public information centre #2 wellington master servicing

• Wellington and District Community Centre• 111 Belleville Street – Wellington• November 28th, 2019• 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

Public Information Centre #2 Wellington Master Servicing Plan for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Management

PHASE 2Identify & ReviewAlternative Solutions

Optional Consultation with Public, Agencies and Indigenous CommunitiesDevelop & EvaluateAlternative SolutionsIdentifyRecommended Solutions for ServicesConsult with Public, Agencies, and Indigenous Communities

PHASE 3Develop Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution

EvaluateAlternative Design Concepts and Identify Preferred Design

Consult with Public, Agencies, and Indigenous Communities

PreliminaryFinalization of Preferred Design

PHASE 4Complete EnvironmentalStudy Report

File Environmental Study Report for Review by

Public, Agencies, and

Indigenous Communities

PHASE 5

Design, Construct,and Monitor

30 D

ay R

evie

wPe

riod

PHASE 1

DevelopProblem & Opportunity

We Are Here

File Notice of Completion and Phase 1 & 2 Report

Schedule ‘B’’

Schedule C Class EA

Some projects may be identified as a higher schedule of class EA and will require a supplementary EA

Schedule B Class EA

2

PIC #1 July 4, 2019

Municipal Class EA Process

• The Wellington Urban Area is building out in accordance with the adopted Secondary Plan for the Wellington Urban Centre (OPA 62).

• The Wellington Master Servicing Plan (MSP) will identify, evaluate and prioritize infrastructure upgrades for water, wastewater and stormwater management services.

• The MSP will accommodate immediate and long-term growth opportunities to fully “build out” the Secondary Plan Area

• The preferred solutions must:• comply with applicable regulations• have regard for stakeholder comments and concerns• be financially viable• be operationally sustainable• align with the County’s social and environmental objectives

• The preferred solutions will be prioritized to address immediate needs, intermediate needs and the long-term needs.

• Implementation of the preferred solutions will be subject to Council approval.

3

Problem and Opportunity Statement

Criteria Example ConsiderationsTechnical • Impact on existing systems

•Ease of implementation•Effects on operations and maintenance•Treatment Complexity•Complies with regulatory/approval requirements

Archaeological •Effects on archeological sites or structures•Effects on cultural sites or structures

Environmental •Effects on wildlife and vegetation, habitat •Effects on water, soil and air quality•Effects on or from Climate Change

Criteria Example ConsiderationsSocial •Compliance with future growth forecast

under County’s Official Plan and Secondary Plan

•Sensory impacts (including noise, dust, etc. both during and after construction)

•Effects on neighboring properties•Effects on the municipality, local businesses, etc.

•Effects on Indigenous communities

Financial •Life cycle costs (capital cost, operation & maintenance cost)

•Sustainability•Affordability

Each of the alternatives will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

4

Evaluation Criteria for Alternatives

5

• Water treatment capacity to increase to 8,500m3/day at Full Build Out (Note 1)

• Shortlisted water treatment capacity alternatives:• Alternative 4: Expand existing water treatment plant (WTP)• Alternative 5: Build new water treatment plant at existing site,

and decommission existing water treatment plant

Note 1 - Full Build Out is the point of fully developing all areas within the Wellington Urban Area, in accordance with the Secondary Plan. Flows for Full Build Out are forecasted based on forecasted population and historical water usage, adjusted to accommodate anticipated future industrial, commercial and institutional water demands

Recap of Water Supply Needs & Shortlisted Alternatives

6

Decommission existing WTP 2,500m3/d

Alternative 5 – New water treatment plant (WTP) and decommission existing WTP

Notes:1) Alternative 4 Phase 1 includes expansion for additional 3,500m3/day, after which a new intake pipe will be required 2) Both alternatives consider modular treatment package upgrades to suit development demands 3) Both alternatives consider possibility for a future regional water treatment plant to supply water to nearby communities

Ex. WTP rated for 2,500m3/d

Alternative 4 – Expand existingwater treatment plant (WTP)

Existing raw water intake rated for 6,000m3/day

Regional WTP Expansion (Note 3)

Abandon existing watermain

Abandon existing raw water intake

Regional WTP Expansion (Note 3)

New WTP with ultimate Full Build Out footprint

New raw water intake pipe for additional 13,000m3/day (needed for Full Build Out (Phase 2) & regional WTP)

New raw water intake pipe for 19,000m3/day (accounting for new WTP and possible future regional WTP)

Phase 1 (Note 1)

Full Build Out (Phase 2)

Shortlisted Water Supply Alternatives

7

Highest Impact (Least Positive Solution) Lowest Impact (Most Positive Solution)

Evaluation Criteria Alternative 4 – Expand Existing Treatment Plant Rating Alternative 5 – Build New Water Treatment Plant Rating

Social • No change to current land use zoning (Industrial)• Land currently controlled by County• Aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties similar as existing WTP,

however expanded WTP footprint will be larger than existing• Shorter construction duration, but construction will occur in several stages

• No change to current land use zoning (Industrial)• Land currently controlled by County• Aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties similar as existing WTP;

however, new WTP footprint will be a bit larger than expanded WTP (Alt 4)• Longer construction duration in single stage, with minor internal expansion

in phases to suit development needs

Financial • Lower capital cost for re-using existing WTP and expanding the WTP; less capital required immediately due to WTP expansion in stages

• Higher operation and maintenance cost for existing facility • Life cycle cost – $35 M (Present value: Capital $26.5 M, O&M $8.5 M)

• Higher capital costs for construction of new facility; larger investment upfront to build new facility

• Lower operation and maintenance cost for new facility • Life cycle cost – $35.5M (Present value: Capital $29.3 M, O&M $6.2 M)

Technical • Approvals anticipated to be required: MECP, QCA,DFO, building permit, site plan approval

• Rehabilitation/restoration of portions of existing facility will be required• Potential for unexpected limitations or conflicts with existing system • Less excavation in rock and less dewatering issues• Greater complexity during construction and commissioning to keep existing

WTP operational • Sufficient space for possible regional WTP in future• Partial redundancy for intake pipe

• Approvals anticipated to be required: MECP, QCA,DFO, building permit, site plan approval

• Opportunity to reduce operations and maintenance impacts by decommissioning /repurposing existing facility

• More excavation and dewatering issues expected• Less complexity during construction and commissioning• Greater flexibility in selection of treatment processes• Sufficient space for possible regional WTP in future• No redundancy for intake pipe

Archaeological • Previously disturbed areas, likely to have minimal archeological potential • Previously disturbed areas, likely to have minimal archeological potential

Environmental • Existing site is manicured lawn – minimal impact from natural environmental perspective, with mitigation measures required during design/construction (avoid tree removal during bird breeding season)

• Dewatering measures and in-water works will be carefully planned• No significant impact on source water protection

• Existing site is manicured lawn – minimal impact from natural environmental perspective, with mitigation measures required during design/construction (avoid tree removal during bird breeding season)

• May require more dewatering and in-water works (if regional WTP is to occur), which will be carefully planned

• No significant impact on source water protection

Overall Conclusion Alternative is less preferred ❌ Alternative to be carried forward – Recommended Alternative ✓

Evaluation of Water Supply Alternatives

• Current water storage deficit is 683m3 (Note 1)• Forecasted water storage requirement to address current

deficit and future needs to Full Build Out is 9,200m3 (Note 2)

• New water reservoir(s) will have higher hydraulic grade line to address pressure and fire flow issues

• Pump upgrades at the WTP• Decommission existing elevated tank• New watermain along Millennium Trail will increase

redundancy and connectivity of the water distribution network and help with fire flow. Extend watermain network as development progresses

• Shortlisted water storage alternative is to build a new water storage tank at another site and decommission existing elevated tank

8

Note 1 – Water storage deficit calculations updated since PIC#1 with data from past 5 yearsNote 2 – The total water storage requirement can be met by building water storage reservoirs in phases, to suit water demand needs based on development milestones. The Master Servicing Plan presents only the evaluation and selection of preferred location for the immediate water storage upgrade. Other locations will have to be considered for subsequent water reservoir(s).

Recap of Water Storage Needs & Shortlisted Alternatives

9

Highest Impact(Most Negative Solution)

Lowest Impact(Most Positive Solution)

Evaluation Criteria Floating Storage – Elevated Tank or Standpipe Rating Pumped Storage (Buried or Above Ground Storage) Rating

Social • Higher aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties due to height of structure• Could be used as a ‘landmark’ for Wellington

• Less potential for aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties for buried structures.

• Above ground storage has the potential for aesthetic impacts due to visibility.

Financial • Lower initial capital costs • Lower operation costs• Life cycle cost $7.1 (Capital: $6.9M, O&M $0.2M Note 1)

Note 1: O&M cost can be significantly impacted by tank material selection

• Higher initial capital costs for buried storage ($9.3M) and lower initial capital for above grade storage ($5.5M)

• Higher operations cost ($1.8M) due to need for larger pumps and emergency power equipment (since Wellington does not have sufficiently high hill for the buried/above ground storage to operate without pumping to distribution)

• Life cycle cost $7.3-11.1M (Capital Cost: $5.5-9.3M; O&M $1.8M)

Technical • Approvals required: MECP, Nav/Transport Canada, QCA, MNRF• Modification of existing water treatment high lift pumps to deliver water to

elevated structure.• Intrinsically more reliable due to use of gravity• Elevated tank preferred over standpipe to avoid large volume of unusable

storage with the standpipe (which have impacts to water age and freezing)• Lower footprint compared to buried/above ground storage

• Approvals required: MECP, MNRF, QCA• Likely compatible with existing high lift pump capabilities• Additional pumping required from reservoir to maintain distribution system

pressure (near continuous) • Pumps at reservoir need to be sized to achieve required maximum day

demand, fire flows plus redundancy.• Requires emergency power at reservoir site • Larger footprint required compared to water tower

Archaeological and Environmental Footprint

• Lower potential for negative impact due to smaller footprint • Higher potential for negative impact due to larger footprint

Overall Conclusion Storage type to be carried forward – Recommended to use elevated tank ✓ Storage type will not be carried forward. ❌

Floating Storage

Evaluation of Water Storage Types

10

Site Description Screening

1

• County owned • Located in agricultural field• Near old landfill site surrounded by agricultural

fields• Near an environmental protection zone • Lands may have archeological potential• Need new 300mm watermain extension right away

County owned and at high elevation.

Location will be carried forward for further

evaluation.✓

2

• Property acquisition required• Located in agricultural field• Lands may have archeological potential• Need new 300mm watermain extension right away

Similar to location 1, without the benefit of being County owned.

❌

3

• Property acquisition required• Located in agricultural field• Lands may have archeological potential• Cultural heritage potential due to cemetery nearby• Located close to existing houses

Similar to location 1, without the benefit of being County owned.

❌

4

• County owned • Located by Wellington & District Community Center • Minimal impact for archeological potential due to

previous disturbance and developed use• Located near old potential landfill• Located close to existing houses

County owned and in close proximity to

existing watermains.Location will be carried forward for evaluation.

✓

5

• Property acquisition required• Located in agricultural field near agricultural facility• Lands may have archeological potential• Need new 300mm watermain extension right away

More outlying than other locations.

Property acquisition required.❌

Note 1: Existing elevated tank will be decommissioned after construction of new storage Note 2: Proposed watermain routing will be constructed in phases, based on servicing requirements and development progression.Note 3: A new watermain along Millennium Trail will be required regardless of tank location to improve pressure and fire flows in the municipal water system. Certain areas with privately owned watermains may still need further improvements to realize the full benefit of the upgrades.

owned land

Preliminary Screening of Water Storage Location and Proposed Watermain Routing

11

Highest Impact (Most Negative Solution) Lowest Impact (Most Positive Solution)

Evaluation Criteria Site 1 – North on Consecon St. Rating Site 4 – South of Wellington & District Community Centre Rating

Social • Current rural Zone 1; no rezoning required • Land owned by County • Lower aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties as further away from

central Wellington

• Current land use zoning as Institutional; no rezoning required • Land owned by County • Higher aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties as closer to central

Wellington• Impact land currently used for boat parking• Possible impact to future road realignment to East development

Financial • Lower capital cost for construction of water tower due to higher ground elevation (approx. $6.2 Million)

• Higher capital cost for immediate watermain extension to new elevated tank location (approx. $1.8 Million) also requires $9.0 Million Millennium Trail watermain;

• Operation and maintenance cost of ET will be similar regardless of location• Life Cycle Cost $17.2M (Capital Cost: $17M; O&M cost $0.2M – Note 1)

• Higher capital cost for construction of water tower due to lower ground elevation (approx. $6.5 Million)

• Lower capital cost for watermain extension due to proximity to existing water distribution system (approx. $0.3 Million) also requires $9.0 Million Millennium Trail watermain;

• Operation and maintenance cost of ET will be similar regardless of location• Life Cycle Cost $16M (Capital Cost: $15.8M; O&M Cost $0.2M – Note 1)

Technical • Approvals required: MECP, MNRF, QCA, Nav/Transport Canada• Similar operations and maintenance impacts as Site 4• Similar improvements to pressure and fire flows as Site 4• Less constrained site, which may aid construction and future maintenance • Requires watermain on Millennium Trail & Consecon St. • Less connectivity between ET and water distribution system (less redundancy

in water distribution pathways)

• Approvals required: MECP, Nav/Transport Canada• Similar operations and maintenance impacts as Site 1• Similar improvements to pressure and fire flows as Site 1• More constrained site, which may hinder construction and future maintenance• Requires watermain on Millennium Trail• More connectivity of the ET to the water distribution system (improved

redundancy)Archaeological • Possible archaeological potential as agricultural land is not developed • Less potential for archaeological interest as land has been previously disturbed

Environmental • Moderate impact from natural environmental perspective (1 type of species at risk bat was noted in the nearby forested area), with mitigation measures required during design/construction

• Located near operating landfill and adjacent to Environmental Protection Zone

• Less impact from natural environmental perspective, as located near urban area and on already disturbed site

• Located near old landfill

Overall Conclusion Alternative is less preferred ❌ Alternative to be carried forward – Recommended Alternative Site ✓Note 1: The operation and maintenance cost for the new elevated tank can be significantly impacted depending tank material

Evaluation of Shortlisted Water Storage Location

12

• Wastewater capacity to increase to 3,900m3/day (average day) and 16,300m3/day (peak day) at Full Build Out(Note 1)

• Improve treatment to meet future effluent criteria objectives and limits• Address odour issues• Shortlisted wastewater capacity alternatives:

• Alternative 3 - Expand existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) while rehabilitating and reusing existing tankage for treatment

• Alternative 4 - Build new WWTP, while rehabilitating and reusing the existing tankage for biosolids storage

• Preliminary structural assessment of existing tankage confirmed tanks can be reused. Further rehabilitation may be required in some areas. Further structural assessment will be required during detailed design

Note 1 - Full Build Out is the point of fully developing all areas within the Wellington Urban Area, in accordance with the Secondary Plan. Flows for Full Build Out are forecasted based on forecasted population and historical water usage, adjusted to accommodate anticipated future industrial, commercial and institutional water demands

Recap of Wastewater Capacity Needs

Notes: Both alternatives also includes consideration for:1) Tankage sized for higher peak day flows to handle wet weather events, inflow and infiltration, and climate change issues2) Modular treatment package upgrades to suit development demands3) Tertiary treatment to meet future effluent criteria objectives and limits4) Biosolids storage and odour control

Alternative 4 – New WWTP and reuse existing tankage for biosolids storage

Headworks & Pumping StationAlternative 3 – Expand existing

WWTP and reuse existing tankage for treatment

Rehabilitate existing tanks and reuse for

treatment

Reuse existing outfall

Headworks & Pumping Station

Convert ex. biosolids tank

to digester

13

Reuse existing outfall

Rehabilitate existing tanks and reuse for

biosolids storage

Tertiary Treatment Building

Tertiary TreatmentBuilding

Sludge Pump Building

Sludge Pump Building

New biosolids storage

Primary Treatment

Secondary Treatment

Secondary Treatment

Primary Treatment

Shortlisted Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

14

Evaluation Criteria Alternative 3 – Expand Existing Treatment Plant with Reuse of Existing Tankage for Treatment

Rating Alternative 4 – Build New Wastewater Treatment Plant with Reuse of Existing Tankage for Biosolids Storage

Rating

Social • No change to current land use zoning (Industrial) • Land currently controlled by County• Aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties similar as existing WWTP, but with

larger footprint than existing• Improvements to odour control compared to existing WWTP

• No change to current land use zoning (Industrial) • Land currently controlled by County• Aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties similar as existing WWTP; but new

WWTP footprint will be slightly larger than Alternative 3• Improvements to odour control compared to existing WWTP

Financial • Higher operation and maintenance cost for keeping existing facility • Lower capital cost for re-using existing and expanding the WWTP• Life Cycle Cost $28.6M (Capital Cost $24M, O&M Cost $4.6M)

• Lower operation and maintenance cost for new facility compared to running existing and expanded facility

• Higher capital costs for construction of new facility and retrofitting existing tankage for biosolids storage

• Life Cycle Cost $30M (Capital Cost $26M, O&M Cost $4M)Technical • Similar approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO

• Rehabilitation/restoration of portions of existing facility will be required (further investigation required during design stage)

• Replacement/repair of aged equipment/infrastructure will be required• Expecting deeper excavation in rock and more dewatering issues• More tie-ins required between existing and expanded system• Potential for unexpected limitations or conflicts with existing system • Must carefully stage construction to maintain current plant operation during

upgrades• All tankage must be constructed at once, however use of tanks can be phased

• Similar approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO• Opportunity to reduce operations and maintenance impacts due to not reusing

existing facility for treatment processes• Rehabilitation/restoration of portions of existing facility will be required

(further investigation required during design stage)• Higher hydraulic gradeline allows for shallower excavation in rock and less

dewatering issues• Greater flexibility in selection of treatment processes• Less tie-ins required with existing system - new WWTP can be mostly

constructed and commissioned independently of existing• All tankage must be constructed at once, however use of tanks can be phased

Archaeological • Possible archaeological potential as agricultural land is not developed • Previously disturbed areas without significant archeological potential

Environmental • Moderate impact from natural environmental perspective, with mitigation measures required during design/construction:

• Dewatering measures and in-water works will be carefully planned • No significant impact on source water protection due to effluent outfall

• Moderate impact from natural environmental perspective, with mitigation measures required during design/construction:

• Dewatering measures and in-water works will be carefully planned • No significant impact on source water protection due to effluent outfall


Highest Impact(Most Negative

Solution)


Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

• Expand existing sanitary collection system to accommodate forecasted development • Work will be completed in phases, depending on development progress • Shortlisted alternatives include:

15

Alternative 4 – Upsize sanitary sewer on Main St near WWTP, new sanitary sewer on Millennium Trail and northward, new SPS on East end

Alternative 3 – Upsize sanitary sewer on Main St, upsize Wharf St SPS, new sanitary sewer on Millennium Trail and northward

Recap of Sanitary Collection Needs & Shortlisted Alternatives

16

Evaluation Criteria Alternative 3 – Upsize sanitary sewer (SS) on Main St, upsize Wharf St SPS, new SS on Millennium Trail and northward

Rating Alternative 4 – Upsize sanitary sewer (SS) on Main St (West), new sewage pumping station (SPS) at East End, new SS on Millennium Trail and northward

Rating

Social • Major traffic and social disruptions along Main Street during construction (businesses, tourism, travel, noise, dust etc.)

• Disruption along Millennium Trail during construction (will be restored to existing conditions)

• Moderate traffic and social disruption along West portion of Main Street during construction

• Disruption along Millennium Trail during construction (will be restored to existing conditions)

• New SPS within East development may reduce land value in local area.

Financial • Higher capital cost for construction along much of Main Street• Moderate capital cost for construction along Millennium Trail • Moderate capital cost for expansion of existing Wharf St. Sewage Pumping

Station• Minor O&M cost for existing 2 SPSs• Life Cycle Cost $19.9M (Capital Cost $18.9M, O&M Cost $1M)

• Lower capital cost for less construction along Main Street.• Moderate capital cost for construction along Millennium Trail • Moderate capital cost for new SPS and forcemain at East End (incl land

acquisition) • Minor O&M cost for 3 SPSs• Life Cycle Cost $17.5M (Capital Cost $16.3M, O&M Cost $1.2M)

Technical • Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• Opportunity to address issues with existing infrastructure• Will need to maintain existing service during upgrades• Potential for unexpected limitations or conflicts with existing infrastructure• No space at current Wharf St. sewage pumping station site for expansion

• Approvals required: MECP, QCA• Additional infrastructure (new SPS) for operating and maintaining• Less disruptions to existing system during upgrades• Less tie ins required with existing system• Likely to be able to obtain enough land for new sewage pumping station

Archaeological • Several cultural heritage properties/points of interests along Main Street –construction work will have to be carefully designed and executed

• Historic rail bed along Millennium Trail already disturbed. Further field investigation will confirm potential for archaeological and cultural heritage interest

• Potential for archaeological interest near new forcemain on East End (further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative)

• Historic rail bed along Millennium Trail already disturbed. Further field investigation will confirm potential for archaeological and cultural heritage interest

Environmental • Moderate impact along Millennium Trail. Mitigation measures required during design/construction (i.e. avoid tree cutting during bird breeding season, trenchless technology at creek crossings)

• High impact to aquatic habitat and species for in-water works for Wharf St. SPS expansion

• Moderate impact along Millennium Trail. Mitigation measures required during design/construction (i.e. avoid tree cutting during bird breeding season, trenchless technology at creek crossings)

• New SPS and forcemain in forested area – habitat to species at risk bats (e.g. Little Brown Myotis, Tri-coloured bat); mitigation measures required during design/construction




Evaluation of Sanitary Collection Alternatives

17

System Issues & Needs• Existing stormwater infrastructure requires upgrades and/or

maintenance• Existing stormwater infrastructure does not accommodate

forecasted development areasNew developments will require:• Stormwater management ponds for quality and/or quantity control• Enhanced stormwater quality - 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

removal (Quinte Conservation requirement)• Control of pre and post development flows• Safe conveyance of stormwater to West Lake and Lake OntarioOverall improvements required: • Effective runoff management on new developments to maintain or

improve conditions on downstream lands. • Designated drainage and outfall corridors to convey stormwater

runoff from existing and future developments to the Lakes. • Stormwater management best practices/guidelines.

Recap of Stormwater Management Needs

18

Stormwater Management Alternatives –East End

19

Evaluation Criteria Option 1 – Regrade portion of area for 1 common Stormwater Pond (SWP), with outfall to West Lake

Rating Option 2 – 2 Stormwater Ponds (SWPs) based on natural topography of eastern lands, with outfall to West Lake and Lane Creek

Rating

Social • No disruption to Millennium Trail during construction• Minor disruption on Main Street during stormsewer construction from SWP to

West Lake• Moderate disruption to local residents near lower SWP• SWP may include aesthetic and natural water features

• Moderate disruption along eastern portion of Millennium Trail during construction (will be restored to existing conditions)

• Minor disruption on Main Street during stormsewer construction• Moderate disruption to local residents near lower SWP during construction • Impacts potential number of development lots due to 2nd SWP• SWP may include aesthetic and natural water features along Millennium Trail

Financial • Lower capital cost for construction of 1 SWP • Moderate capital cost for new stormsewer and outfall to West Lake• Minor O&M cost for 1 SWP• Life Cycle Cost $1.1M (Capital Cost $0.8M for SWP, stormsewers and outfall,

O&M Cost $0.3M) Note 1

• Higher capital cost for construction of 2 SWPs• Higher capital cost for construction of new stormsewers and outfall to Lane

Creek and West Lake• Moderate O&M cost for 2 SWPs• Life Cycle Cost $2.4M (Capital Cost $1.8M for SWP, stormsewers and outfall,

O&M Cost $0.6M) Note 1

Technical • Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• Lower SWP will have adequate treatment and safe conveyance to West Lake• New outfall to West Lake will discharge overland, with energy dissipators prior

to entering West Lake • Significant excavation expected for the regrading of northern part of land to

slope southward

• Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• Lower SWP will have adequate treatment and safe conveyance to West Lake• New outfall to West Lake will discharge overland, with energy dissipators prior

to entering West Lake • Upper SWP will be sized and designed for quality and quantity control • Rock excavation anticipated for upper SWP

Archaeological • No cultural heritage properties/points of interests in the area of SWP and stormsewer

• Potential for archaeological interest in SWP area (further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative)

• Potential for archaeological interest in 2 SWP areas (further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative)

• Possible cultural heritage properties for upper SWP and stormsewer due to proximity to Millennium Trail

Environmental • Lower SWP in forested area – habitat to certain bats that are Species at Risk(e.g. Little Brown Myotis, Tri-coloured bat) and certain birds that are Species of Concern (e.g Wood Thrush); mitigation measures required during design/construction

• West Lake has several species at risk, further consultation with DFO and MECP required

• Lower SWP in forested area – habitat to certain bats that are Species at Risk(e.g. Little Brown Myotis, Tri-coloured bat) and certain birds that are Species of Concern (e.g Wood Thrush); mitigation measures required during design/construction

• West Lake has several species at risk, further consultation with DFO and MECP required

• Upper SWP by Millennium Trail may add to local wetland habitat• Aquatic habitat assessment may be required for stormsewer outlet to Lane

Creek (if this is chosen as preferred alternative)

Overall Conclusion Alternative to be carried forward – Recommended Alternative ✓ Alternative is less preferred ❌

Highest Impact(Most Negative

Solution)


Note 1 – Life cycle cost does not include capital costs associated with regrading/reshaping the land as result of development design/layouts

Evaluation of East End Stormwater Management Alternatives

20

Stormwater Management Alternatives –North End

21

Evaluation Criteria Option 1 – 3 Stormwater Ponds (SWPs) all discharge to Lane Creek Rating Option 2 – 2 Stormwater Ponds (SWPs) discharge to Lane Creek and 1 SWP discharges to upgraded storm sewer on Consecon St. & Main St.

Rating

Social • Minor disruption to Millennium Trail during construction• Moderate disruption to local residents, school and business by Wharf St and

Niles St. during storm sewer construction• Minor disruption to local residents and businesses near SWPs• SWP may include aesthetic and natural water features along Millennium Trail

• Moderate disruption to Millennium Trail during construction• Minor disruption to local residents and businesses near SWPs.• Major disruption to local residents during upgrades to Consecon St. and Main

S.t storm sewers and tie-ins• SWP may include aesthetic and natural water features along Millennium Trail

Financial • Similar cost for construction of 3 SWPs • Similar O&M costs for 3 SWPs• Higher capital cost for new storm sewers along existing roads• Life Cycle Cost $7.3M (Capital Cost $6.3M; O&M cost $1M)

• Similar cost for construction of 3 SWPs • Similar O&M costs for 3 SWPs• Lower capital cost for storm sewer construction along Millennium Trail

(especially if coupled with other infrastructure upgrades)• Higher capital cost for upgrading ex. storm sewer on Consecon and Main St.• Life Cycle Cost $8.8M (Capital Cost $7.8M; O&M cost $1M)

Technical • Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• All 3 SWPs will be sized and designed for quality and quantity control • Connection to Lane Creek at Niles will have design and constructability issues

due to limited space by the Creek• Possible interferences between new storm sewer and existing/new

infrastructure on Millennium Trail, Wharf St and Niles St.• Rock excavation anticipated for SWPs• Careful design and constructability considerations needed to minimize impact

to Lane Creek

• Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• All 3 SWPs will be sized and designed for quality and quantity control • Upgrade of existing storm sewer on Consecon St. and Main St. required • Limited room and complications in upsizing existing outfall to Lake Ontario• Possible interferences between new storm sewer and existing/new

infrastructure on Millennium Trail• Rock excavation anticipated for SWPs• Opportunity to replace end of life stormsewer on Consecon St. • Careful design and constructability considerations needed to minimize impact

to Lane Creek • Reduce run-off to Lane Creek• Cost sharing opportunity for Consecon St. stormsewer upgrade

Archaeological • Potential for archaeological interest in SWP area and along Millennium Trail• Possible cultural heritage properties due to proximity to Millennium Trail• Further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative

• Potential for archaeological interest in SWP area and along Millennium Trail• Possible cultural heritage properties due to proximity to Millennium Trail• Further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative

Environmental • Upper SWP by Millennium Trail may add to local wetland habitat• Aquatic habitat assessment may be required for storm sewer outlet to Lane

Creek (if this is chosen as preferred alternative). Outlet to Lane Creek will have to be properly designed to minimize impact to aquatic species and habitat Avoid cutting trees during bird breeding season (April – August)

• Upper SWP by Millennium Trail may add to local wetland habitat• Aquatic habitat assessment may be required for storm sewer outlet to Lane

Creek (if this is chosen as preferred alternative). Outlet to Lane Creek will have to be properly designed to minimize impact to aquatic species and habitat Avoid cutting trees during bird breeding season (April – August)

Overall Conclusion Alternative to be carried forward – Recommended Alternative ✓ Alternative is less preferred ❌



Evaluation of North End Stormwater Management Alternatives

22

Stormwater Management Alternatives –West End

23

Evaluation Criteria Option 1 – 2 Stormwater Pond (SWPs) located based on natural topography, draining to Lake Ontario with upgrades to existing storm sewers on Consecon St.

and Main St, and new/twinned outfall to Lake Ontario

Rating Option 2 – Site regrading with 1 or more Stormwater Ponds (SWPs) located just to the North of Millennium Trail, with new storm sewers, outfall(s) and upgrades

to existing infrastructure to drain to Lake Ontario

Rating

Social • Minor disruption to Millennium Trail during construction• Moderate disruption on Consecon St & Main St during storm sewer upgrades• Moderate disruption to local residents near SWPs and new storm sewers

during construction • SWP may include aesthetic and natural water features along Millennium Trail

• Moderate disruption along western portion of Millennium Trail during construction (will be restored to existing conditions)

• Moderate disruption on Main Street during storm sewer upgrade• Minor disruption to Cleminson St. for new stormsewer installation• Moderate disruption to local residents near SWPs and new storm sewers

during construction • SWP may include aesthetic and natural water features along Millennium Trail

Financial • Similar capital cost for construction of the SWPs when compared to Option 2• Similar O&M cost for 2 SWPs when compared to Option 2• Moderate cost for storm sewer upgrades on Main St. and Consecon St.• Life Cycle Cost $8.3M (Capital Cost $7.7M, O&M Cost $0.6M)

• Similar capital cost for construction of the SWPs when compared to Option 1• Higher capital cost for regrading of land to suit drainage to south• Similar O&M cost for 2 SWPs when compared to Option 1• Moderate cost for storm sewer upgrades on Main St.• Life Cycle Cost $6M (Capital Cost $5.4M, O&M Cost $0.6M)

Technical • Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• Both SWPs will be sized and designed for quality and quantity control • Upgrade storm sewers on Consecon St., Main St. and at outfall. Limited room

and complications in upsizing existing outfall to Lake Ontario• Possible interferences between new storm sewer and existing/new

infrastructure on Consecon St. and Main St.• Cost sharing opportunity for Consecon St. stormsewer upgrade• Rock excavation anticipated for SWPs

• Approvals required: MECP, QCA, DFO, MNRF• Both SWPs will be sized and designed for quality and quantity control • Upgrade storm sewers on Cleminson St., Main St. and outfalls. Limited room

and complications in upsizing existing outfalls to Lake Ontario• Possible interferences between new storm sewer and existing/new

infrastructure on Cleminson St. and Main St.• Rock excavation anticipated for SWPs

Archaeological • Cultural heritage properties/points of interests in the area of upper SWP and storm sewer due to cemetery

• Potential for archaeological interest and cultural heritage properties in lower SWP area and storms ewers due to proximity to Millennium Trail (further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative)

• Potential for archaeological interest and cultural heritage properties in both SWP areas and storm sewers due to proximity to Millennium Trail (further investigation required if chosen as preferred alternative)

Environmental • SWPs by Millennium Trail may add to local wetland habitat• In proximity to hay fields, which is habitat to Eastern Meadowlark (endangered

species), although immediate lands are not grasslands/hay fields• Avoid cutting trees during bird breeding season (April – August)• Forested area and stormwater channel may be habitat to sensitive species;

mitigation measures required during design/construction

• SWPs by Millennium Trail may add to local wetland habitat• In proximity to hay fields, which is habitat to Eastern Meadowlark (endangered

species), although immediate lands are not grasslands/hay fields• Avoid cutting trees during bird breeding season (April – August)• Forested area and stormwater channel may be habitat to sensitive species;

mitigation measures required during design/construction




Note 1 – Life cycle cost does not include capital costs associated with regrading/reshaping the land as result of development design/layouts

Evaluation of West End Stormwater Management Alternatives

Water Storage & Watermain Routing • New elevated tank by Wellington & District Community

Centre and decommission existing elevated tank (with a future reservoir location to be determined later)

• Minor equipment upgrades at the WTP• Improved pressure and fire flows in distribution system via

new larger watermain from WTP to Millennium Trail• Watermain extensions through distribution system will be

undertaken as development progresses

24

Water Supply • Expand existing WTP to 8,500m3/day rated capacity• Modular treatment package upgrades as required• Sufficient space for future regional WTP

Summary of Water Supply and Storage for Wellington

25

Wastewater Treatment• Expand existing WWTP capacity (with reuse of existing

tankage) to 3,900m3/day average day and 16,300m3/day peak day

• Improved treatment for odour control and to meet future effluent criteria objectives/limits

• Modular treatment package upgrades as required

Sanitary Collection• Expand sanitary collection system in phases, to

accommodate forecasted development. • New sewage pumping station for eastern development

Alternative 4 – Upsize sanitary sewer on Main St near WWTP, new sanitary sewer on Millennium Trail and northward, new SPS on East end

Summary of Wastewater Capacity and Sanitary Collection for Wellington

26

• Stormwater management ponds for quality (i.e. 80% TSS removal) and/or quantity control

• Control of pre and post development flows

• Safe conveyance of stormwater to West Lake and Lake Ontario

• Upgrades to existing stormwater infrastructure (storm sewers, outfalls etc.)

• Stormwater pond design and construction is subject to further consideration

Summary of Stormwater Management Alternatives

Opportunity Anticipated DateDraft Project File Report for

Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks Review

Early 2020

Project File Report (Phase 1 and 2) for Public Review

Early 2020

The next opportunities for public input will include:

Following this Public Information Center (PIC), the Project Team will be completing the various ongoing studies and evaluating the alternatives in order to identify the Preferred Solution.

27

Next Steps

public information centre #2 wellington master servicing

Documents