PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE

Transcription

1 June 24, 2014 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE B MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR THE MARY LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION Buildings Municipal Infrastructure Transportation Industrial Energy Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SITE 2 Mary Lake Estates Draft Plan of Subdivision was approved May 31, Subdivision consists of single family dwellings and open space (OPA 54) Subdivision is located on the south side of 15 th Sideroad west of Keele Street Site is divided into 3 areas: east, west and far west East portion (30 lots) and West portion (57 lots) consist of detached single family dwellings. West portion of the site requires evaluation of servicing options Far west portion proposes a future development block and servicing this block is not part of this Class EA Township of King and Mary Lake Estates Inc. are working on solutions for servicing the west portion of the Site.

2 MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS 3 Municipal Class EA Planning Process The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O., 1990 (the EA Act) requires that projects corresponding to a given class of undertakings (e.g. municipal road, transit, water and wastewater projects) follow an approved Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process. The Class EA planning process as documented in the MEA Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, amended in 2007 & 2011) includes the following five phases: Phase 1 Problem or Opportunity Phase 2 Alternative Solution Phase 3 Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution Phase 4 Environmental Study Report Phase 5 - Implementation Municipal Class EA Schedule for this Study Depending on their environmental impact, municipal projects are classified in the Municipal Class EA in terms of schedules: Schedule A or A+ Schedule B Increasing Potential for Impacts Schedule C This study was designated as Schedule B under the MEA Class EA process which includes reviews with the public and relevant agencies prior to implementation. The Class EA will satisfy the requirements and procedures of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process as well as providing additional public consultation. A Schedule B Class EA concludes with the Notice of Completion and placing of the Project File in a location accessible to the public for a minimum 30-day review period to allow review by the public and agencies which may have an interest in this project. SCHEDULE B MUNICIPAL CLASS EA 4 Phase 1: Problem or Opportunity Identify and describe the problem(s) and opportunities Notice of Study Commencement & Public Information Centre Phase 2: Alternative Solutions Identify alternative solutions to the problem(s) Inventory of the natural, social, economic & cultural environments Identify the impact of the alternative solutions after mitigation Evaluate the alternative solutions with consideration of environmental and technical impacts Identify a recommended solution Confirm the preferred solution based on input from the Public Information Centre and Review Agencies Phase 4: Project File Report Complete a Project File Report (which sets out all of the activities undertaken to date through Phases 1 & 2) Place Project File Report on public record for 30 calendar days for review Notify the public and government agencies of completion of the Study and of the Part II Order provision in the EA Act Public Information Centre June 2014 Problem and Opportunities Planning Alternative Solutions Evaluation of Planning Alternative Solutions Recommended Solutions and Proposed Mitigation Measures Preliminary Design of Preferred Solutions We are here Notice of Study Completion & Filing the Project File Report Phase 5: Implementation Proceed to design and construction of the project

3 PURPOSE AND PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY 5 PURPOSE Develop lands at 15th Sideroad and Keele Street in King City into Mary Lake Estates residential subdivision. Planning for this development was approved at the OMB but several servicing options exist. PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY How to provide sanitary and water services to accommodate the proposed Mary Lake Estates subdivision. 6 KEY NATURAL ENVIRONMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Aquatic Environment Two headwater tributaries of the East Humber River cross the Site. Tributary A (west of the western portion of the Site) flows through a well defined channel and provides permanent fish habitat for warmwater baitfish communities Tributary has low productivity due to lack of cover and depth and medium/low sensitivity. Tributary B flows SE through a shallow valley within a wetland in central portion of the Site. Separates east and west portions of the Site and provides very limited potential season fish use but is important contributing habitat as wetland provides water quality and quantity controls. Tributary B has low sensitivity.

4 7 KEY NATURAL ENVIRONMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Terrestrial Environment Vegetation communities present are: Mixed Forest, Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Hemlock Mixed Forest, Dry Moist Old Field Meadow, Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp, Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh, Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh and Open Aquatic. Portion of Eaton Hall-Mary Hackett Lakes Wetland Complex (Provincially Significant Wetland) is located on Site. 30 m buffer has been applied to feature to mitigate impacts from development. KEY ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP 8

5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Site lies in a groundwater recharge area Groundwater recharge rate very low The 25 Year Travel Zone of the Wellhead Protection Area for the King City Municipal Well overlays the Site EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 Social-Cultural / Land Use: Bounded on south and west by existing low density Kingscross Subdivision. Villanova College and Augustinian Monastery (designated under Ontario Heritage Act) are located across 15 th Sideroad to the north. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments confirmed no known archaeological sites exist within 2 km of the Site and the property is clear from archaeological concern. Located in Settlement Areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine Planning Area. Site was mainly used for agricultural purposes and no specific environmental hazards were found. No municipal services or utilities are present on the Site.

6 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA SERVICING ALTERNATIVES Natural Environmental Impacts Wetlands Impacts to Surface Water Vegetation and woodland impacts Impacts to Groundwater/Subsurface Conditions Watercourse Crossings Socio Cultural Environments Traffic Disruption Number of Private Driveways Impacted Dust and Noise Issues Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Impacts to private properties/existing land uses Provincially significant wetlands or other wetlands located adjacent to or directly intersected Potential for impacts (e.g., erosion) during construction to surface water (e.g., ditches, watercourse, wetlands) Vegetation or Woodlands located adjacent to or directly intersected Proximity to areas of high aquifer vulnerability The number and complexity of watercourses that are crossed Potential for impacts to traffic as well as public and private properties (including Businesses) during construction The number of driveways impacted Potential for dust and noise issues stemming from construction activities within close proximity to nearby communities Construction activities within undisturbed areas with proximity to known heritage or archaeological sites Potential constructed related impacts to adjacent private properties and existing land uses Technical Considerations Ease of Construction Ability to Connect with Existing Infrastructure Soil/Groundwater Conditions Capacity and System Operation Financial Considerations Operation and Maintenance Efforts/ Costs Capital/Replacement Costs Land Acquisition/Easement Requirements Potential for encountering problems with construction of alternative (i.e. soil stability, ease of excavation) Relocation or special construction techniques required as a result of existing buried utilities Impacts existing soils or ground water may have on design. Ability to convey design flows and provide reliable service Total operation and maintenance efforts/costs Total capital costs determined by assumed construction method Potential for land acquisition or the need for easements for access if services cross private property. SANITARY SEWER EXISTING AND PROPOSED 12 Existing Sanitary Conditions: Site currently has no sanitary sewer services. Proposed sanitary sewer on Keele Street is not yet constructed and will connect to the King City Sanitary Sewer system. Need to evaluate alternatives to connect west portion of site to Keele St. sewer Proposed Sanitary Sewer Alternative Solutions: Alternative Layouts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Description of Alternatives Gravity sewer connection to proposed sanitary sewer on Keele Street via Lockhart Lane and Kingscross Drive. Inverted siphon on 15 th Sideroad to connection to the proposed sewers on the eastern potion of the development. Pumping Station proposed at the west portion of the development and a forcemain to divert flows to the proposed sanitary sewer on the eastern portion of the development. Gravity Sewer on 15 th Sideroad crossing under the watercourse. Proposed sanitary sewer on Keele Street will require additional depth.

7 SANITARY SEWER - ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS 13 SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 14 SANITARY Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Description of Alternatives Gravity sewer connection to proposed sanitary sewer on Keele Street via Lockhart Lane and Kingscross Drive. Inverted siphon on 15 th Sideroad to connection to the proposed sewers on the eastern potion of the development. Pumping Station proposed at the west portion of the development and a forcemain to divert flows to the proposed sanitary sewer on the eastern portion of the development. Gravity Sewer on 15 th Sideroad crossing under the watercourse. Proposed sanitary sewer on Keele Street will require additional depth. Natural Environment - One watercourse crossing but no impact to wetlands. Potential impact to groundwater through Wellhead Protection Area - Watercourse crossing is in close proximity to PSW - Potential impact to groundwater at the limit of the Wellhead Protection Area - Minimal impact with School and Monestary with sewer constructed within road allowance along 15 th Sideroad - Watercourse crossing is in close proximity to PSW - Pumping Station is within the Wellhead Protection Area - Watercourse crossing is in close proximity to PSW - Potential impact to groundwater at the limit of the Wellhead Protection Area - Minimal impact with School and Monestary with sewer constructed within road allowance along south side of 15 th Sideroad Social-Cultural Environment - Disruption during construction to existing Kingscross Subdivision - Minimal impact with School and Monestary with sewer constructed within road allowance along 15 th Sideroad Technical Environment - Deeper sewers through Kingscross subdivision will be required with potential dewatering. System works by gravity with minimal maintenance - Limited downstream capacity at pumping station for required flushing flows. Increased sewer depth internal to subdivision. - Pumping station will require the most maintenance of all options - System subject to power failure and breakdown - Deeper sewers on 15 th Sideroad and Keele Street requires with potential dewatering. System works with minimal maintenance Financial Environment - Additional sewer to maintain and higher capital/replacement costs - Easement requirements - Township maintenance department not set up to maintain siphon, low capital/replacement costs - Limited capacity downstream and ongoing maintenance concerns - High capital/replacement and maintenance costs - Least sewer to maintain and lower capital/replacement costs OVERALL RATING - Proposed alignment has higher initial costs and the greatest disturbance during construction - Potential for failure, high capital costs and high ongoing maintenance costs - Utilizes proposed alignment on Keele Street to minimize additional sewer maintenance and capital costs Rating: Preferred Less Preferred Least Preferred NOTE: Do Nothing was not evaluated further since it would not address problem statement

8 SANITARY SEWER - RECOMMENDED SOLUTION (ALTERNATIVE 4) 15 WATERMAIN - EXISTING AND PROPOSED 16 Existing Water Conditions: Site currently has no water services. Existing and proposed watermains in the vicinity of the development capable of providing adequate flows and pressures for development. New watermains may be required to ensure consistent and reliable water supply to Mary Lake Estates Subdivision. Proposed Watermain Alternative Solutions: Alternative Layouts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Description of Alternatives Second Watermain feed via Lockhart Lane and Kingscross Drive Second Watermain feed on 15 th Sideroad A single connection from Keele Street. No Second Connection.

9 WATERMAIN - ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS 17 WATERMAIN - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 18 WATER Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Description of Alternatives Second Watermain feed via Lockhart Lane and Kingscross Drive Second Watermain feed on 15 th Sideroad A single connection from Keele Street. No Second Connection. Natural Environment - Two watercourse crossings and the potential disturbance of an existing stand of trees on the existing lot on Lockhart Lane Social-Cultural Environment - Construction impacts on Kingscross subdivision residents Technical Environment - System will provide the best water security and will provide fire protection to Kingscross Subdivision - Two watercourse crossings at 15 th Sideroad will be required - Minimal disruption to traffic and residents with construction on 15 th Sideroad - System will provide adequate flows and limited water security - Least disturbance to natural environment with only one watercourse crossing - Minimal traffic disruption - Minimal dust and noise impact on Kingscross residents - System will provide limited water security and quality. Financial Environment - Higher capital/replacement costs and an easement is required - Highest capital/replacement costs and potential impact by future planning initiatives - Lowest capital/replacement costs and no land requirements OVERALL RATING - Benefits from improved fire protection for existing Kingscross Subdivision and smaller quantity of watermain for the Township to maintain outweigh drawbacks of increased construction disturbance - Potential impact on future planning initiatives and lesser fire and water protection. - Lowest water security and quality Rating: Preferred Less Preferred Least Preferred NOTE: Do Nothing was not evaluated further since it would not address problem statement

10 19 WATERMAIN - RECOMMENDED SOLUTION (ALTERNATIVE 1) NEXT STEPS 20 Selection of Preferred Solutions

11 REMAIN INVOLVED IN THE STUDY 21 Your comments are important as they will be reviewed and considered as part of the Study. Please indicate your interest to remain involved with the Study by submitting your completed comment sheet or by contacting one of the following team members: Peter Slama, P.Eng. Project Manager Cole Engineering Group Ltd. 70 Valleywood Drive Markham, ON L3R 4T5 P: x 521 F: E: pslama@coleengineering.ca Pat Becker Environmental Planner P Becker Consulting 14 Lady Diana Court Gormley, ON L0H 1G0 P: F: E: PBecker@pathcom.com