@sympatico.ca 

Resident’s Ass 

Hill L0H1J0 

Phil Johnson Councillor, Pickering 

Ralph Eades PIR Steering Committee ralph.eades@ontario.com 

Ralph Sattero Marshall Farms, Pickering 

Richard Cuterman Cuterman McPhil umc@ruby.ca 

Saul Glass Marshall Farms, Pickering 

Serge Rielau srielau@ca.ibm.com 

Stephen R. Barbier 920 Yonge Street, Suite 900, 

sbarbier@tibollo.net 

Toronto, Ontario 

Tim Robbins 

Durham Catholic District 

School Board 

Rossland Rd., Oshawa tim.robins@dcdsb.ca 

Tom Albani 

PUBLIC MEETING 

PARTICIPANTS 


1700 Langstaff Rd. Concord 

L4K3S3 talbani@metrus.com 

Al Williams ORTA and Ajax Trails 22 Sims Dr. Ajax al@alwilliams.ca 

Andy Mc Kinnon andymckinnon71@gamil.com 

B Twiner Horticultural 1996 Liverpool Rd plantsbarbara@295.ca 

Bernadette Zubrisky Sirrea Club 24 Minler St 

2655 Forrestream Trail. 

Bob Johnson 

Pickering L1X2R4 

CG Willson Owl's Eye Project 455 Whitevale Rd L0H1M0 

Whitevale District Residents 

Charles Neville 

Association 

Bernadette_zubrisky@edu.yo 

rku.ca 

3215 Sideline 20 Whitevale 

L0H1M0 bgneville@sympatico.ca 

Chris Matson 

Matson, Mc Connell Ltd. 

2906 A Bloor St. W. Toronto, 

Ont. M8X 1B6 cmatson@mmland.ca 

Chris Robinson OFAH chris_robinson@ofah.org 

Colin Coakley FRW colin@frw.ca 

a copy of reprenation please 

Colin Lathe 

76 Harrison Dr. Newmarket 

L3T4P4 

via PDF or other Thx. 

clatre@sympatico.ca 

David Steele President Chair of P.A.C.T 966 Timmins Garden, Pickering steelecuts@utoronto.ca 


Erika Babiuk Tenant- Heritage Prop RR#1 Locust Hill erika@regional3.com 

Gordon Willson 

Greater Whitevale deep 

water port authority 

BOX 10 Whitevale Ont, 

L0H1M0 

Jason Murray DMBA jmurray@disillusion.ca 

Katherine Rose 

City of Pickering Planning 

Department One The Esplanade Pickering crose@city.pickering.on.ca 

Ken Rovinelli 

1163 Old Ost Dr, Oakville Ont. 

L6M1A5 

ken@TACC.com - please 

email me maps as well 

Kevin O'Connor FRW 6 Plover Rd. Toronto. M1G3L9 

KevinOConnor@tel.tdsb.on.c 

a 

L Hives 126-1880 Valley Farm larry_hives@rogers.com 

Lloyd Thomas 

WDRA 

PO BOX 28 Whitvale Ont. LOH 

10M 

Michael Arnts 2490 Brock Rd. N Pickering michael@arntstopsil.com 

Paquale Malandrino 633 Dunn Cres. Pickering Ont 

Rick Mc Connell 

MML 

2906 A Bloor St. W. Toronto, 

Ont. M8X 1B6 cmcconnell@mmland.ca 

Steve Heuchert TRCA stevechert@trca.on.ca 

Stu Logan 82 Warwick Ave, Ajax L1Z1L6 stulogan@295.ca 

Terry Nuspl 

140 Woodview Rd. Pickering 

L1V1L2 Tnuspl@rogers.com 

Tyler Hoar 318 Jarvis St. Oshawa On thoar@rogers.com 

W O'Neil 

Wolf Mueller 2955 Altona Rd. Locusthill Ont. 

Steering Committee 

Annie Luk Management Strategies Toronto, Ontario, M2P 2A9 F 416 222-9477 aluk@mkicanada.com 

Barbara McPhail 


Landscapes Toronto, Ontario, M6S 2Z7 F 416 763 4082 

Bill Morrison* Hydrogeology 1087 Meyerside Drive C 416 254-8079 

bmorrison@morrisonenvironmental.com 

Brian Bishop Servicing Interface Burlington, ON L7N 3G2 F 905 335-1414 bbishop@philipseng.com 


Ministry of Municipal Affairs 

and Housing 

777 Bay Street, 2nd Floor, 

Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 P 416 585-6564 

Bruce.Singbush@mah.gov.on 

.ca 



Manager, Policy Planning & 

Development Department 


Ontario, Canada L1V 6K7 

P 905 420-4660 

x2038 

crose@city.pickering.on.ca 

Chris Daffern 

Asset Manager, Property 

Operations & Land 

Management 

M1-72 Macdonald Block, 900 

Bay St, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 P 416 327-0459 Chris.Daffern@orc.gov.on.ca 

David Robertson Archaeological Assessment ON M5S 2P9 F 416 966-9723 Drobertson@iasi.to 

Gale Purpura 

Wetland Restoration/ 

Preservation Mississauga, ON L5T 1M5 P 905 564-8944 

Graeme Burt Sustainable Communities Toronto, ON M5V 1P9 F 416 593-4911 gburt@architectsalliance.com 

Jeff Lehman* Financial Analysis 4211 Yonge St, Suite 605 P 416 222-9400 jlehman@mkicanada.com 

John Van Nostrum* 

Urban Planning 

317 Adelaide St. West, Suite 

205 

P 416 907-7251/ 593 

6500 x270 

jvannostrand@planningallian 

ce.ca 

Ron Scheckenberger* Stormwater Management 3215 North Service Road P 905-335-2353 

rscheckenberger@philipseng. 

com 

Theresa Fancy 

Ministry of Natural 

Resources P 416 585 7578 Christy.doyle@ontario.ca

Seaton Natural Heritage System Management ... - City of Pickering

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?