GRAND VALLEY WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 GRAND VALLEY WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Information Centre Wednesday, November 1, :00 PM 8:00 PM Grand Valley District Community Centre Grand River Room Upper Hall 90 Main Street North, Grand Valley ON

2 WELCOME to the Public Information Centre for Grand Valley Water and Wastewater Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment Please: Sign in Review the display materials and discuss your questions and ideas with our team members We will review and incorporate feedback from public, agencies, etc. We will respond to written questions and comments Fill in a comment sheet and place in Comment Box or send comments before December 1, 2017 to: Jane Wilson, C.A.O. Clerk Treasurer Town of Grand Valley 5 Main Street North Grand Valley ON L9W 5S6 T: (519) ext. 224 E: jwilson@townofgrandvalley.ca Jeff Paznar, P. Eng., EP Environmental Assessment Lead/ Project Engineer R. J. Burnside & Associates Limited 292 Speedvale Ave. W, Unit 20 Guelph ON N1H 1C4 T: (226) E: GrandValleyMP@rjburnside.com

3 MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS FOR MASTER PLAN PHASE 1 PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY Identify problems or opportunities PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Identify alternative solutions to address the problems or opportunities Consider environmental, social economic, financial and technical impacts on each alternative solution Identify preliminary preferred solutions Consult with agencies/stakeholders and the public Select a preferred solution to address the problems or opportunities Evaluate preliminary preferred solutions based on public input and feedback Select a preferred solution to address the problems or opportunities Re confirm project as a Schedule B undertaking We Are Here PHASE 3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR PREFERRED SOLUTION PHASE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT Only required for the Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion Treatment Alternatives PROJECT FILE REPORT Prepare project file report that documents Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the process Include copies of all notices and letters relating to public consultation Include all comments received and feedback provided to/from agencies/stakeholders and the public NOTICE OF COMPLETION Issue Notice of Completion and Project File Report for a 30 day public review period Person or Party may request a Part II Order from the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change if concerns regarding the project cannot be resolved with the Town PHASE 5 IMPLEMENTATION Proceed to detailed design and construction of the project Monitor for environmental provisions and commitments

4 MUNICIPAL CLASS EA FLOWCHART

5 CONSULTATION TIMELINE We Are Here TIMELINE MAY VARY PENDING COMMENTS RECIEVED Project Start July 2017 Agency and Stakeholder Consultation July 2017 Notice of Commencement July 2017 Public Information Centre October 2017 Project File Report November 2017 Notice of Completion Feb Day Public / Agency Review of Project File Report March 2018 Proceed to Design/ Construction 2019/ 2020 Proceed to Phase 3/4 Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrades Mailed letters to Stakeholders and Agencies with copy of Notice of Commencement On Town website (July 24, 2017 publication) On Town website Orangeville Banner (October 19 and 26 publications) Orangeville Citizen (October 19 and 26 publications) Wellington Advertiser (October 20 and 27 publications) Will be on Town website Will be available at Town Office for viewing Will be on Town website Will be published in Orangeville Banner and Orangeville Citizen Will be mailed to stakeholders, agencies, and public on contact list Review and coordinate comments received Any member of the public or agency / stakeholder can request that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change issue a Part II Order. This is made in certain circumstances where concerns are unresolved during the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.

6 PROJECT AREA GRAND VALLEY SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY AND LOCATION OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

7 EXISTING DRINKING WATER SYSTEM Cooper Street Pumphouse South West Corner of River and Cooper Street Intersection Two groundwater wells operating on alternating duty/standby basis Maximum capacity = 2,290 m 3 /day Melody Lane Pumphouse Intersection of Melody Lane and Leeson Street Two groundwater wells One is a production well and the other is used for monitoring Well operates concurrently with either of the Copper Street wells Maximum capacity = 654 m 3 /day Water Tower County Road No. 25 Supplements wells in periods of high demand Provides fire flow and emergency storage Storage capacity = 1,600 m 3

8 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM Collection System Gravity sewer collection to main sewage pumping station Emma Street Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) 130 Emma Street, Lot 30 and 31 Designed for instantaneous peak flow of 7,680 m 3 /d (88.9 L/s) 1.1 km forcemain conveys wastewater to treatment plant Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Located at the end of Industrial Road Tertiary activated sludge plant operating as an extended aeration process Rated capacity = 1,244 m 3 /d

9 FUTURE ESTIMATED WATER DEMANDS PARAMETERS DESIGN PARAMETERS EXISTING WATER SYSTEM CAPABILITIES Existing Year 2031 (OP Population) Provided Population 2,004 6,145 N/A Per capita flow (L/cap/d) N/A Jobs N/A Per job flow (L/job/day) Included in Per Capita Flow 90 N/A Max Day Flow (m 3 /d) 1,682 3,792 Fire Flow (L/s) 95 (MOECC) 159 (MOECC) 1,963 (RECOMMENDED This is firm capacity, the amount of water that would be available if the largest well failed) 2,944 (relies on both wells being in service ) Available Fire Flow Based on modelling results: 58 L/s 80 L/s Storage Requirements (m 3 ) 1,300 3,400 1,600 PROBLEMS The firm capacity of the existing well supply will not support the future maximum daily flow The existing system does not have sufficient storage to meet Ministry of Environment and Climate Change guidelines for future demand

10 FUTURE ESTIMATED WASTEWATER DEMANDS PARAMETERS DESIGN PARAMETERS EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPABILITIES Existing (2017) Year 2031 (OP Population) Provided Population 2,004 6,145 N/A Jobs * N/A Per Capita Demand Residential (L/cap/d) Per Capita Demand Non Residential (L/cap/d) Average Daily Demand (m 3 /d) ** N/A Included in Residential Demand Calculation 823*** 2, N/A 1,244 (Grand Valley WPCP currently rated for this average day capacity) * 323 jobs included as part of the residential demand calculation leaving 262 jobs to be accounted for separately ** two year average (between 2016 and 2017) based on accurate flow records from the WPCP ***average daily demand only includes flows from January to September PROBLEMS The existing system does not have sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate future flows

11 PROBLEM STATEMENT Prior to 2014, Grand Valley s urban population was approximately 1,500 with infrastructure to accommodate the mature state urban population of 2,950 in the Official Plan. In 2014, approval was given to increase the mature state urban population in the Official Plan to 6,145 based on the certainty that services could be provided; however, no infrastructure plans were put in place. The Town of Grand Valley is undertaking a Master Plan to address the demands in the community as it achieves the growth that is approved in its Official Plan. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WATER SUPPLY Alternative 1 Do Nothing Alternative 2 New Groundwater Source Alternative 3 New Surface Water Source Alternative 4 Use of Surplus from an Existing Municipal System To assess what would happen if no action is taken to address the problem statement. To assess sites where additional groundwater sources could be located. To assess where a surface water treatment plant and surface water intake could be located. To assess if the existing Grand Valley drinking water system could be connected to the Waldemar drinking water system for additional supply.

12 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WATER STORAGE Alternative 1 Do nothing Alternative 2 Elevated Water Storage Alternative 3 Grade Level Reservoir / Standpipe To assess what would happen if no action is taken to address the problem statement. To assess sites where additional elevated storage could be located and how it will effect the existing pressure distribution through Grand Valley. To assess sites where additional grade level storage could be located and how it will effect the existing pressure distribution through Grand Valley. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WASTEWATER Alternative 1 Do nothing Alternative 2 Rerate the Existing WPCP Alternative 3 Expansion of Existing WPCP Alternative 4 Connection to an Existing Municipal System To assess what would happen if no action is taken to address the problem statement. To assess if operational adjustments can increase the treatment capacity at the existing WPCP. To assess if the existing Grand Valley WPCP can be expanded to increase treatment capacity. To assess if Grand Valley could be connected to the Orangeville wastewater system for additional treatment capacity.

13 EVALUATION FACTORS CONSIDERED Natural Environment Socio Economic/ Cultural Environment Financial Factors Technical Factors Designated Sites/Species Terrestrial Habitat Aquatic Habitat Hazard Lands (Floodplains, etc.) Conformity to Local Planning Provisions Heritage Resources (built heritage, landmarks, significant landscapes) Cultural Resources (archaeological features) Nuisance Impacts Construction Impacts/ Land Requirements Capital Costs Operation & Maintenance Costs Life Cycle Costs Site Specific Costs Ease of operation and maintenance Regulatory Requirements System Reliability System Specific Requirements Water Supply: treatment requirements, water quality, water quantity and source reliability Water Storage: system efficiency, capability to provide storage, suitability of connection to existing system Wastewater Treatment Capacity: system efficiency, effluent requirements, suitability of connection to existing system

14 Do Nothing (Alternative 1) New Groundwater Source (Alternative 2) Natural Environment Water Supply Alternatives Socio Economic / Cultural Environment Technical Factors Financial Factors Recommended Solution Alternative 1 does not address the problem statement. Therefore this alternative was not selected as the preliminary preferred alternative. Least Preferred No impact on existing conditions Pumping test required to confirm no affect on existing production wells No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions Additional water supply would be designed to accommodate future growth Potential air quality and noise impact from standby generator Potential source water protection issues Water quality and treatment required is dependent on samples taken during test drilling Reliable water source The new supply and treatment system could be easily incorporated in to the existing water distribution system Maintenance required for groundwater sources is less compared to surface water sources Amendments to the Permit to Take Water and Drinking Water Works Permit will be required along with a Building Permit for the treatment pumphouse. Capital Cost: $1.4 million per well for a total of $2.8 million Most Preferred New Surface Water Source (Alternative 3) Some disturbance to aquatic habitat during construction of surface water intake Additional water supply would be designed to accommodate future growth No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions Potential air quality and noise impact from standby generator Water quality fluctuates with seasonal variation. High turbidity at times. The new supply and treatment system could be easily incorporated in to the existing water distribution system Surface water treatment pumphouses are more complex to operate Larger building footprint Amendments to the Permit to Take Water and Drinking Water Works Permit will be required along with a Building Permit for the treatment pumphouse. The costs associated with this alternative are significantly higher than the groundwater source alternative Least Preferred Utilize Surplus from an Existing Municipal System (Alternative 4) Impacts are dependent on placement of piping to connect to Waldemar s municipal system. Grand River crossing may be required. Additional water supply would be designed to accommodate future growth Waldemar is the only system within reasonable proximity and it has no surplus. Additional water supply will be treated by Waldemar s water treatment system prior to distribution; however, there are potential water quality and water age issues Provides a reliable water source Additional chlorination may be required to ensure the minimum residual is maintained at the furthest point in the distribution system. Amendments to the Permit to Take Water and Drinking Water Works Permit will be required along with a Building Permit for the treatment pumphouse. The costs associated with this alternative are significantly higher than both the groundwater and surface water source options * Potential impacts on air quality (noise, dust, emissions) as a result of construction activities is a Socio Economic/ Cultural Environment Impact for each of the alternatives listed above Least Preferred

15 GROUNDWATER SOURCE POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS PREFERRED LOCATION: SITE 2A PARK SITE PREFERRED LOCATION: SITE 2B EXISTING WATER TOWER SITE 2C FIRE HALL

16 Water Storage Alternatives Natural Environment Socio economic / Cultural Environment Technical Factors Financial Factors Recommended Solution Do Nothing (Alternative 1) Elevated Water Storage (Alternative 2) Grade Level Reservoir (Alternative 3) Alternative 1 does not address the problem statement. Therefore this alternative was not selected as the preliminary preferred alternative. Least Preferred No impact over existing conditions No impact over existing conditions Additional water storage would be designed to accommodate future growth No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions Some consider it aesthetically unpleasing and obstructive, others consider it as an identifiable landmark Depending on storage placement, approval from the GRCA may be required if within regulated lands Additional water storage would be designed to accommodate future growth No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions In ground reservoirs have low profiles limiting aesthetic concerns Standpipes are considered aesthetically unpleasing and obstructive by some, others consider it as an identifiable landmark Depending on storage placement, approval from the GRCA may be required if within regulated lands Minimizes double pumping as water is distributed to the community via gravity Hydraulic profile will not be altered provided the elevated storage operates at the same water level as the existing water tower. Routine maintenance and testing of well pumps is required under this alternative Operational costs, energy consumption are lower due to reduced number of pumps Depending on the type of elevated water storage selected, the storage tank may require painting approximately every 30 years on average including cathodic protection anodes done approximately every 10 years Monitoring of discharge from the elevated tank is required Drinking Water Works Permit Amendment and Building Permit would be required No need for backup power Water delivered to consumers is double pumped, once at the point of supply and once at the point of storage. This inefficiency is reflected in operation and maintenance costs including significant hydro costs. Highlift pumping equipment and back up power are required to meet peak hour demand and provide fire flows. Pumped discharge systems are dependent upon mechanical and electrical equipment, which introduces an additional potential mode of failure requiring that regular maintenance and testing be carried out to ensure system reliability The hydraulic profile will be altered if a grade level reservoir is introduced due to differing operating levels. Multiple pressure zones may be required for proper system function Operational costs are significant due to large number of pumps required Drinking Water Works Permit Amendment and Building Permit would be required Backup power is required is case of power outage Capital Cost: $2,860, Year Life Cycle Cost: $3,530,000 In Ground Reservoir Capital Cost: $2,410, Year Life Cycle Cost: $4,030,000 Standpipe Capital Cost: $1,800, Year Life Cycle Cost: $3,440,000 Most Preferred Partially Preferred * Potential impacts on air quality (noise, dust, emissions) as a result of construction activities is a Socio Economic/ Cultural Environment Impact for each of the alternatives listed above

17 WATER STORAGE ALTERNATIVES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2A : WITHIN WPCP BUFFER (ELEVATED) ALTERNATIVE 2C: AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE (ELEVATED) ALTERNATIVE 2B: BEHIND MELODY LANE PUMPHOUSE (ELEVATED) ALTERNATIVE 3: PARK SITE (GROUND LEVEL STANDPIPE)

18 Do Nothing (Alternative 1) Rerate the Existing WPCP (Alternative 2) Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Natural Environment Socio economic / Cultural Environment Technical Factors Financial Factors Recommended Solution Alternative 1 does not address the problem statement. Therefore this alternative was not selected as the preliminary preferred alternative. Least Preferred No impact on existing conditions Additional wastewater capacity generated by the WPCP rerating may allow for future demand accommodation and existing housing demands to be met. The capacity available will be dependent on the rerating. Equalization storage will potentially be required to accommodate the wastewater demands associated with the Official Plan population. No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions Equalization Tank constructible in 2018, allowing housing needs to be met Equalization Tank at Emma St. SPS Projected peak flows currently exceed the rated pumping capacity at the SPS The SPS will require upgrades to divert peak flows to the Equalization Tank. The forcemain conveying wastewater to the WPCP would not require replacement The EQ tank will require an odour control system due to proximity to neighbouring residential areas ECA Amendment required from MOECC along with a Building Permit Equalization Tank at Existing WPCP Projected peak flows currently exceed the rated pumping capacity at the SPS. To convey the future peak flow to the WPCP, the existing forcemain will not require replacement; however, the SPS will require larger submersible pumps Changes to the operation of the existing SPS and the WPCP would be required to divert excess flows to the EQ tank ECA Amendment required from MOECC along with a Building Permit Capital Cost: $2,577,000 Capital Cost: $2,317,000 Partially Preferred Most Preferred as an Interim Solution Expansion of Existing WPCP (Alternative 3) Connection to an Existing Municipal System (Alternative 4) No impact on existing conditions WPCP expansion would be designed to accommodate future growth No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions Expansion would occur outside of archaeological area identified in previous study Connection to Orangeville WWTP would accommodate future growth No impact on existing cultural or natural conditions Expansion of existing treatment process at the WPCP would be designed to accommodate projected future flows to service the Official Plan population This option requires detailed assessment of the Emma St. SPS pumping capacity and forcemain hydraulics to determine if upgrades are required The difficulty associated with operation and maintenance is dependent on the detailed design of the expansion ECA Amendment required from MOECC along with a Building Permit. GRCA approval required Construction no earlier than 2019, will delay housing This alternative would be very inefficient due to the distance between Orangeville and Grand Valley Orangeville has no assimilative or plant capacity Increased operation and maintenance complexity due to integration with a second municipal system ECA Amendment required from MOECC Capital Cost Range: $11 million $14 million Accurate costs cannot be determined until detailed design phase Alternative is not feasible * Potential impacts on air quality (noise, dust, emissions) as a result of construction activities is a Socio Economic/ Cultural Environment Impact for each of the alternatives listed above Most Preferred as a Long Term Solution Least Preferred

19 WASTEWATER EQUALIZATION STORAGE POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS LOCATION 1: EMMA ST. SEWAGE PUMPING STATION PREFERRED LOCATION 2: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT SITE

20 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES Water Supply at Park Site Infrastructure Preferred Alternative Water Supply Groundwater Wells Two preferred locations (Park Site and Existing Water Tower) Water Storage Elevated Water Storage in the form of a water tower or composite elevated tank Location Within the Existing WPCP Buffer EQ Tank at Water Pollution Control Plant Wastewater Treatment Interim Solution: Plant Rerating and Construction of an Equalization Tank at the WPCP Long Term Solution: Expansion of existing WPCP FORCEMAIN INTO WPCP Water Supply at Existing Water Tower Site Elevated Water Storage Within Water Pollution Control Plant Buffer

21 NEXT STEPS 1. Provide comments by completing the comment sheet and placing into Comment Box or send to Jane Wilson or Jeff Paznar before December 1 st, We will review comments received and conduct additional work if necessary 3. We will re evaluate alternatives in light of comments received 4. We will select preferred alternatives and finalize Project File Report 5. We will issue Notice of Completion 6. There will be a 30 Day Public / Agency Review of Project File Report once Notice of Completion is issued 7. If no Part II order is received, proceed to Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment of Water Pollution Control Plant expansion and proceed to construction of water supply, water storage, and wastewater equalization tank. These presentation materials will be available online at: THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING