Status Review of Stoney Creek
Transcript of Status Review of Stoney Creek
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
1/105
City of London
STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHEDSTUDY
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
3/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
4/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
5/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
6/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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;
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
7/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
8/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
9/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
10/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
11/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
12/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
13/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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).
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
14/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
15/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
16/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
17/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
18/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
19/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
20/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
21/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
22/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
23/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
24/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
25/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
26/105
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
27/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
28/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
29/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
Cit f L d
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
30/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of London
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
31/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of London
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
32/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of London
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
33/105
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of London
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of London
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of London
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
37/105
STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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.
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
38/105
STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
39/105
STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
40/105
STATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
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
Completed City / UTRCA /Landowners
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
Completed City / UTRCA /Landowners
Public AwarenessProgram
More work is required as per thisreport; Some improvement and
education is complete
Ongoing City / UTRCA /Landowners
I B I G R O U P FINAL REPORT
City of LondonSTATUS REVIEW OF STONEY CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
41/105
APPENDIX 1
Photographs
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
42/105
Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
46/105
10. Maintained yards close to Stoney Creek 703 Windermere Road
11. Looking south Windermere Roadbridge
12. Looking north Windermere Road bridge
Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
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
-
7/25/2019 Status Review of Stoney Creek
48/105
Site Visit Stoney Creek Subwatershed August 16, 2008
-
7/25/2019 S