Status Review of Stoney Creek

7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek

1/105

City of London

STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHEDSTUDY


2/105

I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Execu t i ve Summar y . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................4

2. STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................4

2.1 Background Documents ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 .1 Prov inc i a l Po l i c y Sta temen t 2005 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . 4

2.1 .2 C i t y o f L o n d o n S u b w a t e r s h e d S t u d i e s . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . 5

2.1 .3 Ston ey Creek Subw a te rsh ed S tud y . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . 5

2.2 Area Plans ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... .... 6

2.2 .1

Up land s A rea P lan . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 7

F igu re 1 Up land s A rea P lan . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 8

2.2 .2 Up land s Nor th A rea P l an . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 8

F igu re 2 Up land s Nor th A rea P lan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 9

2.2 .3 Ston ey Creek Comm un i t y P l an . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 9

F igu re 3 S ton ey Creek Commun i t y P l an . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 10

2.2 .4 Ston ey Creek Nor t h Commun i t y P l an . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 10

F igu re 4 Ston ey Creek Nor t h Commu n i t y P l an . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 .5 K i l a l l y No r t h A rea P lan . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 12

F igu re 5 K i l a l l y No r th A rea P lan . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 12

2.2 .6 C i t y R e p o r t D r a f t E v a l u a t i o n o f C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g ( 2 0 0 3) . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . 1 3

2.3 Offi cial Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 13

2.3 .1 Ci t y o f Lon don . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 13 Tab le 1 - O f f i c i a l P l an Sch edu l e B Fea tu r es . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . 14

2.3 .2 Midd lesex Coun ty . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 14

2.3 .3 Town sh i p o f M idd l esex Cen t re . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 15

2.4 Zoning By-laws .................................................................................................................................... 15


3/105


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

2.5 .3 Deve lop men t P roc ess . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 19

F igu re 6 P lann i ng and Deve lo pmen t P roc ess . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 19

2.6 Ontar io Munic ipal Board Decisions ................................................................................................... 20

2.6 .1 U p l a n d s C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g A r e a De c i s i o n 2 1 84 , D ec e m b e r 1 ,1999 20

2.6 .2 S t o n e y C r e e k C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g A r e a De c i s i o n 0 1 4 3 , Fe b r u a r y3, 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

2.6 .3 A r v a Mo r a i n e Wet l an d Co m p l ex Dec i s i o n 1610, A u g . 30, 1999 an dDec i s i on 0337 Mar . 8 , 2000 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . 20

2.7 Site Visi ts ............................................................................................................................................. 20

F igu re 7 S i te V i s i t Loc a t i o ns . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 21

2.8 Munici pal Class Environmental Assessments ................................................................................. 21

2.9 Intervi ews ............................................................................................................................................. 22

2.9 .1 Ci t y S ta f f . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 22

2.9 .2 Upper Thames R i ve r Conse rva t i on Au t ho r i t y . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 23

2.9 .3 C o u n t y o f M i d d l e s e x / t o w n s h i p o f M i d d l e s e x C e n t r e . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . 2 4

3. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STONEY CREEKSUBWATERSHED STUDY....................................................................................................24

3.1 Land Acqui sit ion ................................................................................................................................. 24

Tab le 4 O pen Space Comp onen ts . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 25

3.1 .1 Pr im ary G reenway Cor r i d o r s . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 26

3.1 .2 Second ary Comm un i t y Cor r i d o rs . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 26

3.2 Mandatory Management Actions ....................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Desirable Management Actions ......................................................................................................... 27

3.3 .1 Spec ia l P ro j ec t s . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 27

3.3 .2 Eros ion . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 28


4/105


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

4.3 Desirable Management Actions ......................................................................................................... 30

4.3 .1 Natu r a l i za t i o n . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 30

4.3 .2 Comm un i t y P ro j ec t s . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 31

4.3 .3 Naming P ro t oco l . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 31

4.3 .4 Prop er t y Bound ary Ind i c a to r s . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 31

4.3 .5 A d e l a i d e St r eet No r t h a t Po w el l D r a i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.3 .6 Standar d i zed Samp l i ng Me thod o lo gy . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 32

4.3 .7 S t o r m w a t e r M a n a g em e n t P o n d M o n i t o r i n g R e p o r t i n g . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . 3 2

4.3 .8 Tra i l s L i n kages . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 33

4.3 .9 R e v i e w o f t h e Co n c l u s i o n s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e S t o n e yCreek Subw a te rsh ed S tud y 1995 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 33

4.3 .10 R e v i e w o f C o n s t r a i n t A r e a s A g a i n s t P r o v i n c i a l P o l i c yS ta temen t 2005 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 33

5. IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY............................................................................................34

Tab le 5 Sta tu s o f Recomm ended Ac t i on s . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 34

LIST OF APPENDICES

Append ix 1 Photographs and Maps Showing Photo Lo cati ons

Append ix 2 Development File Rev iew

Append ix 3 Stoney Creek Watershed Repor t Card 2001 Upper Thames River ConservationAuthor ity

Append ix 4 UTRCA Benthic Sampl ing Report , Fish Sampl ing Repor t, Conservation Serv icesProjects

Append ix 5 Fanshawe Wells Wellhead Protecti on Areas

Append ix 6 Plan Stoney Creek Off-Leash Dog Park

Append ix 7 Plan Gai l Graham Memorial Eco-Park

Append ix 8 Map D1 and D2 from Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study


5/105


City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY

Executive Summary

Stoney Creek is a tributary of the north branch of the Thames River with a subwatershed boundary

encompassing approximately 38 km, with the southerly half in the City of London and the northerly

half in the Township of Middlesex Centre. The Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study was completed

approximately 10 years ago to provide broad direction to the City, various agencies, developers and

the public regarding the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the subwatershed in

anticipation of future growth in the area. It includes one of the fastest growing residential areas in

the City of London with a large portion of the subwatershed located within the Citys urban growth

boundary.

The purpose of the Status Review was to compare the recommendations from the 1995 study with

the planning for growth which has occurred since the adoption of the Study, and to provide

suggestions which complement or update the original recommendations. This process included a

review of the original Study and subwatershed study manuals, as well as other supporting

documentation including Area Plans, Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, and Conservation Authority

sampling along the Creek and conservation projects. This was followed by a review of subdivision

activity; Class Environmental Assessments; Ontario Municipal Board decisions; and staff interviews.

This information was verified by site visits to assess original Study recommendations, and by

revisions to the existing mapping to refine the subwatershed boundary and to update features.

Mapping includes implementation suggestions that were assisted by available City, County, andConservation Authority digital mapping information.

The background work identified the following activity occurring within the subwatershed:

5 Area Plans completed since the inception of the Study;

10 Draft plans of subdivision and 18 registered plans, for which 9 Environmental

Impact Studies were completed based on proximity to natural features;

5 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment projects, including 2 for storm water

flood control facilities, 2 for trunk sanitary sewer extensions, and 1 one for the

remaining undeveloped lands within the subwatershed;

This development activity resulted in several Ontario Municipal Board appeals which had varying


6/105



features and areas for enhanced natural heritage linkage opportunities in the original subwatershed

Study.

The review did find that the City owns or will own upon acquisition of draft approved parklands over

90 hectares of land identified as primary greenway corridors in the 1995 study. However, a large

portion of the recommended secondary community corridors were not acquired through the

development process as a result of OMB decisions.

Other actions and projects have been implemented over the last ten years including mandatory

storm water management facility construction and testing, and special projects related to increased

natural habitat, erosion control, and emergency wellhead protection. Such items have been

undertaken as mandatory actions by developers through the subdivision approval process, the City

and Conservation Authority as specific projects, and through community initiation and involvement.

It is suggested that the current mandatory management actions of storm water control and erosioncontrol be continued through the development process (ie subdivision agreements). This appears

to have been effective in improving downstream water quality. With respect to desirable

management actions, the following suggestions are outlined in the Status Review:

Naturalize the following areas where possible: rural drains, recreational open spaces,

city-owned surplus lands, and in older residential neighbourhoods, areas extending

close to the Creek edge;

Perform drainage improvements on Powell Drain at Adelaide Street during future road

widening

Implement education and stewardship community projects in all reaches of the Creek;

Establish a naming protocol for natural heritage features and storm water management

ponds to increase public awareness;

Install property boundary indicators to deter homeowner disturbance of sensitive areas

beyond their property lines;

Standardize sampling methodology by involved parties (City, Conservation Authority,

County) to identify gaps, share results and eliminate duplication of work;


7/105



Review of the constraint areas against the Provincial Policy Statement to ensure

consistency;

Suggestions also include land acquisition of two parcels currently owned by developers outside the

area plan districts; and acquisition of four key woodlots found in agricultural areas of the City and

the Township of Middlesex Centre. It was noted that most of the priority Category 1 Constraint

areas from the original subwatershed study are located in areas that have not yet been developed,

but where development is imminent. As such, any future actions undertaken based on the

suggestions of the original Study and the Status Review will be especially important to ensure the

future health of the Stoney Creek Subwatershed.

We would like to acknowledge and thank the participation of the following people and agencies for

their participation in this review:

Pat Donnelly, City of London

Berta Krichker, City of London

Scott Mathers, City of London

Andrew McPherson, City of London

Jeff Brick, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Phil Simms, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Steve Evans, County of Middlesex

Sara Rayat, County of Middlesex


8/105



1. INTRODUCTION

IBI Group was retained in March 2006 to undertake a status review of the Stoney Creek

Subwatershed. The purpose of this report is to review the recommendations of the Stoney Creek

Subwatershed Study, developed in 1995 by Paragon Engineering Limited; compare these

recommendations with planning which has been implemented through development in the 10 plus

years since the Study was undertaken; and finally to make suggestions to either augment and/or

revise the original recommendations.

The Stoney Creek subwatershed is located in the south-westerly downstream portion of the Upper

Thames watershed, and occupies 18 km in the northeast area of the City of London and 20 km in

the Township of Middlesex Centre. A large amount of development has occurred in the

subwatershed over the last ten years, with five area planning districts (Stoney Creek, Stoney Creek

North, Uplands, Uplands North, and Killaly North) currently under development. Significant natural

features exist and include the provincially significant Fanshawe Wetlands and Ballymote Wetlands.

The accompanying Map 1 outlines the subwatershed boundary in red. Delineation of the

subwatershed boundary was based on a combination of detailed topographic mapping provided by

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in rural areas that have not been developed, and

storm drainage mapping in urbanized areas provided by the City of London.

2. STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Background Documents

2 . 1 . 1 PR O VI N C IAL PO L I C Y STATEM EN T 2005

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is the key policy document guiding land use planning and

development in the Province of Ontario with regards to matters of Provincial interest. There are two

significant changes to the PPS from the 1997 to the current 2005 version from a natural heritage

standpoint. Firstly the definition of significance for specific natural heritage features (ie. woodlots)

was changed which may expand the number of woodlots that are deemed significant in the Study

Area The level of protection for wetland features found within the Stoney Creek subwatershed is


9/105



2 . 1 . 2 C I TY O F LO N D O N SU BWA TER SH ED STU D I ES

The City of London Subwatershed Studies report was published in May 1995 and is intended to

provide direction on the development of individual subwatershed studies. The report outlines four

main categories to be included in subwatershed studies to ensure that protection, enhancement,

and restoration goals are satisfied. These categories include designation of constraint areas in the

Official Plan; development criteria; conservation and management practices; and specific projects

and programs.

The report recommends the Citys primary responsibility will be to implement the recommended

subwatershed plans through land use planning measures via the Area Plan process, and

subsequently the Official Plan, through map changes and necessary policy recommendations.

Day-to-day matters are to be administered by the City, County, or Conservation Authorities

depending on the nature of the matter.

Monitoring and reporting are also recommended as key components of the individual subwatershed

plans. The report suggests the publishing of annual reports regarding the implementation of plans,

and five year reports showing results of technical monitoring and assessing the health of the

subwatersheds. At present, only the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority has attempted a

form of this reporting called a Watershed Report Card (see Appendix 4). These report cards are

presently being updated.

2 . 1 . 3 STO N EY C R EEK SU BWA TER SH ED STU D Y

The Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study was completed in 1995 along with 17 other individual

subwatershed studies that were all approved by Council on September 18, 1995. The purpose of

the Study was to provide broad direction to parties involved in land development and in watershed-

related initiatives to protect, maintain and improve natural heritage features and functions in the

Stoney Creek subwatershed.

The Plan looked at a number of different alternatives based on the physiographic, geologic, land

use and environmental quality conditions within all areas of the watershed, both developed and

undeveloped.


10/105



2. Development Criteria include such measures as storm water management controls,

environmentally sensitive site planning techniques, and erosion and sedimentationcontrol requirements;

3. Conservation and Management Practices include measures to reduce point source

pollution and non-point source pollution; and

4. Specific Projects and Programs include recommendations for both non-structural and

structural capital projects to improve environmental conditions.

The recommended plan identified two types of constraint areas including Category 1 lands whichare characterized as provincially significant lands, environmentally significant lands, and flood prone

areas adjacent to, or contiguous to designated watercourses. Category 2 lands include other

vegetation patches (greater than 4 hectares, but not in Category 1) that contain at least one

significant characteristic (ie. size, function) that warrants protection. While both categories are

identified for protection, enhancement, and restoration, only Category 1 lands are recommended for

public acquisition (see Appendix 8 Map D1).

The recommended plan identifies 18 Category 1 patches of land, which includes approximately 357

hectares of land. Category 2 lands which include significant recharge areas, other terrestrial

patches, anti-fragmentation areas, and terrestrial corridors and linkage routes, account for

approximately 1514 hectares of land, but require further environmental study to determine the level

of protection that is required.

The constraint areas, combined with lands used for storm water management facilities, form the

basis for the greenspace plan (see Appendix 8 Map D2). This plan is intended to build on the

environmental features of the subwatershed, to offer opportunities for open space planning,

recreational activities, and achieving a linked open space system throughout the City. The

recommended greenspace plan identified primary and secondary greenway corridors adjacent to

the identified constraint lands. Primary greenways are located along watercourses and act as key

connections between recreation areas, natural areas, schools, and other open spaces and will form

part of the City trails system. Secondary greenways are intended to connect primary greenways

with isolated natural areas and other points of interest, and provide opportunities for looping within

the Citys trails system.


11/105



2 . 2 . 1 U P L A N D S A R E A P L A N

The Uplands Area Plan was finalized in 1998 and includes the areas of Stoney Creek

subwatershed that falls within the boundaries of Richmond Street in the west, Sunningdale Road in

the north, Adelaide Street in the east, and Fanshawe Park Road on the south side. The primary

watercourse in this area is the Powell Drain (see Inset Map 1) in the northeast corner of the

Uplands area.

The area plan identifies the Powell drain and associated wetlands as two areas to be protected

through the Open Space designation in the Official Plan (white areas on Figure 1). Part of the

wetlands area located at the headwaters of the Powell Drain is situated on the south side of

Sunndingdale Road East. Areas to be designated as Environmental Review include two small

areas along either side of the Powell Drain near Adelaide Street, as well as a small area, centrally

located within the plan area adjacent to the Upland Hills storm water management facility. These

areas require further study to determine their size and classification within the Citys natural heritageinventory.

Other recommended open space uses (green areas Figure 1) include the Repton SWM facility

and an adjacent neighbourhood park at the centre of the plan; a park located adjacent to the Powell

Drain in the northeast portion; and a north-south linear park along a pipeline easement that runs

from Sunningdale Road to Fanshawe Park Road in the west-central area of the Plan. Trails and

linkages (red dotted lines Figure 1) are recommended along the Powell Drain corridor, the linear

park and through the central portion of the site which would provide for looping through the Uplands

Community.


12/105



Figure 1 Uplands Area Plan

2 . 2 . 2 U PLAN D S N O R TH AR EA PLAN

The Uplands North Area Plan was finalized in May 2003 and includes the Stoney Creeksubwatershed that falls within the boundaries of Richmond Street in the west, Sunningdale Road in

the south, Adelaide Street in the east, and the City boundary on the north side. The primary

watercourse in this area is the Powell Drain (see Inset Map 1).

The area plan identifies the Powell drain and wetlands (blue Figure 2) as one of several areas to

be protected and linked for open space purposes, with the others being a small wetlands area on

the east side of the Plan (blue); a joint school/park campus in the centre of the Plan (purple/green);

two woodlots (green); and the watermain easement (west diagonal corridor) and gas line easement

(northern length of Plan area) for trails purposes.

Recommendations in the final area plan relevant to the Stoney Creek subwatershed included


13/105



Figure 2 Uplands North Area Plan

It is also important to note that the area plan called for continued protection of the three vegetation

patches (#3039, #3041 Appendix 8 Map D1) along the west side of the area plan until further

studies can determine their significance. This area which is outside of the Stoney Creeksubwatershed provides for connectivity and potential looping of trails within the subwatershed, and

as such should be considered important, particularly for recreational trail purposes.

2 . 2 . 3 STO N EY C R EEK C O M M U N I TY PLA N

The Stoney Creek Community Plan was completed in 1999 and includes the areas of Stoney Creek

subwatershed that falls within the boundaries of Adelaide Street in the west, Sunningdale Road in

the north, Highbury Avenue in the east, and Fanshawe Park Road on the south side. Stoney Creek

is the primary watercourse in this area running east to west in the south part of the community, as

well as the Armitage Drain located in the northeast corner of the community (see Figure 3).


14/105



Figure 3 Stoney Creek Community Plan

The plan identifies three major natural areas within the boundary, including the Armitage Drain

corridor, the Stoney Creek corridor, and a contiguous environmentally significant wooded area north

of Stoney Creek. Due to its size and proximity to Stoney Creek, the woodlands have been given an

Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) designation.

Other recommendations of the area plan included a park / SWM facility complex (green / dark green

Figure 3) in the western half of the community along the Foran Gough Drain; a similar park / SWM

facility complex located in the central portion of the community; two SWM facilities adjacent to

Stoney Creek in the south half of the community; and a park/school located in the northeast part of

the community. Linking of these facilities was to occur through a mixture of on-street and natural

trail systems that would link the facilities to Stoney Creek and provide for trail looping opportunities

both within the Stoney Creek community, as well as further north in the Stoney Creek North

community.


15/105



Figure 4 Stoney Creek North Community Plan

The plan identifies two major natural features within the boundary, including the Ballymote wetlands

and wooded areas (eastern green area Figure 4), and a large wetlands/woodlands complex in the

western part of the community. Due to the relatively high quality of aquatic habitat found within the

Ballymote tributary in comparison to the entire subwatershed, an ESA designation has been applied

to these wetlands.

The westerly wetlands/woodlands complex did not meet the criteria to establish it as a significant

area at the time of amendment to the Official Plan, with its primary function being that of collection

of surface water and groundwater discharge. However, portions of the complex including the

upland wooded areas were determined to have some local significance and warranted preservation

in its natural state through designation as Open Space. Further studies at the development stage

are required to determine the extent of Open Space designation on the wetlands portion of the

patch.

Other recommendations of the area plan included deleting the groundwater recharge designation in

the Official Plan as it was determined that groundwater flow was minor in nature. Also, the

aggregate resource designation was removed as it was located on the same lands as the ESA

designation of the Ballymote wetlands and would compromise its protection.

An Environmental Management Strategy was prepared to ensure the protection of the newly


16/105



connection contains no natural corridor between the northerly wetlands/woodlands complex and the

open space areas created around the vegetation communities north of Grenfell Crescent. An extra-

wide boulevard was recommended to connect these areas providing extra room for

bicycling/walking activities and additional street tree plantings.

2 . 2 . 5 K I L A L L Y N O R TH A R E A P L A N

The Kilally North Area Plan was completed in April 2004 and includes only a small portion of land

within the Stoney Creek subwatershed on the east side of Highbury Avenue, north of Fanshawe

Park Road. The majority of this area plan is located south and east of the subwatershed in the

Forks subwatershed. The primary watercourse in this area is Stoney Creek, on the northerly

boundary of this community. The area applicable to the subwatershed includes those lands north of

Fanshawe Park Road East.

The plan identifies lands north of Pearson Avenue as a mixture of Low Density Residential andMedium Density Residential with Open Space and SWM facilities located along the Stoney Creek

corridor, as well as along the easterly boundary.

Figure 5 Kilally North Area Plan


17/105



The SWM facility preferred location has been fulfilled by the construction of SWM ponds located in

the northwest corner of the community as prescribed, along Highbury Avenue just south of Stoney

Creek. The Plan recommends lands between Stoney Creek and the SWM facility remain as open

space and accommodate the Citys trail systems (dotted lines Figure 5) with access points to the

community (arrows) to be determined at the subdivision development stage.

The Open Space designation along the north-easterly side of the community is meant to recognize

an environmentally significant vegetation patch. Trail linkages are intended to link this patch with

Stoney Creek to the north. However, as noted in the Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study, a

greenway corridor is intended at this location to provide linkage with the Thames River which abuts

the Kilally North community on the south. The recommended plan shows this greenway corridor in

part, but omits the portion south of Pearson Avenue and north of Fanshawe Park Road. Based on

the recommended plan it appears that the greenway corridor is intended to be provided on lands

east of the area plan boundary, outside of the Citys Urban Growth Boundary.

2 . 2 . 6 C I TY R EPO R T D R AFT EVAL U ATI O N O F C O M M U N ITY PLA N N I N G (2003)

The City Planning Department prepared a report for circulation and discussion regarding the area

planning process, looking at the area plans completed across the City by 2003. The Report

includes assessment of two of the subject area plans, Stoney Creek and Uplands. This Report

indicates that 16% of the Stoney Creek Area Plan was preserved for natural heritage purposes, and

that 14% of Uplands was preserved for natural heritage purposes.

The Report notes community dissatisfaction with the lack of protection for locally significant

wetlands in the Stoney Creek and Uplands area plans, noting that less than half of the locally

significant wetlands are protected through the Open Space designation. The report recommends

early identification of natural heritage features and greater emphasis on peer review of natural

heritage components in future area plans.

2.3 Official Plans

2 . 3 . 1 C I TY O F LO N D O N


18/105



Schedule B Flood Plain and Environmental Features further classifies these land use

designations into several categories. The following table is a summary of each designation on

Schedule B existing in the Official Plan as of March 2006:

Table 1 - Official Plan Schedule B Features

Environmental Feature Area of land in Subwatershed (ha)

Environmentally Significant Areas 100

Potential Environmentally Significant Areas 14

Groundwater Recharge Areas 365

Wetlands Class 1-3 (Provincially significant) 30

Wetlands Class 4-7 (Locally Significant) 37

Vegetation Patches Outside ESAs and Wetlands 84

Woodlands 4

Total 634

2 . 3 . 2 MIDDLESEX COUNTY

The Official Plan of the County of Middlesex designates the majority of the subwatershed located in

the County as Agricultural Areas with several exceptions. The Armitage Drain that extends northof the City of London, both south and north of Medway Road (see Map 1) includes provincially

significant wetlands known as the Ballymote Wetlands. These wetlands are recognized in the

Middlesex County Official Plan as Natural Environment Areas, where development is prohibited.

Schedule C to the Official Plan outlines additional natural heritage features and natural resources

where development may occur. Such features include Aggregate Resource Areas and Significant

Woodlands. The identified Aggregate Resource Areas are also within the vicinity of the

Ballymote Wetlands.

The permitted uses in Natural Environment Areas generally include agricultural uses, forestry

uses, passive recreation and conservation type uses, and do not allow uses which involve buildings

and structures Development in or adjacent to these areas is subject to a Development


19/105



and surface water features in the area. Development of this particular aggregate resource area is

likely compromised by its location surrounding the Ballymote Wetlands complex.

2 . 3 . 3 TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLESEX CENTRE

The Official Plan of the Township of Middlesex Centre designates the majority of the subwatershed

located in the Township as Agriculture with several exceptions. The Ballymote Wetlands both south

and north of Medway Road are recognized as Natural Environment, where development is

prohibited, identical to the County Official Plan. These wetlands are the only lands designated

Natural Environment in the Middlesex Centre portion of the subwatershed.

The Parks and Recreation designation is applied to lands immediately west of the Ballymote

wetlands to recognize the Llyndinshire Golf & Country Club (see Map 2), as well as for Gail Graham

Memorial Eco-Park owned by TRY Recycling on the east side of Clarke Road, just north of the City

boundary (see Map 2). The TRY lands are permitted to be used for a licensed extractive

operation and a recycling operation, with park uses, agricultural test plots, and topsoil composting

activities. These lands are subject to a special policy related to site rehabilitation, groundwater

monitoring, and site plan agreements. The TRY lands are located adjacent to a branch of Stoney

Creek. Appendix 7 shows the conceptual site plan for the Park with naturalization areas to the

south and east.

Schedule B Greenlands System, in addition to the Ballymote wetlands, also recognizes the

numerous woodlands found within the subwatershed (see Map 1). Policies relevant to these

woodlands include the requirement for a Development Assessment Report to assess impacts on

woodlands and adjacent lands within 50 metres of woodlands. Permitted uses in woodlands

include woodlot management, nature trails, maple syrup production, and existing agricultural and

recreational trails.

2.4 Zoning By-laws

2 . 4 . 1 ZO N I N G BY-LAW Z -1 (C I TY O F LO N D O N )

The Zoning By-law of the City of London No Z-1 has placed all of the lands identified in the original


20/105



Storm water management facilities all have an OS4 or OS1 Zone which are slightly less restrictive

allowing parks, golf courses and some limited associated buildings and structures. Parks are also

zoned OS1 or Neighbourhood Facility (NF) if they are associated with school lands.

2 . 4 . 2 ZO N I N G BY-LAW 2005 -005 (TO WNSH I P O F M I D D LESEX C EN TR E)

The Township of Middlesex Centre Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2005-005 zones the majority of

lands as General Agricultural (A1) including the lands associated with the Ballymote Wetlands. The

Llyindinshire lands are zoned Parks and Recreation (PR) to permit the golf course, while the TRY

lands are zoned site-specific Parks and Recreation (PR-1), which permits a park, agricultural uses,

and accessory uses.

2.5 Development Review

2 . 5 . 1

SU BD I V I S I O N D EVELO PM EN T

A total of 10 development applications for draft plan approval of subdivision were reviewed to

determine whether the City requested conditions for land acquisition and/or mandatory storm water

management actions. The status of such actions can not be determined at this time as the

developments are not complete. A total of 18 registered plans of subdivision were reviewed to

determine how land acquisition, and mandatory management actions were achieved through the

subdivision agreement process.

The following table (Table 2) summarizes the development applications that were reviewed for this

study. The files reviewed were based on the Subdivision Activity Map prepared for the Planning

and Development Department and includes activity until March 31, 2006. The column headings

indicate the City file number of the subdivision; whether any land acquisition was required for parks,

open space, or storm water management facilities; and whether any mandatory management

actions were required related to such things as storm water management, tree planting, tree

preservation and homeowner education. A complete summary of the development applications

review can be found as Appendix 2 to this report.


21/105



Table 2 Plans of Subdivision

Current Draft Plans of Subdivision

Subdivision Land Acquisiti on Mandatory Management Actions

39T-98505

39T-99506

39T-99515

39T-99520

39T-99521

39T-99522

39T-01509

39T-03503

39T-05501

39T-05502

Registered Plans

Subdivision Land Acquisiti on Mandatory Management Actions

33M-444

33M-449

33M-451

33M-462

33M-463

33M-467

33M-470

33M-475

33M-479

33M-483

33M-484

33M-499


22/105



Twelve (12) of the development applications reviewed, including both draft plans and registered

plans, required land acquisition in the form of parks or open space dedications. All of the

development applications required mandatory management actions associated with hydrological

activities. The exact nature of the land acquisition and mandatory management actions can be

found in Appendix 2 to this report.

It is noted that none of the development applications contain any desirable management actions.

The reason for this is that any management actions discussed during review of a particular

subdivision development would ultimately be incorporated into a subdivision agreement, thus

making it a mandatory action. As such, any desirable management actions must be viewed as

projects undertaken by the City, Conservation Authority, or any other public/volunteer organization,

outside of the land development process.

2 . 5 . 2 EN VI R O N MEN TAL I M PAC T STU D I ES

A total of nine (9) Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) were required in London through subdivision

development in the subwatershed. EISs were required wherever a parcel of land to be developed

included lands that were adjacent to Stoney Creek and/or an identified natural heritage feature.

Alternatively EISs were also required for lands that included the development of storm water

management facilities.

Three EISs relate to development that is currently in the draft approval stage andtherefore have yet to be finalized.

Four EISs required monitoring related to the development SWM facilities on the lands,

none of which have finalized City requirements. As such, they are labelled ongoing in

Table 3 and would be considered fulfilled upon completion of two years monitoring as

per standard City practice.

Two EISs related to development adjacent to natural areas along Stoney Creek and

have been resolved through subdivision agreements.

Table 3 Environmental Impact Studies

Subdivision Development in Proximity to Storm Water Management Completed


23/105



33M-483 Ongoing

33M-507 Yes

33M-522 Ongoing

33M-539 Ongoing

Note: In Middlesex County, environmental impact studies are termed Development Assessment

Reports (DAR) and none were recommended in the subwatershed.

2 . 5 . 3 D EVELO PM EN T PR O C ESS

The following figure indicates how the preceding documents and processes culminate in

development within the subwatershed.

Figure 6 Planning and Development Process

Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study

Area Plans

SubwatershedStudies Report

Uplands Stoney CreekUplands North Stoney Creek North Kilally North

Official PlanAmendments

Draft Plans ofSubdivision

Guidelines for City on how toprepare individualsubwatershed studies

Originalsubwatershed studyprepared in 1995

Developer initiated studies tolook at development scenarioson large-scale communitybasis

The 5 area plans which includelands within the Stoney CreeksubwatershedCity approved area plans are

incorporated into the City OfficialPlan to establish land usedesignations

A total of 28 draft and/orapproved subdivisions withinthe Stoney Creeksubwatershed



24/105



2.6 Ontario Municipal Board Decisions

The Ontario Municipal Board as a decision making body may alter Council decisions with respect to

recommendations of subwatershed studies. The following highlights how Ontario Municipal Board

decisions impacted the Stoney Creek subwatershed.

2 . 6 . 1 U PLAN D S C O M M U N I TY PLAN N I N G AR EA D EC I S I O N 2184, D EC EM BER 1 , 1999

This decision supported Open Space designations applied by the City to areas around the PowellDrain Wetlands. No significant changes were made that impact the natural heritage features found

in the planning area.

2 . 6 . 2 STO N EY C R EEK C O M M U N ITY PLA N N I N G AR EA D EC I S I O N 0143 , FEBR U AR Y 3 , 2000

This decision eliminated the Environmental Review designation on the Grenfell Wetlands (see Map

1) and replaced it with residential designations. Other deletions of natural heritage features

included the proposed Open Space designation along the Northdale Tributary located northwest of

the Northdale Woods identified on Map 1. Other significant changes made by the OMB include the

deletion of all Groundwater Recharge Areas designations within the area plan, and revisions to the

Open Space designation surrounding the Northdale Woods and Powell Drain corridors. The Board

also allowed the relocation of the meadow marsh in the Northdale Woods area.

2 . 6 . 3 A RVA M ORA INE WETL A ND COM PL EX DECIS ION 1610, A UG. 30 , 1999 A ND DECI S ION0337 M AR . 8 , 2000

Both of these decisions are directly related to appeals by developers of Official Plan Amendment

Nos. 162, 163, and 164. The results of the decisions generally served to require further study or

protect various natural heritage features through designation to Environmental Review or Open

Space in the Official Plan. Such areas included lands along the Powell Drain, Northdale Tributary,

Grenfell Drain, and Ballymote Wetlands.

2.7 Site Visi ts

Two site visits were undertaken by our office to areas where development is actively occurring



25/105



The purpose of the site visits was to review existing conditions with particular regard for protection

of natural areas, landowner and public encroachments, and storm water management facilities

development; to review restoration projects; to review areas of identified erosion problems; and to

review potential acquisition areas not originally identified in the plan. A photographic inventory of

these site visits can be found as Appendix 1 to this report.

Figure 7 Site Visit Locations

2.8 Municipal Class Environmental Assessments



26/105



Stoney Creek Storm Water Management Flood Control Facility (2001)

Killaly North Trunk Sanitary Sewer (2001)

Killaly North Storm Water Management Flood Control Facility (2003)

Stoney Creek Development Area for Remaining Undeveloped Lands (ongoing)

Stoney Creek Trunk Sewer Extension (ongoing)

2.9 InterviewsAs part of the status review a number of interviews were completed to obtain feedback on the

implementation process. A summary is provided below.

2 . 9 . 1 C I TY STAFF

Scott Mathers, Environmental Service Engineer Mr. Mathers was contacted to determine the

monitoring requirements for storm water management facilities and to determine if any issues have

arisen with the facilities constructed in the reviewed plans of subdivision. Mr. Mathers stated that it

is standard practice to monitor all storm water management facilities for a period of two years after

construction prior to the City assuming the facility and that as of this time, all of the storm water

management facilities were undergoing monitoring requirements and no issues have arisen. There

are currently eight stormwater management facilities in the Stoney Creek subwatershed, of which

four (4) have been assumed by the City (see Map 2).

Bonnie Bergsma, Ecologist Planner Ms. Bergsma was contacted to gain insight into the

development of the relocated Meadow Marsh wetlands community, approximately 675 metres

southeast of the intersection of Adelaide Street and Sunningdale Road. Ms. Bergsma notes that

overall the project has been successful, but is concerned that the facility is holding too much water

and may be overtaken by cattails. No immediate action has been undertaken to address thisconcern as there are still monitoring reports outstanding.

Berta Krichker, Storm Water Management and Sewer Engineer Ms. Krichker provided

background information in the form of a report prepared on behalf of the City to undertake a review



27/105


Re-naturalization / remediation between Trossacks Avenue and Adelaide Street;

Spot erosion treatments between Adelaide Street and Windermere Road;

Bank improvements south of Windermere Road to the mouth of the creek;

Maximizing erosion control techniques within all off-line SWM facilities;

Restoration techniques including vegetated buttresses, crib walls, and brush layering

with native species.

2 . 9 . 2 U PPER TH AM ES R I VER C O N SER VATI O N A U TH O R ITY

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority has completed a number of projects within the

subwatershed over the last ten years. These projects include 8 benthic samplings along the main

branch and tributaries of Stoney Creek; 9 fish samplings at similar locations; and 43 conservation

services projects. Many of these projects were completed in conjunction with the Friends of Stoney

Creek, a community-based, environmental group.

2.9.2.1 Benthic Sampling

Six of the benthic samplings were taken along Stoney Creek main corridor, with an additional one

each being taken along the Powell Drain and the Northdale tributary of Stoney Creek. A summary

of the findings can be found in Appendix 3 to this review. The samples were conducted from 1997

to 2005. The results were primarily poor to fair. Two samples on the Northdale Tributary were

rated good and excellent.

2.9.2.2 Fish Sampling

Seven of the fish samplings were taken along the Stoney Creek main corridor, with an additional

one each being undertaken on the Armitage Drain and Powell Drain. Appendix 3 lists the species

found and the number of occurrences of each species.

2.9.2.3 Conservation Services Projects

Conservation Services projects involved 36 locations within the City of London, and 7 locations

within the Township of Middlesex Centre, including 6 private land reforestation projects and 1

erosion control project. Projects within the City of London were all related to community forestry



28/105


watershed. Conditions were given an A rating for forest density. Recommendations for forest

conditions improvement included:

Protection of all woodlands and locally significant wetlands through appropriate

planning measures;

Increasing size of woodlots to increase low forest interior levels;

Tree-planting along City identified anti-fragmentation areas;

Support naturalization and tree-planting along Stoney Creek as an excellent wildlife

corridor;

Preparation and follow through of Woodlot Management Plans by landowners;

Reduce degradation of existing woodlands through education and enforcement.

Surface water quality was given an overall grade of D with four indicators all ranking C or D. The

benthic score was poor (a D rating), which is worse than the overall watershed, as were bacteria

levels (a C rating) indicating high levels of human/animal waste. Bacteria, phosphorus, and

conductivity levels were all based on generic water quality monitoring done in 1993/94. A series of

local actions for improvement are identified, which are not specific to the Stoney Creek

subwatershed, and can be found in Appendix 4 to this review.

2 . 9 . 3

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX / TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLESEX CENTRE

The County recently adopted the Woodlands Conservation By-law No. 5738 in June 2004, which

outlines the practices for the removal of trees from lands throughout the County and replaces an

older tree cutting by-law. The new by-law introduced more selective cutting regulations aimed at

improving the health of woodlots by leaving stands of varying heights and densities.

3. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STONEY CREEKSUBWATERSHED STUDY

3.1 Land Acquisition



29/105


Table 4 Open Space Components

Stoney Creek Subwatershed 3776 ha. (100%)

Total Park / Open Space 300 ha. (8%)

Existing Public Park / Open Space 196 ha. (5%)

Existing Private Park / Open Space 54 ha. (1%)

Planned Public Park / Open Space 17 ha. (0.5%)Schools Planned / Existing 23 ha. (0.6%)

Storm Water Management Facilities 10 ha. (0.3%)

Approx. Area Developed within Urban Growth Boundary 769 ha. (20%)

Remaining Developable area within Urban Growth Boundary 411 ha. (11%)

The Subwatershed Study indicated approximately 1871 hectares of land as Category 1 or 2 lands

that should be acquired and/or protected. However, some of these designations overlap (most

notably the significant recharge areas 728 ha) which would bring the total amount of lands

intended for protection closer to 1000 hectares. The amount of land in Category 1 or 2 may change

as a result of detailed Environmental Impact Studies.

As shown in Table 4, 300 hectares (8%) of land is used or intended to be used as parks or open

space. Of these 300 hectares, 110 hectares (2.9%) are lands within the urban growth boundary

that have been acquired through development processes both before and after the Subwatershed

Study was completed. The remainder are characterized by the Fanshawe Golf Course,

Llyndinshire Golf Course, and the Gail Graham Memorial Eco-Park.

While the 300 hectares of planned or existing parks/open space represents a small portion of the

subwatershed, an analysis of the amount of land protected by Official Plan designations represents

municipal actions which are consistent with the recommendations of the Subwatershed Study.

Lands in both the City and Township of Middlesex Centre that are designated for protection in the

respective Official Plans totals approximately 860 hectares of land. The main areas that lack


Cit f L d


30/105


3 . 1 . 1 PR I M AR Y G R EEN WAY C O R R I DO R S

The City has been able to acquire most of the primary greenway corridors (as shown on Map D2 in

Appendix 8) through the acquisition of parkland dedications in various development approval

processes. Such acquisitions have occurred in current and planned acquisitions as far east as

Stoneycreek Crescent along the main Stoney Creek corridor; and as far west along the Powell

Drain as anticipated by existing and planned development. Currently within the subwatershed, City-

owned lands or lands intended for City ownership through subdivision development processes, total

approximately 90 hectares of land. Other privately owned lands (Llyndinshire Golf Club, Gail

Graham Memorial Eco-Park, and Fanshawe Golf Course) contribute approximately 210 hectares of

greenspace.

One area that was not acquired as anticipated by the original plan is the area southeast of the

intersection of Adelaide Street North and Sunningdale Road East. The proposed primary greenway

corridor involved two branches, with the westerly branch being excluded in favour of residential and

commercial development. This will also affect the two proposed secondary community corridors

north of Sunningdale Road East. Notwithstanding this removal, both of these anticipated corridors

will be linked to the same area through a proposed trail along the northerly boundary of the City.

This is a direct result of OMB Decision 0143 outlined earlier (see Section 2.6.2), which changed the

land use designations in this area to permit residential and commercial development.

Future acquisitions will likely occur along the east side of Highbury Avenue North when these landsare developed. This area includes two ESAs and a primary greenway corridor that link to the main

branch of the Stoney Creek.

3 . 1 . 2 SECONDARY COMMUNITY CORRIDORS

Three secondary community corridors were identified in the Subwatershed Study with the purpose

of connecting primary greenway corridors, natural environment areas and areas of community

activity. Such corridors would be provided on smaller watercourses.

As previously mentioned, two such corridors are identified on lands northeast of the intersection of

Adelaide Street North and Sunningdale Road East that combine to link with the proposed trail along


City of London


31/105


proposed grasslands/prairie system that dominates the southeast corner of the Stoney Creek

subwatershed.

A third secondary greenspace corridor compromised by OMB Decision 0143 is the area bounded by

Adelaide, Sunningdale, Highbury, and Fanshawe Park roads in the midst of the Stoney Creek Area

Plan that would have linked the Foran Gough Drain in the west with the Armitage Drain in the west

across the Grenfell Wetlands. It appears that Milestone Road and South Wenige Drive are

providing on-street linkages between separate open space areas that have been acquired along

this route with no continuous open space corridor. The east half of this planned secondary

greenspace corridor has not yet been formally proposed for development.

3.2 Mandatory Management Actions

These actions generally refer to requirements completed by development, through the conditions of

approval process (ie. plans of subdivision). Mandatory management actions directly related to the

subwatershed include matters such as storm water controls, environmental impact studies, erosion

prevention, water quality treatment, monitoring, and flood plain mapping studies.

Of the registered plans of subdivisions that were reviewed, all appeared to have satisfied the

mandatory management actions through the execution of a subdivision agreement. The most

prominent mandatory management action involves monitoring of storm water management ponds

and facilities which requires two years of review on a semi-annual basis.

3.3 Desirable Management Actions

3 . 3 . 1 SPEC I AL PR O J EC TS

The most noteworthy special project indicated in the original study called for riparian vegetation

plantings and aquatic habitat enhancement in the area of Stoney Creek main branch from theAdelaide Street North overpass, upstream to approximately 700 metres east of Trossacks Avenue.

Upon our site visit to this area the following observations were made:

Extensive plantings have been made in most of this area resulting in very limited


City of London


32/105


Active recreational activities occurring in area immediately west of Adelaide

Street North, but appears to be outside of plantings area.

3 . 3 . 2 EROSION

In addition to the above noted minor erosion area near Trossacks Avenue, two other areas were

identified in the original plan as areas with major erosion concerns. The City classifies erosion

created from three separate sources as follows:

1. Stream Erosion caused by actions within the watercourse

2. Agricultural Erosion caused by upstream agricultural activities

3. Land Use and Development Erosion caused by human-related activities associated

with either homeowner activity or construction activity

The first location was upstream of the mouth of Stoney Creek where it meets the Thames River.

Our site visit indicated some extensive erosion in the wooded areas approximately 100 metresupstream from the mouth of the creek. It appears that this erosion is land use and development

based, with human activities associated with the townhouse complexes at 683 and 703 Windermere

Road possibly contributing to erosion in this area. It was observed that landscaped areas are at, or

near, the top of bank in this area. North of Windermere Road, there were no erosion problems

visible, with dense vegetation occurring in the area.

The second area of major erosion was identified immediately west of Highbury Avenue North along

the main branch of Stoney Creek and was likely a result of past agricultural activities. Our site visit

indicated no signs of visible erosion in this area, with what appeared to be dense, established

vegetation on both sides of the creek.

3 . 3 . 3 FAN SH AWE WELL H EAD PR O TEC TIO N AR EA

Fanshawe Wellhead Protection Area (See Appendix 5) is a planning exercise that safeguards

groundwater resources. Since the zone is within the golf course area owned by the City,

management of this area is less complicated than if it were privately owned. Golf Course

management at this site needs to consider this Wellhead Protection Zone in order to ensure the


City of London


33/105


4. IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS

4.1 Land acquisition

The following areas of land are identified on Map 3 as Additional Open Space Protection.

4 . 1 . 1 O U TSI D E AR EA PLAN N I N G D I STR I C TS

The property located at 715 Windermere Road was identified as a primary greenway corridor in the

original plan and is characterized as a Category 1 Constraint Area, which is a key link between the

mouth of Stoney Creek and the Thames River. Vegetation is mature on the east side of the creek

on this property and it was observed on the August 16, 2006 site visit to be used by a population of

deer. This property is currently privately owned.

The property located at 1391 Adelaide Street North was not identified as an area of importance for

greenway corridor purposes, but is a Category 1 Constraint Area, and includes floodplain and largevegetation patches that are contiguous to city-owned lands near the mouth of Stoney Creek. The

property is adjacent to the city-owned off-leash dog park (See Appendix 6) which has shown to be

successful, and as such may provide future opportunities for expansion of this, and other facilities.

This park and surrounding area has been the subject of several tree planting and vegetation

management projects by Friends of Stoney Creek, ReForest London, and the UTRCA, and provides

an excellent example of community partnerships to be encouraged elsewhere. The property to the

north is currently privately owned.

Several terrestrial patches were identified in the Subwatershed Study as riparian vegetation

contiguous to a designated watercourse and designated as Category 1 Constraint Areas. Patch

2028 is located within the City and Township of Middlesex Centre, while Patch 2030, 2033, 2035,

and 2038 are all located within the Township of Middlesex Centre. While all of these lands are

protected from land use change through the respective Official Plans, the municipalities should give

consideration to their acquisition for public purposes where feasible. Patch 2038 is isolated and

located near the centre of several agricultural parcels of land, making acquisition difficult without

additional parcels to provide public road frontage.


City of London


34/105

C ty o o doSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY

current draft approved plans of subdivision have required some land acquisition to accomplish the

goals of the subwatershed study.

There are draft plan approved plans of subdivision, as well as plans that have not received draft

plan approval throughout the subwatershed, most notably on the lands north of Sunningdale Road

East, and on lands on either side of Highbury Avenue south of Stoney Creek. It should be noted

that the majority of the Category 1 Constraint Areas that are recommended to be included in the

greenspace system, namely the Ballymote ESAs and the wetlands surrounding Stoney Creek, are

located within areas not yet developed, or located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary.

Particular attention should be given to the proposed secondary community corridor linking Stoney

Creek to the Thames River in the vicinity of the Kilally North Area Plan. The Area Plan does not

identify a complete corridor link, but it appears the link may be intended to be slightly east of the

plan area.

4.2 Mandatory Management Actions

The current process requiring developers to assume the cost of monitoring of storm water

management ponds and facilities, and reducing / correcting erosion problems through the

subdivision approval process should be continued. This Status Review confirmed all subdivision

approvals and draft plan registrations completed the mandatory actions as set out in the

Subwatershed Study.

4.3 Desirable Management Actions

Activities relating to desirable management actions are intended to be initiated and undertaken by

the City, and may also be undertaken at the community level through the Friends of Stoney Creek,

with assistance from the City and/or Conservation Authority where required. Items 4.3.1 through

4.3.4 outlined below are intended to be undertaken at the community level and are captured under

the heading Targeted Stewardship Areas on Map 3. This boundary includes properties, or

portions thereof, that should be targeted for naturalization opportunities and is based on a 15 metre

setback from watercourses or natural heritage features within the subwatershed. Items 4.3.5


City of London


35/105

ySTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY

and/or for safety reasons. An example of this is 1499 Adelaide Street North, where the City is

maintaining an irregular-shaped parcel of land adjacent to Stoney Creek that does not serve anyfunctional purpose. The City should expand naturalization to include such areas with only a small

amount of maintained land adjacent to sidewalks for maintenance and safety purposes.

In this area, particularly along Stoney Creek between Adelaide Street North and Windermere Road,

in the more established areas, residents appear to be actively maintaining grassed lawns on City

property up to the banks of the Creek. Grass clippings and other dumped materials were noted in

the Creek in this location. Naturalization of these areas would likely reduce the human impact

within and adjacent to the banks of the Creek.

4 . 3 . 2 COMMUNITY PROJECTS

Education and stewardship programs should be initiated/continued throughout the subwatershed,

and particularly within the older / downstream areas of the Creek where traditional development

does not place as much emphasis on creek edge and water quality protection. The distribution of a

homeowners stewardship / education package could increase the vitality of the lower reaches of

the Creek.

It should also be noted that many properties in newer developed areas adjacent to storm water

management ponds also suffer from impacts of human encroachment, namely grass cutting to the

edge of facilities and tampering with pond flows. It is possible that homeowners packages havebeen submitted in these developments and have not been effective. Where such education has not

proven effective, property boundary indicators should be utilized (see section 4.3.5 below).

4 . 3 . 3 N AM I N G PR O TO C O L

Another initiative that should be undertaken is a naming protocol for the various natural features

and open spaces. Names that signify a features context within the Stoney Creek subwatershed, or

its local historical significance, as opposed to a facility or vegetation patch number, will increase the

publics awareness of the subwatershed as a functional planning area. Assistance with naming

could be garnered from Friends of Stoney Creek and the community. This naming of facilities

h ld b i l t d t th fi l l f bdi i i t Wh l d t id th b


City of London


36/105

STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY

would form a physical border between private property and city-owned lands, but do not detract

from the natural setting and immediate vistas. Such boundary indicators could take the form of lowheight bollards linked with chain in accordance with City standards for such markers. Colourings of

these materials could make them blend effectively into the environment, but act as a deterrent to

limit human landscaping activities and encroachment onto public lands.

4 . 3 . 5 A DEL A I DE STREET NORTH A T POWEL L DRA IN

An opportunity exists at this watercourse crossing along Adelaide Street to improve drainage.

Several incidents of nuisance flooding have covered the road at this crossing in the past few years

and have hampered traffic flow. These events are due partly to the topography, upstream

catchment and downstream constrictions in the channel. This road will be subject to future road

widening (from 2 lanes to 4 lanes) once further development has occurred in the area justifying the

need to accommodate additional traffic flow. Plans should be incorporated at that time to ensure

that drainage improvements are made and that the road flooding is remedied.

4 . 3 . 6 STAN D AR D I ZED SAM PL I N G M ETH O D O LO G Y

Through the review process a number of long term samplings of Stoney Creek were identified.

These sampling measures were undertaken by different agencies for different purposes. It is

suggested that the agencies develop a standardized protocol for sampling methods to provide a

more robust data set to measure changes in the quality of Stoney Creek. The protocol should alsoinclude a data sharing agreement amongst agencies to identify gaps in data collection, identify

priorities and avoid the duplication of sampling.

4 . 3 . 7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND MONITORING REPORTING

There was no reporting of the storm water management monitoring process identified through the

review. Council and the public do not know the negative impact of private development actions on

the Stoney Creek. A report on the monitoring results would provide greater transparency and hold

the monitoring process up to higher standards. It is suggested that the Environmental and

Engineering Services Department undertake an annual report on the results of monitoring on a

S b t h d b i Thi t ld b id d d i th i t ft th i




37/105


4 . 3 . 8 T R A I L S L I N K A G E S

The City should continue to develop and encourage the linkage of public parks, school campuses,

storm water management facilities, natural heritage features and Stoney Creek and its tributaries

through walking and cycling trails. This will create opportunities for natural heritage and outdoor

public enjoyment and connectivity of Stoney Creek to the larger Thames Valley watershed. Public

opportunities to enjoy these features will reinforce education and stewardship programs in the

communities. These trails will provide alternative access to schools and public facilities and

encourage active living.

4 . 3 . 9 REVIEW OF THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STONEY CREEKSU BWATER SH ED STU D Y 1995

The review identified a number of areas where the Ontario Municipal Board did not fully implement

the recommendations of the Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study. This process reflects the appeals

by landowners to the decisions by Council that have regard to a range of policy directions. These

past decisions were based on the 1995 Subwatershed Study. Since then there have been changes

to the management practices and policy framework for environmental protection. Council may wish

to consider reviewing the conclusions and recommendations founding in Section E of the Stoney

Creek Subwatershed Study and the implementation measures in order to incorporate changing

management practices related to natural heritage features, surface water and ground water

resources.

4.3 .10 R EVI EW O F C O N STRAI N T AR EAS AG AI N ST PR O VI N C I AL PO L I C Y STA TEM EN T 2005

The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 provides more direction on the protection of certain natural

heritage features. A review of the Category 2 Constraint Areas should be undertaken to determine

if changes to the level of protection they require would change their significance to Category 1

Constraint Areas. For example, changes to the definition of a significant woodlot, or plantings

within the last 10 years may alter some of the categories of the vegetation patches mostly located in

the upper reaches of the subwatershed in the Township of Middlesex Centre.




38/105


5. IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY

Implementation of the Stoney Creek Subwatershed Study has been undertaken by four sectors

including the City, the Conservation Authority, the development industry, and landowners, often

through the work of the Friends of Stoney Creek. The following table summarizes how the

Subwatershed Study has been implemented over the preceding 10+ years in the key areas of land

acquisition, mandatory management actions, and desirable management actions, through the

recommended actions found in Table D.3 of the Subwatershed Study. Column 1 identifies the

issue; Column 2 indicates how it is to be implemented; Column 3 indicates the status; and Column

4 indicates the main sector of the community responsible for implementing the action.

Table 5 Status of Recommended Actions

Item Comments Status Responsibility

Provincially SignificantWetlands

Protected through Official Plans andZoning By-laws

Fanshawe Wetlands havebeen designated andzoned Open Space by

City

City

CandidateEnvironmentally Sensitive

Areas

Protected through City of LondonOfficial Plan

Majority designated andzoned Open Space (some

exclusions) by City

City

Lands within Regulatory

Flood of Fill Line

Protected through Official Plans and

Zoning By-laws

Majority designated and

zoned Open Space byCity

Protected by UTRCARegulation Limit

City

UTRCA

Designated StreamCorridors and Setbacks

Protected through Official Plans andZoning By-laws; requires some futurepublic acquisition

All designated and/orzoned Open Space in City

and Township

Public acquisition ongoing

City

Riparian vegetationcontiguous to adesignated watercourse

Protected through Official Plans andZoning By-laws; may include optionalfuture public acquisition

All designated and/orzoned Open Space in City

and Township

City

SignificantRecharge/Discharge

Majority of areas not yet developed;Northdale Woods area protected

Ongoing City




39/105


Table 5 Status of Recommended Actions

Item Comments Status Responsibility

Terrestrial Corridors andLinkages (grassland andprairie lands to LinkStoney Creek, FanshaweLake, and Thames River)

Lands still actively used for aggregateextraction; Currently protected fromurban development by location outsideof the Urban Growth Boundary

No Action yet Taken City

Peak Flow Attenuation

Storage for DevelopmentAreas

8 Storm water management facilities

constructed as required; Monitoring forall facilities not yet complete

Ongoing Developers

Water Quality Storage forDevelopment Areas

8 Storm water management facilitiesconstructed as required; Monitoring forall facilities not yet complete

Ongoing Developers

Erosion / StreamMorphology ExtendedDetention StorageRequirements

8 Storm water management facilitiesconstructed as required; Monitoring forall facilities not yet complete

Ongoing Developers

Infiltration Facilities Roof runoff where permeable soilsexist

Ongoing City /Developers /Landowners

Erosion Control DuringConstruction

Required through subdivisionagreements; Site visits indicatedstandard measures (silt fencing etc.)not always properly maintained

Ongoing as developmentcommences; Implementmonitoring requirements

Developers

Environmentally SensitiveSite Planning Techniques

Difficult to determine on site-specificbasis; Majority of development hasoccurred in traditional manner

Ongoing Developers

Manure Management andFeedlot Runoff Controls

Applied to 8 specific operations at timeof original study

Ongoing Landowners

Milkhouse Waste Control Applied to 4 specific operations at timeof original study

Ongoing Landowners

Septic System Effluent Upgrading any potential problem

systems within watershed

Ongoing Landowners

Conservation Tillage Farmer dependent, variable support attime of original study

Ongoing Landowners

Grassed Waterways (noploughing)

Proposed for 12km of waterways inboth City and Township; public

Ongoing Landowners




40/105


Top Soil Preservation Requires enforcement asdevelopment proceeds; varied supportat time of Study

Ongoing Developers /Landowners

Erosion Monitoring Recent study made several options foraddressing issue of downstreamerosion / No decisions made onpreferred option due to recentcompletion of report

Ongoing City

Disconnect Roof Leaders

from Storm Sewers

Had high public and agency support

but was considered low priority at timeof Study

Ongoing Landowners

Plant Riparian Vegetation Proposed for 2km along Stoney Creekbetween Fanshawe Park Rd. andTrossacks Ave

Completed City / UTRCA /Landowners

Natural ChannelRehabilitation (pools andriffles)

Not identified Ongoing City / UTRCA

Remediation of SignificantErosion Areas

Stoney Creek @Highbury

Study noted 150m stretch due to cattleaccess; No signs of erosion in 2006


Stoney Creek @Windermere

Study noted 100m stretch north ofWindermere due to lack of vegetationand south of Windermere due toresidential development on west side;

still occurring south of Windermere;appears to have been remediatednorth of Windermere

Ongoing City / UTRCA /Landowners

Remediation of StoneyCreek (Fanshawe toTrossacks)

Identified improvements to preventerosion and removal of structures forfish movement


Public AwarenessProgram

More work is required as per thisreport; Some improvement and

education is complete

Ongoing City / UTRCA /Landowners




41/105

APPENDIX 1

Photographs


42/105

Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008


43/105

1. Looking north Stoney Creek approx.100m north of Thames mouth

2. Looking northwest Stoney Creek approx. 100m north of Thames mouth

3. Looking south Stoney Creek approx.100m north of Thames mouth



44/105

4. Looking south mouth of the ThamesRiver

5. Looking northwest Stoney Creek frommouth of Thames River

6. Significant erosion approx. 150m northof Thames mouth



45/105

7. Grass landscaping close to rivers edge 703 Windermere Road

8. Significant erosion south ofWindermere Road

9. Maintained yards close to Stoney Creek 703 Windermere Road



46/105

10. Maintained yards close to Stoney Creek 703 Windermere Road

11. Looking south Windermere Roadbridge

12. Looking north Windermere Road bridge



47/105

13. Looking northeast from WindermereRoad bridge - parkland

14. Vacant lands for sale Adelaide StreetNorth north of off-leash dog park

020410117000000Legal description: PLAN 771 PT LOT 6

CON 4 PT LOT 13

N/S WINDERMERE

18.97AC 605.87FR


48/105


7/25/2019 S