Meaford w&ww servicing master plan volume 1 final draft

Mun nicipallity of M Meaford Masster Plaan Water W an nd Wa astewatter Serrvicingg Volume 1 oof 2

Ap pril 2015

Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan

Project No. 114106

Prepared for: Municipality of Meaford

Prepared By:

DRAFT ____________________________ Gary Scott, P.Eng.

Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Phone: (705) 445 – 3451 Fax: (705) 445 – 0968 www.ainleygroup.com

Ainle ey & Associates Limited 28 80 Pretty River P Parkway, Collingw wood, Ontario L L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 • Fax: (705) 44 45-0968 E-mail: collingw wood@ainleygroup.com

May 5, 20 015

File No. 11 14106

Municipality of Meaford Operation ns Departmen nt 21 Trowbridge Street W West Meaford, Ontario N4L 1A1

Attn: Sttephen A. Vo okes, P.Eng.

Director of Op D perations

M of Meaford, W Water and Waastewater M aster Servicin ng Plan Ref: Municipality o

Dear Mrr. Vokes: Please find enclos sed 3 digiital and 5 hard copiies of the Master Plan Water and Wastew water Servic cing Report If you ha ave any questions or require furtther assista ance with th his matter, please feell free to contact the unde ersigned.

Yours truly, AINLEY Y & ASSOC CIATES LIM MITED

Gary Scott, M.Sc., P.En ng.

Crreating Quality Solutionss Together

List of A Abbrevia ations ADD ADF ASL BPS C of A CBOD CCTV CEAA CIPP Class EA EAAS GIS HGL HRT I&C I/I MAA MCC MH MLSS MMD MOECC MTO OCWA PIC RAS SCADA SLR SOR SPS SRT SWD TDH UV VFD WAS WTP WWTP

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Average Day Demand d Average Daily Flow Above se ea level Booster pumping stattion Certificaate of Approval Carbonaaceous bioche emical oxygen n demand Closed‐ccircuit televisiion Canadian Environmen ntal Assessme ent Agency n‐place pipe Cured‐in Municipal Class Envirronmental Assessment Extended aeration acctivated sludgge Geograp phic Information System Hydrauliic grade line Hydrauliic retention time Instrume entation and control Inflow and infiltration n Ministryy of Aboriginaal Affairs Machine e control centtre Manhole e Mixed liq quor suspend ded solids Maximum day deman nd Ministryy of the Enviro onment and C Climate Changge Ministryy of Transporttation Ontario Clean Water Agency Public in nformation Ce entre Return aactivated slud dge Supervissory control aand data acqu uisition Surface loading rate Surface overflow rate e Sewage pumping stattion Solids re etention time Side watter depth Total Dyynamic Head Ultraviolet Variable e frequency drive Waste activated sludge Water trreatment plan nt Wastewater treatment plant

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

i

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Executiive Summ mary The Municipality of Meaford retain ned Ainley Group to prepaare a Water aand Wastewaater Master P Plan in accordancce with the M Municipality’s Official Plan and the Classs EA procedu ure. The Master Plan addrresses the state of the existin ng infrastructture and iden ntifies existingg and future needs. The p preferred solu utions are identiified as modu ular designs tto allow construction to m mimic future ggrowth over the next 30 yyears.

Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process for Mastter Plans werre followed to o develop thee Servicing M Master Meaford.

Plan for M The studyy area is deffined as the current limitts of the Meeaford urban n settlement area. The area is th bounded by Centreville e Road to the e north, 7 lin ne to the wesst, Muir Road to the south h and Georgiaan Bay s area h as been zoned as resideential, commeercial, to the eaast. Existing vacant land within the study industrial or institution nal. The zonin ng allows for a better undderstanding of potential grrowth to guid de the d wastewaterr projects. The existing waater distributiion system in nfrastructure consists of a WTP, water and two (2) BPSs, waterr distribution n system and water sttorage. The existing waastewater syystem infrastruccture consists of a WWTP, five (5) SPSs aand a sewagee collection syystem.

Masterr Planning g Processs The Class EA was approved under O Ontario’s Environmental A Assessment Act and identiffies the proceess by unicipal infrasstructure projects are to be e planned. Thhe process ideentifies an ap pproved proceedure which mu that classifies projects in terms of schedules based on varyingg environmen ntal impact.    

minimal adverse environm mental impactt Scchedule A – m Scchedule A+ ‐ minimal adve erse environm mental impacct, requires pu ublic notificattion Scchedule B – Potential forr some adverse environm mental effects, requires m mandatory co ontact with public and w d review agen ncies Scchedule C – potential forr significant environmenta e al effects, req quires mandaatory contactt with public and review agencies,, requires com mpletion of E nvironmentaal Study Report

The plann ning process ffollows a five (5) step planning process..     

Phase 1 – Prob blem or Oppo ortunity Definition Phase 2 – Iden ntification and d Evaluation of Alternativve Solutions to Allow a Preeferred Solutiion to be Recommended Phase 3 ‐ Evaluation of Altternative Design Conceptts for the Implementation n of the Prefferred So olution Phase 4 – Docu umentation o of the Rationaale, Planning, Design and C Consultation Process Phase 5 – Impllementation aand Monitoring

The maste er planning process allowss for a group of related proojects or an o overall system m to be consid dered before de ealing with eaach project individually. M Master plans aare long rangee plans that ffollow the Claass EA Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

ii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

planning process wherre at a minim mum Phases 1 1 and 2 must be completed. The Municcipality of Meeaford has prepaared this Masster Plan bassed generally on Approac h 2 outlined in the Class EA. The approach allows Scchedule B project require ements to be e fulfilled att the conclussion of Phase 1 and 2. SSelect Schedule B projects haave been iden ntified that w will require addditional stud dies in order tto satisfy thee Class ements.

EA require The steerring committe ee for the Master Plan was w formed byy members o of the Municipality or Meeaford and Ainle ey Group. Th he steering committee c met m on a num mber of occaasions to discuss the pro oject’s progress aand develop ccontent for th he PICs. Public an nd agency consultation is mandatorry during th e master planning proccess to allow w for participattion during th he developme ent and evaluation of the sservicing alternatives. Thee public and reeview agencies were contactted with four (4) notices throughout the Class EA A process. Th he four (4) no otices nform the pub blic of: were to in    

Sttudy Commen ncement – Ju uly 4, 2014 Phase 1 PIC – SSeptember 15 5, 2014 Phase 2 PIC – FFebruary 26, 2015 Sttudy Complettion – TBD

The comm ments and in nput received d from the pu ublic and revview agenciess was taken into considerration during the e planning process.

Existin ng Conditiions The Muniicipality of M Meaford is alo ong the shore eline of Georggian Bay and is located in n the Grey Co ounty.

The socio o‐economic environment is influenced by the waterrfront locatio on, however o other industrries in the Municipality are the aggregaate and agriicultural induustries. In aaddition to tthe Georgian n Bay s, the Bighea d River and t the Niagara E Escarpment a are significant t natural feat tures. The Big ghead shorelines River is an n extensive 3 30 km system m known for b being home tto a variety o of fish. The Niagara Escarp pment falls outside of the study area and ttherefore doe es not affect tthe master planning proceess.

Existin ng Municip pal Waterr System The Municipal water syystem consistts of the follo owing componnents: 



Watermains W  The water w distribu ution system is made up of approxim mately 57,000 0 m of watermain ranging in size from m 50 mm to 40 00 mm Water storage W e Reservoirs  There e is an in‐gro ound reservoir with a cappacity of 2,3310 m3 and aan elevated w water 3 storagge tank with aa capacity of 5 570 m .

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

iii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106





Water Booste W r Pump Statio ons  There is the Nelso on Street BPSS and the Stt. Vincent Street BPS thaat help to prrovide adequate pressure to Pressure ZZones 1 and 22 respectivelyy.

Water Treatm W ent Plant  The W WTP draws water from Geo orgian Bay andd has a rated capacity of 2 26,848 m3/ daay.

Existin ng Municip pal Waste ewater Sy ystem The municipal wastewater system cconsists of the e following coomponents: 





ewers Se mprised of ap pproximately 35,080 m of gravity feed sewer pipee and  The syystem is com 2,140 m of forcemaain.

Wastewater P W Pumping Statiions  The wastewater co ollection syste em has five (55) SPSs situatted throughout it to conveey the sewagge to the treattment plant.

Wastewater T W Treatment Plaant  The plant is a high rate activate ed sludge proocess plant w with continuou us discharge (after Bay and aerobbic digestion with land dissposal of bio‐‐solids UV dissinfection) intto Georgian B with a rated capacity of 3,910 m m3/day.

Future e Conditio ons To understand the fu uture needs of o the waterr and wastew water infrastructure in th he Municipality of planning w Meaford, population growth dataa and land development d was assessed for full builld‐out n the urban seettlement areea population is approxim mately conditions (year 2031)). The expected growth in ople. Based on n the populattion increase,, water and w wastewater flo ow projection ns were madee.

6,350 peo The current water dem mand is 1,460 0 m3/day, and d is expected tto increase 44,040 m3/day once full builld‐out is reached d. The future demand increase will be u used to estim ate the follow wing infrastru ucture upgrad des:   

Watermain siz W e Water storage W pansion capacity exp Additional BPSSs or upgrades to existing sstations

Currently the ADF in M Meaford is 2,6 600 m3/day, w with an estim mated addition nal 4,040 m3//day. Full builld‐out d to examine the need for future upgra des includingg: conditions will be used   

Sewermain siz S ze Treatment pla T ant expansion ns Additional SPS A Ss or upgrade es to existing stations

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

iv

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Proble em Identiffication Each com mponent of the t water an nd wastewatter system w was reviewed d to identifyy and define their condition, compliance e and perforrmance‐relate ed issues thhat affect exxisting and ffuture needss. The omponent are e addressed b below: problems with each co Water Sysstem Watermains  

00 mm diame eter pipes do not comply w with MOECC gguidelines.

10 Corrosion and tuberculatio on to cast iro on pipes has affected stru uctural integrrity and decreeased caapacity.

Water Sto orage Reservo oir  

When the pop W pulation excee eds 5,806 people, additio nal water sto orage will be needed to co omply with MOECC g w uidelines.

An additional 1 1,830 m3 of sttorage will be e required ba sed on full bu uild‐out cond ditions.

Water Booster Station  

he Nelson Strreet BPS is no ot sized adequ uately to provvide fire flow w under existing or full builld‐out Th co onditions.

Th he St. Vincen nt Street BPSS has adequate capacity tto provide prressure during existing an nd full build‐out cond ditions.

Water Tre eatment Plant  

Th he existing water filtratio w ed capacity iss 26,848 m3//day during M MDD, therefo ore no n plant’s rate exxpansion is ne ecessary.

Im mprove pressure control in n the main prressure zone by installing V VFDs and mo odifying the co ontrol syystem.

Wastewater System Sewers 

CCTV inspectio on and I/I stud dy has identiffied the areass of major deficiencies.

Sewage Pumping Statio ons   

Th he five (5) SPSs are all in good conditions.

All SPSs, excep pt for SPS No. 3, have enou ugh capacity ffor full build‐out condition ns.

SP PS No. 6 has been prop posed in pre evious planni ng efforts to o service deevelopment in the so outhwest area of urban Meaford.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

v

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Wastewatter Treatmen nt Plant   

All of the com mponents of tthe WWTP ne eed to be uppgraded to m meet existing and ultimatee peak flow conditions. he disinfectio on capacity is insufficient to meet ultim ate ADFs. Th A review of the t plant caapacity (Ainle ey Group 20006) determiined that th he clarifiers are a onsiderable h hydraulic botttleneck. co

Alterna ative Solu utions & E Evaluation n A list of alternatives a was w formulated for each project p with the Do Noth hing and Limiit/Manage Grrowth evaluated d for each project. An evaluation waas completedd to allow fo or a preferreed solution tto be obtained. The evaluatiion criteria arre set out in tthe approvedd Class EA doccument based on the natu ure of the studyy area, the po otential proje ects and the values of th e communityy. The criteria and appropriate rating we ere developed d for use in the evaluatio on process. TThe alternativves for each project are listed below: General O Options  

Do Nothing Liimit/Manage Growth

Water Disstribution 1. Watermain Re W ehabilitation (Relining) 2. Watermain Re W eplacement An additio onal solution combining rehabilitation and replacem ment was ideentified. This alternative aallows for pipe specific solutio ons to be iden ntified, resultting in a moree cost effectivve alternativee.

Water Sto orage 1. Ellevated Storaage Tank 2. Sttandpipe 3. In n‐Ground Reservoir Constrructed at/abo ove the Minim mum Pressuree Elevation These alte ernatives were screened based on the eir ability to pprovide the n necessary flo oating storagee. The standpipe e alternative d did not meet this criterion and was rem moved from th he list shown n to the publicc.

Water Booster Pump SStation 1. Construct BPS at the Waterr Tower Site Meaford & St . Vincent Com mmunity Centtre & Arena 2. Construct BPS in the Parking Lot of the M Water Tre eatment Plant Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

vi

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

1. Do Nothing 2. In nstall VFD Pum mps

Wastewatter Collection n 1. Sewermain Re S ehabilitation ((Relining) 2. Sewermain Re S eplacement Through tthe evaluation process it w was found th hat a combinaation of rehabilitation and d replacemen nt was an alternative that co ould allow fo or a sewermain specific solution. By analyzing eaach sewer seection individuallly, a more co ost effective aand problem sspecific solutiion results.

Wastewatter Pumping No alternatives were id dentified; how wever the following upgraades were sugggested.

SPS No. 1  New Flow Mo N nitor  SCADA System S m SPS No. 2  Replace Pumps  SC CADA System m SPS No. 3  Replace Pumps CADA System m  SC  Fllow Monitor SPS No. 4  Decommission n once the primary p customer, Knigh t of Meaforrd Lumber Factory, no longer equires servicce re SPS No. 5 needed  No upgrades n SPS No. 6 

es were exam mined for the e SPS as this project and location havve previously been No alternative he Report on Sanitary Sew wer Collection System Mod del (2004). exxamined in th

Wastewatter Treatmen nt Plant 1. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet th he ADF and ppeak flows exxpected at fu ull build‐out while ad ddressing the e existing I/I isssues.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

vii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

2. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in 2 phasess with the ul timate WWTTP able to meet ADF and peak flows at full bu uild‐out while e addressing tthe existing I//I issues.

3. Manage peak f M flows at the W WWTP by establishing an eequalization sstorage systeem while man naging ADF through aan I/I reduction program. Upgrade thee existing WW WTP when I/II reduction can no onger supportt developmen nt. lo 4. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet the e ADF and peeak flows exp pected at full build‐out wiithout ad ddressing the e existing I/I isssues.

5. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in 2 phasess with the ul timate WWTTP able to meet ADF and peak flows at full bu uild‐out witho out addressing the existingg I/I issues.

These altternatives we ere screened d based on technical t feaasibility and their ability to solve exxisting problem. Alternatives 4 and 5 did not resolvve the currennt flow prob blems and th herefore were not considere ed to be ideal and are not aanalyzed furtther. Alternattives 1, 2 and 3 were preseented to the p public and analyyzed in depth to allow for aa preferred so olution to be identified.

Preferrred Solution A preferre ed solution w was selected for each partt of the systeem based on the evaluatio on criteria raanking and public consultation. Dependingg on the situaation, the preeferred soluttion may invo olve a combin nation of the alte ernative soluttions to best solve the identified probleem.

Water Distribution – The preferred solution was to combinne the two (22) alternativees and rehabilitate ual needs. Floow testing w will be compleeted to allow w for a and replace watermains based on their individu replacement plan to b be developed identifying th he need of eaach watermaain section an nd the timing of its repair/rep placement. A Additional new w watermains have been identified fo or constructio on to allow fo or the new deve elopment to b be serviced byy the distributtion networkk.

Water Sto orage – The preferred solution is a 2,000 m3 in‐gr ound reservo oir on St. Vin ncent Street aat the south end d of the wate er distribution n system. The e tank will offfer floating sttorage to thee St. Vincent SStreet Booster ZZone with low wer operation n and mainten nance costs tthan an elevaated storage ttank. A watermain approximately 1400 m long will need to be e constructedd to connecct the reservvoir to the w water distributio on system.

Water Tre eatment Plan nt – To allow for more con nsistent wateer pressure in n the water distribution syystem, VDFs will replace the e existing pump ps at the WTP. No additioonal plant exp pansion is necessary as th here is surplus caapacity.

Wastewater Collection – The prefferred solutio on is to combbine both alternatives to allow relining and replacement dependin ng on the sew wermains ne eed. Pipe reli ning should be preferred where the u useful uld be service liffe can be incrreased by at least 40 yearss. Other pipee sections that are more damaged shou replaced tto increase th he lifespan an nd reduce I/I.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

viii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Sewage P Pumping Stattion – No pre eferred solution was identtified for the existing SPSss as they aree all in good cond dition. Upgrades to SPSs N No. 1, No. 2 aand No. 3 aree suggested to o help improvve performan nce. A new SPS h has been proposed duringg previous plaanning initiatiives to servicee the new deevelopments in the southwesst of the Meaford urban se ettlement are ea. Additionaal studies are required to allow the Claass EA procedure e to be follow wed.

Wastewater Treatment – The pre eferred solution was Alteernative 3 forr the expanssion of the W WWTP which invvolves establisshing the ultiimate clarifie er and aeratioon basin tankks at the existting WWTP ssite to be used fo or storm rete ention in the n near term.

Propossed Capita al Works Program m Proposed capital workks programs h have been de eveloped for Meaford’s w water and waastewater sysstems.

Phased sttrategies havve been deve eloped to allo ow for comp liance with M MOECC guideelines and to have sufficient capacity for the increasin ng population n. The follow wing projects,, shown with h their appropriate d into the phaased program ms.

Class EA sschedule, are incorporated Project P Water W Repair/Replac R cement of Existing Meaforrd Watermainns Establish New E w Meaford Watermains Establish New E w Watermainss for Planned Subdivisionss In‐Ground Sto I orage Reservo oir on Countyy Road 7 Water BPS on W n Water Towe er Site Decommissio D on Nelson Stre eet BPS Installation of I f VFDs at Watter Treatmen nt Plant Waste Water W r Relining/Reha R abilitation of Existing Meaford Sewerm ains Establish New E w Meaford Se ewermains Establish New E w Sewermainss for Planned Subdivisionss SPS No. 1 and S d No. 2 Upgrades SPS No. 3 Upg S grades of SPS No. 6 Construction C WWTP Refurb W bish and Dem molition of Old d Sludge Storaage Upgrade UV D U Disinfection C Channel Storm Equaliz S zation Basin C Chamber Repurpose St R orm Equalization Chambe er to Clarifier//Aeration New Headwo N orks Building C Construction New Biosolids N s Works New UV Disin N nfection Channel Odour Contro O ol System Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

ix

Class EA SSchedule A/A A+ A++ A A B** B B B B A A A A A++ A A A A A++ B** A A A A B B C C C C C C C C A A April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

*Additional studie es will need to be completed at the ttime of consstruction to aallow the Claass EA edure to be fo ollowed. proce

The costs incurred by tthe Municipality for the w water and wasstewater projects are show wn below. Some of the projeccts are partiaally paid for b by developme ent charges. TThe percentage paid for b by the Municiipality is indicate ed in the project name.

Wate er System Improvement Plan n

Proje ect Name

Esstimated Cost

Phasse 1 Cond duct Flow Testing on Cast Iron Pipes Deve elop Rehabilitation and Replaacement Plan B Based on Flow Testing Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar (54% %) SCADA Desiggn for VFD Instaallation (54% %) Install VFDs aat the WTP (16% %) Design New Pressure Zone 2 BPS (16% %) New Pressure Zone 2 BPS C Construction Deco ommission Nelsson Street BPSS

$ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,140,000.00 0 $ 16,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 143,000.00 $ 10,000.00

Total Phase 1:

$ 2,406,000.00

Phasse 2 Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar

$ 2,140,000.00

Total Phase 2:

$ 2,140,000.00

Phasse 3 Remo ove and Replacce Remaining C Cast Iron Pipe – – 1250 m per yyear

$ 2,700,000.00

Total Phase 3:

$ 2,700,000.00

Phasse 4 Remo ove and Replacce All 100mm Non‐Cast Iron Pipe – 1000 m m per year

$ 2,000,000.00 0

Total Phase 4:

$ 2,000,000.00 0

Total Program:

$ 9,246,000.00 0

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

x

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Wasttewater System m Improvemen nt Plan Proje ect Name Phase 1 Desiggn New RAS/W WAS Pumping and Electrical Im mprovements WWTTP Refurbishment and Demolition of Old Sludge Storage Upgrade UV Disinfe ection Channel (Add Addition nal Module) Sykess Street, Paul SStreet, and Ivan n Street Recon nstruction Deve elop a Disconne ection Program m for Illegal Con nnections Sewe er CCTV and MH Inspections Smokke Testing and Identification of Locations w with Illegal Con nections Notiffy Property Ow wners of Illegal Connections/D Disconnection Program Totall Phase 1: Phase 2 Williaam Street Sewer Susan n Street Sewerr Repair/Raise Low Lyying MH & Insttall Watertightt Covers (assum me 50 repairs) Revie ew CCTV Inspection Data and d Re‐evaluate R Rehab Prioritiees Revie ew Flow Rates and Compare to Historical Fllows Imple ement Disconn nection Program m (assume 500 0 connections)) 1 km of sewermain repairs each yyear Totall Phase 2: Phase 3 Union Street, Farrar Street and Bllake Street Sew wers Alberrt Street Sewerr (25%) SPS 3 Upgrad des Design (25%) SPS 3 Upgrad des Constructio on 1,000 0 m of sewerm main repairs eacch year Totall Phase 3: Phase 4 I/I Stu udy Update SPS N No. 2 Upgradess Design SPS N No. 2 Upgradess Construction SPS 1 1 No. Upgradess Design SPS 1 1 No. Upgradess Construction 1,000 0 m of sewerm main repairs eacch year Totall Phase 4: Phase 5 Contiinue System Re ehab as Guided d by CCTV Insp pection and I/I Study 1,000 0 m of sewerm main repairs eacch year Totall Phase 5: Phase 6 (50%) Design a New w Headworks B Building (50%) New Headwo orks Building Construction (50%) Design Odour Control Syste em (50%) Odour Contro ol System Consstruction Totall Phase 6: Totall Program:

Esstimated Cost

$ 150,000.00 0 $ 2,550,000.00 0 50,000.00 0 $ $ 210,000.00 0 $ N/A A $ 200,000.00 0 $ 160,000.00 0 $ N/A A $ 3,320,000.00 0

$ 120,000.00 0 $ 80,000.00 0 $ 370,000.00 0 $ 10,000.00 0 $ 5,000.00 0 $ 750,000.00 0 $ 2,000,000.00 0 $ 3,355,000.00 0

$ 225,000.00 0 $ 100,000.00 0 $ 5,000.00 0 $ 51,000.00 0 $ 2,000,000.00 0 $ 2,381,000.00 0

$ 50,000.00 0 $ 20,000.00 0 $ 200,000.00 0 $ 22,000.00 0 $ 225,000.00 0 $ 2,000,000.00 0 0 $ 2,517,000.00

$ TBD D 2,000,000.00 0 $ $ 2,000,000.00 0

$ 175,000.00 0 2,375,000.00 0 $ $ 175,000.00 0 $ 2,550,000.00 0 $ 5,275,000.00 0 $ 16,828,000.00 0

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xi

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

In additio on to the municipally fun nded projectts throughou t the urban area, there are a numb ber of projects that will be fu unded by development chaarges. The waater and wasstewater projects that are to be partially o or fully funde ed by develop pment charge es are shownn below. The percentage o of the projectt paid for by the e developer iss indicated in the project n name.

Water Projects Coverred by Develo opment Charrges Project Nam me Coleman n Street Centre Street Union Sttreet Muir Stre eet County R Road 7 Construcction of New Pipes for New w Developme ent (46%) SC CADA Design ffor VFD Installlation (46%) Insstall VFDs at tthe Water Tre eatment Plan nt New In‐G Ground Reserrvoir Design aand Constructtion Connecting Pipe to In‐Ground Storrage to Netwo ork (84%) De esign New Pre essure Zone 2 2 Booster Stattion (84%) Ne ew Pressure ZZone 2 Booste er Station Con nstruction Construcction of Pipe ffor New Deve elopments Total

Pressure Zone 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ 14,000 $ 46,000 $ 794,000 $ 166,000 ‐ ‐

$1,020,000

Develop pment Chargees Pressuree Pressure Total Zone 3 Zone 2 ‐ $ 251,0 000 $ 251 1,000 ‐ $ 312,5 500 $ 312 2,500 ‐ $ 340,5 500 $ 340 0,500 ‐ $ 741,0 000 $ 741 1,000 ‐ $ 830,0 000 $ 830 0,000 ‐ ‐ N/A A ‐ ‐ $ 14 4,000 ‐ ‐ $ 46 6,000 $ 420,00 00 $1,170,0 000 $2,384 4,000 $ 89,00 00 $ 245,0 000 $ 500 0,000 $ 67,00 00 ‐ $ 67 7,000 $ 757,00 00 ‐ $ 757 7,000

TBD 00 $3,890,0 000 $6,243 3,000 $1,333,00

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Wastewater Projects C Covered by D Development Charges Project Name Waste Wa ater Treatme ent Plant

Charged Areea Development Chargees

Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Design Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Constructio on Repurpose e Storm Equalization to Claarifiers/Aeratio on (Effluent Quality Trigger) Design Biosolids Storage Expansion olids Works Con nstruction New Bioso Design New w UV Disinfecttion Channel New UV Diisinfection Con nstruction (50%) Design a New Head dworks Buildin ng (50%) New w Headworks Building Constru uction (50%) Design Odour Conttrol System (50%) Odo our Control Systtem Constructtion

Entire Netwo ork

$ 2 220,000.00

Entire Netwo ork

$ 3,9 900,000.00

Entire Netwo ork

$ 2,2 250,000.00

Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo

$ 3 310,000.00 $ 4,4 420,000.00 $ 2 200,000.00 $ 2,7 750,000.00 $ 1 175,000.00 $ 2,3 375,000.00 $ 1 175,000.00 $ 2,5 550,000.00

Sewage P Pumping Statiions (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Design (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Construction n Design and Con nstruction SPS No. 6 D

Area 3 Area 3 Area 6

$ 15,000.00 $ 1 153,750.00 TBD

$ 6 600,000.00 $ 4 400,000.00 $ 4 420,000.00 $ 3 370,000.00 $ 2 290,000.00 $ 3 310,000.00 $ 2 250,000.00 $ 1 140,000.00

Sewermain Centre Stre eet Sewermain n Union Stre eet Sewermain Coleman SStreet Sewermaain St. Vincentt Street Sewerm main Muir Stree et Sewermain Nelson Street Sewermain n Miller Street Sewermain Pearson Sttreet Sewermain Constructio on of new pipe at intersection of Coleman n Street and Muir Stree et Constructio on of new pipe for Union n Street, Cole eman Street connection n

Total

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

Area 1 Area 1 Area 6 Area 2 Area 2 Area 1 Area 1 Area 1

TBD TBD

xiii

$22,2 273,750.00

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Table of Conte ents Volume 1 ................................................................... .......................................................... 1 Phase 1 ...................................................................... .......................................................... 2 Baackground Information n ................................. .......................................................... 3

1.0 1.1

Terms of Refference and A Authorization .......................................... .................................................. 3

1.2

Purpose of M Master Plan ................................................................... .................................................. 3

1.3

Study Area ....................................................................................... .................................................. 3

1.4

Existing Water System .................................................................... .................................................. 5

1.5

em ........................................................... .................................................. 6 Existing Wastewater Syste

2.0

Su ummary of Master Planning Proce ess ............ .......................................................... 6

2.1

Background ..................................................................................... .................................................. 6

2.2

Master Plann ning Procedure ............................................................ .................................................. 7

2.3

Steering Com mmittee and W Workshop Me eetings .............................. ................................................ 10

2.4

Participation n by Public, Re eview Agencies and Otherrs ................................................................... 10

3.0

Exxisting Cond ditions .......................................... ........................................................ 13

3.1

General ............................................................................................ ................................................ 13

3.2

d of Reports ............................................ ................................................ 13 Summary and Background

3.3

nicipal Water System .................................................... ................................................ 14 Existing Mun

1 3.3.1

Generall .................................................................................... ................................................ 14

3.3.2 2

Waterm mains ............................................................................. ................................................ 14

3.3.3 3

Water SStorage Reserrvoirs ....................................................... ................................................ 14

3.3.4 4

Water B Booster Pump p Stations ................................................ ................................................ 14

3.3.5 5

Water TTreatment Plaant ........................................................... ................................................ 15

3.4

Existing Mun nicipal Wastew water System m ......................................... ................................................ 17

1 3.4.1

Generall .................................................................................... ................................................ 17

3.4.2 2

Sewers ..................................................................................... ................................................ 17

3.4.3 3

Wastew water Pumping Stations................................................ ................................................ 17

3.4.4 4

Wastew water Treatme ent Plant ................................................. ................................................ 19

3.5 Natural Envirronment ....................................................................... ................................................ 19 Municipality of Meaford

April 2015 Water & W Ainley Grou Waste Water Servicing

up, File No. 11 14106 Master Plan xiv

4.0

Fu uture Condiitions ............................................ ........................................................ 20

4.1

Population G Growth .......................................................................... ................................................ 20

4.2

Water Demaand Projection ns ............................................................. ................................................ 22

4.3

Wastewater Flow Projections ......................................................... ................................................ 23

5.0

Prroblem Iden ntification ................... . ................. ........................................................ 24

5.1

Problem Stattement ......................................................................... ................................................ 24

5.2

Water – Capacity of Existiing Watermaiins ...................................... ................................................ 25

5.3

orage Reservooir ................................................................. 27 Water – Capacity of Existiing Water Sto

5.4

oster Stationss ................................................................... 27 Water – Capacity of Existiing Water Boo

5.5

eatment Plantt ................................................................... 31 Water – Capacity of Existiing Water Tre

5.6

wers .................................... ................................................ 33 Wastewater – Capacity off Existing Sew

5.7

mping Station s .................................................................. 33 Wastewater – Capacity off Existing Pum

1 5.7.1

Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 1 ............................................... ................................................ 33

5.7.2 2

Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 2 ............................................... ................................................ 33

5.7.3 3

Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 3 ............................................... ................................................ 33

5.7.4 4

Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 4 ............................................... ................................................ 34

5.7.5 5

Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 5 ............................................... ................................................ 34

5.7.6 6

Future SSewage Pump ping Station N No. 6 .................................. ................................................ 34

5.8

Wastewater – Capacity off Existing Wasstewater Treaatment Plant ................................................ 34

1 5.8.1

Class EA A (2007) Reco ommendation ns ........................................ ................................................ 35

5.8.2 2

Changes since 2007 C Class EA ................................................... ................................................ 38

5.8.3 3

Existingg WWTP Issue es.............................................................. ................................................ 38

5.8.4 4

Changes to the Classs EA Recommendations .......................... ................................................ 39

Phase 2 ...................................................................... ........................................................ 41 6.0

Ge eneral Alternatives ........................................ ........................................................ 42

6.1

Do Nothing ...................................................................................... ................................................ 42

6.2

Limit/Managge Growth ..................................................................... ................................................ 42

7.0

Water Distrib W bution Alternatives ...................... ........................................................ 42

8.0

Water Storag W ge Alternatiives ............................ ........................................................ 43

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xv

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

9.0

Water Boost W er Pumpingg Station Op ptions ....... ........................................................ 44

10.0 Water Treatm W ment Plant Alternative es............... ........................................................ 48 11.0 Wastewater W Alternative es ............... ........................................................ 48 Collection A 12.0 Wastewater W Pumping A Alternatives ................. ........................................................ 49 13.0 Wastewater W Treatment Expansion Alternativees ..................................................... 51 14.0 Evvaluation Crriteria/Weighting and Ranking .... ........................................................ 53 15.0 Evvaluation off Water Distribution A Alternatives ........................................................ 54 15.1 Watermain R Renewal Costt Comparison .......................................... ................................................ 55 ernatives ............................ ................................................ 55 15.2 Evaluation off Watermain Renewal Alte

16.0 Evvaluation off Water Sto orage Altern natives ...... ........................................................ 55 16.1 In‐Ground Sttorage Alternative ........................................................ ................................................ 56 nk Alternative e ............................................................... ................................................ 56 16.2 Elevated Tan 16.3 Advantages aand Disadvan ntages of Storrage Alternatiives .............................................................. 57 er Storage Altternatives .......................... ................................................ 57 16.4 Site Identification of Wate 16.4.1

In‐Ground Reservoir Site Identificcation ................................. ................................................ 57

16.4.2

Elevated d Tank Site Id dentification ............................................ ................................................ 58

16.1 Cost Comparrison of Storage Alternativves ...................................... ................................................ 59 16.2 Evaluation off Alternativess ............................................................... ................................................ 61

17.0 Evvaluation off Water Boo oster Pump p Station Altternatives ........................................ 61 17.1 Cost Comparrison of Wate er Booster Pump Station A lternatives ................................................... 62 17.2 Evaluation off Alternativess ............................................................... ................................................ 62

18.0 Evvaluation off Water Tre eatment Plaant Alternattives ................................................. 63 19.0 Evvaluation off Wastewatter Collectio on Alternattives ................................................. 64 19.1 Sewer Rehab bilitation Alternative .................................................... ................................................ 64 19.2 Sewer Replacement Alterrnative ..................................................... ................................................ 64 19.3 Advantages & & Disadvantaages of Waste ewater Collecttion Renewall Alternativess.......................... 65 19.4 Evaluation off Wastewaterr Collection R Renewal Alterrnatives ........................................................ 65

20.0 Evvaluation off Wastewatter Pumpingg Alternativves ................................................... 66 Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xvi

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

21.0 Evvaluation off Wastewatter Treatme ent Expansi on Alternattives ............................... 67 21.1 Alternative 1 1 – Full Plant EExpansion, Co ontinuing I/I R Reduction .................................................... 68 2 – Phased Plaant Expansion n ......................................... ................................................ 71 21.2 Alternative 2 3 ‐ Equalizatio on Storage, I/I Reduction, FFuture Expansion ......................................... 74 21.3 Alternative 3 21.4 Evaluation off Alternativess ............................................................... ................................................ 79

22.0 Prreferred Solutions .......................................... ........................................................ 80 22.1 Water Distrib bution .......................................................................... ................................................ 80 22.2 Water Storagge ................................................................................. ................................................ 81 22.3 Water Boostter Pump Stattions ........................................................ ................................................ 81 ment Plant ................................................................... ................................................ 82 22.4 Water Treatm 22.5 Wastewater Collection .................................................................... ................................................ 82 mping Stationss ............................................................... ................................................ 83 22.6 Sewage Pum 22.7 Wastewater Treatment ................................................................... ................................................ 84

23.0 Pu ublic and Re eview Agen ncy Comments ............ ........................................................ 84 24.0 Ge eneral Sum mmary and R Requiremen nts ............. ........................................................ 88 24.1 Proposed Service Area .................................................................... ................................................ 88 24.2 Proposed Waater Distributtion and Storaage System ........................ ................................................ 88 24.3 Proposed Waater Supply and Treatment System ............................ ................................................ 88 ollection and P Pumping Systtem ............................................................... 89 24.4 Proposed Waastewater Co 24.5 Proposed Waaste Water Trreatment System ................................... ................................................ 89 24.6 Property Req quirements ................................................................... ................................................ 89 nd Mitigation n Measures ......................... ................................................ 90 24.7 Environmenttal Impacts an 24.8 Permits and Approvals .................................................................... ................................................ 90 dules ........................................................ ................................................ 90 24.9 Applicable Class EA Sched 24.10

Summary of Commitme ents Made du uring Master Planning Process ......................................... 91

25.0 Prroposed Capital Workss Program aand Costs .......................................................... 91 25.1 Water System m .................................................................................. ................................................ 91 25.2 Wastewater System ........................................................................ ................................................ 96 25.2.1

Sewage e Collection Syystem – I/I Re eduction Proggram ............................................................. 96

25.2.2

Wastew water System Overall Plan ...................... . ..................... ................................................ 98

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xvii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

List of Figures Figure 1 – – Study Area ffor the Meafo ord Master Plan ...................................... .................................................. 4 Figure 2 – – Class EA Flow w Chart Depicting Essentiaal Steps for Eaach Phase ...................................................... 9 Figure 3 – – Map of Meaaford Water D Distribution Syystem Pressuure Zones and d Water Facilities .................... 16 Figure 4 ‐ Comparison of Growth Fo orecasts ................................................... ................................................ 22 Figure 5 ‐ Water Use Projection for 2031 ....................................................... ................................................ 23 Figure 6 ‐ Sewage Flow w Projection to 2031..................................................... ................................................ 24 Figure 7 – – Identification of 100 mm Diameter Pip pes and Nodees with Inadeq quate Fire Flo ow ...................... 26 Figure 8 ‐ Existing Cond ditions for Avvailable Fire Flow during M Maximum Dayy Demand ................................. 29 ut Conditions for Available Fire Flow du ring Maximum Day Demand ...................... 30 Figure 9 ‐ Full Build‐Ou Figure 10 ‐ Historical Flow Data (200 06‐2013) ................................................. ................................................ 32 nit Process Caapacity ...................................................... ................................................ 35 Figure 11 – Existing Un Figure 12 – 2007 Class EA Plant Expansion Plan ............................................. ................................................ 36 ump Station A Alternative 1 LLocation ............................. ................................................ 46 Figure 13 – Booster Pu ump Station A Alternative 2 LLocation ............................. ................................................ 47 Figure 14 – Booster Pu ocation for Se ewage Pumping Station Noo. 6 ............................................................... 50 Figure 15 ‐ Potential Lo Figure 16 – In‐Ground Water Reservvoir Location .......................................... ................................................ 58 Figure 17 – Elevated Taank Location ................................................................ ................................................ 60 on Process Capacities ............................. ................................................ 68 Figure 18 – Ultimate Plant Expansio on Tank and Future Expanssion Process CCapacities ..................................................... 76 Figure 19 – Equalizatio Waste System Improvemennt Plan .......................................................... 94 Figure 20 ‐ Proposed TTimeline for W Water Servicin ng Improveme ent Plan ............................. ................................................ 95 Figure 21 – Meaford W Reduction Objjective ................................ ................................................ 96 Figure 22 – Inflow and Infiltration R Wastewater SSystem Improovement Plan .............................................. 102 Figure 23 – Proposed TTimeline for W ment Plan ........................... .............................................. 103 Figure 24 ‐ Meaford Saanitary Servicing Improvem

List of Tables Table 1 – Expected Increase in Sewaage Flow and Water Demaand for Vacan nt Land in Stu udy Area ............... 5 Agencies .................................................. ................................................ 11 Table 2 – List of Public and Review A Population Growth for the e Municipalityy of Meaford ...................... ................................................ 20 Table 3 ‐ P Table 4 ‐ P Population Growth for the e Urban Area of Meaford ....................... ................................................ 21 Table 5 ‐ 2 2007 Municip pal Class EA Population Forrecasts ............................... ................................................ 21 Table 6 – Treated Wate er Storage Re equired Volum mes .................................... ................................................ 27 Water Deman nd ................................................................................. ................................................ 32 Table 7 ‐ W Table 8 – 2007 Class EA A Design Basis .............................................................. ................................................ 35 Table 9 – Compliance LLimits and Efffluent Objectives .................................... ................................................ 36 Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xviii

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Table 10 – – Recommended Upgrades of the 2007 7 Class EA ........................... ................................................ 37 Table 11 – – Criteria for Evaluation off Alternative SSolutions ........................... ................................................ 53 Table 12 ‐‐ Advantages & Disadvantaages of Watermain Renew wal Alternativees ............................................ 54 Table 13 – – Evaluation o of Watermain n Renewal Altternatives .......................... ................................................ 55 Table 14 ‐‐ Advantages vs. Disadvanttages of Elevaated and In‐G Ground Storagge Options. .............................. 57 Table 15 ‐‐ Estimated Cost Comparisson of Different Storage Allternatives ................................................... 59 Table 16 – – Evaluation o of Water Storrage Alternatives .................................... ................................................ 61 Table 17 ‐‐ Advantages & Disadvantaages of Water Booster Sta tion Alternattives ......................................... 62 Table 18 – – Evaluation o of Water Boo oster Pump Sttation Alternaatives ............................................................ 63 Table 19 ‐‐ Advantages & Disadvantaages of Waste ewater Collecction Renewaal Alternativess ......................... 65 Table 20 – – Sewermain Evaluation off Alternativess ......................................... ................................................ 66 Table 21 – – Sewage Pum mping Station n No. 1 Recom mmended Upggrades ......................................................... 67 Table 22 – – Sewage Pum mping Station n No. 2 Recom mmended Upggrades ......................................................... 67 Table 23 – – Sewage Pum mping Station n No. 3 Recom mmended Upggrades ......................................................... 67 Table 24 – – Flow Projecctions ............................................................................ ................................................ 68 Table 25 – – Recommended Upgrades of the 2007 7 Class EA ‐ Reevised ........................................................... 70 Table 26 – – Revised Upggrades of the 2007 Class EA as a Phasedd Expansion PPlan ......................................... 71 Table 27 – – Phased Expansion Cost EEstimations .............................................. ................................................ 73 Table 28 – – Peak Flow EEvent Summary ............................................................ ................................................ 74 Table 29 – – Flow Projecctions ............................................................................ ................................................ 75 Table 30 – – Detailed Cost Estimate: EEqualization TTank ................................... ................................................ 76 Table 31 – – Recommended Plant Upgrades ..................................................... ................................................ 77 Table 32 – – Capital Costt Estimates fo or Planned Up pgrades: Alterrnative 3 ...................................................... 79 Table 33 – – Evaluation o of WWTP Alte ernatives ................................................. ................................................ 79 Table 34 – – Comments from the Pub blic and Review Agencies ........................ ................................................ 85 Table 35 – – Class EA Sch hedules......................................................................... ................................................ 90 Table 36 – – Overall Watter System Im mprovement P Plan .................................... ................................................ 91 Table 37 – – Water Proje ects Covered by Developm ment Charges ...................... ................................................ 93 Table 38 – – Inflow and IInfiltration Re eduction Plan n ......................................... ................................................ 97 Table 39 – – Overall Wasstewater Systtem Improvem ment Plan .......................... ................................................ 99 Table 40 – – Wastewater Projects Covvered by Development Ch arges ......................................................... 101 Table 41 – – Sanitary Collection Syste em Defects for Future Conssideration .................................................. 104

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

xix

April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Volume 1

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

1

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

Phase 1 Problem Identification

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

2

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

1.0 Background Information 1.1 Terms of Reference and Authorization The Terms of Reference as outlined in the Request for Proposal issued by the Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford on April 3, 2014 is attached in Appendix A.

1.2 Purpose of Master Plan The Municipality of Meaford retained Ainley Group to prepare a Water and Wastewater Master Plan for the Urban Settlement Area in accordance with the Municipality’s Official Plan. The purpose of the Master Plan is to identify and assess the needs of the water and wastewater systems to effectively service the existing population, any presently un‐serviced parcels within the service area and future development areas. The report addresses the state of the current water and wastewater infrastructure, the future projected growth throughout the Urban Settlement Area, and identifies the preferred solution to accommodate full build‐out.

A phasing plan is to be identified for each infrastructure project, allowing construction for water and wastewater infrastructure to meet future growth. The phased construction time frame is guided by development over the next 30 years, up to and including 2045.

A Class EA process for Master Plans was followed to develop the Servicing Master Plan for Meaford.

During the master planning process, Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process were addressed.

The intent of this study was to satisfy the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+, and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan, as well as provide the basis for future Schedule C projects. Analysis of all water and wastewater components was completed to understand where upgrades are necessary to address all servicing needs. Details of the preferred infrastructure projects, identified in the Servicing Master Plan, will be completed in succeeding reports.

Volume 1 of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Report identifies the Master Plan. The Master Plan outlines the master planning process, existing conditions, future conditions, problem identification and identifies the alternatives and preferred solution.

Volume 2 of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Report identifies the Technical Memoranda that were developed throughout the planning process. This project was undertaken based on technical memoranda that were presented at committee meetings. Each of the memoranda identifies the modelling and analysis that was undertaken during the master planning process to obtain the information identified in the Master Plan.

1.3 Study Area The Study Area is described as the current limits of the Urban Settlement Area shown in Figure 1.

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

3

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

Figure 1 – Study Area a for the Mea aford Maste er Plan The vacant land with hin the study area has been zoned as residential, commerccial, industrial, or nal under the Municipality’s Official Plan. The zooning was ussed to delineeate the pottential institution growth in n the Municiipality of Me eaford and how h this grow wth will affeect the water and wastew water systems. The expected d increase in sewage flow ws and waterr demands from each type of vacant zzoned own in Table 1. land is sho

Municipaality of Meafo ord Water & Waste Water Servicing Plan Master P

4

April 2 2015 Ainley Group p, File No. 114 4106

Table 1 – Expected Increase in Sewage Flow and Water Demand for Vacant Land in Study Area Vacant Area (Ha)

Equivalent Units

ADF Sewage m3/d

MDD Water m3/d

Urban Living Area >0.2 Ha

97.8

1427.9

642.5

1028

Urban Living Area <0.2 Ha

9.18

45.9

20.6

33

Urban Living Area with Proposal

23.99

593

266.9

427.2

Highway Commercial

19.52

‐‐‐

546.6

874.5

1.1

90

67.2

107.6

Industrial

28.54

‐‐‐

799.1

1,278.6

Special Policy Area 1

5.56

278

280.8

449.2

Special Policy Area 2

3.479

174

175.7

281.1

Total

189.17

2608.8

2799.5

4,479.2

Zone

Downtown Commercial

Table 1 outlines the total available land left in urban Meaford that can still be developed. The vacant land has been divided into land use based on the land use designations defined in Meaford Official Plan.

The number of equivalent units was calculated based on the vacant area of each type of land use. The full build‐out sewage flows and water demands were than able to be calculated with total values of 2,799.5 m3/d and 4,479.2 m3/d respectively.

1.4 Existing Water System The existing water distribution system infrastructure consists of a WTP, two (2) BPSs, water distribution system and water storage at the WTP and in an elevated tank.

The Meaford WTP has a rated capacity of 26,848 m3/day which is more than adequate for the current water usage having an ADD over the past 3 years of only 1,460 m3/day. The MDD over the past three (3) years was 2,374 m3/day which is 8.8% of the rated capacity of the WTP and is 18.4% of the design capacity of a single highlift pump (12,890 m3/day ) at the WTP. There is more than adequate capacity to provide the current MDD supply and for substantial growth. The WTP recently underwent control system upgrades in 2013 and the plant is in good condition and is in full compliance with regulations.

The system has two (2) BPS; the St. Vincent Street BPS and the Nelson Street BPS. The St. Vincent Street BPS was constructed in 2010 and remains in good condition. The Nelson Street BPS currently does not provide adequate pressure under all demand conditions and does not comply with MOECC design guidelines.

The water distribution system is in good to fair condition. As expected with any ageing network, older pipes need to be replaced to maintain the integrity of the system. The pipe diameters are generally Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

5

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

adequate for the current service population, however, there is inadequate fire protection in several areas due to undersized pipes.

The total storage within the system is 2,880 m3 and the required storage based on MOECC design guidelines is 2,166 m3. This allows for adequate storage for existing demands and required fire flow. The storage is split between clearwell storage at the WTP of 2310 m3 and the elevated storage tank with a capacity of 570 m3.

1.5 Existing Wastewater System The existing wastewater system infrastructure consists of a WWTP, five (5) SPSs and a sewage collection system.

The Meaford WWTP has an ADF over the past three (3) years of 2,600 m3/day which is below the plant’s rated capacity of 3,910 m3/day. The hydraulic reserve capacity is equivalent to an additional 1,210 residential units as per 2013. The average biological oxygen demand and total suspended solid effluent concentrations represent fairly weak sewage strength, likely due to high stormwater/groundwater I/I rates. The plant discharges into Georgian Bay and meets the current effluent limits. The plant was constructed in 1969 and several components have yet to be updated but require extensive updates. The plant also requires the addition of several processes and an ongoing program for major maintenance due to the age of the equipment and systems. A Class EA for plant expansion in 2007 established new effluent criteria for the plant. Upgrades may be required to meet more stringent nutrient removal requirements.

The sewage collection network is aging and experiencing high levels of I/I resulting in increased network flows. Sewer upgrades have been identified through an I/I study that has been completed in conjunction with the Master Plan. The collection system has five (5) SPSs. All of the SPSs are in good physical condition, but SPSs No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 could benefit from control system upgrades.

2.0 Summary of Master Planning Process 2.1 Background The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) approved under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act in October 2000, as amended in 2007, identifies the process by which municipal infrastructure projects are to be planned. The process identifies an approved procedure designed to protect the environment and provides an effective way of complying with the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class EA applies to infrastructure projects including municipal road, municipal transit, and municipal water and wastewater projects.

The process classifies projects with varying environmental impact in terms of schedules:

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

6

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

Schedule A projects have minimal adverse environmental impact and are limited in scale. These projects include normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities. They are pre‐approved and may proceed without formal contact with the public.

Schedule A+ projects are pre‐approved, however, require public notification prior to project implementation.

Schedule B projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects including improvement projects and minor expansions to existing facilities. A screening process is required involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and relevant review agencies.

Schedule C projects have potential for significant environmental effects including the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. Due to the adverse environmental impact, Schedule C projects must proceed under the full Class EA planning and documentation procedure and require that an Environmental Study Report be completed.

The planning process follows a five (5) step planning process.     

Phase 1 – Problem or Opportunity Definition Phase 2 – Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to Allow a Preferred Solution to be Recommended Phase 3 ‐ Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts for the Implementation of the Preferred Solution Phase 4 – Documentation of the Rationale, Planning, Design and Consultation Process Phase 5 – Implementation and Monitoring.

The Class EA Planning and Design Process Flow Chart (Figure 2) provides more detail on each phase of the planning process. The process identifies that due to varying project‐specific problems, environmental issues, community issues and solutions, a varying level of project complexity is required.

To accommodate this, the Class EA defines the minimum requirements for environmental assessment planning allowing the process to be customizable. A key feature to the Class EA process is early and continuous mandatory consultation with the public and those who may be affected by the undertaking.

The consultation allows for the public to be informed about the project and allowed to provide input that will be integrated into the study and decision‐making process.

2.2 Master Planning Procedure The master planning process allows for a group of related projects or an overall system to be considered prior to dealing with each individual project specific issue. Master plans are long range plans that integrate existing and future infrastructure needs with environmental assessment planning principles.

The master planning procedure follows the Class EA planning process where at a minimum Phases 1 and 2 must be addressed. Four (4) master planning approaches are outlined in the Class EA, however, it is suggested to adapt the approaches based on the project specific needs.

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

7

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

The Municipality of Meaford has prepared this Master Plan in accordance with the Class EA based generally on Approach #2. Approach #2 involves the preparation of a Master Planning document at the conclusion of Phase 1 and 2 which is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of Schedule B projects. The Municipality of Meaford has identified select Schedule B projects in the Master Plan that will require additional studies in order to provide greater detail on the geotechnical and natural environment of the project site. All Schedule C projects that are identified in the Master Plan will require the completion of Phases 3 and 4.

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

8

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106

Figure 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Class EA Flow Chart Depicting Essential Steps for Each Phase Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 9

2.3 Steering g Committtee and W Workshop p Meeting gs During the study a stee ering committtee was form med of the fol lowing memb bers:        

Steph hen Vokes (M Municipality off Meaford) Chriss Collyer (Mun nicipality of M Meaford) Rob A Armstrong (M Municipality o of Meaford) Darcyy Chapman (M Municipality o of Meaford) Brade ey Carbert (M Municipality o of Meaford) Gary Scott (Ainleyy) ey) Simon Glass (Ainle Julia Roest (Ainleyy)

e Steering Committee mett to discuss thhe master planning proceess on 5 occasions.

During the project the dditional worrkshop meetings were con nducted to deevelop and disscuss contentt of the PIC b boards Two (2) ad for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PICs.

2.4 Particip pation by Public, Review Aggencies an nd Otherss Public and d agency con nsultation is m mandatory du uring a masteer planning process underr the requirem ments of the Class C EA process. For th his project, public and aagency partiicipation was integral to o the developm ment and evaluation of the servicing alte ernatives at ddifferent poin nts in the plan nning processs.

The public and review w agencies we ere contacted d with four (44) different notices througghout the Claass EA A notice of co ommencement was sent o out on July 4,, 2014 to pro ovide informaation on the sstudy, process. A process and a how to get g involved. The second notice was ffor the Phasee 1 PIC which h was sent o out on August 27 7, 2014. The Phase 1 PIC ttook place on n Septemberr 15, 2014 fro om 7‐9pm at the Meaford d Hall.

Commentts regarding tthe Phase 1 PIC were receiived until Sepptember 29, 22014. The thirrd notice wass send out on Fe ebruary 19, 20 015 regardingg the Phase 2 2 PIC which toook place on February 26,, 2015 from 7 7‐9pm at the Me eaford Hall. TThe Phase 2 P PIC identified d the water aand wastewatter alternativves and comm ments were rece eived until March 12, 2014. The final n notice was puublished on M May 13, 2015 5 in regards tto the study com mpletion. The e Notices werre put in the Meaford Exp ress and copies of the notice were sen nt out to each of the review agencies sepaarately. A cop py of the not ices and PIC boards is attaached in App pendix D. The co omments and input rece eived were taaken into coonsideration d during the p planning proccesses following the PICs. The review w agencies th hat were inclu uded in the m mailing list aree shown in Taable 2.

Municcipality of Meaford Waterr & Waste Waater Servicing Maste er Plan

10

April 2015 Aiinley Group, FFile No. 11410 06

Ta able 2 – List of Public P and Revie ew Agencies

Provincial & Fed deral Agencies  Environmentt Canada - Environmental E Protection P Opera ations Division - On ntario Region  Ministry of Environment and Climate C Change - Southwest Region he Environment - Owen Sound District Office - Drinking  Ministry of th Water Management Division nvironmental Assessment Agency y  Canadian En  Fisheries & Oceans O Canada  Transport Ca anada - Ontario Region R  Transport Ca anada - Marine Safety S & Security Ontario Region

 Onta ario Clean Water A Agency  Minis stries of Tourism - Culture & Sportt stry of Natural Reesources - Midhurrst District  Minis  Onta ario Ministry of Aggriculture - Food a and Rural Affairs  Minis stry of Transporttation - Corridorr Management S Section, West Region stry of Municipal A Affairs and Housiing  Minis

Local Governm ment & Other Agencies  Grey Sauble e Conservation Au uthority  The Corpora ation of the Countty of Grey

water District Schhool Board  Bluew  Student Transportatioon Service Conso ortium of Grey Bru uce

 The Town off The Blue Mounttains

 Land d Ambulance EMS S - Grey County

    

    

Municipality of Grey Highland ds Township of Chatsworth City of Owen n Sound Township of Georgian Bluffs Bruce-Grey Catholic C District School S Board

Onta ario Provincial Pollice Grey y County Historicaal Society Grey y Bruce Health Seervices Grey y Bruce Health U nit SCS Consulting Grouup Ltd.

Aboriginal Con nsultation  Ministry of Aboriginal A Affairs  Aboriginal Affairs A & Northern n Development Canada C Consulltation Unit ation of Ontario  The Metis Na  Chiefs of On ntario  Native Affairs Secretariat  Metis Nation nal Council  Georgian Ba ay Metis Council  Moon River Metis Council

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

 M'Ch higeeng First Natiion  Mississauga's of Scuggog Island First N Nation      

Mississauga's of the C Credit Moha awks of Akwesassne Moha awks of the Bay oof Quinte Moos se Deer Point Saug geen First Nation Sheg guiandah

11

April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106

          

          

Aamjiwnaang Alderville Firrst Nation Aundeck-Om mni-Kaning Beausoleil First Nation Chippewas of o Georgina Island Chippewas of o Kettle and Ston ny Point Chippewas of o Nawash First Nation N Chippewas of o Rama First Nattion Chippewas of o the Thames Firrst Nation Curve Lake First Nation Hiawatha Firrst Nation

Six Nations N of the Graand River Wahtta Mohawk Walp pole Island Wasa auksing First Nattion Zhiib baahaasing First N Nation Saug geen Ojibway nattion Environment Office Histo oric Saugeen Mettis Grea at Lakes Metis Coouncil Chippewas of Rama F First Nation Hiaw watha First nation Metis s Nation of Ontarrio

Utilities  Hydrro One  Enbrridge Gas

 Rogers Com mmunications Inc.  Powerstream m Inc.  Bell Aliant

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

12

April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106

3.0 Existing C E Conditio ons 3.1 Generall The Municipality of Me eaford is locaated in Grey C County and iss bounded byy the City of O Owen Sound tto the oreline to thee north. The ssocio‐ west, the Town of Blue Mountains to the east aand the Georrgian Bay sho economicc environmen nt in Meaford d is influence ed by the watterfront locattion with a sstrong recreational tourist‐baased economy. Other indu ustries that are a also prevaalent in the Municipality are the aggrregate and agricu ultural industtries.

The studyy area is defin ned as the Urban Settleme ent Area. Meaaford hopes tto manage an nd increase grrowth in this are ea over the n next twenty ((20) years. Growth is exp ected to takee place in thee waterfront area, downtown and within the older ind dustrial areas and areas deesignated “Fu uture Urban EExpansion” lo ocated n Area. The pllanned growtth is within th he area servicced by primarily on the west sside of the Meaford Urban municipall sewer and w water servicess.

3.2 Summarry and Ba ackground d of Repo orts A listing o of the backgro ound docume ents reviewed d in the efforrts to complette the Master Plan is conttained herein.

Wastewater System B Background In nformation            

20 004 Sanitary Sewer Collection System M Model (Ainleyy Group) 20 010 Sanitary Sewer Model Update (Ainley Group) 20 007 Meaford WWTP Classs EA Documen nt (EarthTechh) Meaford Wast M tewater Treattment Plant C Certificate of A Approval Bighead Pump ping Station Certificate of A Approval 20 010, 2013 Sew wage Uncommitted Reserrve Capacity R Reports 20 006 – 2013 W WWTP Annuall Reports (OC CWA) 20 006 – 2013 Bighead Pump ping Station A Annual Reportts Assimilative Caapacity Techn nical Memoraandum (GENIV VAR) 20 006 WWTP Capacity Analyysis (Ainley Group) 20 006 Peer Revview of Capacity Analysis (H Hydromantis)) 20 008 MOECC D Design Guidelines for Sewaage Works

Water Sysstem Backgro ound Informaation    

Water Treatme W ent Plant Certificate of Approval 20 009 Ultimate Water Supplly & Distribution System M Model Updatee (Ainley Grou up) 20 006 – 2013 W WTP Annual Reports (OCWA) 20 008 MOECC D Design Guidelines for Drinking Water W Works

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

13

Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Planning Information   

20 014 Municipaality of Meafo ord Official Plan Meaford Zonin M ng By‐Law 20 008 Grey Cou unty Growth M Managementt Strategy Repport

3.3 Existing g Municip pal Water System 3.3.1 3 Gene eral The existing water syystem in the e Municipality of Meaforrd consists o of approximaately 57,500 m of watermain, 2,310 m³ of available clear well sttorage at thee WTP and 5570 m³ storaage in an eleevated storage taank, and two (2) BPSs. The wate er distributio on system, th he WTP, the e elevated sttorage tank and BPSs are owned by the Municipality of Meafo ord and operated and maintained m byy the Municipality of Meeaford Operaations Departme ent.

3.3.2 3 Wate ermains The Meafford water disstribution sysstem is made e up of 57,5000 m of watermain. The waatermain rangges in size from 50 mm to 400 4 mm with some waterr service connnections of 225 mm. Pipe replacementts and expansion haas resulted in a significantt range in thee age of pipees in the Meaaford system. The network e age range es from newlly constructe ed pipes to pipes approxim mately 120 yyears old, with the majorrity of pipes beiing constructted between n 1945 and 1965. The w watermains are construccted from seeveral different materials inccluding asbesttos cement, ccast iron, ducctile iron and d PVC as welll as copper fo or the water services.

3.3.3 3 Wate er Storage e Reservoirrs The water distribution system inclu udes two (2) sstorage facilitties (one (1) iin‐ground resservoir and one (1) nity of Trowb bridge elevated water storagge tank). The elevated water storage ttank is locateed in the vicin 3 Street and d Owen Stree et having a caapacity of 570 0 m . The in‐gground storage is located at the WTP w with a 3 3 capacity o of 2,310 m . TThe total usab ble storage vo olume of the system is 28880 m .

Based on MOECC design guideliness, the require ed storage fo r the Municip pality of Meaaford at its cu urrent 3 populatio on is 2,166.1 m m . There is ttherefore ade equate storagge supply witthin the systeem. It is noted d that 80% of avvailable storage (74% of presently requ uired storagee) is located aat the WTP ass pumped sto orage.

This mean ns that the high lift pumps must be capable of meeeting 80% of peak hour’s demands and d 80% of MDD p plus fire‐flow. Based on the existing po opulation, thee high lift pum mps must meeet 80% of MDD of 26.5 L/s plus p 145 L/s or o 80% of 17 71.5 L/s which is 137.2 L/ss which is lesss than the ccapacity of on ne (1) pump.

3.3.4 3 Wate er Boosterr Pump Sta ations The waterr distribution system curre ently has thre ee (3) pressurres zones: 

Pressure Zone ‐ 1: Covers th he majority o of the Municippality of Meaford and is lo ocated in the north eaast end from lake level exttending south h.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

14

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou



Pressure Zone ‐ 2 (Nelson SStreet BPS Pressure Zone)): Located in tthe west end d serviced by a BPS on Nelson Stre eet. It is separrated from Prressure Zone 1 by gate valves on Pearso on Street and d Glen Abbey Court and Collingwo ood Street bettween Thomppson Street a nd Noble Streeet



Pressure Zone ‐ 3 (St. Vince ent Street BPSS Pressure Zoone): Located d in the south h end serviced d by a BPS on St. Vincent Street. It is separate ed from Presssure Zone 1 b by gate valves on Edwin SStreet, between Lorne e Street and LLegion Road aand on St. Vinncent Street SSouth of Aiken Street.

Refer to FFigure 3 for a map of the p pressure zone es and locatioons of water ffacilities for tthe Municipality of Meaford.

BPS are in operation to se ervice Pressurre Zones 2 annd 3. Nelson Street BPS feeeds into Preessure Two (2) B Zone 2 an nd the St. Vinccent Street BP PS feeds into Pressure Zonne 3.

Nelson Sttreet BPS is lo ocated in the west end of the system oon Nelson Strreet between n Thompson SStreet and Noble e Street. The BPS has one e (1) pump w with a capacityy of 19 L/s att 27 m of TD DH. The pump p runs continuou usly to provide zone pre essure. The station s does not meet fiire flow requ uirements fo or the pressure zzone. The Nelson Street BPS is an olderr facility withoout any stand dby pumping or power sup pply.

St. Vincen nt Street BPS is located on n St. Vincent Street south of Aikin Street. The BPS h has five (5) veertical multi‐stagge duty pum mps each rate ed at 22 L/ss at 37 m T DH and onee (1) low flow w protection n pre‐ pressurize ed well tank to help main ntain system pressures at low to no flow condition ns. The St. Vincent Street BPSS was constru ucted in 2010 0 and is complete with stanndby power.

3.3.5 3 Wate er Treatment Plant The WTP that providess potable watter to the Urb ban Settleme nt Area takess raw water from Georgian n Bay. ord with a rated capacity (MDD) The plant is located at 574 Grandview Drive in tthe Municipa lity of Meafo ed of: of 26,848 m3/day (311L/s) comprise 

orgian Bay Raw Water inttake from Geo



well equipped with one (1)) manually cleeaned A low‐lift pumping station with one (1) raw water w wo (2) low‐lifft pumps, on ne (1) duty aand one (1) standby, eacch having a rated sccreen and tw caapacity of 311 1 L/s at 16.2 m m TDH



A treatment system consissting of an in‐line mixer aand polyalum minum chlorid de feed system for co oagulation, a filter system m (two (2) filte ers), a UV dissinfection sysstem (primaryy disinfection n) plus gaas chlorinatio on for secondary disinfection and proteection of the d distribution syystem.



A clearwell comprising two o (2) cells in sseries with Ceell 1 providin ng storage of 920 m3 and Cell 2 3 providing storaage of 1,390m m ,for a total treated wateer storage vollume of 2,310 0m3



A high‐lift pum mping station n equipped with w three (3)) high‐lift pumps, two (2)) duty and on ne (1) sttandby, each having a rate ed capacity o of 149.2 L/s att 76.2 m TDH H. A Singer prressure relief valve on the discharge side of the e high‐lift pum mp is set to li mit the disch harge pressure from the W WTP to ap pproximatelyy 550 kPa. Un nder normal operating coonditions onlly one (1) pu ump operatess at a time. The ope erator choose es the lead pu ump. Water level in the eelevated tankk controls the high‐ lifft pumps.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

15

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou



A wastewater residual man nagement syystem consistting of a surgge tank with transfer pum mps, a trreatment clarrifier, chemical feed syste ems to enhannce filter backkwash wastewater settling and fo or dechlorinattion of backw wash wastewaater and filte r to waste waater, and two o (2) sludge p pumps to o pump sludgge from the trreatment clarifier into the sanitary sewer



Sttandby power



Th he plant app pears to be in full comp pliance with MOECC regu ulations and does not reequire upgrades, exce ept ongoing rregular maintenance, to seervice the exissting community.

3.4 Existing g Municip pal Wastew water Sysstem 3.4.1 3 Gene eral In total th he Municipality has five (5) SPSs to servvice the urbann area. All flo ows captured within the syystem are conve eyed to the M Meaford WWTTP located on n Grant Avenuue owned byy the Municipality and opeerated

by OCWA. Through the t Municipaality’s effort to catalog th he condition of the seweer system byy CCTV inspeection, several major m deficien ncies have been b identifie ed. Most nootably a seriees of cracks,, holes and failed connectio ons were iden ntified along SSykes Street b between MH 10750 and M MH 10720 No orth of the Bigghead River. To a lesser deggree, cracks and a breaks have been ideentified on TTrowbridge Sttreet and Boucher ncrustation isssues have bee en identified at numerouss locations thrroughout thee sewer netwo ork.

Street. En

3.4.2 3 Sewe ers The majority of the Me eaford urban area is serviced by a Munnicipal sanitary sewer systtem consisting of a network o of gravity sew wers and five e (5) SPSs. Th his system coomprises approximately 35,080 m of ggravity sewer pip pe and appro oximately 2,140 m of forccemain. Basedd on the exissting informaation from ass‐built Record Drawings, the majority of tthe network vvaries in age from 25‐45 yyears consisting predomin nantly of pre‐casst concrete, asbestos cem ment and PVC C pipe. A maajor portion o of the flows, approximateely 80 percent, is directed to a centrally lo ocated SPS (SP PS No. 1) on tthe east side of the Bigheaad River.

3.4.3 3 Wasttewater Pu umping Sttations The Meafford wastewaater collection n system has five (5) catchhment areas designated b by the five (5)) SPSs situated throughout th he urban areaa.     

Area – 1: Located in the south west porrtion of the seewage collecttion system tthat feeds intto SPS ent area in thee network.

No. 1 and makkes up the larggest catchme ortion of the network mo ostly located east of St Vincent Area – 2: Locaated in the south east po Sttreet. It feedss into SPS No.. 2 Area – 3: Locatted in the north section off the sewage collection syystem encompassing everyything n Street. This area feeds into SPS No. 3 w which then feeeds into areaa 1. north of Susan ompasses only the Knightt of Meaford Lumber Facttory that feeeds into SPS N No. 4.

Area – 4: Enco Area 4 then feeds into area 1. ompasses onlyy the marina and Canadia n Coast Guarrd and Harbour Masters O Offices Area – 5: Enco eeding into SP PS No. 5. Areaa 5 then feeds into area 1.. fe

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

17

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

3.4.3.1 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 1 SPS No. 1, also known as the Bighead River SPS,, is located eaast of Sykes SStreet and sou uth of the Bigghead River. A double barre el inverted siphon conneccts the area nnorth of the Bighead Riveer to the SPSS. The station was reconstruccted in 1991 and consistss of a reinforrced concretee wet well divided into tw wo (2) ments by a common wall. compartm The statio on is equippe ed with four (4) 66 kW su ubmersible ppumps, three (3) duty and d one (1) standby, each rated at 104.6 L//s at a TDH off 25.5 m. The station also includes a beelow grade reeinforced con ncrete d generattor, fuel sup pply, flow meeter, all assocciated control building structture housing a standby diesel eating, ventilaation, electriccal and contro ol system. piping, he There is a 600 mm diameter d ove erflow pipe with w provisioon for installiing chlorinattion equipmeent to disinfect aany raw sewaage overflows to the Bighead River. A A 300 mm diaameter forcem main connectts the Bighead R River SPS to th he WWTP loccated at 35 Grrant Avenue iin the south eeast end of M Meaford.

3.4.3.2 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 2 SPS No. 2 2 was constru ucted at the WWTP site in i 1978 to seervice the southeast area of Meaford.. The station is a wet well/dry well facility equipped d with two (22) variable sp peed 37 kW pumps (Fairbanks c witth Benshaw VFD drives. The wet w well has a sttorage capacity of Morse model 5414) complete oring at the sttation is donee using an En ndress & Hau user magneticc flow approximately 22 m³. Flow monito d a seven (7) day circular cchart recorder. meter and Overflow from SPS No. 2 is directed d to the mainttenance hatcch at the shorre of Georgian n Bay at the eend of ow will only occur follow wing the surcharging of th he sewer sysstem and req quires Aiken Street. Overflo manual operation of a gate located on a 450 mm m diameter crross line to th he existing 600 mm plant o outfall line.

Sewage Pu 3.4.3.3 umping Stattion No. 3 n the east sid de of Sykes Sttreet North d irectly north of Pete’s Creeek, approxim mately SPS No. 3 is located on on services a small residen ntial area at tthe northwesst end 150 m southeast of Grrandview Drivve. The statio w passing thro ough this staation is pump ped into the gravity sewer that of the Urban Municipality. All flow ough the inve erted siphon aand into SPS No. 1. The sttation is equiipped with on ne (1) eventuallyy passes thro 12.5 L/s at 9.6 m TDH p pump and one (1) 2.2 kW pump rated ffor 3 L/s.

3.4.3.4 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 4 4 located at the east end d of Boucher Street, servi ces Stanley KKnights Limited. The stattion is SPS No. 4, equipped with two (2), 2.2 kW Myyers pumps. Flow F passing through thiss station is liffted to the ggravity sewer on Boucher Stre eet to flow byy gravity to SP PS No. 1.

3.4.3.5 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 5 SPS No. 5 located on SSt. Vincent Street services the Canadia n Coast Guarrd and Harbour Masters O Offices as well ass some washrrooms located at the Marina. The statiion is equipp ped with two (2), 1.5 kW M Myers pumps. Flow passing tthrough this station is lifte ed to the graavity sewer o on St. Vincentt Street to flo ow by gravity to SPS No. 1.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

18

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

3.4.4 3 Wasttewater Trreatment Plant The Meafford WWTP was construccted in 1969 9 and startedd service in 11970. The plant is a high h rate activated sludge proce ess plant with h continuous discharge (a fter UV disinfection) into Georgian Baay and aerobic digestion with land disposal of biosolids. The plant haas no processses specificallly for phosphorous removal. The plant is located in a residential are ea that can bbe liable to no oise and odou ur complaintss. The 3 plant is raated for an AD DF of 3,910 m m /day comprised of: 





 

 

 

Th he head worrks consists of o one (1) co oarse bar scrreen with 255 mm bar spacing and on ne (1) au utomatic fine e bar screen w with 3 mm op penings. Therre is also an aaeration and secondary claarifier byypass line an nd odour suppression eq quipment thaat can be in ntroduced intto the headw works ch hannel on an as‐required b basis.

Th here are two (2) circular aaeration tankss, operating i n parallel, each with an in nternal diameeter of 10 0.9 m and SW WD of 5.9 m. m There is a fine air bubbble diffuser ssystem in eacch of the aerration taanks.

Tw wo (2) circulaar secondary clarifiers operate in parall el with an intternal diametter of 12.2 m and a SW WD of 2.9 m. m In each of the clarifiers there is a mechanical rrake arm and d skimmer blades, hopper, scum trough, scum m baffles and w weir plates. he parshall flume chamber is equipped d with continuuous level transmitters.

Th UV disinfection in two (2) cchannels, one e (1) of whichh is equipped d with indepeendently power UV uipped with w weir and isolaation gates fo or future UV lamp laamp moduless and one (1) channel equ modules. Ther m re is also a UV V bypass pipe and isolationn valve.

Th he WAS and RAS pumpingg stations each have two (2) pumps. TThe WAS pum mps dischargee into th he biosolids treatment facility. The RASS pumps dischharge into thee headworks.

Th he biosolids sstabilization aand storage ffacility consissts of one (1)) two (2) stagge aerobic diggester co omplete with h the followin ng: two (2) air a blowers, tthree (3) slud dge transfer//decanting pu umps, one (1) two (2) celled liquid d biosolids sto orage tank annd one (1) bio osolids transfeer building. he septage an nd leachate receiving facility consists oof one (1) belo ow grade con ncrete storagee tank Th 3 with an approx w ximate volum me of 80 m .

Th he Outfall se ewer is 600 mm m in diame eter, extendinng approximaately 450 m into Georgian Bay opposite the e end of Aikin Sttreet.

3.5 Natural Environm ment Meaford’ss significant natural featu ures include the t Georgian Bay shorelin nes, the Bighead River an nd the Niagara Escarpment.

E The Bighead d River is an extensive 30km system with asso ociated tributaries dischargin ng into Georggian Bay. The e Bighead Rive er is known tto have the ffollowing fish species inhaabit it; rainbow ttrout, brown trout, bass, w whitefish and d Chinook sa lmon. With tthis variety off fish, the Bigghead River is a popular location for recre eational and sport fishing.. The Niagaraa Escarpmentt is located ou utside Urban Area so does not faall within the study area o of the Masterr Plan. of the boundaries of the Meaford U eatures of Meaford incclude forestss, rolling vaalleys and w wetlands. Seeveral Additionaal natural fe environmentally prote ected area corridors surrrounding thee watercoursee system aree located weest of ectly south off Meaford’s W WWTP are thee shorelines o of the old Lakke Algonquin.

Meaford’ss WWTP. Dire Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

19

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

A map of the various e environmentaal features, lo ocated withinn the Municip pality of Meafford, can be ffound ditional mapss in the Mastter Plan iden ntify land usee and in Appendix B of Meaford’s Officiial Plan. Add transportation.

4.0 Future Co F ondition ns To fully understand u th he Municipality of Meaford’s water annd wastewater infrastructture needs, ffuture conditions were assesssed. Full builld‐out condittions were esstimated usin ng population n growth data and elopment plan nning, outline ed in Meaford d’s Official Plaan. Full build d‐out is defineed as the com mplete land deve developm ment of all avaailable land w within the urban area as deescribed by th he Official Plaan.

4.1 Populattion Grow wth The Grey County Grow wth Managem ment Strateggy Report com mpleted by M Malone Given n Parsons Ltd d. was submitted d to The Co orporation off the Countyy of Grey inn April 2008.. The reportt provides grrowth projection ns for Municipalities within the Grey Co ounty. The poopulation pro ojections for tthe Municipality of Meaford are detailed in Table 3. Population within the m municipal areea is predicteed to increase by approximately 5% everry five (5) yeaars until 2021 1.

Ta able 3 - Population Grow wth for the M Municipality o of Meaford

Municipality of Meafo ord

06 200

201 11

20116

20021

20 026

20 031

11,4 400

12,0 000

12,5500

13,1100

13,300

13,,500

Historically, growth within w the Mu unicipality of Meaford haas occurred p predominantly within the rural areas. Between 2001 and 2006, th he number off dwellings inn the urban aarea increaseed by 104 an nd the number o of dwellings in n the rural arrea increased d by 212. Thiss correspondss to a growth h allocation of 33% in the urb ban area and d 67% in the rural area. The T Growth M Managementt Strategy Report suggestss that Municipalities should adopt policie es that will encourage groowth within tthe urban areea and discourage n the rural arrea. The Mun nicipality of Meaford M wass assigned a target to ach hieve 60% off total growth in growth within the urbaan area.

The Officiial Plan for the Municipallity of Meafo ord consolida ted on May 14th 2014 haas adopted seeveral policies to o encourage infilling and intensification n of the urba n area and discourage furrther develop pment of the su urrounding ru ural area. Th he Official Plaan projects aa total increease of 1,100 0 new houseeholds between 2006 and 202 26 for a popu ulation increase of 1,900. IIt is the goal o of the Municipality to havve 990 o the additio onal dwellinggs within the urban area.. For the gro owth within the urban arrea, a or 90% of minimum target of 10% % or 99 home es are to be e established thhrough intenssification.

Census data, retrieve ed from Stattistics Canada’s website on July 30thh, 2014, stattes that the total populatio on in 2006 for the urban area a was 4,6 686 and increeased to 4,9992 by 2011, aan increase o of 306 residents.. The populaation of the Municipality increased fr om 10,948 in 2006 to 11,100 in 201 11, an increase of o 152 reside ents. This sugggests that th here is a net influx to thee urban Municiaplity and a net Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

20

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

efflux from the rural area. It also o suggests that the Municcipality’s receent efforts to o promote grrowth e urban area have been su uccessful and d that achieviing the goal o of having 90% % of new resiidents within the settle in the urban area is attainable e.

Assumingg that the Municipality M is able to co ontinue mee ting the 90% % urban setttlement goal, the populatio on within the e urban area is projected in Table 4. The projectiions in Tablee 4 were mad de by allocatingg 90% of the p projected pop pulation incre ease for the M Municipality to o the urban aarea.

Ta able 4 - Population Grow wth for the U Urban Area o of Meaford

Meaford Urban Area

06 200

201 11

20116

20021

20 026

20 031

4,68 86*

4,99 92*

5,4442

5,9982

6,1 162

6,3 342

*SStatistics Can nada census d data.

The Sched dule C Class EA for the WWTP W completed in 20077 also provideed population projectionss. The report prresented a “LLow” and “H High” forecasst for populaation growth within the municipal arrea as presented d below in Table 5.

Table T 5 - 200 07 Municipal Class EA P Population F Forecasts

200 06

201 11

20116

20021

20 026

20 031

Low Foreccast

4,81 11

5,93 32

7,4438

8,9944

10,450

11,,957

High Fore ecast

4,88 83

6,14 48

8,1 56

10,1164

12,173

14,,181

The population growth h anticipated under the Grrey County Grrowth Managgement Strateegy is consideerably lower thaan the growth h that was prrojected in 20 007 for the C lass EA of thee WWTP. Bassed on the cu urrent growth ovver the past 8 years, the forecast from the Grey CCounty reporrt appears to be more in‐touch with the aactual trends.. A compariso on of the grow wth forecastss is presented d in Figure 4.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

21

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Comparison of P Populatio on Projecttions 16,000

Population in the Urban Area

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000 2006

2011

2016

Gre ey County Report FForecast

2021

Class EA Low Foorecast

2026

2031

Class EA High Forrecast

Figure e 4 - Comparison of Grow wth Forecassts

4.2 Water D Demand P Projection ns To determ mine the neccessary wate er infrastructure needed to adequateely service th he Municipality of Meaford, it is necessaary to first co onsider the full f build‐out scenario asssuming the d development of all vacant lan nd in the urbaan area in acccordance with the Officiall Plan of the M Municipality of Meaford. B Based on the cu urrent zoningg and amoun nt of vacant land, the ulttimate waterr demand was estimated d. The additional water use for f the urban n area is estiimated at 4,0040 m³/d upon ultimate build‐out wh hich is significanttly greater th han the curre ent water dem mand of 1,4660 m³/d. The ultimate build‐out flow w will be used to esstimate the n need for upgraading existingg infrastructuure such as the following:   

Watermain siz W e capacity exp Water storage W pansion Additional watter BPSs or up pgrades to exxisting stationns

The wate er use is expected to increase proporrtionately wiith the popu ulation of thee urban areaa. The MOECC Design D Guidelines suggest that water systems s shouuld be based on 450 L/cap/day on thee high range. Based on data ffrom other Municipalities iin Ontario, thhe average waater use is ab bout 350L/cap p/day. c flow rrate in the M Municipality o of Meaford is 287 The averaage of the past three (3)) years per capita 3 L/cap/dayy. The WTP capacity is 26,848 2 m /daay which is ssignificantly laarger than th he daily flow w. The water use e projection fo or 2031 show w the high, mo oderate, and water use flo ow is shown in Figure 5 below.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

22

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Projeccted Wate er Deman nd (Max D Day) 3,500

Flow (m3/day)

3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2006

2011

20 016

2021

Past Projected (350/L/cap/day))

2026

Projected (4450L/cap/day) Projected (2287 L/cap/day)

203 31

Figure 5 - Waterr Use Projecction for 2031 1

4.3 Wastew water Flow w Projectiions Wastewatter flows were also proje ected based on o the ultimaate build‐outt using the O Official Plan o of the Municipality of Meafo ord. Based on o the amount of vacantt land and zoning, it is eestimated th hat an p by the urban arrea when fully developed d. The additional 4,040m³/d of sewage flow will be produced m³/d. The ultim mate build‐ou ut flow will b e used to exaamine the need for upgrad des to current ADF is 2,600 m nfrastucture ssuch as the fo ollowing: existing in   

Sewermain siz S ze Treatment pla T ant expansion ns Additional SPS A Ss or upgrade es to existing stations

The sewaage flow is exxpected to in ncrease propo ortionately w with the popu ulation of the urban areaa. The Municipality allots resserve capacitty to planne ed developmeents on the assumption that the avverage household d has 2.4 pe ersons, each contributing 540 L/day oof sewage flo ows. MOECC design guidelines suggest th he design of ssewage syste ems should be e based on ann average flow rate of 450 0 L/cap/day. Other Municipalities in Onttario have been b able to o achieve veery low per capita flow rates throu ugh a combination of water use reductio on strategies and the elim mination of I//I issues. A hiigh, moderate and 2031 is shown n in Figure 6 bbelow. low projection of sewaage flow for 2

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

23

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Projected d Sewagee Flow 4,000 4 3,800 3 Flow (m3/d)

3,600 3 3,400 3 3,200 3 3,000 3 2,800 2 2,600 2 2006

2011

20 016

2021

Past

Pro ojected (540 L//cap/d)

Projected (300 L/cap p/d)

Ratted Capacity

2026

2031 1

0 L/cap/d) Projected (450

Figu ure 6 - Sewa age Flow Pro rojection to 2 2031

5.0 Problem P Identification 5.1 Problem m Stateme ent The functtion of the prroblem statem ment for the Meaford Maaster Plan Claass EA is to o outline the starting point of th he undertakin ng and define e the project sscope.

Followingg evaluation of o the existin ng systems an nd the projeccted growth based on thee Official Plan n, the problem sstatement forr the Meaford d Master Plan n is outlined bbelow.

The Meafford Water and Wastewatter systems m must continuee to meet the needs of thee community in the most economical and sustainable m manner, in full compliancee with regulattions, and with minimal im mpact nment. As su uch, the existting systems have been reeviewed to id dentify and d define on the naatural environ their cond dition, compliance and pe erformance‐re elated issues that might aaffect the ability of the sysstems to meet fu uture needs. As a result, th his master servicing study will address:: Water Sup pply  



Th he replacement/ rehabiliitation of un ndersized an d older wattermains to provide adequate pressures and fire flows witthin the existing communiity. ure zone bou undaries and d BPS requireements to prrovide for reeplacement o of the Exxisting pressu exxisting Nelson n St. BPS, to meet the nee eds of growthh in the studyy area and to o provide a reeliable an nd secure sysstem.

Additional wattermains to m meet the need ds of growth in the study aarea.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

24

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou



Water W storage e to meet the needs of growth g in thee study area and to provvide a reliablee and se ecure system.

Wastewatter Collection n     



Th he replaceme ent/ rehabilitaation of deficcient sewermaains identified through I/I studies.

Components o of the WWTP are over 45 yyears old and require upgrrading to meeet future need ds.

Pe eak flows to tthe WWTP exxceed the dessign capacity of some treattment processses.

Im mprovementss to the plant control systems have thhe potential to improve p plant perform mance an nd reduce energy use.

An addendum m to the 200 07 Schedule C Class EA will be requ uired to add dress revised flow nd to take account of reductions to peeak flows as a result of w wastewater syystem projections an im mprovementss.

Upgrades mayy be required to meet the rrevised efflueent requiremeents.

5.2 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterrmains The wate er distribution n system in Meaford has a substanttial need for watermain rehabilitation n and replacement based on the age, size e and materiaal of the pipess. The currentt system expeeriences both h flow ms. The most significant problem p withh the networrk is the exisstence of 100 0 mm and presssure problem primarily cast iron watermains. MOECC M guide elines state tthat for systtems designeed to provide fire protection n, the diameter of waterm mains should d be a minim um of 150 m mm. Figure 7 shows the syystem nodes witth inadequate e fire flow (firre flow less th han 38 L/s) duuring MDD an nd fire flow conditions. Figgure 7 also show ws all 100 mm m diameter pip pes in red.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

25

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figure 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Identification of 100 mm Diameter Pipes and Nodes with Unacceptable Fire Flow

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 26

From Figu ure 7 it can b be seen that inadequate fire flow occuurs mainly in areas that arre serviced b by 100 mm wate ermain. Replacing these se ections of pip pe with 150 m mm diameterr watermain p provides adequate fire flow cconditions. Th he replaceme ent of these pipes will also allow compliiance with MOECC guidelines.

Additionaally, all cast iron pipes in th he system are e of concern due to their age ranging ffrom 50‐100 yyears.

Cast iron watermains aare known to o experience ccorrosion andd tuberculatio on which both negatively affect pipe increasin ng the chance of a flow and remaining life. Corrosion affects the sttructural inteegrity of the p watermain break. Tub berculation causes c a buildup of corroosion material inside thee pipe resultiing in d pipe capaccity. To provide improved d and more reliable serviice to the w water customeers in decreased m.

Meaford, these pipes sshould be sch heduled for re epair or repla cement within the masterr plan program

5.3 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterr Storage R Reservoirr With a cu urrent water sstorage reserrvoir capacityy of 2,880 m3,, the Municip pality of Meaford has adequate capacity for f the existing populatio on. Based on MOECC storrage requirem ments, the cu urrent storagge can service a population of o 5,806 peop ple. The MOEECC outlines the method for obtainingg the total treated orage requirements for a ssystem. With expected grrowth in the urban area aand a full builld‐out water sto populatio on of approximately 12,00 00 people, calculations forr required sto orage volume were comp pleted and are sh hown below. Based on the e full build‐ou ut populationn, a fire flow o of 209.67 L/s for a duration of 3 hours was used in accordance with h MOECC Guiidelines. A m aximum day factor of 1.6 6707 (from exxisting data) wass used to calcu ulate the MD DD. Total Treaated Water Sttorage Requirrements = A + + B + C Where:

A = Firre Storage; B = Equalization Sto orage (25% off MDD); and C = Em mergency Storrage (25% of A A + B) Table 6 – Treated T Watter Storage Required Vo olumes

A B C Tottal Storage

d Volume Required 2,2664.40 1,5003.67 9422.02 4,7110.09

ut an addition nal 1,830 m3 of storage w will be requirred resulting in a total storage Based on full build‐ou 3 volume off 4,710 m .

With the majority of the current storage being llocated at th e WTP on thee north side o of the community, it is sugge ested that ovverall system security be considered w when locatingg the additional water sto orage.

The added d storage sho ould provide ssecurity for peak demandss and fire flow w across the eentire system m.

5.4 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterr Booster Stations The Meafford water disstribution sysstem has two (2) BPS, Nelsson Street BPPS and St. Vinccent Street BPS, to maintain adequate pressure throughout the system. Moddelling was completed tto analyze syystem Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

27

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

pressuress for the exissting demand d scenario an nd for the fulll build‐out sscenario. The modelling results show how w the BPSs perform p unde er existing an nd full build‐oout scenarioss. Figures 8 aand 9 provid de the modellingg results durring MDD pllus fire flow for existingg conditions and full bu uild‐out cond ditions respective ely.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

28

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figure 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Conditions for Available Fire Flow during Maximum Day Demand

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 29

Figure 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Full Build-Out Conditions for Available Fire Flow during Maximum Day Demand

Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 30

The system pressures during MDD and fire flow show that thhe Nelson Strreet BPS is no ot sized adequ uately uild‐out cond ditions and caannot provide e adequate fiire flow undeer existing co onditions. Thiis BPS for full bu has only o one (1) pump p with no standby power or additional standby pum mps. This is o of greater con ncern, as the Me eaford Hospittal is located in the Nelson n Street Boosster Zone and d requires adeequate pressu ure to reduce po otential conse equences. The current BPSS is located inn the road rigght of way in a buried chaamber with no ro oom for expaansion. To increase the sysstem pressurees and fire flo ow in the Nelson Street Bo ooster Zone to an acceptable level, a new BPS needs to o be constructted.

The St. Vincent Street BPS was consstructed in 20 010 and prov ides adequatte pressure to o St. Vincent SStreet Booster ZZone during e existing and fu ull build‐out cconditions. T his BPS has the necessaryy duty and staandby pumps in place to deal with the plaanned expanssion in the so uth end of M Meaford. Analysis of the exxisting conditions shows that there are sevveral areas off low pressuree in the St. Viincent Street Booster Zonee. The dersized pipes. low pressure is primarily due to und The main n pressure zo one encompaases the majority of urbaan Meaford including thee urban coree, and extends from the lake e level to app proximately the 202 m eleevation conto our. It is supp plied directlyy from mps. Pressure is controlled based on thhe existing eleevated tank w which contro ols the the WTP high lift pum high lift pump p cycling. Based on the minimum elevated tannk level of 228 m elevatiion, a static w water pressure of only 26 m m (265 KPa) is available at the Presssure Zone 22 pressure bo oundary, wh hich is inadequatte to meet th he minimum pressure requ uirement for the pressuree zone. The w water model sshows that prop perties to the e north of Pre essure Zone 2 exhibit low w pressures aand this area extending fu urther north to Highway 26 will w see significant develo opment. Withh the existingg pressure zo one boundaryy, it is therefore possible that that the are ea which gen nerally extendds from 200 m m elevation tto 195 m elevvation could exh hibit low pressures if the e existing HGL, controlledd by the elevvated tank, aand pressure zone boundarie es remain.

5.5 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterr Treatme ent Plant Historical flow data at the Meaford d WTP was co ollected from the annual o operating repo orts dating baack to 2006. The e monthly AD DD and MDD o over the 8 year span are pplotted on Figgure 10 below w.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

31

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Hisstorical Flow Data (20006‐2013) 6000 5000

Flow (m3/d)

4000 3000 2000 1000

Monthly Maxim mum Day Demand

Sep‐13

Jan‐13

May‐13

Sep‐12

May‐12

Jan‐12

Sep‐11

May‐11

Jan‐11

Sep‐10

May‐10

Jan‐10

Sep‐09

May‐09

Jan‐09

Sep‐08

May‐08

Jan‐08

Sep‐07

May‐07

Jan‐07

Sep‐06 S 06

May‐06

Jan‐06

0

Monnthly Average Dayy Demand

Linear (Monthlyy Average Day Dem mand)

Figure 10 - Historic cal Flow Datta (2006-201 13) Over the 8‐year span the historical monthly MD DD and montthly ADD are typically higher in the waarmer months (M May through August). Thiss is mostly du ue to the wa rmer and dryyer weather increasing ou utdoor water use e for wateringg lawns/garde ens, filling pools etc. Theree are a few in nstances wherre the MDD o occurs in the colder months o or the MDD is very high compared to tthe other vallues. These h higher than normal MDD valu ues are typicaally due to a watermain break that occcurs and therre is a significcant loss of w water.

These higgher than no ormal MDD values v have been b confirm med by the M Municipality of Meaford to be watermain breaks. ng these peakk values to the e existing WTTP rated capa city of 26,8488 m3/day, durring MDD it ccan be Comparin seen that no expansion n is necessaryy. The highestt MDD for thee past three ((3) years is 2,374 m3/day ((467.1 L/cap/dayy), which is 8.8% of the ratted capacity o of the WTP annd is 16.7% of the design ccapacity of a single high lift pump p at the WTP. Since the plant is required to meet MDD, there is mo ore than adequate capacity ffor the presen nt system. Evven when flow ws are increaased due to w watermain breeaks, the flow w was less than 20% of the W WTPs rated capacity. ull build‐out cconditions ultimate flow prrojections weere calculated d based on th he assumption n that For the fu all vacantt land is deve eloped accord ding to the current c zonin g and planning densities within the O Official Plan. The flow generatted from the vacant lands is calculated according to o the factors o outlined in Taable 7 below: mand Table 7 - Water Dem Land Designation Resid dential Comm mercial Indusstrial

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

Waterr Demand 300 L//cap/day 28 m3 /(ha*day) 28 m3 /(ha*day)

32

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

The Muniicipality of Meaford’s M GIS data was ussed to determ mine the disttribution of tthe water demand within the e water mode el based on th he land designation. The M MDD during ffull build‐out is estimated to be 3 4,040 m /day. This is 1 / 15% of the raated capacityy of the WTP,, showing thaat there is mo ore than adequate capacity e even after significant grow wth in Meaford’s urban setttlement areaa.

5.6 Wastew water – Ca apacity of Existing SSewers An I/I stud dy on the Me eaford Sanitarry Sewer System was comppleted in 20115. The Study has identified d that I/I remain ns a key issue e for the Mun nicipality movving forward. Extraneous fflows are mo ost prevalent south of the Bigghead River b between Janu uary and Marcch and coinciide with snow w melting eveents. Througgh the Municipality’s effort to catalog the e condition of o the sewer system by C CCTV inspection, several major n identified. Most notablyy a series of cracks, holess and pipe misalignments were deficiencies have been d breaks havee been identified along Sykes Street south of the Bigheaad River. To aa lesser degreee, cracks and der of the collection nettwork. Encrustation issuees have also been identified throughout the remaind e sewer netw ork. identified at numerouss locations throughout the

5.7 Wastew water – Ca apacity of Existing P Pumping Stations Examiningg the existingg capacity off the SPSs in the Meafordd Wastewateer Collection System allow ws for shortcomings and nece essary upgrad des to be iden ntified.

5.7.1 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 1 As indicatted previouslly, SPS No. 1 is equipped with four (44) (Flygt modeel CP3300) 6 66 kW submeersible pumps eaach rated at 1 104.6 L/s at a TDH of 25.5 m m. Two (2) puumps are run by a fixed sp peed drive and two (2) pumps are run by a variable sp peed drive. The T station is rated with aa total firm ccapacity of 18 81 L/s m. Peak hour flows to the station have been modeled for ultimaate build‐out to be against a TDH of 51 m 157 L/s, th herefore the SPS is sufficie ent to supporrt growth withhout any incrrease in capaccity.

The statio on is in good overall condition and has experiennced very few operational issues. On ne (1) overflow incident occu urred at the sstation in 199 92 as the ressult of an opeerator error. The flow meeter at the station does not prrovide accuraate measurem ment and nee ds to be replaaced.

5.7.2 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 2 The pump ps at SPS No.. 2 are rated at 148 L/s att a TDH of 188.8 m. Peak hour flows to the station n have been mod deled for ultimate build‐o out to be 46 LL/s, thereforee the station is sufficient tto support grrowth without any increase in n capacity.

The SPS iss in good ove erall condition n however it suffers from excessive ragg collection, ccausing the p pumps to become clogged. W When this occu urs the pump p is unable to function and d requires maanual assistan nce to e problem. W With an increaase in flow during full buiild‐out condittions, it is im mportant to co orrect rectify the this problem as it could d become inccreasingly pro oblematic in tthe future.

5.7.3 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 3 The statio on was origin nally oversized and include ed two (2) 722.5 L/s at 9.55 m TDH pum mps. One (1) pump has since been replaced with a 2.2 2 kW pump rated r for 10 L/s. For norm mal operation n the replaceement Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

33

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

pump is ccurrently morre than sufficiient to handle e flows at thee station. How wever, ultimaate build‐out flows are estimated to be 11 1 L/s ADF and d 32 L/s peak day. For ultim mate build‐ou ut it is recom mmended thatt both pumps are replaced byy 20 L/s pump ps with VFD control be insttalled at the ssite.

The statio on is in good o overall condittion with no rrecord of opeerational issuees.

5.7.4 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 4 SPS No. 4 4 currently has adequate capacity forr both existinng conditionss and full build‐out condiitions, requiring no increase in capacity. The pumpingg station is inn good overaall condition with no reco ord of operation nal issues. This SPS currenttly services on nly one (1) cuustomer (Knigght of Meaforrd Lumber Facctory) which maay be shut dow wn in the neaar future. It iss recommendded that SPS No. 4 be deco ommissioned d once this occurrs with costs ffor demolition covered by the customeer.

5.7.5 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 5 SPS No. 5 5 currently has adequate capacity forr both existinng conditionss and full build‐out condiitions, requiring no increase in capacity. The SPS is in n good overaall condition with no reco ord of operational issues.

5.7.6 5 Future Sewage e Pumping g Station N No. 6 Based on previous plaanning effortss as far back as 2003, thee need for a new SPS (SP PS No. 6) has been identified in order to service develo opment in the e southwest oof the urban aarea along the future section of Coleman Street. The proposed p loccation for the e future SPS is approximaately 100 m south of Meeaford onstruction o of the station is development based an nd is not neceessary Creek along Coleman SStreet. The co until the cconstruction in the southw west of the u urban developpment area ccommences. TThe station w will be located within w the easement of th he road. The new SPS wi ll create a new catchmen nt area whicch will encompasss the future section of Co oleman Streett.

5.8 Wastew water – Ca apacity of Existing W Wastewa ater Treattment Pla ant The existting WWTP in Meaford does not haave the cappacity to serrvice the ultimate population.

Additionaally, a numbe er of minor upgrades u are required forr the SPSs w within the urb ban area. Ultimate populatio on is defined aas the full build‐out populaation for the existing comm munity bound daries.

The Classs EA of the existing WWTTP was completed in 20077 and outlineed the expan nsion needs o of the plant on tthe basis of an expansion in the urban area to servicce a total pop pulation of 11,500 residen nts. It was assum med within the 2007 Classs EA that the e population in the urban n area of Meaaford would reach 11,500 byy 2027. This rrate of growth h is no longer expected too occur as hisstorical trends have shown n that average ggrowth rates are typically around 0.5% %/year in the urban area. Based on thee historical grrowth rate, the u urban area off Meaford willl not reach a population oof 11,500 with hin the next tthirty (30) yeaars.

While the e rate of grow wth in the urban area is not expected too occur at succh a rapid pacce, the suggesstions for upgrad des and expansion to the existing plantt remain validd and are carried forward in the alternatives discussed in this Maste er Study.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

34

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Capacitiess of the curre ent unit proce esses at the W WWTP are shoown in Figuree 11.

Proce ess Capaccity In nlet Works

Process

Aerattion Basins

Clarifiers

Disinfection 0.0

2.0

4..0

6.0

8.0

10.00

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Peak Flow (ML/d) Existing

Design Flow

Peak Flow

Ultimate AD DF

Ultiimate Peak Day

Figure e 11 – Existing Unit Proccess Capaciity As shown n in Figure 11, the existin ng plant does not have eenough capaccity to meet the needs o of the ultimate developmentt in the urbaan area and upgrades u andd unit processs expansions of the plan nt are necessaryy.

Of the five (5) SPSs in tthe urban are ea, only SPS N No. 3 requiress an increasee in pumping capacity to seervice on. However,, the three (3) major SPSs (SPS No. 1, SSPS No. 2, and d SPS No. 3) w would the ultimaate populatio all benefitt from I&C up pgrades.

5.8.1 5 Classs EA (2007 7) Recomm mendation ns In order tto accommod date the futurre flow to the e WWTP, an expansion off the facility w was recommeended and descrribed in the 20 007 Class EA. The design b basis for the uultimate plantt is summarissed in Table 8 8. ble 8 – 2007 Class EA D Design Basiss Tab Ultimaate Service Arrea Populattion Per Cap pita Flow Rate e (L/c/d) Total AD DF (m3/d) Peakingg Factor Peak Daay Flow (m3/d d)

11,5500 5515 6,0000 3.5 21,0000

The recom mmended upggrades to the e existing proccess are summ marised in Figgure 12.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

35

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Process Capaccity Exissting Inlet Worrks Inlet Scree ens Process

In nlet Grit Removval Aeration Basins Clarifie ers Tertiary Filtratio T on Exissting Disinfectio on Disinfectio on 0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2 25.0

3 30.0

Peak FFlow (ML/d) Existing

Expaansion

Removed

Peak Flow w

ADF (2013)

Predicted Flo ow (Ultimate)

Predicted d Flow (Peak)

Figure 12 2 – 2007 Cla ass EA Plantt Expansion Plan The expeccted effluent limits and de esign objectives of the 20007 Class EA are summarised in Table 9.

Table 9 – Compliance C Effluent Obje ectives Limits and E

Effluent P Parameter CBOD5 Total Susp pended Solidss Total Phosphorus Total Amm monia Non n‐Freeze Free eze pH

bjectives Compliance Limit Effluent Ob Monthlyy Avg. Mon nthly Loadingg Month hly Avg. Monthly Loaading (mg/L) (kg/d) (mgg/L) (kg/d) 15 87.4 110 58.3 15 87.4 110 58.3 0.8 4.7 2.9 00.5

3.0 17.5 17.5 3.0 5.0 29.1 29.1 5.0 6.0 – 9.5

A detailed description n of each initiaative to upgraade the plantt and the rationale for thee change is listed in Table 10.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

36

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Ta able 10 – Re ecommended Upgrades of the 2007 7 Class EA

Initiative::

Ratiionale: Achieve aerationn basin SRT off 10 days. Priimary clarifieer SOR and SLR capacityy identified aas being beetween 2400 m3/d and 2800 m3/d. Derate plan nt from 3,910 m3/d to 2,700 3 m /d d.

Derate plaant capacity Establish a new influen nt forcemain.

Existting forcemaiin has been id dentified to b be undersized d.

The existing scrreens have b been identifieed as a hyd draulic botttleneck. The sscreens are undersized and will be replaced. works buildin ng will housse properly sized The new headw scre eens and proovide contain nment for aan odour rem moval system and a gritt removal system.

Remove e existing inlet sscreens.

Establish a new headw works buildingg.

Repairs are needded for the existing clarifiers and aerration basins as identifi ed by structu ural assessmeent.

Repairs to o concrete strructures

Replace steel s compon nents of seco ondary Unitts in service ffor >40 years,, which is thee expected lifeespan clarifiers. of th his equipmennt.

Demolish the abandon ned digester.

No longer in use and there is no plan to use in the futurre.

New Screening facility: Two (2) sccreens, each 6,300 m3/d ADF / 21,300 m3/d peak New grit rremoval syste em Two (2) se eparators, each 21,000 m3/d capacity

Replacements too meet expeccted ADF/Peak flows. Inccludes 300 m3/d recyclee streams.

Aeraation tanks a re drained an nnually to remove grit wh hich is time e consuming aand labour in ntensive.

New seco ondary treatm ment Two (2), 7 714 m3 rectan ngular tanks Total SRT 8‐10 days

Currrent capacity y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments of growth. Addit ional capacity to meet AD DF of 6,000m m3/d in conjjunction withh existing aeraation basins.

New seco ondary clarifie ers Two (2) ciircular tanks 17.5 m diaa, 4.2 m SWD D each

Currrent capacity y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments of growth. g Addittional capacitty sufficient to meet peak day flow w rate of 19,2440 m3/d

New tertiary treatmen nt system Two (2) trraveling bridgge sand filterss each 21,0 000 m3/d capaacity

moval to m meet the an nticipated reevised Phosphorus rem efflu uent limits byy MOECC or Federal Goverrnment.

New UV d disinfection syystem Two (2) ch hannels, total w and Currrent UV Systeem is underssized for the ultimate flow 6,000 m3/d ADF / wou uld also needd to be movved to incorp porate the teertiary 20,000 m3/d peak treaatment system m.

Decommission and re emove existing UV disinfectio on.

Expand biiosolids stabilization facilitty with Inco orporation off a specific b biosolids thickening proceess to new WAS thickening redu uce odours/ aaddress comp plaints.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

37

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Initiative:: New odou ur control sysstem New efflu uent pumpingg station Remove d diffuser caps ffrom outfall Upgrade electrical supply on. distributio New stand‐by power ggenerator

Ratiionale: To be b incorporaated as a part of the Mu unicipality’s o odour man nagement sttrategy to aaddress the historical o odour com mplaints at thee site.

As p per the requirrements of th he 2007 Class EA Existting caps aare showingg signs of damage caausing inco onsistent rele ase of effluen nt.

Existting MCC is rreaching the end of its useeful life and n needs and to be replaced.

Existting generatoor not sufficieent to meet th he demands o of the expaanded plant.

5.8.2 5 Chan nges since 2007 Classs EA Since the 2007 Class EA A, there have e been change es to the projjected populaation growth rate as well aas the ultimate fflow at the W WWTP. This se ection will outtline the revissed populatio on and flow p projections an nd the reasoningg behind the p proposed chaanges.

In 2007 itt was projected that the p population in the urban a rea of Meafo ord would reaach approxim mately 13,000 byy 2031. The historical h gro owth in the area does nott match the projection off the Class EA A and therefore the population projection n was revised. For the purpposes of this study it was eestimated thaat the on in the urb ban area wo ould reach approximately a y 5,520 by 22031. This revised population populatio estimation is based on a historical average gro owth rate of 0.5%/year w within the urban area. Further, of the total aarea of vacan nt and underddeveloped lan based on an analysis o nd and the ccurrent zoningg, the ultimate ((full build‐outt) population in the urban area is 12,0000.

The 2007 Class EA provided a proje ection of ADFF and Peak Floow for 2031 o of 6,000 m3/d d and 20,000 0 m3/d respective ely. The flow w projection is based on the t 2031 poppulation. Flow w projectionss have been since recalculatted based on the ultimate e population o of the urban area and thee existing zon ning to an ultimate populatio on of 12,000. At the ultim mate build‐out of the urbaan area it is projected th hat the ADF aat the 3 3 WWTP will w be 5,950 m /d with a peak flow of o 17,650 m /d. At the ccurrent growtth rate this iis not expected to occur untiil 2180.

5.8.3 5 Existting WWTP P Issues The Meafford WWTP has a rated capacity of 3,91 10 m3/d, withh a peak flow capacity of 11,730 m3/d, aas per the current C of A. A review of th he plant capaacity by the Ainley Group p in 2006 determined thaat the e hydraulic bo ottleneck, witth the surfacee settling ratee limiting thee peak existing clarifiers are aa considerable 3 flow to 6,874 m /d. eted in 20066, was condu ucted by Hyd dromantis Incc. The A review of the capacity analysis,, also comple review co oncluded thatt the existingg aeration baasins are an aadditional bo ottleneck on the basis thaat the plant doe es not have the capacity for nitrificattion. The plaant was originally designed as a high h rate activated sludge proce ess, which is n no longer a tyypical configuuration and does not confo orm to the cu urrent e a convventional activvated sludge or EAAS plants. The repo ort states thaat the design staandards for either WWTP sh hould be designed to operrate at a SRTT much greateer than 10 daays at a MLSSS concentratiion of Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

38

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

less than 3500 mg/l. M MOECC guidelines for EAAS plants statee that the aeration step should have an SRT delines the pllant is of fifteen (15) days and a HRT of att least fifteen (15) hours. Based on thee MOECC guid most heavily constrain ned by the fiffteen (15) ho our HRT whicch would limit the ADF to 1,650 m3/d when d to the SRT constraint which w would limit l the plannt to an ADF of 2,566 m3/d. As it currently compared stands it is recommend ded that the MLSS be keptt at 3500 mg//L. The Hydro omantis revie ew identified an additionaal constrainin g factor with h respect to the clarifiers aat the Meaford WWTP. The existing clariffiers are mucch shallower than recomm mended by th he current M MOECC uidelines. Hyd dromantis ide entified that since the claarifiers are sh hallow there is a much grreater design gu potential for solids to over flow th he weirs at peak flows pa rticularly as tthe sludge blanket thickeens. In p solid ds from leavin ng the sedimentation bassin it is recom mmended thaat the RAS raate be order to prevent kept at 10 00%. Based on the MOECC C design guide elines before 2008, at an A ADF of 2600 m m3/d, a RAS rate of 100% with an MLSS of o 3500 mg/L the existing clarifiers weere limited to o a peak flow w of 5,316 m3/d to p solids lo oading rate of o 120 kg/m2∙d. Since 20008, MOECC has increaseed the peak solids meet a peak loading raate to 170 kg//m2∙d which increases the peak flow to 8,656 m3/d.

The existing screens arre not ideallyy located at th he plant. In oorder to incorrporate new process train ns into the plant,, the headworks will need to be set bacck from the aeeration tank aarea in orderr to allow space for flow splittting after scre eening. The e existing scree en is also unddersized to meet the peak flows at the plant 3 with a peaak capacity off 9,842 m /d.

The existing disinfectio on consists off two (2) chan nnels, one (1 ) equipped w with UV lamp modules rateed for ow of 5,720 m m3/d and a second channel equipped w with weir and isolation chaannel for future UV a peak flo lamp mod dules, with a UV bypass an nd isolation valve. The ex isting disinfecction is undersized to meeet the existing peak flows. ecommended d that the plant be deratted to an AD DF of 2,700 m3/d with a peak Overall it has been re 3 capacity o of 8,100 m /d d.

5.8.4 5 Chan nges to the e Class EA Recomme endations While the e majority of recommendaations from the 2007 Classs EA remain valid, there aare changes tto the Class EA that are recom mmended bassed on the re esults of this m master plan sstudy.

The Class EA recomme ended that the plant be up pgraded to m meet the ADF of 6,000 m3/d d and 20,000 0 m3/d o single upggrade. Based d on the projected rate off growth and d the resultin ng increase in n flow peak in one over the next twenty (20) years, a full upgrade of the plant in order to sservice the ulltimate population should no ot be required d in the near tterm.

As discusssed in the 20 007 EA, the effluent limit ffor phosphorrus is expecteed to changee as a result o of any upgrades to the plantt. However, a a new limit requiring r terttiary filtration n is not expeected. A survvey of o Georgian Baay close to Meaford suggeests that a pho osphorus limit of 1 mg/L w would plants discharging into ed. An effluent concentration of 1 mg//L phosphoruus could be aachieved by aa single‐point alum be impose injection. The changed d phosphoru us limit will in ncrease the volume of slludge producced. The exp pected maximum m increase in sludge produ uction is 15% %. It is anticippated that th he plant can handle an A ADF of Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

39

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

4420 m3/d / (a 15% inccrease from current ADF volumes) whhile still haviing sufficientt capacity to store sludge witthout a need for expansion, assuming h hauling occurrs every 6 mo onths.

The influe ent forcemain n was identified as being u undersized fo r the ultimatee flows at thee WWTP. Based on available information, the influentt forcemain has a diametter of 450 m mm. A 450 m mm forcemain will ufficient capaacity for the p projected peak flows. provide su

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

40

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Ph hase 2 2 Alte ernatiive So olution ns

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

41

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

6.0 General A G Alternattives For the water w and wastewater systems in Meaaford, deficienncies have beeen identified that will reequire future upgrades. In addition, the Meaford Officiaal Plan identi fies zoning fo or growth thaat will also ressult in d wastewater facilities. A A long list of alternativves was form mulated for each additional water and component of the systtem and is evvaluated base ed on establi shed criteria. The followin ng two (2) geeneral mponents of tthe systems: alternativves were also identified and are evaluatted as applicaable to all com  

Do nothing Liimit/manage growth

6.1 Do Noth hing The Mastter Servicing Study must effectively de eal with all aaspects of th he problem sstatement. Th he Do Nothing alternative a does not provvide any add ditional capaccity for Meaford’s Waterr and Wastew water systems aand therefore e does not me eet the requirements of t he Official Plan. Due to tthe age of most of the existiing compone ents, and ch hanging Provincial Regulaations, the M Municipality will inevitab bly be required to upgrade most water and wastewaater systems in order to remain in ccompliance and to nd safety of tthe citizens o of Meaford. TThe Do Nothing Alternativve in these caases is maintain the health an therefore considered n not viable and d was screene ed out of the detailed com mparative asseessment.

6.2 Limit/M Manage Grrowth Not all of the problem ms identified w with the wate er and wastew water infrastructure in Meeaford are a result of growth h, and so limiting growth w would not ad ddress all of tthe problemss. In addition,, placing a lim mit on growth do oes not align with the Mu unicipality of Meaford appproved Officiaal Plan and b because of this the Limit/Man nage Growth Alternative w was screened out of the deetailed comparative assessment.

7.0 Water Di W istribution Alterrnatives As noted in Phase 1 of o the projecct and confirrmed throughh modeling, tthe existing water distrib bution system in Meaford req quires improvvement to corrrect deficien cies, includinng: being undeersized for exxisting demand sscenarios; beiing partially p plugged due tto corrosion pproducts; and d due to age. While this seection addressess alternativess for watermaain renewal, tthere is no g lobal “preferrred alternative” for this aaspect of the pro oject. The prreferred alterrnative for eaach section oof watermain n will depend d on the partticular circumstaances in that street and waatermain con ndition. The inntent of this section is to identify guidelines for determining the preferred p solution on eacch section off watermain. Various w watermain ren newal options arre available. The renewal options evalu uated during Phase 2 of th he master plaanning processs are: 1. Watermain Re W ehabilitation (Relining) 2. Watermain Re W eplacement The main reasons that deteriorated d watermains should be reenewed are lissted below: 

Preserve water quality

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

42

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

  

Prevent structural failure Prevent water loss Im mprove hydraaulic capacity and pressure e

Relining is the most common c wattermain rehaabilitation opption available for metal pipes. Watermain nvolves drillin ng back to pipe metal an nd using a maaterial such aas epoxy or cement morttar to relining in protective ely line the in nside of the e existing pipes. The lining aadds a smootth non‐structural coating tto the interior surface of the e pipe which h prevents fu urther corrosiion and oxid dation of the pipe interio or and main. The num mber of servvice connectio ons, valves, b bends increases the hydrauliic capacity off the waterm and appurtenances will affect the ccost of the lining projects. The cost of liining is generrally less expeensive ovided the piipe has a reaasonable rem maining life. TThe expected service life o of the than replaacement, pro pipe can b be extended by 30 to 50 yyears with liniing procedurees if the pipe is in good structural cond dition.

For older pipes, typical of the Meaford water sysstem, reliningg may not be the most eco onomical solu ution.

Watermain replaceme ent is the other o most common c wattermain reneewal alternative and is more applicable e when a pipe e is closer to the end of itss useful life a nd may fail to o provide adeequate servicce and does not have enough h structural sttrength, and becomes proone to failuree. In Meaford d, one of the main unt of underssized waterm mains and cleearly replacem ment is prefeerred for theese in concerns is the amou provide adequate service. While initial watermain rreplacement costs are mo ore expensivee than order to p other renewal optionss, this option extends the useful life by far longer an nd reduces fu uture mainten nance eased to meeet demandss thereby inccreasing hyd draulic costs. Replaced watermain sizes can be incre capacity of the wate ermain. The service life of the wateermain will b be the full d design life o of the replacement pipe and ranges from 50 years to 125 years.

8.0 Water St W orage Allternativ ves There are e different types of municcipal water storage optio ns available ffor the Meafford Water SSupply System. The T two (2) main m categories include floating storagge and pump ped storage. Common typ pes of floating sttorage are elevated steel or composite e steel/concrrete tanks as well as grou und‐ based sttorage such as standpipes s where w stored water is ab bove the reqquired HGL. PPumped storrage consistss of a reservoir that can be located in‐gground, above ground or partially in‐gground wherre water is sstored below the e required HG GL and still ne eeds to be pumped, usuallly from an atttached BPS. TTo increase syystem security, tthe location o of a new storaage reservoir is suggested to be in the St. Vincent Sttreet Boosterr Zone on the so outh end of the water disttribution systtem, and at tthe highest eelevation. In aan emergenccy this tank could d then supplyy the whole system. The St. Vincent Strreet BPS alreaady pumps w water to the H HGL of the pressure zone, the erefore the construction o of pumped sttorage would d mean a losss of pressure to fill ditional energgy to re‐pum mp the wate r. For this reeason, only ffloating storaage is the reservoir and add considere ed for the St. Vincent Stree et Boosted Zo one. Three (33) options weere evaluated d during Phase 2 of the maste er planning prrocess: 1. Elevatted Storage Tank 2. Standp pipe Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

43

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

3. In‐Gro ound Reservo oir Constructe ed at above t he Minimum m Pressure Eleevation

Elevated tanks, eitherr as steel or composite taanks, providee storage at or above thee required syystem ditional pump ping is requirred, this storaage is consideered as a seccure water storage pressure. Since no add option. Th he most common adopted d tank design n in Ontario i s a compositte tank design n which inclu udes a steel tankk on top of a concrete pe edestal. This type t of consttruction has larger initial costs but red duced yearly ope erational and d maintenance e costs becau use of the lackk of additionaal pumping reequired.

The stand dpipe design combines the functions of o both elevaated and pum mped storagee. A standpip pe is a steel or concrete c cylin nder containing storage th hat is partiallly above the required sysstem pressure and partially below this le evel. The waater below the required system presssure is unussable withou ut the addition o of a pumping station. Due e to the disadvantages asssociated with this type of w water storage, the standpipe e design was n not considere ed as a viable option for thhis project.

In‐ground d reservoirs constructed c of o concrete or o steel can aalso provide ffloating storaage, if constrructed above the e HGL. In‐ground concrete e storage allows for the abbility to have staged consttruction and is less visible to the public.

For the proposed Meaaford water sstorage expan nsion projectt, both elevatted tank storage and in‐grround storage w will be considered, as thesse types of sttorage have sshown to be the best avaailable options. For the addittion of storaage within th he St. Vincen nt Street Booosted Zone, floating sto orage is the most appropriaate and econo omical solutio on, provided either as ann elevated tan nk or as an in n‐ground con ncrete reservoir.

9.0 Water Bo W ooster Pu umping Station Optionss The Nelso on Street BPSS does not provide adequaate hydraulicc capacity to Pressure Zon ne 2 (Nelson SStreet Boosted Zone).

Z The station s does not have staandby pumpiing capacity or standby p power. A new w BPS should be e installed to correct the n non‐complian nce issues andd improve th he hydraulic ccapacity within the pressure zone. The hospital is loccated within the pressuree zone; thereefore it is im mperative thaat the hydraulic capacity be improved to p provide adequ uate fire flow ws and pressures for the ho ospital.

In examin ning the Nelso on Street Pressure Zone, two (2) alternnatives have b been identifieed for a new w water BPS. 1. Co onstruct BPS at the Water Tower Site 2. Co onstruct BPS in the Parkin ng Lot of the Meaford & SSt. Vincent Co ommunity Ceentre & Arenaa Alternativve 1 is at the existing watter tower site e. The properrty is large enough to acccommodate aa BPS. This property is owned d by the Mun nicipality, the erefore there will be no laand acquisitio on costs assocciated One major advantage of th his site is thatt the waterm main feeding tthe tower pro ovides with this alternative. O good sucttion pressure e to the BPS u under all dem mand scenari os. Approxim mately 335m of watermain n that would con nnect to Presssure Zone 2 w would need tto be upgradeed from a 1500 mm diametter watermain to a 200 mm diameter waatermain to ensure e adequ uate pressur es and flowss from pump p discharge tto the Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

44

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

pressure zzone. Figure 13 shows location 1 for th he proposed B BPS. The otheer advantagee of this altern native is that it facilitates ch hanges to the e Pressure Zo one 1 operattion by dediccating the w water tower tto the Nelson Street Booster Zone.

Alternativve 2 is to construct a new w BPS in the e parking lot of the Meafford & St. Viincent Comm munity Centre & Arena. This p property is ow wned by the Municipality,, therefore th here will be n no land acquiisition m diameterr watermain (approximattely 240 m) along costs associated with this option. The 150 mm Collingwo ood Street wo ould need to be upgraded d to a 200mm m diameter w watermain fro om the new B BPS to Thompson Street to provide ade equate water supply to the station.. A new 200 0 mm watermain (approxim mately 340 m) will have to be installed to connect innto the existin ng watermain n at Pressuree Zone 2. Figure 1 14 shows locaation 2 for the proposed B BPS.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

45

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figure 13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Booster Pump Station Alternative 1 Location Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 46

Figure 14 – Booster Pump Statio on Alternativ ve 2 Location Municipality of Meaaford & Waste Watter Servicing Water & Masterr Plan

47

April 2015 Ainleey Group, Filee No. 114106

10.0 Water Tr W reatmen nt Plant A Alternattives The existing WTP is in full compliiance with all regulationss and can meet the full build‐out demand expansion or u upgrade. The e only issue to o be addresseed at the WTPP is low presssure in some areas without e of the main pressure zone controlle ed by the high h lift pumps aand elevated ttank.

It is noted that when the WTP pumps are in operation, o th is pressurezo one has adeq quate pressurre. To nalyse why th his area experriences low pressure, the hhydraulic model was run w with Pressuree Zone further an 1 being su upplied from the elevated d tank with no WTP pumpps running. Th his situation likely occurs often as the pumps cycle offf and on as th he elevated tank fills. Moddel results baased on Presssure Zone 1 ssupply d tank exhibit significant pressure droop across the pressure zone. In the exxisting from just the elevated eriencing pressure problems, the presssure drops bby 60 – 70 Kp pa (8 – 10 psi) when thee WTP area expe pumps are switched offf and the are ea is supplied d by the elevaated tank. Mo odeling resultts show that when mum HGL in the pressure zzone is increaased from 23 2 m ASL (which is the tank full elevatio on) to the minim 239 m ASSL (which is typically t the HGL H at the WTP W from thee high lift pumps), all areas of the preessure zone have e adequate prressure.

To solve tthis problem, two (2) alternatives were considered:  

Alternative 1: Expand the Nelson St Booster B Zonee to encompaass all areas experiencingg low pressure probllems pumps continu uously Alternative 2: Change operaating strategyy to operate tthe high lift p

11.0 Wastewa W ater Collection A Alternatiives As noted in Phase 1 off the project ,, through CCTTV inspectionn and reiteratted in the I/I Study, the exxisting c system in Meafford requires improvemennt to correct deficiencies, including: broken sanitary collection While and crackked pipes, missaligned jointts, being parttially pluggedd due to encru ustation; and due to age. W this sectio on addresses alternatives for sewermain renewal, t here is no glo obal “preferred alternative” for this aspecct of the projject. The prefferred alternative for eacch section of sewermain w will depend o on the particularr circumstances for that street and sew wermain cond ition. The inttent of this seection is to identify guideliness for determining the pre eferred solutiion on each section of seewermain. V Various sewermain renewal o options are avvailable. Thesse renewal op ptions includee: 1. Sewermain Re S ehabilitation (relining) 2. Sewermain Re S eplacement The main reasons for rrenewal of sewermains are e to prevent sstructural faillure and to I/I sources.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

48

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

12.0 Wastewa W ater Pum mping Altternativ ves The existiing SPSs were e all identifie ed to be in go ood conditionn and have su ufficient capaacity to handle full build‐out conditions. H However, sevveral were ide entified that ccould allow ffor improved performancee. The ere identified:: following upgrades we SPS No. 1 N nitor  New Flow Mo  SCADA System S m SPS No. 2  Replace Pumps CADA System m  SC SPS No. 3  Replace Pumps  SC CADA System m  Fllow Monitor SPS No. 4  Decommission n once custom mer no longerr requires usee of the SPS SPS No. 5  No upgrades n needed An additio onal SPS will b be required to service devvelopments inn the south en nd of urban M Meaford. SPS No. 6 will require to be consstructed in the e area shown n in Figure 155 and will servvice developm ments along ffuture will be require e to be constructed prior tto any develo opments in the area. The need Coleman Street and w for SPS No. 6 was also o identified in n the Municip pality of Meaaford – Reporrt on Sanitaryy Sewer Colleection M (2004). SPS No. 6 would be co ompleted witthin the eassement of th he road, therrefore system Model requiring no land acqu uisition.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

49

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figure 15 – Potential Lo ocation for Sewage S Pum mping Station n #6 Municipality of Meaaford & Waste Watter Servicing Water & Masterr Plan

50

April 2015 Ainleey Group, Filee No. 114106

13.0 Wastewa W ater Trea atment E Expansio on Altern natives The problems identifie ed for the Meaford WWTP include:    

of the plant exxceed 45 years of age and require upgrrades to meett future need ds.

Components o Pe eak flows to tthe plant exce eed the desiggn capacity off some treatm ment processees.

Im mprovementss to the plant control systems have thhe potential to improve p plant perform mance an nd reduce energy use.

Upgrades are rrequired to m meet the revissed effluent r equirements.

The primary purpose of any actio on strategy at a the Meaf ord WWTP iis to providee solutions to the As such, the presented alte ernatives eac h address thee componentts of the plant that identified problems. A have reacched the end of their useful life, the isssue of peak fllows and aim m to minimisee the energy u use of the ultimaate system. TThe main obje ective is to maaintain the efffluent qualitty within the eeffluent objectives WTP it may b of the plaant C of A. Baased on the p previous stud dies of the WW be anticipateed that the pllant is unable to o meet the effluent e objecctives for nitrification wh ile operatingg at an ADF iin excess of 2,700 m3/d. Furrther, studiess at the plantt have recom mmended limiiting peak flo ows to the plant to 8,100 m3/d due to bo ottlenecks created by the in nlet works an nd clarifiers.

Over 2011‐2013 the ADF A at the Meaford M WW WTP was 2,6000 m3/d with h a peak flow w of 11,780 m3/d. mended capaacity of 2600 m3/d, the pplant is curreently operatin ng at 96% off ADF Assumingg the recomm capacity aand 145% of peak capacityy. Due to the e present flow ws and expeccted flows fro om growth, acctions are necesssary to eithe er resolve prrocess bottle enecks or to manage flow ws in order tto ensure efffluent quality is maintained aas developme ent occurs. A Alternatives innclude: 1. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet th he ADF and p peak flows exxpected at fu ull build‐out while ad ddressing the e existing I/I issues.

2. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in two (2) p phases with the ultimatee WWTP ablee to meet ADF and peak flows at full build‐outt while addre essing the exiisting I/I issuees.

3. Manage M peakk flows at th he WWTP by b establishin ng an equallization storaage system while managing m ADF through an a I/I reducttion program m. Upgrade tthe existing WWTP wheen I/I re eduction can no longer support develo opment.

4. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet the e ADF and peeak flows exp pected at full build‐out without ad ddressing the e existing I/I issues.

5. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in two (2) p phases with the ultimatee WWTP ablee to meet ADF and peak flows at full build‐outt without add dressing the eexisting I/I isssues.

The curre ent configurattion of the W WWTP is not iideal for the integration o of additional process unitss. The existing h headworks fee ed directly in nto the aeratiion basins wiith no space provided for flow splittingg to a new treattment train. In order to expand e the WWTP, W a new w headworks would need to be established upstream of the aeratiion basins to provide spacce for a flow ssplitting cham mber. As this is the case, o option nd 5 would all a require thaat a new heaadworks buildding be estab blished as a ccomponent o of any 1, 2, 4, an plant upgrades in orde er to have sufficient peak ccapacity evenn with reductiion of I/I. Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

51

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Equalization storage provides a sim mple solution for managingg the excessivve peak flowss in the shortt term without m moving ahead d with an expaansion to the e plant. Equal ization storagge would imp prove the flexxibility of the pllant and allo ow the operrators to ove ercome existting peak flo ow issues. Esstablishing a flow equalizatiion system will w not provvide additionaal ADF capaccity. In order to keep th he ADF below w the recommended capacitty of the plan nt an I/I reducction program m would be n needed. The I/I program w would be requirred to reduce e extraneouss flows at a faster f pace tthan develop pment. Based d on the histtorical growth raates of the urb ban area and the potential for flow redduction, this iss a feasible so olution.

Additionaally, successfu ully reducing I/I will provvide benefits upstream off the WWTP specifically aat the Bighead R River syphon. Without red duction of I/I,, the syphon will need to be expanded d to accommodate peak flow ws at ultimate build‐out.

For the re easons discusssed above, tthe reduction n of I/I shouldd remain a p priority for th he Municipality. As such, optiions 4 and 5 aare not consid dered to be id deal and are nnot considereed further.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

52

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

14.0 Evaluatio E on Criterria/Weig ghting and Rank king The criterria to be used d for evaluatio on of alternative solutionss for water and wastewatter projects are set out in the e approved C Class EA docu ument. Based on the natu re of the stu udy area, the potential pro ojects and the vvalues of the ccommunity, aa suggested ccriteria listingg and weightiing has been developed fo or use in the evaaluation proce ess. The criteria and weigh hting are pressented in the Table 11.

Table T 11 – Criteria C for Ev valuation of Alternative S Solutions Sub‐Criteeria

Criteria C

Weightin ng (%)

Land Use P Planning

15

Natural En nvironment

10

Social Environment

20

uality, Noise aand Vibration Air Qu

10

Qualitty of Life

5

Comm munity Accesssibility

5

nvironment Cultural En

10

eological Archae

5

Heritaage Features

5

Considerations Technical C

25

Perforrmance

5

Technical Suitabilit y

5

ng Phasin

5

Constrruction Consiiderations

5

Operaational Considderations

5

ons Economic Consideratio

20

Capitaal Cost

10

Operaating Costs

10

Total Weigghting

0 100

The Mastter Planning process will result in the determinati on of infrasttructure need ded to sustaiin the existing community c and service grrowth within n the urban aarea. The evvaluation criteeria were ussed to compare viable alternaative solution ns for the diffferent parts oof the water aand waste waater systems being considere ed. This allow wed for the solutions s for all the infrasstructure neeeds to be meet on a consistent basis. Eacch alternative e was rated b between 1 and 5 on its peerformance under each criterion, wherre 1 is poor perfformance and d 5 is exceptio onal perform mance. The altternative solu utions that sccore highest b based on the ran nking system will become the recomme ended solutioon from the M Master Planning process.

Municipality of Meaford

Aprill 2015 Water & W Waste Water Servicing

up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou 53 Master Plan

15.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Disttribution n Alterna atives Both rene ewal options have their ad dvantages and d disadvantagges. Table 12 below outlin nes the advan ntages and disadvantages of tthe watermain renewal op ptions: Table 12 - Advantages s & Disadvan ntages of Wa enewal Alterrnatives atermain Re R Renewal Type R Rehabilitatio on

ntages Advan  Traffic interru uption and noise are co onfined to two o (2) pits for e each section  Hyydraulic capaccity improved d  Minimal excavation/streetscape intterference re equired  Re estores corro osion resistance of pipe an nd extends usseful life  Le ess up‐front co osts than rep placement  Co ould add 30‐5 50 years to service s life if f the structural integrity of the existing pip pe is good  Co onstruction caan be phased

R Replacementt

         

Watermain W sizze can be increased to acccommodate demands Re epair costs will w be lower because the ne ew pipe can b be expected to o have lower brreak rates com mpared to older pipes Hyydraulic capaccity increased d to required am mount Re educed waterr loss Pip pe material ccan be chosen to suit the Municipality’s n needs and soil conditions Watermain W can be replace ed with less dissruption of w water service Lo ocal contracttors likely more m readily avvailable Lo onger service life Structural integgrity of pipe iss good onstruction can c be coord dinated with Co Municipal imprrovement plans

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

54

Disadvantaages  Bends, tees, valvess & fittings cause may need tto be difficul ties and m removeed for reliningg  Bypasss line is req quired to prrovide water service durring cleaningg and lining p process  Work ccannot be effeectively perfo ormed in the winter, as th he bypass linee may freeze  Contractors may not be llocally availab ble  High m mobilization ccosts; it is no ot cost effectivve for sm mall rehabilitation projectts  Diametter of the pipe will be redu uced  Pipes m must be thoro oughly cleaneed and dried b before applicaation of liningg  Shorterr service life compared to o pipe replaceement  Does n not improve sstructural inttegrity of pipee  More d disruptive to o streetscapee than alternaative of rep pairing breaks or rehabillitation  All serrvice connecctions have to be reinstated  Higher initial costts than repaair or rehabillitation

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

15.1 1 Waterm main Rene ewal Cost Comparison Based on modeling results, a total of 15,650 m of waterma in could be cconsidered fo or rehabilitatiion or replacement.

It is estim mated that the initial capittal costs to replace a wattermain are 550% higher than rehabilitation.

Based on a simple payyback period, it would require an incrrease in useful life approaaching 50 yeaars to make the rehabilitation alternative more cost efffective than tthe replacem ment alternativve.

15.2 2 Evaluation of Wa atermain Renewal Alternatiives Table 13 b below outline es evaluation of each wate ermain renew wal alternativee.

Table T 13 – Ev valuation of Watermain Renewal Altternatives Reh habilitation

Alte ernatives Weighting (%) 15 10

Qualitaative Rankking 5 4

Soccial Environm ment

20

Air Quality, Noisse and Vibration

Replaacement

0.755 0.400

Qualitative Rankin ng 5 3

122

0.800

12

0.75

10

4

0.400

3

0.30

Quaality of Life

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Com mmunity Acce essibility

5

4

0.200

4

0.20

Cultural Environ nment

10

8

0.400

8

0.40

Arcchaeological

5

3

0.155

3

0.15

Herritage Feature es

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Tecchnical Consid derations

25

188

0.900

24

1.20

Perrformance

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Tecchnical Suitab bility

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Phaasing

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Con nstruction Considerations

5

3

0.155

4

0.20

Ope erational Con nsiderations

5

3

0.155

5

0.25

Eco onomic Considerations

20

5

0.500

7

0.70

Cap pital Cost

10

3

0.300

3

0.30

Ope erational Cost

10

2

0.200

4

0.40

Tottal

100

Scorre:

3.755

Score::

4.10

Critteria Lan nd Use Planniing Nattural Environment

Scorre

Score 0.75 0.30

16.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Storrage Alte ernatives Additionaal storage is required to meet the MO OECC guideli nes for wateer storage un nder full builld‐out conditions. Currently the t system has h 2,880 m3 of storage aavailable betw ween the eleevated tank iin the vicinity off Trowbridge e Street and Owen Street and an in‐gground reservvoir at the W WTP. An additional Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

55

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

1,830 m3 (approximately 2,000 m3) will be needed, bringingg the total syystem storagee to 4,710 m m3. To ecurity during MDD and ffire flow scennarios, the neew storage lo ocations exam mined increase tthe system se for the different alterrnatives are located awayy from existinng storage, o on the south end of the w water on system. distributio

16.1 1 In‐Grou und Storag ge Alternative In‐ground d water storage is a viable e option for M Meaford and has unique ccharacteristiccs when compared to other rreservoirs. Du ue to Meaforrd’s landscape e, an in‐grounnd reservoir can be locateed so that it ssits at the system’s HGL, elim minating the need for additional pum mping. This prrovides a mo ore secure form of water sto orage. In‐grou und concrete reservoirs can have stagged constructtion; which reeduces the ccapital and operaational costs since a smalller reservoir iis initially buiilt. When req quired, the seecond phase o of the reservoir can be built tto meet dem mand needs. H However, duee to the small size of the p proposed Meeaford ot be the mo ost economiccal solution. This type o of constructio on also allow ws for reservoir this may no hetic impact o on the surrou unding comm unity. No tan nk painting is required, red ducing minimum visual/ aesth hen compared d to elevated d water stora ge. This typee of storage requires moree land maintenance costs wh mpared to the e elevated tan nk alternative e because of iits larger foottprint. when com The reservoir will have e approximate e dimensionss of 20 m x 200 m x 5 m deeep and would d consist of tw wo (2) w be req quired to be located at the 260 m ellevation leveel which is co onsistent witth the cells. It would system’s HGL and which exists alo ong a ridge to the south east of the pressure zon ne on each siide of oad 7, some 5 500 m south o of Muir Stree et. To connectt the reservoir to the systeem, approxim mately County Ro 1,400 m o of 400 mm pipe would havve to be consstructed from m Sykes Streett to the proposed location n. The reservoir would be bu uried with only a valve chamber and aaccess road visible to the public. It cou uld be odated on a 0.5 Ha site app proximately 7 70 m by 70 m . accommo

16.2 2 Elevated d Tank Allternative e Elevated tank storage also provide es secure watter storage aand is easy to o operate, sim milar to in‐grround concrete tanks. Additionally, they can be considered as an identifiable llandmark forr communitiees and orage facilityy of equal vo olume. The m main disadvantage take up less land than the same in‐ground sto d with elevatted storage taanks is that tthey must be repainted on n a regular b basis (every tw wenty associated (20) yearss) resulting in large mainte enance costs. The other m ain disadvanttage is associated with saffety in climbing tto enter the tank. They caan also suffer from ice foormation insid de the tank. Different styyles of elevated ttanks exist, raanging from sspheroidal sh hapes with steeel shafts succh as the Wassaga Water Tower, to composite cylindricaal tanks with concrete shafts.

Within th he St. Vincent Street Boo osted Zone th here is vacannt land availaable sufficien nt to constru uct an 3 elevated ttank. The 2,0 000 m elevatted tank wou uld be constr ucted at a grround elevatiion around 215 m, requiring a pedestal/ttank approxiimately 45 m m high. The tank would be connectted to an exxisting watermain on Centre SStreet adjacent the site.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

56

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

16.3 3 Advanta ages and D Disadvan ntages of SStorage A Alternativ ves Both of th he two (2) waater storage aalternatives h have advanta ges and disad dvantages wh hich are impo ortant in the decision makingg process. Taable 14 outlin nes the adva ntages and d disadvantagess of both eleevated nd in‐ground storage. storage an Table 14 - Adva antages vs. Disadvantag D ges of Elevatted and In-G Ground Stora age Options.

Storage Type T

Advan ntages

Disadvantag ges

 Se ecure Floatingg Storage Elevated Storage e

 Unpleasing aaesthetics to ssome (subjecctive)

 Id dentifiable laandmark to some  Access to sttorage cell iss via a long ladder (subjective) with climb asssist equipmeent  Storage cell iis a confined space  Re equires less laand  Eaase of operattion

 Painting costt

 Se ecure Floatingg Storage

 Storage cell iis a confined space

 No Painting cost

 Requires more land than elevated storrage

 Lo ow energy costs

ow energy costs  Lo In‐Groun nd Storage e

 Eaase of operattion

 Acccess to storaage cell is a sshorter ladder  Le ess visual Imp pact  Ph hased constru uction

16.4 4 Site Iden ntification of Wate er Storage e Alternatives Two (2) separate storaage sites havve been seleccted for the ttwo (2) differrent storage options identtified.

The storaage sites suit the type of storage and allow for m minimal costs to be incurrred. Both sitees are located so outh east of M Meaford within the St. Vincent Street B Boosted Zone.

16.4.1 1

In‐Groun nd Reserv voir Site Id dentificatio on

Several crriteria were id dentified in th he site selection for the pootential in‐gro ound tank. Th he most significant criteria was that the siite have an elevation equaal to the syst em’s HGL (2660 m) to elim minate the neeed for pumping. The site also o had to be laarge enough ffor in‐ground storage and have road acccess. Only one (1) location w was able to saatisfy all the ccriteria and iss shown in Figgure 16. Otheer sites in thee surroundingg area at the sam me elevation do not have e road accesss, making theem non‐viable locations. TThe site is lo ocated along Gre ey Road 7, sou uth of Muir Sttreet. The are ea is residenttial‐zoned lan nd that is currrently tree covered with no existing e deve elopment. To allow this site s to be us ed for an in‐ground reseervoir, 1,400 m of additional 400 mm waatermain will have to be co onstructed too connect thee reservoir to the existing w water on network w which stops att Muir Street.. distributio

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

57

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figu ure 16 – In-G Ground Wate er Reservoir Location Municipality of Meaaford & Waste Watter Servicing Water & Masterr Plan

58

April 2015 Ainleey Group, Filee No. 114106

16.4.2 1

Elevated d Tank Site e Identificcation

The main criterion in selecting a siite for the po otential elevaated water taank was that it be municiipally‐ nd. This will aallow for redu uced capital ccosts. Site eleevation was n not a concern, as elevated tanks owned lan located on land below the HGL still provide secu ure floating sttorage. The only site in thee St. Vincent SStreet municipally ow wned is the old landfill sitee on Centre Sttreet. This sitte is located o on the Boosted ZZone that is m west side of Centre Sttreet just norrth of Russettt Drive show wn in Figure 117. The site h has an elevatiion of 213.5 m.

Additionaal sites have e been identtified as posssible water tower locattions; howevver, they aree not municipallly‐owned. Should an ele evated tank be the prefferred altern native, the M Municipality could approach landowners in the Muir SStreet/Centre e Street area should a larrger or more prominent site be n, the formerr landfill site is used for the elevated d tank required. For the purposes of the Master Plan alternativve.

16.1 1 Cost Com mparison n of Storag ge Alternatives A cost anaalysis has bee en completed d for the estim mated capital costs and op peration and m maintenance costs over a 50 year life span n for both alternatives. Th he calculationn spreadsheetts are includeed in Appendiix E. A summary of the costt comparison is presented in Table 15.

Table 15 5 - Estimated d Cost Comp parison of D Different Storrage Alterna atives

C Capital Cost O Operation and Maintenance Costs Major Mainte enance Costs TTotal Cost P Present Value Cost

Elevated Sttorage $ 3,150,0 $ 00 $ 550,00 $ 00 $ 1,000,0 $ 00 $ 4,700,0 $ 00 $ 3,425,0 $ 00

In‐Ground SStorage $$ 3,191,0 000 $$ 550,000 $$ ‐ $$ 3,991,0 000 $$ 3,404,0 000

1

All costs represent 201 14 values exce ept for the nett present valuee cost which ttakes into acco ount a od analyzed. discount raate of 4% over the time perio

The elevated storage aalternative results in the lo owest capital cost which in ncludes the co ost of constru uction and engin neering. Land cost is not in ncurred as the e intended sitte is already o owned by Meeaford. The annual operation n and maintenance costs aare low for th he elevated ttank since miinimal upkeep is necessarry and no pumpiing is require ed. Large majo or maintenan nce costs refl ect the frequ uency and higgh cost of painting the tank (every twentyy (20) years).

The in‐gro ound storage e alternative results in sim milar but slighhtly higher caapital costs w which includees the cost of co onstruction, land cost, waatermain construction andd engineeringg fees. The higher capital costs are due to the Municiipality not ow wning any lan nd near the H HGL and therrefore needin ng to purchasse the land. The annual operration and maintenance costs c are low since minim mal upkeep is necessary an nd no pumping is required. N No major maintenance cossts are incurr ed, greatly reeducing the total costs oveer the 50 year pe eriod.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

59

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figurre 17 – E Elevated d Tank Location n

Municipaality of M Meaford W Water & & Waste W Water Seervicing Master P Plan

April 20 015 Ainley Gro oup, File No. 114106 60

16.2 2 Evaluation of Altternativess Table 16 b below outline es the evaluattion for each storage optioon.

Table 16 – Evaluation of Water Sttorage Altern natives Alte ernatives

Elevaated Storage Weighting (%) 15 10

Qualitaative Rankking 5 4

Soccial Environm ment

20

Air Quality, Noisse and Vibration

und Storage In‐Grou

0.755 0.400

Qualitative Rankin ng 3 3

133

0.800

14

0.90

10

3

0.300

4

0.40

Quaality of Life

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Com mmunity Acce essibility

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Cultural Environ nment

10

7

0.355

8

0.40

Arcchaeological

5

4

0.200

4

0.20

Herritage Feature es

5

3

0.155

4

0.20

Tecchnical Consid derations

25

166

0.800

22

1.10

Perrformance

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Tecchnical Suitab bility

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Phaasing

5

1

0.055

3

0.15

Con nstruction Considerations

5

3

0.155

4

0.20

Ope erational Con nsiderations

5

4

0.200

5

0.25

Eco onomic Considerations

20

5

0.500

7

0.70

Cap pital Cost

10

3

0.300

3

0.30

Ope erational Cost

10

2

0.200

4

0.40

Tottal

100

Scorre:

3.600

Score::

3.85

Critteria Lan nd Use Planniing Nattural Environment

Scorre

Score 0.45 0.30

17.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Booster Pum mp Statio on Alterrnatives Both alte ernatives for the Nelson Street (Presssure Zone 2) water BPPS have their advantagess and disadvanttages. Table 1 17 below outlines the advaantages and ddisadvantagess of the two ((2) alternativees:

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

61

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 17 - Advantages A & Disadvanttages of Wa ater Booster Station Alte ernatives Renewal Type Advantages A Alternattive 1  Municipally owned land d (Water Tower  Transmission main alrready exists to Site) the water tower, would only have to connect to o the existing watermain perty for a BPPS  Plenty of sspace on prop  Treed lot,, BPS would not be visibble from the rroad e BPS to be integrated i w with  Allows the the Presssure Zone 1 1 operation to facilitate a change in operatiion strategy Alternattive 2  Municipally owned land d (Meaforrd  Plenty of sspace available for a BPS Commun nity Centre & Arena Parking Lot)

Disadvaantages  Disccharge watermain will haave to be u upgraded

 

Visib ble from the rroad Both h suction and discharge wateermain will have to o be upgrraded

17.1 1 Cost Com mparison n of Waterr Boosterr Pump Sttation Alte ernativess The cost for Alternativve 1 is less expensive com mpared to Altternative 2, ssince Alternaative 1 would d have less wate ermain that would w need to be installed or upgraaded. The co ost of the waater BPS for both alternativves would be relatively the e same.

17.2 2 Evaluation of Altternativess Table 18 b below outline es the evaluattion of each aalternative.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

62

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table e 18 – Evalua ation of Watter Booster P Pump Station Alternative es Alte ernatives

Alt ernative 1

Alterrnative 2

0.755 0.500

Qualitative Rankin ng 5 5

155

1.000

15

1.00

10

5

0.500

5

0.50

Quaality of Life

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Com mmunity Acce essibility

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Cultural Environ nment

10

8

0.400

8

0.40

Arcchaeological

5

3

0.155

3

0.15

Herritage Feature es

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Tecchnical Consid derations

25

199

0.955

19

0.95

Perrformance

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Tecchnical Suitab bility

5

5

0.255

5

0.25

Phaasing

5

3

0.155

3

0.15

Con nstruction Considerations

5

3

0.155

3

0.15

Ope erational Con nsiderations

5

3

0.155

3

0.15

Eco onomic Considerations

20

8

0.800

7

0.70

Cap pital Cost

10

4

0.400

3

0.3

Ope erational Cost

10

4

0.400

4

0.4

Tottal

100

Scorre:

4.400

Score::

4.30

Weighting (%) 15 10

Qualitaative Rankking 5 5

Soccial Environm ment

20

Air Quality, Noisse and Vibration

Critteria Lan nd Use Planniing Nattural Environment

Scorre

Score 0.75 0.50

18.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Trea atment P Plant Altternatives The Meafford WTP req quires no exxpansion for existing and full build‐ou ut conditions,, as the plan nt has sufficient capacity. To eliminate prressure proble ems in the m main pressuree zone, two (2) alternativees are d: evaluated Alternativve 1 would increase the Nelson Street pressure zonne boundary aand construct a larger Preessure uld solve the pressure pro Zone 2 BP PS to supply tthe larger pre essure zone. While this altternative wou oblem for the hiigher elevatio ons, it would still result in n pressure fluuctuations fo or other custo omers in the main pressure zone as the h high lift pumps cycle on aand off. It woould also mean installatio on of larger p pumps and stand d‐by power unit u in a boosted zone wh hen the existting high lift pumps alreaady have suffficient capacity tto meet all pe eaks in the maain pressure zzone and alsoo have stand‐by power avaailable.

Alternativve 2 would increase the HGL of the maain pressure zzone to 239 m m elevation (aan increase o of 7 m or 10 psi), would lockk in the elevvated tank an nd would opperate the main pressure zone as a cclosed pressure zzone. This wo ould require installation off VFDs on thee high lift pum mps and the m modification o of the Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

63

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

control syystem to creaate an even p pressure thro oughout the ppressure zonee under all deemand condiitions.

While the e elevated tan nk would rece eive flows fro om the high liift pumps forr filling, it cou uld be dedicatted to the supply of the Ne elson Street boosted zone, reducingg the size off pumps and d stand‐by p power ent. The elevated tank cou uld also still b be available tto the main p pressure zonee under emergency requireme condition.

Based on the substanttial improvem ment to operaating quality aand economyy, as well as the reduced ccapital cost, Alternative 2 is preferred to Alternative 1.

19.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa astewate er Collecction Alte ernative es The recen nt CCTV inspe ections and I//I Study has identified deeficiencies thrroughout thee Meaford sanitary sewer collections systtem that require improve ements. The deficiencies identified incclude: broken n and pipes, misalign ned joints, be eing partially plugged due to encrustattion and due to age. To ad ddress cracked p these pro oblem areas the preferre ed alternative for each ssection of seewermain wiill depend on the condition of the pipe w with no unive ersal preferre ed alternativee for the entirre system. Th he two (2) ren newal options id dentified are ssewermain re ehabilitation ((relining) or ssewermain reeplacement.

19.1 1 Sewer R Rehabilita ation Alte ernative Trenchlesss sewer rehabilitation is a commonlyy used methhod for the rrehabilitation n of comprom mised sewermaiins. Several methods m for trenchless re ehabilitation exist and incclude: pipe b bursting, slipllining, and CIPP. Each rehabilitation meth hod can successfully reduuce I/I, and bo oth sliplining and pipe bursting mproved structural integrity equivalentt to a fully repplaced pipe. CIPP rehabiliitation will prrovide provide im a minor im mprovement in structurall integrity but is not recom mmended fo or severely daamaged pipess. The number of o service con nnections willl affect the cost c of the li ning projectss, as servicess need to be recut from the new pipe. The cost of linin ng is generallyy less expensiive than replaacement, pro ovided the pip pe has a reasonaable remaining life. The expected servicce life of the ppipe can be eextended by 3 30 to 50 yearss with CIPP if the pipe is in good g structurral condition.. Sliplining aand pipe bustting both pro ovide a full 80‐100 pical of the Meaford M wateer system, CIPP relining m may have a h higher year lifecycle. For older pipes, typ uch higher thaan for lifecycle ccost. Further, the mobilizattion costs forr rehabilitatioon methods teend to be mu replacement, making tthe relining off short pipe sections unecoonomical.

19.2 2 Sewer R Replacement Alternative Sewermain replaceme ent is the oth her most com mmon sewerr renewal altternative. It is more applicable e and may faiil to provide aadequate serrvice, and doees not when a pipe is closer tto the end of its useful life have enough structuraal strength and becomes prone to fai lure. While initial sewermain replaceement enewal optionns, this option extends thee useful life longer costs are typically morre expensive tthan other re osts. The servvice life of thee sewermain w will be the full design life o of the and reducces future maaintenance co replacement pipe and ranges from 80 to 125 yeaars.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

64

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

19.3 3 Advanta ages & Disadvanta ages of Wa astewaterr Collectio on Renew wal Alternatives Both rene ewal options have their ad dvantages and d disadvantagges. Table 19 below outlin nes the advan ntages and disadvantages of tthe wastewatter collection renewal optiions: e 19 - Advan ntages & Dis sadvantages s of Wastew water Collectiion Renewal Alternatives Table R Renewal Type R Rehabilitatio on

R Replacementt

Advan ntages  Traffic interru uption and noise are co onfined to two o (2) pits for e each section  Hyydraulic capaccity improved d  Minimal excavation/streetscape intterference re equired  Re estores corro osion resistance of pipe an nd extends usseful life  Le ess up‐front co osts than rep placement  Co ould add 30‐5 50 years to service s life if f the structural integrity of the existing pip pe is good  Co onstruction caan be phased  I/I reduction

 Re epair costs will w be lower because the ne ew pipe can b be expected to o have lower brreak rates com mpared to older pipes  Hyydraulic capaccity increased d  Re educed I/I  Pip pe material ccan be chosen to suit the Municipality’s n needs and soil conditions  Caan be replace ed with less disruption d of f se ewer service  Lo ocal contracttors likely more m readily avvailable  Lo onger service life  Structural integgrity of pipe iss good  Co onstruction can c be coord dinated with Municipal imprrovement plans

Disadvantaages  Servicee connections cannot be used for 224 hours in most cases.

Constru uction mustt be coordiinated with reesidents.  Work ccannot be effeectively perfo ormed in the winter, as th he bypass linee may freeze  Contractors may not be llocally availab ble  High m mobilization ccosts; it is no ot cost effectivve for sm mall rehabilitation projectts  Shorterr service life compared to o pipe replaceement  More d disruptive to o streetscapee than alternaative of rep pairing breaks or rehabillitation  All serrvice connecctions have to be reinstated  Higher initial costts than repaair or rehabillitation

19.4 4 Evaluation of Wa astewaterr Collectio on Renew wal Altern natives Table 20 o outlines evalu uation of each h sewermain renewal alte rnative.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

65

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 20 0 – Sewerma ain Evaluatio on of Alterna atives Alterna atives

Rehaabilitation

Replacement

Weighting (%)

Qualitativve Rankingg

Scoree

Qualitaative Ranking

Sco ore

Land Usse Planning Naturall Environmen nt

15

5

0.75

5

0.7 75

10

4

0.40

3

0.3 30

Social EEnvironment

20

12

0.80

12 2

0.7 75

Air Quality, Noise an nd Vibration

10

4

0.40

3

0.3 30

Quality of Life

5

4

0.20

5

0.2 25

Commu unity Accessib bility

5

4

0.20

4

0.2 20

Cultural Environmen nt

10

8

0.40

8

0.4 40

Archaeo ological

5

3

0.15

3

0.1 15

Heritage Features

5

5

0.25

5

0.2 25

Techniccal Considerations

25

18

0.90

24 4

1.2 20

Perform mance

5

4

0.20

5

0.2 25

Techniccal Suitability

5

4

0.20

5

0.2 25

Phasingg

5

4

0.20

5

0.2 25

Constru uction Considerations

5

3

0.15

4

0.2 20

Operatiional Conside erations

5

3

0.15

5

0.2 25

Econom mic Considera ations

20

5

0.05

7

0.7 70

Capital Cost

10

3

0.30

3

0.3 30

Operatiional Cost

10

2

0.20

4

0.4 40

Total

100

Score:

3.75

Scorre:

4.1 10

Criteria a

20.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa astewate er Pump ping Alternativess No alternative optionss were identiified for SPS as they weree identified tto all be in go ood condition and capable of handling full build‐out condition ns. However,, upgrades that will reesult in improved would performance are identified. Identiffied below are upgrades to SPS No. 11, No. 2 and No. 3 that w existing conditions at thesse sites and h help deal withh future build d‐out conditio ons. SPS No. 4 and improve e No. 5 require no upgraades at this ttime. SPS No. 4 is to be deecommissioned once the Knight of Meeaford F shuts down and no n longer req quires its servvice. The deccommissionin ng costs are to be Lumber Factory incurred b by the Knight of Meaford LLumber Facto ory.

Upgrades recommended at SPS No.. 1 are listed iin Table 21:

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

66

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 21 2 – Sewage e Pumping Station S No. 1 Recommen nded Upgrad des Upgrade Monitor New Flow M SCADA Systtem

Cost ($2015) $ 150,000 $ 75,000

Upgrades recommended at SPS No.. 2 are listed iin Table 22: 2 – Sewage e Pumping Station S No. 2 Recommen nded Upgrad des Table 22 Upgrade Replace Pumps SCADA Systtem

Cost ($2015) $ 125,000 $ 75,000

Upgrades recommended at SPS No.. 3 are listed iin Table 23: 2 – Sewage e Pumping Station S No. 3 Recommen nded Upgrad des Table 23 Upgrade Replace Pumps SCADA Systtem Flow Monittor

Cost ($2015) $ 80,000 $ 75,000 $ 50,000

In order tto support fu ull build‐out, a new SPS w will be requireed to supportt development in the Coleman Street are ea in the soutthwest of Me eaford’s urban settlement area. The staation will be located at th he low point alon ng the future e section of C Coleman Stree et with a new w forcemain required alon ng Coleman SStreet towards Muir M Street. The timing and complettion of the ssiting of this station will be dependent on developm ment in the area.

The ultim mate flows pro ojected at SP PS No. 6 are approximatelly 520 – 610 m3/d ADF w with a peak flo ow of 3 1300 – 16 600 m /d. It is recommend ded that this station incluude two (2) 100 L/s pumps (one (1) dutyy, one (1) standb by) to service e the ultimate e developmen nt scenario. TThe station w will discharge into the sew wer on Muir Stre eet and sewaage will subssequently flo ow by gravityy to the WW WTP. Approximately 400 m of forcemain n will run from the SPS towards Mu uir Street. A n additional catchment area (area 6 6) will encompasss the properrties that are serviced by SSPS No. 6 It is estimated that SPSS No. 6 and fo orcemain will cost $750,0000.

21.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa astewate er Treatm ment Ex xpansion n Alte ernativess To allow for the currrent Meaford d WWTP to meet the nneeds of the growing co ommunity, fivve (5) eloped to add dress bottlenecks and to m manage flows in the systeem. Out of th he five alternativves were deve (5) alternatives outlined in Section n 13.0, three e (3) are eva luated in depth below to o allow for aa final Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

67

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

alternativve to be reco ommended. The other two (2) alteernatives did not resolve the currentt flow problems and thereforre were not considered to be ideal and are not analyyzed further.

21.1 1 Alternative 1 – Fu ull Plant E Expansio on, Contin nuing I/I R Reduction n A full plan nt expansion at the Meafo ord WWTP to service the uultimate popu ulation would d closely follow the recommendations of the t 2007 Class EA. However, betweenn the reduced ultimate population an nd the continuattion of I/I re eduction, the e ultimate flo ow is expectted to be lower than orriginally projeected.

Additionaally, since 20 007 the MOEECC design guidelines g forr sewage wo orks have beeen modified d. The expected flows at ultim mate build‐ou ut are summaarised in Tablee 24.

Table 24 – Flow Proje ections ADF (m3/d) 2,740 5,940 5,350

2013 Ultimate Ultimate witth I/I Reduction

P Peak Day (m3/d) 10,870 17,700 15,600

The proce ess expansion ns required to o meet the ulttimate flows aare summarissed in Figure 18.

Process Capaccity Exissting Inlet Worrks

Process

Inlet Scree ens In nlet Grit Removval Aeration Basins Clarifie ers Disinfectio on Exissting Disinfectio on 0.0

2.0 0

4.0

6.0

8.00

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1 18.0

Peak FFlow (ML/d) Existing

Expaansion

Removed

Peak Flow w

ADF (2013)

Predicted Flo ow (Ultimate)

Predicted d Flow (Peak)

Figure F 18 – Ultimate U Plan nt Expansion n Process C Capacities As describ bed in the 20 007 Class EA, it is recomm mended that tthe existing in nlet works bee decommissioned and a new w headworkss building be established at the site tto house both new inlet screens and a grit removal system. s The addition of the grit remo oval system w will alleviate tthe need to have the aerration basins offf line once each year to rem move the acccumulated seddiment.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

68

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Based on the current design guidelines for exxtended aerattion plants p providing nitrrification, thee HRT e ≥ 15 hours aand the SRT sshould be ≥ 1 15 days at th e ADF for thee biological sttep. For an A ADF of should be 3 3 5,400 m /d the ultima / te plant shou uld have a tottal aeration vvolume of 3,3375 m . An aadditional aerration 3 volume off 2,275 m for aeration is ttherefore req quired.

The curre ent design gu uidelines for secondary claarifiers speci fies a maxim mum SOR of 4 40 m3/m3/d and a peak solid ds loading raate of 170 kgg/m2/d. At a RAS rate of 100% and a MLSS of 350 00 mg/L, thee total 2 clarifier area required to meet the e ultimate pe eak flow is 4550 m . Assum ming a SWD o of 4.5 m, thee total 3 olume needed is 2025 m . The capacity . y of the existiing clarifiers h has been brought into queestion settling vo by the caapacity report review byy Hydromantiis specificallyy due to thee lower SWD D than is typ pically recommended. Consid dering that th he plant has consistently met the efflu uent limits fo or nitrification and er the past 6 6 years, while operating at an ADF a round 2,700 m3/d, it is aassumed theey will solids ove w. To treat the remainin continue to be capab ble of treating this portio on of the flow ng 2,700 m3//d, an here the peakk solids loadin ng rate is the limiting facto or. additional 230 m2 of clarifier area iss required wh As discusssed, the existting plant headworks reprresent a majoor bottleneckk and will neeed to be replaced.

The 2007 7 Class EA re ecommended a headworkks building thhat containeed screening, grit removaal and odour con ntrol. This reccommendatio on is carried fforward, as g rit accumulattion in the aeeration basinss is an ongoing isssue at the W WWTP. The existiing UV disinfe ection system m consists of two (2) channnels, one eq quipped with UV lamp mo odules 3 rated for 5,720 m /d, aand a second channel equipped with w weir and isolattion channel ffor future UV V lamp econd channel could be equipped witth an additio onal UV mod dule the peakk flow modules. While the se ufficient to m meet the ultim mate demand s. In order to o meet the ultimate demands it rating would not be su is recomm mended that a new UV dissinfection sysstem be estabblished at thee site with a p peak flow cap pacity 3 of 16,000 m /d.

The recommendation for tertiaryy filtration iss not carriedd forward in n this option n. Based on n the anticipate ed effluent limit phosph horus of 1 mg/L, m tertiarry filtration is not requ uired. An efffluent concentraation of 1 mg//L phosphoru us can be mett and exceedeed by using co oagulant addition.

Table 25 ssummarises tthe recommended upgrade es for the faccility.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

69

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 25 2 – Recomm mended Upg grades of the e 2007 Classs EA - Revissed

Initiative::

Ratiionale: Achieve aerationn basin SRT of fifteen (15) days. Prrimary clariifier SOR andd SLR capacity identified aas being bettween 2400 0 m3/d and 22800 m3/d. Deerate plant frrom 3,910 m3/d to 2,70 00 m3/d.

Derate plaant capacity Establish a new influen nt forcemain.

Existting forcemaiin has been id dentified to b be undersized d.

The existing scrreens have b been identifieed as a hyd draulic botttleneck. The sscreens are undersized and will be replaced. works buildin ng will housse properly sized The new headw scre eens and proovide contain nment for aan odour rem moval system and a gritt removal system.

Remove e existing inlet sscreens.

Establish a new headw works buildingg.

Repairs are needded for the existing clarifiers and aerration basins as identifi ed by structu ural assessmeent.

Repairs to o concrete strructures

Replace steel s compon nents of seco ondary Unitts in service ffor >40 years,, which is thee expected lifeespan clarifiers. of th his equipmennt.

Demolish the abandon ned digester.

No longer in use and there is no plan to use in the futurre.

New Screening facility: Two (2) sccreens, each 5,400 m3/d ADF / 16,000 m3/d peak New grit rremoval syste em Two (2) se eperators, each 16,000 m3/d capacity

Replacements too meet expectted ADF/Peakk flows.

Aeraation tanks a re drained an nnually to remove grit wh hich is time e consuming aand labour in ntensive.

New seco ondary treatm ment Two (2), 1 1,138 m3 rectaangular tankss Total SRT fifteen (15) d days

y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments Currrent capacity of growth. Addit ional capacity to meet AD DF of 5,400m m3/d in conjjunction withhin existing aeeration basinss.

New seco ondary clarifie ers Two (2) ciircular tanks 12.2 m diaa, 4.2 m SWD D each Three (3),, 21 L/s RAS p pumps Three (3),, 15 L/s WAS pumps New UV d disinfection syystem Two (2) ch hannels, total 5,400 m3/d ADF / 16,000 m3/d peak Decommission and re emove existing UV disinfectio on.

Currrent capacity y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments of growth. g Addittional capacitty sufficient to meet peak day flow w rate of 166,000 m3/d in conjuncttion with exxisting clariifiers. Refurbiishment of RA AS/WAS pum mping station.

Currrent UV Systeem is undersizzed for the ulltimate flow.

Expand biiosolids stabilization facilitty with Inco orporation off a specific b biosolids thickening proceess to new WAS thickening redu uce odours/ aaddress comp plaints.

New odou ur control sysstem Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

To be b incorporaated as a part of the Mu unicipality’s o odour man nagement sttrategy to aaddress the historical o odour Aprill 2015

up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou 70

Initiative::

Ratiionale: com mplaints at thee site.

As p per the 2007 CClass EA requ uirements.

Existting caps aare showingg signs of damage caausing inco onsistent rele ase of effluen nt.

Existting MCC is rreaching the end of its useeful life and n needs to be replaced.

Existting generatoor not sufficieent to meet th he demands o of the expaanded plant.

New efflu uent pumpingg station Remove d diffuser caps ffrom outfall Upgrade e electrical supply and distributio on.

New stand‐by power ggenerator

In 2007 the estimated d capital costt of the plantt upgrade waas $26.5 milllion. This estimate includeed $3 or tertiary treatment which has been rremoved. Bassed on an infflation rate of 2.2% since 2007, million fo the estimated capital ccost for this p project in 2015 is $28 millioon.

This alternative will alllow for the plant’s capacitty to be upgraaded immediiately removiing all bottle necks in the sysstem. With alll the capital costs up front, future cossts will consiist of routinee maintenance and replacements as needed. The dow wnside to this alternative iis the high caapital cost to o construct a plant operate at approximately 5 50% capacity for the next 15‐20 years. that will o

21.2 2 Alternative 2 – Phased Pla ant Expan nsion The phase ed plant expaansion is base ed on the reco ommendatio ns of the 20007 Class EA an nd aims to prrovide a plan to e expand the plant that will meet the immediate needds of the Mun nicipality while moving tow wards a plant th hat will be capable of mee eting the ultim mate demandds. Ideally, a phased plantt expansion w would occur in e equal stages. However, du ue to the exissting layout oof the WWTP,, a multi‐stagge expansion is not feasible for f some pro ocesses. Table e 26 provide es a summaryy of the upggrades requirred to expand the WWTP to o meet ultimate demandss and provide es a suggesteed order in w which the up pgrades shou uld be completed.

Table T 26 – Re evised Upgrrades of the 2007 Class EA as a Phased Expan nsion Plan Phase:

Initiative:

Rationale: Repairs aree needed for the exxisting clarifiers and aeration basins as iden ntified by structuraal assessmentt.

Repairs to cconcrete strucctures

1

Replace steel compo onents of secondary Units in servvice for >40 yyears, which is the clarifiers. expected lifeespan of this equipment.

Refurbish RA AS/WAS pum mping station Three (3), 21 L/s RAS pum mps mps Three (3), 15L/s WAS pum

RAS/WAS p pumping stattion reachingg the end of its usseful life.

Upgrade ele ectrical supplyy and distribu ution.

2

Derate plant capacity

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

71

Existing MC CC is reachin ng the end of its useful life an nd needs to b be replaced.

Achieve aerration basin SSRT of fifteen n (15) days. Prim mary clarifierr SOR and SLR capacity identified as beiing between 2400 m3/d and 22800 m3/d. D Derate plant from Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Phase:

Initiative:

Rationale: d.

3,910 m3/d tto 2,700 m3/d The existingg screens havve been iden ntified as a hydraulic bottleneck. The screen ns are undersized aand will be reeplaced.

The new headworks bu uilding will h house properly ssized screen ns and prrovide containment for an odou ur removal syystem m. and a grit reemoval system

Remove existing inlet scrreens.

Establish a n new headworrks building.

New screens Two (2) scre eens, each 3 5,400 m /d ADF d peak 16,000 m3/d New grit rem moval system m Two (2) seperators, each h 16,000 m3/d d capacity

Replacemen nts to meet expected ADF/Peak flows.

Aeration taanks are draained annually to remove gritt which is tim me consumingg and labour inten nsive.

Current cap pacity is not sufficient to meet the requireements of ggrowth. Additional capacity to meet ADF of 4,050 m3/d in conjunction within eexisting aerration basins.

Current cap pacity is not sufficient to meet the requireements of ggrowth. Additional capacity suffficient to meeet peak dayy flow rate of 12,0050 m3/d in conjunction with existing clarifiers.

New second dary treatmen nt One (1), 1,1 138 m3 rectangular tank Total SRT fiffteen (15) dayys

New second dary clarifier One (1) circular tank 12.2 m dia, 4.2 m SWD each

Retrofit exiisting UV channels and provide an Doubles thee current dissinfection cap pacity additional U UV module to 11,440 m m3/d.

New effluen nt pumping sttation 3

4

5

As per the 22007 Class EA requirementts.

No longer in use and th here is no pllan to Demolish th he abandoned d digester. use in the fu uture.

Existing caps are showing signs of daamage Remove difffuser caps fro om outfall. causing inco onsistent release of effluen nt.

Incorporatio on of a sspecific bio osolids Expand biossolids stabilizzation facilityy with new thickening process to reduce od dours/ WAS thicken ning address com mplaints.

To be inco orporated ass a part off the Municipalityy’s odour man nagement strrategy New odour control syste em to address tthe historical odour comp plaints at the site.

New second dary treatmen nt Additional ccapacity to m meet ADF of 5,400 One (1), 1,1 138 m3 rectangular tank m3/d in conjunction within exxisting aeration bassins.

Total SRT fiffteen (15) dayys New second dary clarifier Additional ccapacity sufficcient to meett peak day flow rate of 1 One (1) circular tank 16,000 m3//d in

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

72

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Phase:

Initiative: 12.2 m dia, 4.2 m SWD each New UV disinfection systtem Two (2) channels, total 5,400 m3/d ADF 16,000 m3/d d peak Decommission and remove existing UV disinfection.

Rationale: conjunction with existingg clarifiers.

UV System is undersized d for the ultimate flow.

Existing geenerator no ot sufficientt for expanded pllant.

New stand‐by generator

The estim mated costs off each phase inclusive of design are sum mmarised in TTable 27.

7 – Phased Expansion E C Cost Estimattions Table 27 Expansion Ph E hase Phase 1 P

Phase 2 P

Phase 3 P

Phase 4 P

Phase 5 P

Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal:

Cost (2015 Dollars) $2,15 50,000.00 $56 69,750.00 $2,71 19,750.00 $8,05 50,000.00 $2,13 33,250.00 $10,18 83,250.00 $2,00 00,000.00 $53 30,000.00 $2,53 30,000.00 $6,20 00,000.00 $1,64 43,000.00 $7,84 43,000.00 $5,36 60,000.00 $1,42 20,400.00 $6,78 80,400.00

The plantt expansion will w be complleted in five (5) stages too allow the p plant to meett the needs o of the growing p population. Phase 1 should occur within the next fiive (5) years based on thee remaining u useful life of the e equipment suggested to o be rehabiliitated and thhe current co ondition. Phase 2 should occur when the e plant begin ns to have difficulty meeting effluentt objectives. Phase 3 and d Phase 4 arre not imperativve to the operation of the e plant and m may occur wh en convenien nt for budgetting purposess. The timing of Phase 5, sim milar to Phase e 2, will be de ependent up on the abilityy of the plant to meet efffluent ed approach will allow the t construcction phases to follow p population grrowth objectivess. This phase allowing for f the Municipality to ch hange the tim meline if thee predicted p population grrowth changees. By completin ng the expansion in stage es, the initial capital costss will be reduced with th he remaining costs incurred in i the future. The Municiipality will haave more tim me to come u up with the n necessary fun nds to complete the project.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

73

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

21.3 3 Alternative 3 ‐ Eq qualizatio on Storagge, I/I Red duction, Future Expansiion Between 2006 and 2014 the greaatest flow evvents at thee Meaford W WWTP have o occurred bettween December and Januarry as a result of snow melting m event s. Over this period, the highest dailyy flow occurred during Decem mber 2008 w with a max day flow of 13,,880 m3. Duriing January o of 2008 the W WWTP 3 experiencced a peak day flow of 12,508 m . Since 2008, thhe most seveere peak day flow occurreed on January 30th 2013 with h a peak day fflow of 11,77 74 m3/d. Whiile the flow o on this day is only slightly aabove A rated capaciity of the plan nt, it is well above the plannt’s recommeended re‐rateed peak capaccity of the C of A 3 8,100 m /d. The event / is shown in TTable 28 as re ecorded in thee plant annuaal report.

Tab ble 28 – Pea ak Flow Even nt Summary Date 013 1/28/20 1/29/20 013 1/30/20 013 1/31/20 013 02/01/2 2013 02/02/2 2013

ADF (m3/d) 2,279.00 6,769.00 0 11,774.00 7,217.00 5,653.00 3,896.00

Pe eak (m3/d) 00.00 4,40 7,87 72.00 15,252.00 12,300.00 90.00 6,89 6,60 00.00

DF) (CCapacity – AD (m3/d) 5821 1331 ‐3674 883 2447 4204

(Peak C Capacity – Peeak) (m3/d) 3700 228 ‐7152 ‐4200 1210 1500

As seen in n Table 29, th he plant treate ed an excess of 3,674 m3 bbased on a peeak capacity o of 8,100 m3/d d. The 2013 peaak flow event was caused by a 22 mm m rain storrm which ressulted in rap pid melting o of the accumulated snowfall. Based on th he informatio on provided in the annuaal report, thee peak flow eevents urred during 2008 were also the result of heavy raains causing a rapid snow w melt. The rapid that occu melting events have h historically occcurred over aa one (1) to ttwo (2) day p period and w would therefo ore be ommodated by b a temporaary storage option o such as an equaliization tank. Due to the short well acco duration of the peak flow events, it would be possible for the stored ssewage to bee pumped ou ut and treated within w the following days. The plant has a need foor an expansiion of the aeeration basins and clarifiers, based on pre evious reports. It is propossed that the cclarifier and aaeration tankk be constructted at o be used as equalization storage in th he short term m before bein ng modified tto operate to o their the site to intended manner. An n equalization tank for th he Meaford W WWTP would d need to bee large enou ugh to temporarily store the flow over and above the peak capa city for an eevent as desccribed abovee. The required ultimate clarifier and aeration volume e is suitable ffor the purpo oses of equalization storaage as shown in the followingg discussion.

In order to accommodate growth aand ensure the plant conti nues to meett the effluentt objectives, aa plan d on the 2014 I/I Study Reeport, for reduciing I/I will be required to keep the ADFF below 2,7000 m3/d. Based there is significant s opportunity to reduce extraaneous flowss and reclaim m reserve cap pacity at the plant.

3 During th he month of April 2014 an estimated 2,458 m /d of flow was determined to be extran neous, 3 which translates to an increase in tthe yearly AD DF of 205 m / d. In terms o of growth plan nning, 205 m3/d of reclaimed d capacity through I/I reductions would be sufficientt to service an n additional eeighteen (18) years Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

74

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

of growth h in the urban n area based o on the historiical growth raate and an asssumed sewagge production n rate of 450 L/ccap/day.

Based on the known extent of exttraneous flow ws and the hhistorical ratee of growth iin the urban area, equalizatiion storage and a I/I reducttion would be an effectivve solution fo or the plant ffor the next 15‐20 years. Eve entually, oppo ortunities forr I/I reduction n become lim mited or impraactical and a plant upgrad de will be required to increasse capacity. TThe existing aand projectedd flow rates ffor the ultimaate populatio on are presented d in Table 29.

Table 29 – Flow Proje ections ADF (m3/d) 2,740 5,940 5,350

2013 Ultimate Ultimate witth I/I Reduction

P Peak Day (m3/d) 10,870 17,700 15,600

It is expeccted that by ccontinuing wiith the existin ng I/I reductioon program tthe Municipallity can reducce the 3 ultimate p peak day from m the 17,700 m /d to 15,600 m3/d.

Based on the current design guidelines for exxtended aerattion plants p providing nitrrification, thee HRT e ≥ 15 hours aand the SRT sshould be ≥ 1 15 days at th e ADF for thee biological sttep. For an A ADF of should be 3 3 5,400 m /d, the ultima / ate plant shou uld have a tottal aeration v olume of 3,3775 m .

The curre ent design gu uidelines for secondary clarifiers speciifies a maxim mum SOR of 4 40 m3/m3‐d and a peak solid ds loading raate of 170 kgg/m2‐d. At a RAS rate of 100% and a MLSS of 350 00 mg/L, thee total 2 clarifier area required to meet the e ultimate pe eak flow is 4550 m . Assum ming a SWD o of 4.5 m, thee total 3 ed is 2025 m . aeration vvolume neede While the e need for equalization sto orage is required in the sh ort term, it iss anticipated that this neeed will be elimin nated by the reduction off inflow sourrces and pla nt expansion n. It is recom mmended thaat the tankage ffor the future e clarifiers an nd aeration b basins be des igned to opeerate as equaalization storaage in the short term. This course c of actiion will deferr the need foor full expanssion in the sh hort term an nd will ut the investtment in the plant over a a longer timee period. Thee total additiional tank vo olume spread ou 3 needed to o treat the ulttimate flows is 3,622 m , w which is very similar to thee calculated vvolume needeed for an equalizzation tank to meet the ccurrent needss. The addittional space rrequirementss for benching and appurtenaances should be taken into o account in the design. D Design of the tanks for futu ure modificattion is importantt for both the e reduction o of long term ccapital costs aas well as maanagement off space at thee site.

This aspecct of Alternattive 3 is integrral to its viability in compaarison to the o other alternaatives presentted.

When de evelopment outpaces o the e ability of the Municippality to reduce extraneous flows, aand a subsequent loss in effluent quality is experience ed, the seconnd phase of the program sshould be inittiated and the plant p should be expanded to meet th he ultimate fflows. The p process expan nsions requirred to service the population at ultimate b build‐out are summarised in Figure 19.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

75

Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106

Proce ess Capacitty Existing Inlet Works Inlet Screens

Process

Inllet Grit Removal Aeration Basins Clarifiers Disinfection Ultim mate Disinfection 0.0 0

2.0

4.0

6 6.0

8.0

10.0

112.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Peak Floow (ML/d) Existing

Repurpose EQ Tank

Reemoval

Expan nsion

Peak Flow

ADF (2013)

Prredicted Flow (Ultimaate)

Predicted Flow (Peak)

Figure 19 9 – Equaliza ation Tank an nd Future Exxpansion Prrocess Capa acities Given the e existing site e plan, the best b location to constructt the proposeed tankage iss at the souttheast corner of the site. Constructing at this location w would involvee demolishingg the abandon ned sludge storage tank. The estimated caapital cost of the equalizattion tank connstruction is $$4.13 million, a cost breakkdown is presentted in Table 3 30. ost Estimate : Equalizatio on Tank Table 30 – Detailed Co Cate egory Gene eral Sitew works Strucctural Civil Proccess Mechaniccal Electtrical I&C//SCADA

Sub Total:

Design (7%) min (8%) Consstruction Adm Perm mits/ Approvaals Sub Total: Conttingencies (10 0%) Total: Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

76

Cost (22015 Dollars)) $250,000.00 0 $350,000.00 0 $$1,550,000.00 0 $300,000.00 0 $350,000.00 0 $300,000.00 0 $120,000.00 0 $$3,220,000.00 0 $225,000.00 0 $258,000.00 0 $50,000.00 0 $$3,753,000.00 0 $375,000.00 0 $$4,128,000.00 0 Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Additionaal costs will be e incurred du uring the I/I re eduction projject. A numbeer of damageed areas havee been identified in the I/I Stu udy which pro ovides a basiss to continuee reduction off extraneous flow. Additio onally, it is sugge ested that a n new by‐law sh hould be put in place to b an all sump p pump and eavvestrough sanitary sewer con nnections and d actions shou uld be taken tto enforce thhe sewer sue restrictions.

As discusssed above, it is expecte ed that equaalization stor age and I/I reduction effforts will prrovide significantt capacity for the Municipality for the e next 15‐20 years. Howeever, a plant expansion w will be required eventually, and a a numbe er of refurbishments to thhe plant are needed in th he near‐term m. The recommended plant upgrades are ssummarised in Table 31.

Table 31 – Recom mmended Pllant Upgrade es Planning T Term:

Initiative:

Rationale: n SRT of 15 days.

Achieve aeeration basin Primary clarifier SOR and SLR cap pacity Co ommit to the operation of the plant at identified aas being bettween 2400 m3/d a d decreased capacity and 2800 m3/d. Operatte the plant w within these param meters.

Repairs arre needed for the exxisting Re epairs to conccrete structurres clarifiers an nd aeration b basins as iden ntified by structural assessmen nt.

Re eplace steel components o of secondary Units in serrvice for >40 years, which is the claarifiers. expected liffespan of thiss equipment.

Short‐Term

Re etrofit existiing UV chaannels and Doubles th he current dissinfection cap pacity 3 to 11,440 m prrovide an additional UV mo odule m /d.

Up pgrade ele ectrical disstribution.

supply

and Existing MCC is reaching the end of its useful life aand needs to be replaced.

Ne ew stand‐by p power generaator

Existing generator not sufficient to meet the demand ds of the expanded plant.

Re efurbish RAS//WAS pumpin ng station Th hree (3), 21 L//s RAS pumpss Th hree (3), 15L/ss WAS pumpss

RAS/WAS pumping station reaching the end of its u useful life.

Establish a new w headworks building.

Medium‐TTerm

Re emove existin ng inlet screen ns.

Ne ew screens Tw wo (2) screenss, each 5,4 400 m3/d ADF 16 6,000 m3/d pe eak

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

The new h headworks building will h house properly sized screens and prrovide containmen nt for an odour rem moval system and d a grit removval system.

The existing screens have been iden ntified as a hydrau ulic bottlenecck. The screen ns are undersized and will be rreplaced.

Replacemeents to ADF/Peak fflows.

77

meet

exp pected

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Planning T Term:

Initiative: Ne ew grit removval system Tw wo (2) separattors, each 16 6,000 m3/d caapacity Re emove diffuse er caps from o outfall

epurpose storm tank Re Claarifiers/Aerattion Basins

Long‐Term m

Rationale: Aeration taanks are draained annually to remove grit which is tim me consuming and labour intensive.

Existing cap ps are showin ng signs of daamage causing inconsistent releease of efflueent.

Repurposed d storm taanks will prrovide aeration ccapacity to meet AD DF of to 5,400m3/d in conjunction within exxisting aeration basins and claarifier capacity to meet peak flow of 16,00 00 m3/d alongg with the existingg clarifiers.

Ne ew UV disinfe ection system m Tw wo (2) channe els, total 5,4 400 m3/d ADF Current UV V System is u undersized fo or the 3 16 6,000 m /d pe eak ultimate flo ow.

De ecommission and remove existing UV dissinfection.

Incorporatiion of a specific bio osolids Exxpand biosolids stabilizattion facility thickening process to reduce od dours/ wiith new WAS thickening address com mplaints.

To be inccorporated aas a part of the manageement Municipalitty’s odour Ne ew odour con ntrol system strategy to o address thee historical o odour complaints at the site.

As per the requirementss of the 2007 7 Class Ne ew effluent pumping statio on EA

This alternative will re esult in impro ovements to tthe entire sannitary collection system w with improvem ments to both th he sanitary sewers and th he Meaford W WWTP. By firrst focusing o on the I/I pro oblem, the up pfront capital co osts will be reduced. On nce the popu ulation grow wth exceeds the I/I redu uction, the W WWTP improvem ments can be e completed d in phases to meet thee needs of the growingg population.. This alternativve will allow for a more op ptimized syste em. Unexpectted peaks in fflow will no lo onger occur d during storm eve ents, allowingg for more con nsistent flow through the treatment traain.

The capitaal costs assocciated with th he upgrades d described in eeach planningg term are summarised in Table 32 below..

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

78

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 32 2 – Capital Cost C Estimattes for Plann ned Upgrade es: Alternative 3 Planning Term P m Short‐Term S Upgrades U

Medium‐Term M m Upgrades U

Long‐Term L Upgrades U

Cost (2015 Dollars) $2,50 00,000.00 $62 25,000.00 $3,12 25,000.00 $5,20 00,000.00 $1,30 00,000.00 $6,50 00,000.00 $13,20 00,000.00 $3,30 00,000.00 $16,50 00,000.00

Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal:

21.4 4 Evaluation of Altternativess Table 33 outlines the e comparativve evaluation n of the threee (3) alternatives based d on the Class EA n criteria. evaluation Table 33 3 – Evaluation of WWT TP Alternativves Alternatives Criteria Land Use Pla anning Natural Environment

Option 1 Weigghting Quaalitative ore Sco (%) Raanking 15 1 4 0.660 10 1 5 0.550

Op ption 2

on 3 Optio

Qualitativee Qualitaative Score Score Ranking Ranking 4 0.60 5 0.75 5 0.50 4 0.40

Social Enviro onment

20 2

4

0.880

4

0.61

4

0.70

Air Quality, N Noise and Vibration

10 1

4

0.440

4

0.40

3

0.30

Quality of Liffe

5

4

0.220

4

0.01

4

0.20

Community A Accessibility

5

4

0.220

4

0.20

4

0.20

Cultural Enviironment

10 1

5

0.550

5

0.50

5

0.50

Archaeologiccal

5

5

0.225

5

0.25

5

0.25

Heritage Features

5

5

0.225

5

0.25

5

0.25

Technical Considerations

25 2

3

0.775

3

0.85

4

0.95

Performance e

5

4

0.220

4

0.20

3

0.15

Technical Suiitability

5

4

0.220

4

0.20

4

0.20

Phasing

5

1

0.005

3

0.15

5

0.25

Construction Consideratio ons

5

3

0.115

3

0.15

4

0.20

Operational C Consideration ns

5

3

0.115

3

0.15

3

0.15

Economic Co onsiderationss

20 2

2

0.440

4

0.70

5

1.00

Capital Cost

10 1

2

0.220

4

0.40

5

0.50

Operational C Cost

10 1

2

0.220

3

0.30

5

0.50

Total

100 1

Sccore:

3.555

Scoree:

3.76

Score:

4.30

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

79

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

22.0 Preferred P d Solutio ons Alternativve solutions were identiffied for each h section of the Municip pality of Meaaford’s water and wastewatter systems. EEvaluation criiteria, focusin ng on environnmental effeccts, were devveloped alongg with weightinggs for each criteria c and a ranking syystem to alloow a preferrred solution to be identtified.

Identified below is th he preferred solution forr each syste m componen nt. Selection of the prefferred solution aalso took into consideratio on input and ccomments re ceived from tthe public and review agencies.

Dependin ng on the sittuation, the preferred so olution may involve a co ombination o of the altern native solutions to best solve the identified problem.

22.1 1 Water D Distribution The existiing water disstribution sysstem is adequate to suppport development to full build‐out bu ut will require pipe repair an nd replaceme ent of current pipes to m eet MOECC gguidelines an nd to combatt pipe nally local development w watermains arre to be addeed to the systtem by developers deteriorattion. Addition or by the Municipality to support m multiple new d developmentss.

Watermain rehabilitattion is the le east expensivve option to implement o on an initial capital cost basis.

However, if the structural integrityy of the watermain does nnot support aa lengthy incrrease in usefu ul life, watermain relining is not effective e. Relining does not alwaays improve the structural integrity o of the watermain; therefore the chance of o a watermaain break wo uld not chan nge if it is relined. Therefo ore, it would not be economical to reline a watermain n that has po or structural integrity. Th he disruption n from mal, only the entry and exit pits woulld have to b be dug, which h would keep the construction is minim restoratio on cost down n. The wate ermain canno ot be used dduring the cleeaning and rrelining proceess; a bypass lin ne must be used to provid de water to aall customerss. The reliningg should not be done in ccolder months, ssince the bypass line could d freeze. The e relining can decrease thee inside diam meter of the p pipe; a small diam meter pipe w would decreasse the hydrau ulic capacity of the pipe. SSince many o of the pipes w within Meaford that should be renewed are 100 mm m diameter ppipes, makingg their diam meter even sm maller ot be beneficcial to the water w distribu ution system.. One of the main reasons to renew w the would no watermain is to increaase the hydraaulic capacityy within the ssystem. Watermain rehab bilitation is a good ermain and where w the sizze of the waatermain doees not need to be option for structurallyy sound wate changed.

Watermain replaceme ent is the mo ore expensive e option to im mplement. Th here is a largge up front ccapital cost to re eplace the watermain; ho owever, money is saved iin operationaal costs. Theese operation n cost savings in nclude not rep pairing waterrmain breaks,, and less unaaccounted for water. Rep placing waterm mains allows the e Municipalitty to install th he size of waatermain to ssuit the distribution system m needs based on future needs and build d‐out. If the w watermain is too small to provide adeq quate hydrau ulic capacity tthen a he hydraulic ccapacity throu ughout the syystem. Watermain larger wattermain may be installed tto improve th replacement is more disruptive th han watermaain relining. The most co ommon meth hod of watermain c method; this usually involves excaavation of up p to half the road to instaall the replacement is open cut watermain. This can caause disruptio on to nearby residents wh ile constructiion is being co ompleted.

The follow wing is recom mmended for tthe Meaford water distribbution system m upgrade: Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

80

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

 



Where there is W s a need to in ncrease the d diameter of thhe watermain n to meet serrvice delivery goals th hen the watermain should be replaced Adequately sizzed cast iron n or ductile iron waterm ains should be replaced where the u useful se ervice life can nnot be incre eased by at least 40 yearss, if the useful life can bee increased b by at le east 40 years the watermain may be reh habilitated Asbestos cement pipes should be repllaced rather than repaireed where theey are structturally nadequate in

To determ mine the rep placement strrategy for ad dequately‐siz ed cast iron pipes, flow testing shou uld be completed to understtand the con ndition each pipe is in. TThis information can be u used to deveelop a e critical pipe es are replaceed first. replacement plan makking sure more The water distribution n system expaansion and up pgrades fall uunder Schedu ule A and A+ in the Class EEA list of municipal water and wastewate er projects. All pipe repairr and replaceement is Scheedule A alongg with the construction of new pipe for the planned subdivisions. Alll new pipe beeing construccted under exxisting er Schedule A+.

A Throughoout the master planning p process the p public Municipally‐owned road falls unde was conssulted on the e reconstructtion and exp pansion projeects. Schedulle A and A+ projects aree pre‐ approved and all addittional requirements have b been fulfilled .

22.2 2 Water S Storage Water sto orage is adequate to suppo ort the existin ng communitty and some d developmentt. The constru uction of a 2,000 0 m3 in‐ground reservoir on St. Vincent Street (Counnty Road 7) is the recommended solutio on for the expan nsion of wate er storage in Meaford, to meet the baalance of devvelopment up p to full build d‐out.

This reserrvoir will bene efit all consum mers and new w developmennt in urban M Meaford. The in‐ground solution is slightly more cost effective e and received the e highest scoore from the assessment completed, w which incorporaated the apprroved Class EA document criteria. The in‐ground faacility will offeer floating storage to the so outh end of the t water disstribution sysstem and reqquire very lo ow maintenan nce costs intto the future.

This proje ect falls unde er Schedule B in the Classs EA list of municipal w water and wastewater pro ojects.

Additionaal investigatio ons and repo orts need to be completeed with regaards to the ssite’s geotechnical characteristics and naatural enviro onment, befo ore all requi rements havve been fulfilled. This caan be n‐ground rese ervoir constru uction becom mes necessaryy to support d development.. completed when the in

22.3 3 Water B Booster Pu ump Statiions The St. Vincent Street BPS is adequ uate to suppo ort full build‐oout for the St. Vincent Strreet Booster Zone.

The Nelso on Street BPS needs to be renewed to m meet the neeeds of the exissting community and grow wth in the pressu ure zone. Two o (2) locations were identiified for this nnew BPS. Both locations are viab ble options fo or a new BPSS. The recom mmended solu ution for the location of aa new e 2 is Location n 1 at the waater tower si te. There is aadequate spaace for a new w BPS, BPS for Pressure Zone watermain fee eding the tow wer would pro ovide adequaate suction prressure to thee BPS. There is less and the w Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

81

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

watermain that would d need to be installed or u upgraded for this alternattive; therefore it is the cheaper option.

This proje ect falls unde er Schedule B in the Classs EA list of municipal w water and wastewater pro ojects.

Through tthe master planning proce ess, Phases 1 and 2 of the planning pro ocess have beeen completed and all requirrements have e been fulfilled. The pro oject is locatted on an exxisting Municcipally‐owned d site housing th he elevated tank.

22.4 4 Water T Treatmen nt Plant The WTP is adequate to meet the e needs of full build‐out.. An upgradee is recommeended to improve e main pressu ure zone by in nstalling VFDss and modifying the contro ol system. The VFD pressure ccontrol in the installatio on at the WTTP falls underr Schedule A in the Class EA list of mu unicipal wateer and wastew water projects. The project is pre‐apprroved and caan proceed without folllowing the p public notificcation procedure e outlined in the Class EA.

22.5 5 Wastew water Collection The existiing wastewatter collection n system is adequate to ssupport deveelopment to full build‐outt with only locall developmen nt sewermain ns to be com mpleted by deevelopers or by the Municipality wherre the sewermaiins support m multiple devellopments. The Master Serrvicing Study has also iden ntified the neeed for upgrades to the existin ng sewermain ns.

In general, sewermain n rehabilitatio on is less exp pensive to im plement than n full replaceement on an initial capital co ost basis. However, facto ors such as the length annd structural integrity of sewermain being replaced, the traffic co onditions witthin the area and numberr of service connections m must be taken n into account.

CIPP relining does not always impro ove the strucctural integritty of the seweermain, meaning the chan nce of a break w would not chaange if it is re elined. There efore, it woul d not be eco onomical to reline a sewermain that has poor p structurral integrity. In these case es, if a relininng strategy iss preferred, either slipliniing or pipe burssting would be b more appropriate, as structural inttegrity would d be improveed. The disru uption from consstruction is m minimal, for CIPP the liner is installed frrom MH to M MH. Slipliningg and pipe bursting both requ uire only enttry and exit pits to be du ug. The seweermain canno ot be used d during the reelining process; tthe rehabilitaation must be e coordinated d with the ressidents along the section tto ensure theey are not attem mpting to use e the sewer for a minimum m of 24 hourrs. Both slip lining and CIPP will reducce the internal d diameter of th he sewer pipe e, however itt will also deccrease the loccal infiltration n rates and reeduce the frictio on factor of th he pipe.

Sewermain replaceme ent is the mo ore expensive e option to im mplement. Th here is a largge up front ccapital r the sewermain; however, depending onn the section being rep paired, often pipe cost to replace replacement has a low wer lifecycle ccost. The mo ost common method of seewermain replacement is open cut metho od; this usuaally involves excavation e off up to half tthe road to install the sew wermain. This can cause disrruption to ne earby residents while consstruction is beeing completted, howeverr the sewer seervice can be maaintained thro oughout consstruction.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

82

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

The follow wing is recom mmended for tthe Meaford sewer collecttion system u upgrade:  

Pipe relining should be pre s eferred where the useful service life ccan be increaased by at leaast 40 ears. ye Sm mall pipe secctions requirring rehabilitaation should be replaced d due to the high mobilizzation co osts associate ed with relinin ng.

The waste ewater collecction system e expansion an nd upgrades ffall under Sch hedule A and A+ in the Claass EA list of mu unicipal waterr and wastew water projectss. All sewer rrepair and reeplacement iss Schedule A along with the cconstruction of new pipe ffor the planned subdivisioons. All new sewers being constructed u under existing Municipal‐ow M ned road falls under Sche edule A+. Thhroughout thee master plaanning processs the public was consulted o on the reconsstruction and expansion p rojects. Sched dule A and A+ projects aree pre‐ been fulfilled . approved and all addittional requirements have b

22.6 6 Sewage Pumping g Stationss The existing SPSs are aadequate to support development to fuull build‐out ccondition.

No preferrred solutionss were identified for the ffive (5) existinng SPSs as th hey all have eenough capaccity to handle exxisting and full build‐out co onditions. The following uupgrades were suggested ffor SPSs No. 1 1, No. 2 and No. 3 to help improve perform mance.

SPS No. 1 – new flow m monitor, SCAD DA system up pgrade SPS No. 2 – replace pumps, SCADA system upgraade SPS No. 3 – replace pumps, SCADA system upgraade, flow monnitor upgradee SPS No. 4 4 is to be deco ommissioned when the cu ustomer no loonger requirees its servicess and No. 5 reequire no improvvements at th his time.

The SPS u upgrades fall under Schedu ule A in the C Class EA list oof municipal w water and waastewater pro ojects.

Schedule A projects are pre‐approved and therrefore the M unicipality caan proceed w with these pro ojects having to follo ow the public notification p procedures seet out in the Class EA. without h A sixth SP PS has been p proposed to support deve elopment in tthe south eaast area of th he communityy. SPS No. 6 will be necessaryy to service de evelopments the future Cooleman Streeet.

The SPS u upgrades for SSPS No. 1 and d No. 2 fall un nder Schedulee A and SPS N No. 3 falls und der Schedule A+ in the Class EA list of mun nicipal water and wastewaater projects. These projeccts are pre‐ap pproved, therrefore out following the public nootification pro ocedure set o out in the Class EA. the Municcipality can proceed witho The construction of SPS S No. 6 faalls under Schedule B in the Class EA A list of municipal water and mental wastewatter projects. Construction of this SPS will require additional sttudies including Environm Managem ment, Archaeo ological and Geotechnical studies. Theese can be u undertaken w when develop pment proposalss are received d for the area.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

83

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

22.7 7 Wastew water Trea atment Overall, itt is recomme ended that th he Municipaliity adopt Alt ernative 3 fo or the expanssion of the W WWTP which invvolves establisshing the ultiimate clarifie er and aeratioon basin tankks at the existting WWTP ssite to be used for f storm rettention in the e near term. The plant c urrently expeeriences sign nificant peak flows which willl be effective ely managed by establishing equalizattion storage aat the site. Itt is recommeended that the cclarifier and aaeration basin tankage be e designed too be effectivee as storm rettention tankss until they are rrequired in orrder for the p plant to meet effluent objeectives. The I//I reduction p program is inttegral to this altternative as iit has been id dentified in p previous studdies that the existing WW WTP may be n not be 3 able to meet the C of A A effluent lim mits while ope erating at an ADF greater than 2,700 m m /d. The objeective of the I/I reduction program will therefore be b to reducee extraneouss flows at tthe same pace as developm ment and kee ep the plantt ADF at approximately 2,600 m3/d.. This will allow the plaant to essentiallyy be operate ed as an EAA AS plant with a capacity oof 2,700 m3/d d and an 8,10 00 m3/d peak and maximize the level of ttreatment.

Dependin ng on the project for the W WWTP upgrad des, differentt schedules in n the Class EA A process mu ust be followed. The WWTP refurbishme ent and demolition of thee old sludgee storage, up pgrades to th he UV on channel and odour con ntrol system construction all fall underr Schedule A and are therrefore disinfectio pre‐appro oved projectss that can pro oceed withou ut following tthe public no otification pro ocedure set o out in the Class EA. The sto orm equalization basin faalls under Scchedule B an nd can proceeed following the on of the Master Plan as the required Class EA procedure in Phases 1 and 2 have been completio completed. The repurrposing of the storm equalization bas in, new head dworks building, new bio osolids d new UV disinfection all require the Schedule C pprocedure to o be followed d. This will reequire works and additional phases to be e followed alllowing the en ntire Class EA A procedure to o be completed.

23.0 Public an P nd Revie ew Agenccy Comm ments Public con nsultation is aan importantt part of the C Class EA proccess, allowingg public and rreview agenccies to become informed and comment throughout the processs. For the M Master Plan, public inputt and o the planninng process. Taable 34 outlin nes the comm ments commentts were receivved and incorporated into that were e received th hroughout the consultatio on process foollowing the Phase 1 PIC and Phase 2 2 PIC. Copies of all the correspondence iss attached in Appendix D. Member of the public an nd review ageencies nts on the serrvicing plan re eceived respoonse letters. that proviided commen

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

84

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 34 – Comments fro om the Public an nd Review Agen ncies NAME & CONTA ACT INFO

N Notice C Commencement - July 4, 2014

DATE E OF CONTA ACT

REPLY RECE EIVED FROM NOTICE NOTES/DATES/ ET TC

AAL’S RE ESPONSE & DATE

“If it apppears that CEAA 2012 may apply to yoour proposed projecct, you must providee the Agency with a description of the prroposed project. Pleaase see the link below to the Agency’s guide g to preparing a project description.

Guide to Preparing a Descrription of a Designateed Project http://w www.ceaa.gc.ca/63D3D025-2236-49C9-AA169DD89A A36DA0E6/Guide_to__Preparing_a_Descrription_of_a_Designaated_Projec t_undeer_CEAA_2012.pdf If you believe b the project iss not subject to a fedeeral environmental aassessment, and doo not submit a projecct description, we kinndly request that yyou remove the Ag gency from your disstribution list. If youu have questions, pllease get in touch with w our office througgh the switchboard att 416-952-1576.”

Pleasee direct future correespondence to Ms. Sandy-McKenzie, 8 Creswick Court, Barrie, ON, L4M 2J77 “Basedd on the information submitted, s ministry sstaff is unable to provvide specific matters of ministry interestt with this project at tthis time other than our general legislattive mandates around environmental mannagement and protecction.”

The Crrown delegated the procedural p aspects off consultation to the M Municipality and Ainley. The following primary p contacts weree provided: C Saugeenn Ojibway Nation Envvironmental  Jakke Linklater, Officer Coordinator, Office, R.R. # 5, Wiarton, ON, N0H 2T0, (5199)534-5507, jakeelinklater@saugeenoojibwaynation.ca  Auddrey Erin Holden, Lands and Resourrces Consultation C Coordinator Histtoric Saugeen Metis, 204 High street, Boox 1492 Southamptonn, ON, N0H 2L00, (519)483-4000, sauugeenmetisadmin@bbmts.com  Jam mes Coture, Greeat Lakes Meti s Council, (5199)370-0435, trueelyfine14@yahoo.ca  Jam mes Wagar, Consulttation Assessment C Coordinator Lands, Resources andd Consultations Metiss Nation of Ontario, 2222-75 Sherbourne S St., Toronto, ON, M5A 2P9, (416)9777-9881, jamesw@meetisnation.org

No Response requirred

of

C Canadian Environmental A Assessment Agency

July 4, 2014

July 11, 2014 2

C Chippewas of Rama FN

July 4, 2014

July 14, 2014 2

M MOECC

July 4, 2014

July 16, 2014 2

Municipality of M Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

MAJO OR ITEMS OF CO ONCERN COMMENTS S

85

No requirred No requirred

response response

April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106

H Hiawatha First Nationn

July 4, 2014

REPLY RECE EIVED FROM NOTICE NOTES/DATES/ ET TC July 21, 2014 2

M MTO

July 4, 2014

July 30, 2014 2

August 27,, 2014

October 17, 1 2014

February 19, 2015

February 24, 2015

NAME & CONTA ACT INFO

DATE E OF CONTA ACT

MAJO OR ITEMS OF CO ONCERN COMMENTS S

AAL’S RE ESPONSE & DATE

Hiawattha indicated that thee project at this time has minimal potentiaal to impact Hiawattha First Nations’ righhts at this time. Theyy want to continue to be advised of anyy updates and reserve the right to com mment later. They w want to be contaccted if artifacts are fouund.

“MTO has an interest in this study as it may haave impacts on the H Highway 26 corridoor. MTO wishes to coontinue to be on the ccirculation list and bee involved in this stuudy as it proceeds.

MTO advises a that new or proposed servicinng infrastructure shoould not be placedd within the Highway 26 property limits. TThe study should bee evaluating other alternatives a other than the Highway 26 coorridor.”

No requirred

response

No requirred

response

The MA AA provided the folloowing contact informaation:  Chieef Roland Monaguee, Beausoleil First Nation (Christian Island), 11 Ogeemaa Miikaan, Christtian Island, ON, L6M M 0A9, (705)247-20511, (Fax)24722339, bfnchief@chimnisssing.ca  Arleene Chegahno, Chippewas of Nawashh Unceded First Naation (Cape Crooker), R.R. # 5, 135 Lakeshore L Road, Wiiarton, ON, N0H 2T00, (519)53416889, (Fax)534-2130, Reception.admin@naw R washa.ca  Chieef Veron Roote, Chhippewas of Saugeeen, R.R. # 1, 64933 Hwy. 21, Souuthampton, ON, N0H 2L0, (519)797-2781 , (Fax)797-2978  Peteer Couture, Interim President, P Great Lakkes Metis Council, 3880 9th street Easst, Owen Souund, ON, N44K 1P1, (5199)370-0435, osaareametiscouncil.live.ca  Mettis Nation of Ontarioo Head Office, Metis Consultation Unit, 5500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit D, Ottawa, O OM, K1N 9G44, Fax (613)725-42255

No requirred

response

“Bill Arrmstrong has retired from the Ministry. I will be looking afterr his files in Bruce and Grey until I retiree in April.

For this project, would you please send yourr PIC PowerPoints too me when these documents become public? We circulaate these materials iinternally to acquaiint internal staff with the t progress of Classs EA projects.

In the future, all corresponndence regarding thiss project should be send to my

Sent PIC No. 2 boards via email on Februuary 27, 2015.

N Notice of PIC #1 - August 27, 2014 M MAA

N Notice of PIC - February 19, 2015 M MOECC R Region

Southw western

Municipality of M Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

86

April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106

NAME & CONTA ACT INFO

DATE E OF CONTA ACT

REPLY RECE EIVED FROM NOTICE NOTES/DATES/ ET TC

M MTO

February 19, 2015

February 26, 2015

G Grey Sauble Conseervation A Authority

February 19, 2015

March 4, 2015

A Aundeck-Omni-Kaninng First N Nation

February 19, 2015

March 5, 2015

C Chippewas of the Thames T FFirst Nation

February 19, 2015

March 5, 2015

M MTO

February 27, 2 2015

March 10, 2015

G Grey Sauble Conseervation A Authority

March 9, 2015 2

March 10, 2015

Municipality of M Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

MAJO OR ITEMS OF CO ONCERN COMMENTS S

AAL’S RE ESPONSE & DATE

attentioon or to the attentionn of the "Regional EAA Coordinator" in Lonndon. Craig Newton, our remaining Cooordinator, should be ccopied on important ee-mails.”

“MTO still has an interest in this study as it maay have impacts on thhe Highway 26 corridor. Unfortunately MTO M staff is unavailaable to attend Public Information Centree No. 2 in person. Thherefore, would you please provide our ooffice with a copy of o the display boards for our review and ccomment. You can eemail PDF’s of the display d boards to mee directly.

MTO advises a that new or proposed servicinng infrastructure shoould not be placedd within the Highway 26 property limits. TThe study should bee evaluating other alternatives a other than the Highway 26 coorridor.”

Requeested any relevant infformation that their offfice may require.

Identifiied that the First nation communities oof the Robinson Huuron Treaty and/or the Manitoulin Treaaty area are affectedd either directly or inndirectly but that furrther consultation at this t time is not requirred.

“In ourr screening of your correspondence c we hhave identified no concerns with your project or the informaation that you have ppresented to us at this time. We feel that due to the scopee of your project, wee will no longer needd to receive regularr updates.

We assk that if there are anny changes to your pproject that are of a substantive nature that you keep us infoormed.”

“Basedd on our review of thhe Public informationn Centre No. 2 boardds, it would appearr that the recommendded solutions for the Meaford water and W Wastewater system ms should not havee any direct impactt to the Highway 226 corridor.

Howevver, with that said, MTO M advises that shoould new servicing innfrastructure be prooposed, the study should s evaluate alteernatives other than placement within the Highway 26 corriidor.”

The MTO wished to continuue to be on the circullation list for this project.

“Please notice that some of o the proposed worrk may require permiits from our office under Ontario Reegulation 151/06 m made under the Conservation Authorrities Act.” They request continued invvolvement as the Classs EA process movees forward

87

Sent PIC No. 2 boards via email on Februuary 27, 2015.

Sent PIC No. 2 boards via email on Marchh 9, 2015. response No requirred No requirred

response

No requirred

response

No requirred

response

April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106

24.0 General S G Summarry and Requirem ments 24.1 1 Propose ed Service e Area The propo osed service area includes everything within the M Meaford urbaan settlementt area. The seervice th area is bo ounded by Centreville Ro oad to the no orth, 7 Linee to the westt, Muir Road to the south h and Georgian Bay to the eaast. The area encompasses the urban ccentre of Meaaford. Undeveeloped land w within osed service aarea has been n zoned as ressidential, com mmercial, industrial or insttitutional, allo owing the propo an estimated full bu uild‐out popu ulation to be b estimatedd. The zonin ng also provvided an acccurate nding of how w developme ent will take place in M eaford. This information was used in the understan developm ment of the prrojects identiffied in the Maaster Plan.

24.2 2 Propose ed Water Distributtion and SStorage Sy ystem Examinatiion of the Meaford waterr distribution system allow wed for the iidentification n of watermaains in need of rehabilitation r and replace ement. Currently the systtem experien nces lowered pressure in areas where the ere are inade equately sized d pipes. The preferred soolution outlinees that both rehabilitation and replacement of inadeq quate waterm mains will allow for the moost suitable an nd most cost effective solution. watermain to gain knowled dge on the exxisting condition of Flow testiing will be conducted on aall cast iron w the pipes and to unde erstand what solution willl most effect ively improvee the currentt situation. A All 100 meter waterm main will be replaced to comply with MOECC guidelines, whicch states thaat the mm diam minimum diameter off watermain is 150 mm. N New sectionss of watermaain will be constructed to allow future devvelopment in n the urban se ettlement are ea to be conn ected to the system.

With an in ncreasing pop pulation, morre water storaage is requireed by the MO OECC guidelinees. To increasse the systems sstorage, an in‐ground wate er storage resservoir has beeen proposed d at the south h end of the urban settlemen nt area on County C Road 7. The reserrvoir will be 2000 m3 off floating sto orage requirin ng no pumping due to the grround elevatio on of the rese ervoir.

The curre ent Nelson Street BPS doe es not provide adequate ffire flow to the Nelson Sttreet Booster Zone and is plaanned to be decommissio oned. To replace this BPSS, a new stattion will be cconstructed aat the water tow wer location. TThis new BPSS will improve e the pressurees and fire flo ows in Pressure Zone 2, wh hich is importantt because the e hospital is lo ocated within n this pressuree zone.

24.3 3 Propose ed Water Supply an nd Treatm ment Systtem Through tthe master pllanning proce ess it was ide entified that tthe capacity o of the existing water treattment system haas adequate ccapacity to provide water to Meaford customers du uring existingg and full builld‐out conditions.

The maste er planning process identified the need d for VFDs at the WTP to aallow for morre consistent w water pressure tthroughout th he systems diurnal period.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

88

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

24.4 4 Propose ed Wastew water Colllection a and Pump ping Syste em Examinatiion of the Me eaford wastew water system m allowed for the identification of seweermains in neeed of rehabilitation and replacement. Ovverall, the systtem experiennces a high leevel of I/I as id dentified by tthe I/I oth rehabilitattion and repllacement of d damaged pippes should bee considered on a case‐byy‐case Study. Bo basis to d determine the e most cost e effective metthodology forr sewer upgraades. Regardless of extran neous flow, the collection system has su ufficient capaacity to servvice the ultim mate develop pment population, ension of trun nk mains into new developpment areas. requiring only the exte SPS No. 1 (Bighead River) R and No. 2 (Meaford WWTP) bboth have su ufficient capaacity to meeet the demands of the ultim mate develop pment; I&C upgrades foor both SPS No. 1 and No. 2 have been recommended. SPS No o. 3 will requiire pump upggrades in ordeer to service the ultimate development; I&C upgrades have also be een recomme ended for SPSS No. 3. No upgrades havve been reco ommended fo or SPS No. 4 or SSPS No. 5. It sshould be no oted that the primary funcction of SPS N No. 4 is to service the Knigght of Meaford Lumber Facto ory which maay be shut down in the ne ar future. The Municipalitty should havve this station de ecommissioned at the tim me the facto ory is shut doown. The cost of decommissioning w will be incurred b

by Knight of M Meaford Lumber Factory.

A future SSPS will be required to servvice the new developmennt areas in thee southern po ortion of the urban area alongg Coleman Sttreet. A statio on location haas been propoosed on Coleman Street in n order for seewage to be pum mped south to Muir Streett and connecct into sewagee catchment area 2. The n new SPS will result in a new catchment area (area 6). Catchment aarea 6 will enncompass thee future expaansion of Coleman Street.

24.5 5 Propose ed Waste Water Trreatment System The master planning process p has reiterated r the e findings of f previous rep ports that the Meaford W WWTP ent capacity to meet the d demands of tthe ultimate developmentt. A plan has been does not have sufficie developed d to ensure the plant has ccapacity to handle the inteense peak flo ow events thaat occur durin ng the spring as w well as the ye early ADF. The upgraades required d to service tthe ultimate population innclude a new w headworks facility, additional aeration ccapacity, add ditional clarifier capacity, aa new disinfeection system m and an exp pansion of thee bio‐ solids han ndling facility. In order to effectively m manage peak flows in nearr term, it is reecommended d that the Municcipality design and construct the future aeration annd clarifier taanks to be useed as interim m peak flow equalization in order to reduce hydrau ulic overload ing at the p plant during peak flows. The ment of ADFs aat the plant w will be tied to the ongoing management of I/I that iss being underrtaken managem by the Mu unicipality.

The ultimate WWTP w will have an AD DF capacity off 5,400 m3/d with a peak fflow capacity of 16,000 m3/d.

24.6 6 Propertty Require ements Meaford w will need to aacquire land ffor the in‐gro ound storage reservoir. Th he proposed llocation for the in‐ ground storage reservo oir is on Greyy Road 7 apprroximately 5000 m south off Muir Road. TThe site allow ws the in‐ground d reservoir to be elevated tto the same level as the H GL, eliminatin ng the need ffor pumps.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

89

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

The remaining projectss will be consstructed on land that is currrently owned d by the Mun nicipality.

24.7 7 Environ nmental Im mpacts an nd Mitiga ation Mea asures As the plaanning term ffor the projeccts described within the M Master Plan arre not planned to be comp pleted within the e near term, Archaeologiccal Assessmen nts and detai led Environm mental Managgement Planss have not been completed at this time. TThe results of these assesssments will fu ully describe tthe environm mental mitigation n measures necessary for tthe future pro ojects.

24.8 8 Permitss and App provals No permitts or approvaals will be neccessary for an ny of the projeects outlined in this Masteer Plan.

24.9 9

Appllicable Cla ass EA Sch hedules

The proje ects associate ed with each of the preferred solutionns are listed in Table 35 w with the applicable Class EA SSchedule.

C EA Scchedules Table 35 – Class Project P Class EA SSchedule Water W Repair/Replac R cement of Existing Meaforrd Watermainns A/A A+ Establish New E w Meaford Watermains A++ Establish New E w Watermainss for Planned Subdivisionss A A In‐Ground Sto I orage Reservo oir on Countyy Road 7 B** Water BPS on W n Water Towe er Site B B Decommissio D on Nelson Stre eet BPS B B Installation of I f VFDs at Watter Treatmen nt Plant A A Waste Water W r Relining/Reha R abilitation of Existing Meaford Sewerm ains A A Establish New E w Meaford Se ewermains A++ Establish New E w Sewermainss for Planned Subdivisionss A A SPS No. 1 and S d No. 2 Upgrades A A SPS No. 3 Upg S grades A++ of SPS No. 6 Construction C B** WWTP Refurb W bish and Dem molition of Old d Sludge Storaage A A Upgrade UV D U Disinfection C Channel A A Storm Equaliz S zation Basin C Chamber B B Repurpose St R orm Equalization Chambe er to Clarifier//Aeration C C New Headwo N orks Building C Construction C C New Biosolids N s Works C C New UV Disin N nfection Channel C C Odour Contro O ol System A A *Additional studie es will need to be completed at the ttime of consstruction to aallow the Claass EA proce edure to be fo ollowed.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

90

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

24.1 10 Summary of C Commitm ments Mad de during Master P Planning Processs Througho out the masster planningg process, public and review agency consultaation resulteed in commitments that we ere carried ou ut during the e planning prrocess. MOEC CC Southwesttern Region, MTO, ble Conservattion Authoritty, Hiawatha First Nation, Chippewas o of the Thamees First Nation and Grey Saub Aundeck‐Omni‐Kaningg First Nation n all requeste ed to be kep t up to datee on the detaails of the prroject.

CEAA and d MAA provid ded contact information of First Natioons that cou uld be affecteed by the prroject.

These Firsst Nations we ere added to tthe contact list for all correespondence.

25.0 Proposed P d Capital Works Program m and Co osts 25.1 1 Water S System A phased strategy hass been develo oped for the overall wateer distribution n and treatm ment system aand is d in Table 36. The phased d strategy inccludes projeccts that will b be covered paartially coverred by presented developm ment charges. The percenttage paid for by the Mun icipality is indicated in the project nam me. A proposed timeline for the suggested work is provided in Figu re 20. ater System Improvemen nt Plan Table 36 – Overall Wa Proje ect Name

Esstimated Cost

Phasse 1 Cond duct Flow Testing on Cast Iron Pipes Deve elop Rehabilitation and Replaacement Plan B Based on Flow Testing Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar (54% %) SCADA Desiggn for VFD Instaallation (54% %) Install VFDs aat the WTP (16% %) Design New Pressure Zone 2 BPS (16% %) New Pressure Zone 2 BPS C Construction Deco ommission Nelsson Street BPSS

$ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,140,000.00 0 $ 16,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 143,000.00 $ 10,000.00

Total Phase 1:

$ 2,406,000.00

Phasse 2 Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar

$ 2,140,000.00

Total Phase 2:

$ 2,140,000.00

Phasse 3 Remo ove and Replacce Remaining C Cast Iron Pipe – – 1250 m per yyear

$ 2,700,000.00

Total Phase 3:

$ 2,700,000.00

Phasse 4 Remo ove and Replacce All 100mm Non‐Cast Iron Pipe – 1000 m m per year

$ 2,000,000.00 0

Total Phase 4:

0 $ 2,000,000.00

Total Program:

$ 9,246,000.00 0

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

91

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

The goal of the Impro ovement Plan Phase 1 iss to obtain aa baseline of the conditio on of waterm mains, c presssure issues and a to start replacing r wa termains thaat do not com mply with M MOECC improve current guideliness. Flow testing will be com mpleted on the e cast iron pi pes in the network to see which pipes are in greater need for replaacement due e to corrosion and tubercculation and which pipes can be improved will be develo oped from thee data through rehabilitation measures. A rehabilitation and replaceement plan w collected during flow ttesting. This p plan will be u used during thhe rest of Phaase 1 as well as Phases 2 and 3 d replacemen nt. 1000 m peer year of 1000 mm diameeter cast iron pipe, to prioritiize pipe rehabilitation and identified to be replaaced by the rehabilitation and replaccement plan,, will be rep placed to improve ompliance. Thhe existing pumps at the Water Treattment pressure issues and allow MOECC guideline co with VFDs to help reduce current presssure issues beeing experien nced by the p public.

Plant will be replaced w oster Zone, the existing N Nelson To further improve prressure issuess, specificallyy in the Nelsoon Street Boo ommissioned d and replaced by a new B BPS at the waater tower sitte. The imporrtance Street BPSS will be deco of the new w BPS is that it will allow for adequate ffire flow at thhe Meaford G General Hospiital.

The main purpose of P Phase 2 is to expand Meafford’s water sstorage capacity. To allow w for the in‐grround reservoir to be constrructed, new watermain must m be instaalled along C County Road 7 to connecct the reservoir to the systtem. This ad dditional watter storage is needed w when the po opulation reaches approximately 5,800 people. p The watermain w an nd reservoir is development‐related aand will likelyy only proceed w when overall system storaage capacity d does not meeet MOECC req quirements. TThe remainin ng 100 mm cast iiron pipe will also be remo oved and rep placed during Phase 2. 10000 m will be rreplaced each h year in accordaance with the e rehabilitatio on and replacement plan.

The objecctive of Phase e 3 is to remo ove all remaining cast ironn pipe in the water distrib bution system m. The rehabilitation and rep placement plan p will be used to ideentify the pipe priority aand also wh hether ng is the prefe erred solution. Since thesse pipes diam meters meet M MOECC guideelines, replacement or relinin pipe rehaabilitation can n be used forr watermains that are stilll in good con ndition. 1000 0 m of pipe w will be identified to be replace ed/rehabilitated each year.

Phase 4 o of the Improvvement Plan will be to remove all addditional 100 m mm watermain that is non n‐cast iron. Thiss will allow the entire sysstem to be in compliancee with MOEC CC guideliness and help reeduce pressure iissues caused d by inadequaately sized pip pes.

In additio on to the repaairs and replaacements nee eded throughhout the urbaan settlement area, there are a number of o watermain ns and waterr distribution n infrastructuure that will be required to service ffuture planned d developmentss. The projectts that are to o be partially or fully fundeed by develop pment chargees are shown in Table #. The e demand off existing con nditions was compared w with full build‐out conditio ons to e the costs incurred by the municip pality verses developmen nt with only the develop pment determine charges shown below. Developer ch harges have b been divided by the 3 hyd draulic pressure zones thatt exist ork. This is be ecause some e of the projeects only affeect certain pressure zonees and throughout the netwo because tthe growth in each pressurre zone variess.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

92

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Tab ble 37 – Watter Projects Covered by Developme ent Charges Project Nam me Coleman n Street Centre Street Union Sttreet Muir Stre eet County R Road 7 Construcction of New Pipes for New w Developme ent (46%) SC CADA Design ffor VFD Installlation (46%) Insstall VFDs at tthe Water Tre eatment Plan nt New In‐G Ground Reserrvoir Design aand Constructtion Connecting Pipe to In‐Ground Storrage to Netwo ork esign New Pre essure Zone 2 2 Booster Stattion (84%) De (84%) Ne ew Pressure ZZone 2 Booste er Station Con nstruction Total

Pressure Zone 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ 14,000 $ 46,000 $ 794,000 $ 166,000 ‐ ‐ $1,020,000

pment Chargees Develop Pressuree Pressure Total Zone 2 Zone 3 ‐ $ 251,0 000 $ 251 1,000 ‐ $ 312,5 500 $ 312 2,500 ‐ $ 340,5 500 $ 340 0,500 ‐ $ 741,0 000 $ 741 1,000 ‐ $ 830,0 000 $ 830 0,000 ‐ ‐ TBD ‐ 4,000 ‐ $ 14 ‐ ‐ $ 46 6,000 $ 420,00 00 $1,170,0 000 $2,384 4,000 $ 89,00 00 $ 245,0 000 $ 500 0,000 $ 67,00 00 ‐ $ 67 7,000 $ 757,00 00 ‐ $ 757 7,000 $1,333,00 00 $3,890,0 000 $6,243 3,000

The consttruction of ne ew pipes for new develop pment includees all constru uction within new develop pment areas. No cost was give en to this item m as the pipe e size and lenggths are curreently unknow wn. These costts will mined and inccurred by the developer. be determ A propose ed timeline fo or the suggessted work is p provided in Fiigure 20. Thee timeline inclludes projects that are funde ed by both the e Municipality and development chargges. The watermains that aare affected b by the Improvem ment Plan are shown in Figgure 21.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

93

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figure 20 - Proposed Timeline for Water System Improvement Plan ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish

Phase 1 Conduct Flow Testing on Cast Iron Pipes Develop Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan Based on Flow Testing Remove and Replace 100 mm Cast Iron Pipe - 1000 m per year SCADA Design for VFD Installation Install VFDs at the Water Treatmetn Plant Design New Pressure Zone 2 Booster Station New Pressure Zone 2 Booster Station Construction Decommission Nelson Street Booster Station Phase 2 Remove and Replace 100 mm Cast Iron Pipe - 1000 m per year Construction of New Pipe on County Road 7/St. Vincent Street New In-Ground Water Storage Facility Design and Construction Construction of New Pipe on County Road 7/St. Vincent Street to connect In-Ground Storage to Network Phase 3 Remove and Replace 100 mm Cast Iron Pipe - 1000 m per year Phase 4 Remove and Replace All 100 mm Non-Cast Iron Pipe - 1250 m per year

1305 days 261 days 260 days 1305 days 261 days 260 days 261 days 260 days 262 days 1304 days 1304 days 261 days 781 days 262 days

Fri 01/01/16 Fri 01/01/16 Mon 02/01/17 Fri 01/01/16 Fri 01/01/16 Mon 02/01/17 Mon 01/01/18 Tue 01/01/19 Wed 01/01/20 Fri 01/01/21 Fri 01/01/21 Fri 01/01/21 Mon 03/01/22 Tue 31/12/24

Thu 31/12/20 Fri 30/12/16 Fri 29/12/17 Thu 31/12/20 Fri 30/12/16 Fri 29/12/17 Mon 31/12/18 Mon 30/12/19 Thu 31/12/20 Wed 31/12/25 Wed 31/12/25 Fri 31/12/21 Mon 30/12/24 Wed 31/12/25

1304 days 1304 days 1304 days 1304 days

Thu 01/01/26 Thu 01/01/26 Wed 01/01/31 Wed 01/01/31

Tue 31/12/30 Tue 31/12/30 Mon 31/12/35 Mon 31/12/35

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2

94

t ia Sc o

! (

Dr

( !! (

! ( ! (

! (

tr Cen

R eville

d

! (

! (

Alg on q

! (

! (

La ke sh or e

Rd

! (

uin

S

Dr

! (

! (

Water Treatment Plant

! (

! (

Ave

Ford

! (

Gr an

! (

dv ie ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

w

Dr

! " ! " " 5± ! " b ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

rt ry C Albe n St Hele ! (

! (

Country

Cres ! (

! (

C

e Ridg

! (

! (

Sy k

! ( ! (

! (

( ! ( !

St

Replacement Details

N

! (

! (

St Stewart

No Programed Upgrades

! (

an Sus

! (

! (

St

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

e ay Av Fairw

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

m Willia

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! ( ( !! ( ! (

Greater than 100mm Cast Iron replacement

( !! ( ! ( ! (

! (

St

! (

r t St Albe ! (

! ( ! (

Dr rews

! (

rt Albe

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

(! ! (! ! ((

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

( ! (!

W er St Park

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

" 5

! (

! (

W er St Park ! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (

! (

! (

( !! ( ! (

t on S Nels

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

W

! (

! (

( (! !! (

( ! ( !

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

e St bridg w o r T

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

y St Berr

! (

Bo

! (

! (

r St uc h e

! ( ! (

! (

! (

res

! (

! (

! (

o ri

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

St aret Marg

! ( ! ! ( ( ! (

! (

( !! ( ! (

Pa u

Lorne St

! (

! (

lS ! (

Ed win S ! (

t

Ja me s

! ( ! (

! (

Louisa St ! (

Blake St

! (

n Aike

! (

! (

"5 ! " ! " ! " ! ! ( (( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! (

nS t

Gr

! (

! (

ay Av e

S Thom

! ( ! (

! (

t

! (

St

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

on D r

! (

! (

Sy ke s

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

St S ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Hi gh ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

Zone 3

! ( ! (

! (

! (

( !! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

t er y S t gom Mon

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (! ( ( !! (

McKibb

R

! (

St

! (

! (

( ! ( !

ive tt Dr usse

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

!! ! ( ( (

! (

nt St S St Vince

! (

! (

n Colema

Augusta

12

( !! ( ! (

Reservoir

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ± " b

! (

! (

St Augusta

Pumps

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

t St

! (

e e Av Grac

! (

! (

! ( ! ! ( (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! " ¬

! (

! (

! (

! (

St

! (

( ! ( ! ( !

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Cr es

Iv a

! (

St

! (

Gran t Ave

! ( ! (

en St Vinc

! (

Farrar St

n rto Bu

! (

! (

! (

St

! (

! ( ! (

! (

tE

! (

St Eliza ! (

PRV

side Ave

ve Middle A

! (

( ! ( !

( ! (!

! (

Lake

! ( ( ! ( !

" 5

! (

! (

r Pollard D

! (

ue

Graham

Dr

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Av en

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

Gre

! (

! (

! (

ad y Ro

! (

! (

! (

Ve ra

! (

! (

! (

ve Parkview A

Nodes

! (

! (

! (

! (

( !

! (

! ( ! (

! ! ( ( ! (

Vic t

! (

St

tE

! (

St mark Den

! (

St

eld Greenfi

r Gardine

! (

r Mille

! (

! (

! (

aC

! ( ! (

tW nS wi Ed

! (

! (

lS shal Mar

! (

! (

( !! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

E

St

! (

! (

! (

! (

Tanks

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! Ö

! (

! (

! (

St

e St bridg Trow

! (

! (

! (

Rd

W

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Le gio n

! (

! (

y St Berr

! ( ! (

Legend

! (

! (

! (

ry Hen

n St

! Ö

n Owe

o Nels

St

Zone 2

! (

e St

! ( ( !! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

Noble

! ( ! (

! (

g Brid

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

( ! (!

St

! (

! " ¬

! (

( (! ! (! ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

E

t Fuller S

t od S gwo in ll o C ! " ¬

! (

! (

Cook

Iro

rive od D

! (

! (

! (

St

To be Decommissioned nwo

Future Developer

! (

St

! (

Future Municipal

Zone 2 Booster Station

! ( ! (

ld fie

! (

n Pearso

! (

! (

St

! (

t d Cr w oo St Birch bard Lom

! ( ! (

Nelson Street Booster Station

! ( ! (

! (

y Ba

Zone 1

! (

nd St A

Future Consideration

! (

( !! (

! (

St

! (

100mm Cast Iron replacement

! (

St

ria Victo

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

pson Thom

! ( ! (

! (

d Ridge R

! (

Meadow Lane

! (

es

! (

! (

! (

26

! (

! (

Dr r eek

Watermains

! (

! (

! (

wa y

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

High

! (

! ( ! (

wa y

26

! (

Union S

! ( ! (

re D thmo Swa

! (

! (

t

! (

r

! (

Centre St

7th Line

! (

Muir

St ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

Old H ighwa y

! (

! (

! (

oa Grey R

! (

Future Water Storage Facility ! (

3 rd

d7

! (

! Ö ! (

Meaford Servicing Master Plan - Water Supply System 0

0.25

0.5

1

1.5

2 Kilometers

1:10,000

Lin e

26

25.2 2 Wastew water Systtem 25.2.1 2

Sewage C Collection n System – I/I Reducction Progrram

Maintaining a WWTP A ADF below 2,,700 m3/d an nd ensuring thhe effluent objectives con ntinue to be m met is the primaary driver for an I/I reduction program.. Based on tthe 2015 I/I SStudy Report there is significant opportunity to reduce extraneous fflows and recclaim reservee capacity at tthe plant. Du uring the mon nth of 3 4, an estimatted 2,458 m /d of flow wa / as determineed to be extraneous, whicch translates to an April 2014 3 increase in the yearly ADF of 205 m m /d. While fully eliminati ng I/I during the spring m melt is not feaasible, e and se everity of exxtraneous flow ws in the collection systeem. In this pointt serves to illlustrate the extent terms of ggrowth plann ning, 205 m3/d of reclaime / ed capacity thhrough I/I red ductions wou uld be sufficieent to service an n additional e eighteen (18) years of grow wth in the urbban area baseed on the histtorical growth h rate and an assumed sewagge production n rate of 450 L/cap/day.

Figure 22 shows the projected grow wth rate and the cumulatiive reduction n in I/I requireed to maintain the 3 plant ADFF at 2600 m /d. Overall, the yearly requ uirement to keeep up with d developmentt is an approximate 3 20 m /d in i I/I reductio on each yearr. Additionallyy, the contin uation of I/I reduction will ensure thaat the sewage flows will not e exceed the caapacity of the e Bighead Riveer syphon.

Inflow aand Infiltrration Redution Taarget 3200

Meaford WWTP ADF (m3/d)

3000

2800

2600

2400 I/I Reduction 2200

Prrojected ADF Taarget ADF

2000

Year

bjective Figure 22 – Inflow and Infiltration R Reduction Ob or reducing I//I is presented in Table 38 .

A phased action plan fo

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

96

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 38 8 – Inflow an nd Infiltration n Reduction Plan

Planning T Term:

Initiative:

Re eplace Identiffied Damaged d Pipe

1‐5 years

5‐10 years

Deescription:  Sykes Streett ‐ MH 10750 to MH 1 10720 (North of Ivan St. to Marggaret St.)  Ivan Street –– MH 10791 to MH 10760 (from Sykes St. halffway to Victo or St.) 730 to MH 1 11680  William Streeet – MH 117 (from Thomp pson St. to Co ook St.) 630 to MH 3 32620  Susan Streett – MH 326 (from Thomp pson St. halfw way to Mary SSt.)

Sm moke Testing

Coomplete smo oke testing and notify home ow wners with illeegal connections.

Disconnection Program

Deevise a proggram to discconnect imp proper sew wer connections in the urrban area eith her by inccentive or pen nalty.

Co ontinue MH and CCTV Insp pection

nspections an nd CCTV inspeection Coontinue MH in of pipes in thee network that have yet to be insspected

MH 11491 to o MH 11490 (from  Farrar St. – M Union Streett) 490 to MH 1 11470  Union Streett – MH 114 (from Farrar to North of LLouisa) eplace Identiffied Damaged d Pipe Re 11501  Blake Streett – MH 11500 to MH 1 (from Louisa,, South on Blaake) 730 to MH 1 11690  Albert Streeet – MH 117 (from Cook SSt. to West off Thompson) Moonitor and identify the amount if I/I Monitor I/I contribution c to the redduction that occurred from the first 5 years WWTP W of the I/I reducttion plan Coomplete smoke testing iff inflow is sttill an Sm moke Testing isssue from proh hibited conneections owards discon nnecting imp proper Ta ke actions to been rectified d. For co nnections that have not b exaample: fine// increase ssewer chargees of En nact Disconne ection Program m useers who still have prohib bited connecctions.

Altternatively, fiix the existingg issue and charge thee sewer user for the cost.

Ide entify Addittional Pipe Defect Froom the continued CCTV in nspection, identify Lo ocations ad ditional areas of damaged d pipe

10‐15 yeaars

I/I Study

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

Coomplete an I/I study to determinee the im mpact of reducction program m and identifyy new loccations for rehabilitation.

97

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Planning T Term:

Initiative:

Deescription:

Re eplace/ Reline R Daamaged Pipe

15‐20 yeaars

25.2.2 2

Id dentified

Fixx areas of daamaged sewer pipe that have beeen identifieed by the continued CCTV insspection, and d confirmed th hrough I/I Stu udy.

Moonitor and identify the amount if I/I c to the Monitor I/I contribution redduction occu urred from th he first 5 yeaars of WWTP W thee I/I reduction plan.

Fixx areas of daamaged sewer pipe that have Re eplace/ Reline R Id dentified beeen identifieed by the continued CCTV Daamaged Pipe d confirmed th hrough I/I Stu udy. insspection, and

Wastewa ater System Overalll Plan

A phased strategy forr the overall wastewater collection annd treatment system is presented below in pment Table 39. The phased strategy inclludes projectts that will bee covered parrtially covered by develop pality is indiccated in the p project name.. For project aat the charges. TThe percentage paid for by the Municip n ADF WWTP that are new process or pro ocess being re eplaced the coosts were spllit based on the increase in ns to full build‐out conditions. Any proocess at the W WWTP being expanded in order from currrent condition to accomm modate development will be paid for solely throughh developmen nt charges.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

98

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 39 – Ov verall Waste ewater Syste em Improvem ment Plan Project Name 1 Phase 1 Design New RAS/WASS Pumping and Electrical Improvements WWTP Refurbishmentt and Demolition of Old Sludge Storage Upgrade UV Disinfection Channel (A Add Additional Module) Sykes Sttreet, Paul Stre eet, and Ivan Street Reconstrruction Develop p a Disconnection Program fo or Illegal Conne ections Sewer C CCTV and MH Inspections Smoke TTesting and Ide entification of Locations with h Illegal Conne ctions Notify P Property Owne ers of Illegal Co onnections/Disconnection Proogram Total Ph hase 1: Phase 2 2 William Street Sewer Susan Street Sewer Repair/Raise Low Lyin ng MH & Install Watertight Co overs (assume 50 repairs) Review CCTV Inspectio on Data and Re e‐evaluate Reh hab Priorities Review Flow Rates and Compare to Historical Flow ws Implement Disconnecction Program ((assume 500 connections) 1 km off sewermain re epairs each yeaar Total Ph hase 2: Phase 3 3 Union SStreet, Farrar Street and Blake Street Sewerrs Albert SStreet Sewer (25%) SPS 3 Upgradess Design (25%) SPS 3 Upgradess Construction 1,000 m m of sewermain n repairs each year Total Ph hase 3: Phase 4 4 I/I Studyy Update SPS No. 2 Upgrades Design onstruction SPS No. 2 Upgrades Co SPS 1 No. Upgrades Design SPS 1 No. Upgrades Co onstruction 1,000 m m of sewermain n repairs each year Total Ph hase 4: Phase 5 5 Continu ue System Rehaab as Guided b

by CCTV Inspecction and I/I Stuudy 1,000 m m of sewermain n repairs each year Total Ph hase 5: Phase 6 6 (48%) D Design a New H Headworks Buillding (48%) N New Headworkks Building Construction (48%) D Design Odour C Control System (48%) O Odour Control SSystem Construction Total Ph hase 6: Total Prrogram:

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

99

Esstimated Cost

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

150,000 0.00 2,550,000 0.00 50,000 0.00 210,000 0.00 N N/A 200,000 0.00 160,000 0.00 N N/A 3,320,000 0.00

120,000 0.00 80,000 0.00 370,000 0.00 10,000 0.00 5,000 0.00 750,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 3,355,000 0.00

225,000 0.00 100,000 0.00 5,000 0.00 51,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 2,381,000 0.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

50,000 0.00 20,000 0.00 200,000 0.00 22,000 0.00 225,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 2,517,000 0.00

TTBD 2,000,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00

168,000 0.00 2,280,000 0.00 168,000 0.00 2,448,000 0.00 5,064,000 0.00 16,617,000 0.00

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

The goal o of the Improvvement Plan Phase 1 is to rehabilitate tthe existing p plant and con ntinue I/I redu uction efforts. Rehabilitation efforts will extend e the useful life of tthe existing p plant. The co ontinued effo orts to 3 reduce I/II aim to main ntain the ADF of the plant below 2,6000 m /d and su ustain the abiility of the plaant to meet efflu uent criteria.

The primary objective e of Phase 2 2 of the Imprrovement Plaan is to estaablish the futture clarifiers and basins at the WWTP site tto be used for peak flow m management. The continu uation of I/I eefforts aeration b is suggested to contiinue with an n increased effort to haave improperr sewer conn nections rem moved throughout urban Meaaford.

With peak flows effecctively managged by the interim retentiion tank, Phaase 3 of the IImprovementt Plan continuess to focus on n the reduction of I/I to increase reseerve capacityy at the plant to allow fo or the continuattion of develo opment.

At Phase 4 it is suggested that all o of the SPS upggrades be com mpleted. Furtther, it is sugggested that tthe I/I e best course of action witth respect to continuing reehabilitation o of the Study be updated to determine the sanitary ccollection systtem.

Phase 5 of the improve ement plan co onsists of the e continuationn of I/I reducttion efforts.

Phase 6 of the plan is initiated when w the WWTP W can noo longer meeet the efflueent criteria aand is At this point tthe interim s torm tanks w will be retrofitted to operaate as essentiallyy a full plant expansion. A aeration b basins and claarifiers to servvice the full b build‐out pop ulation.

In additio on to the repaairs and replaacements nee eded throughhout the urbaan area, there are a numb ber of projects tthat will be re equired to se ervice the ultimate develo pment. The p projects that are to be partially or fully funded by deve elopment chaarges are show wn in Table 440. The percentage of the project paid ffor by the develo oper is indicaated in the pro oject name. D Developer chaarges have beeen divided b by the 6 catch hment areas that exist througghout the network. This iss because som me of the prrojects only affect certain areas use the growth in each are ea varies. The e new processs or processees being replaaced at the W WWTP and becau were divided based on the increasse from the current c ADF to the full build‐out ADF. Expansion aat the ult of develop pment will paid for in full bby developmeent charges.

WWTP that is as a resu

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

100

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Table 40 – Wastew water Projec cts Covered by Develop pment Charg ges

Project Name Waste Wa ater Treatme ent Plant

Charged Areea Development Chargees

Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Design Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Constructio on Repurpose e Storm Equalization to Claarifiers/Aeratio on (Effluent Quality Trigger) Design Biosolids Storage Expansion olids Works Con nstruction New Bioso Design New w UV Disinfecttion Channel New UV Diisinfection Con nstruction (52%) Design a New Head dworks Buildin ng (52%) New w Headworks Building Constru uction (52%) Design Odour Conttrol System (52%) Odo our Control Systtem Constructtion

Entire Netwo ork

$ 2 220,000.00

Entire Netwo ork

$ 3,9 900,000.00

Entire Netwo ork

$ 2,2 250,000.00

Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo

$ 3 310,000.00 $ 4,4 420,000.00 $ 2 200,000.00 $ 2,7 750,000.00 $ 1 182,000.00 $ 2,4 470,000.00 $ 1 182,000.00 $ 2,6 652,000.00

Sewage P Pumping Statiions (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Design (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Construction n Design and Con nstruction SPS No. 6 D

Area 3 Area 3 Area 6

$ 15,000.00 $ 1 153,750.00 $ 7 750,000.00

$ 6 600,000.00 $ 4 400,000.00 $ 4 420,000.00 $ 3 370,000.00 $ 2 290,000.00 $ 3 310,000.00 $ 2 250,000.00 $ 1 140,000.00

Sewermain Centre Stre eet Sewermain n Union Stre eet Sewermain Coleman SStreet Sewermaain St. Vincentt Street Sewerm main Muir Stree et Sewermain Nelson Street Sewermain n Miller Street Sewermain Pearson Sttreet Sewermain Constructio on of new pipe at intersection of Coleman n Street and Muir Stree et

Total

Area 1 Area 1 Area 6 Area 2 Area 2 Area 1 Area 1 Area 1

TBD

$22,4 484,750.00

The new pipe to be constructed c at a the interse ection of Colleman Streett and Muir Sttreet is for aa new developm ment area. The e size of and length of sew wermain is unnknown, therrefore an oveerall cost could not be determ mined. The de eveloper of th his area will b be responsiblle to calculate and incur aall costs assocciated with this n new sewermaain.

A propose ed timeline fo or the suggessted work is p provided in Fiigure 23. Thee timeline inclludes projects that are both M Municipally funded and fu unded by developer chargees. The sewermains that aare affected b by the Improvem ment Plan are e shown in Figgure 24. The catchment arreas are show wn on the maap including aarea 6 which will be added to o the system o once SPS No. 6 is constructted.

Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan

101

Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou

Figure 23 ‐ Proposed Timeline for Wastewater System Improvement Plan ID 1

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish

Waste Water Treatment Plant

5849 days

15‐12‐31

38‐06‐01

2

Design New RAS/WAS Pumping and Electrical Improvements

263 days

15‐12‐31

17‐01‐02

3

Meaford WWTP Refurbishment and Demolishion of Old Sludge Storage

262 days

17‐01‐03

18‐01‐03

4

Upgrade UV Disinfection Channel (Add Additional Module)

130 days

17‐04‐03

17‐09‐29

5

Future Clarifier and Aeration/ Temporary Equalization Tank Design

260 days

17‐01‐02

17‐12‐29

6

Future Clarifier and Aeration/ Temporary Equalization Tank Construction

261 days

18‐01‐01

18‐12‐31

7

Monitor Effluent Quality to Ensure Compliance

3914 days

19‐01‐01

33‐12‐30

8

Repurpose Equalization to Clarifiers/Aeration (Effluent Quality Trigger)

261 days

34‐01‐02

35‐01‐01

9

Design a New Headworks Building

261 days

34‐12‐01

35‐11‐30

10

New Headworks Building Construction

261 days

35‐12‐03

36‐12‐01

11

Design Biosolids Storage Expansion

261 days

35‐06‐01

36‐05‐30

12

New Biosolids Works Construction

261 days

36‐06‐02

37‐06‐01

13

Design New UV Disinfection Channel

261 days

36‐01‐01

36‐12‐30

14

New UV Disinfection Construction

261 days

36‐12‐31

37‐12‐30

15

Design Odour Control System

261 days

36‐06‐02

37‐06‐01

16

Odour Control System Construction

261 days

37‐06‐02

38‐06‐01

5915 days

16‐01‐01

38‐09‐02

17

Sanitary Collection System

18

Sykes Street and Ivan Street Sewer

262 days

16‐01‐01

17‐01‐02

19

Develop a Disconnection Program for Illegal Connections

86 days

16‐01‐01

16‐04‐29

20

Sewer CCTV and Manhole Inspections

5829 days

16‐05‐02

38‐09‐02

44

Smoke Testing and Identification of Locations with Illegal Connections

5829 days

16‐05‐02

38‐09‐02

68

Notify Property Owners of Illegal Connections & Disconnection Program

1075 days

16‐09‐05

20‐10‐16

74

William Street Sewer

260 days

19‐08‐01

20‐07‐29

75

Susan Street Sewer

261 days

20‐09‐01

21‐08‐31

76

Review CCTV and Manhole Inspection Data and Identify Rehabilitation Priorities

88 days

20‐01‐01

20‐05‐01

77

Review Flow Rates and Compare to Historical Flows

85 days

21‐01‐04

21‐04‐30

78

Repair/Raise Low Lying Manholes & Install Watertight Covers Where Appropriate

109 days

21‐05‐03

21‐09‐30

79

Impliment Disconnection Program

4225 days

21‐08‐02

37‐10‐09

97

Union Street, Farrar Street and Blake Street Sewer

262 days

22‐12‐01

23‐12‐01

98

Albert Street Sewer

262 days

24‐07‐01

25‐07‐01

99

Inflow and Infiltration Study

195 days

26‐01‐01

26‐09‐30

100

Continue Collection System Rehabilitation as Guided by CCTV Inspection and I&I Study 2934 days

27‐01‐01

38‐03‐31

2240 days

27‐11‐01

36‐05‐30

101 Sewage Pumping Stations 102

SPS 3 Upgrades Design

261 days

27‐11‐01

28‐10‐30

103

SPS 3 Upgrades Construction

261 days

28‐10‐31

29‐10‐30

104

SPS 2 Upgrades Design

261 days

31‐04‐01

32‐03‐30

105

SPS 2 Upgrades Construction

261 days

32‐03‐31

33‐03‐30

106

SPS 1 Upgrades Design

261 days

34‐06‐01

35‐05‐31

107

SPS 1 Upgrades Construction

261 days

35‐06‐01

36‐05‐30

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 203 H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H

102

t ia Sc o Dr

le R trevil Cen

d

Alg on q

La ke sh or e uin

Rd

S

Dr

! ( ! ( ! (

Ave Ford

! (

Gr an ! (

w ! (

! (

Dr ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( rt ry C Albe!( !(

! (

! (

! (

Area 3

! ( ! (

Cres Countr!(y !(

! (

e Ridg !(

C r ee

k Dr

! (

! (

! (

Sy ! ( k

es

!

(F ! (

y airw!(a

No Programed Upgrades ! ( ! (

! ( ( ! ( !

t an S Sus !(

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

St A

! (

! (

St

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

m St !( Wil!(lia

! (

! (! (

! (

Dr

! (

rt Albe ( ! (!

! (

! (

! (

St

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

n Pearso

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

W

! (

! ( ! (

Rd

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

tW nS wi Ed

St

! (

t

! (

! (

Blake St

Farrar St

! (

! (

S Thom

! (

! (

e G!(rac!(

! (

t

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

Area 2 ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

on D r

( ! ( !

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

nt St S St Vince

R

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

t er y S tgom !( !( n o M ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

McKibb

! (

! (

Ave

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

St Augusta !(

! (

! (

ay Av e

! (

! ( ! ( e iv t t Dr e s s u

Gr

! (

side Ave

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

n St Colema

! (

! (

! (

Wet Wells

! (

! (

! (

! (

St Augusta

! (

! (

! (

Av!(e

! (

12

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

!

! (

! ! " ¬

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

t St

! (

! (

! (

n St Aike !( ! (

! (

Pumps

Sanitary Forcemains

! ( ! ( G ( ra n t ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ((

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Lake

! (

St

! (

! (

Bu

tE

! (

en St Vinc

! (

! ( ! (

Ja !( !( me ! (s C res ! ( t S n rto ! (

St Eliza!( ! (

! " ¬

WWTP

ve Middle A

Louisa St

! (! (

! (

r Pollard D

! (

! ( ! (

Gre

lS

! (

( ! (!

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

( !! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

Pa u

ue

! (

! (

! (

Av en

! (

! (

! (

! (

Ed win ! ( S ! (

! (

! (

St aret Marg !(

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ! ((

! (

! (

! (

! (

Ve ra

! (

! (

Graham

Lorne St

St

Dr

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

ve Parkview!(A !(!( ! (

! (

SCADA Upgrades Instrumentation/Control Upgrades

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

E l St shal !( Mar

St mark Den

r Gardine

eld Greenfi

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

Area 1

! (

res

! ( ! (

ad y Ro

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

Sanitary Manholes

SPS # 2

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

4

! (

(! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ! " ! " ! " !! (" ! ( E ! ( t ! ( S ! ( cher !(!( Bou !( !( ! ( ! (

! ! ( ( ! (

Legend

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

( ! (!

aC

! (

! (

! ( ! (

y St Berr !( !(

! (

St

! (

r Mille

! ( ! (

! (

Le gio n

St

St

! (

y Berr

! ( ! !! " " ¬

! (

! ( ! (

Are a

! (

( !! (

! (

! (

ry Hen

St

e St!( bridg Trow

St idge

! (

n Owe

! (

Noble

! (

tW on S

br Trow !(

! (

! (

! (

o ri

! ( ! (

! (

t ge S Brid !(

! (

( !! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

Decommission in Future

! (

Vic t

! (

! (

! (

t

! (

! (

Nels

! ( ! (

! (

S Cook

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

SPS # 4

( !! !! " " ¬

! ( ( ! (!

tE on S Nels !(

! ( ! (! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ( ! ! ! ( (

5

! (

! (

! ( ( ! ( ! ( !

SCADA Upgrades Instrumentation/Control Upgrades

t Fuller S

t od S gwo Collin

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

Future Developer

Ar ea

( ! ( !

St

ive d Dr

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

SPS # 1 St

W !( er St !( !(!(!( Park

W er St!( Par!(k

! (

woo Iron

! ( ! (

! (

t d Cr woo !( St Birc!(h d ! ( bar Lom

Future Municipal

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

ld fie

! (

SPS # 5

! ( ! (

y Ba

! ( ! (

Future Consideration

! ( rt S t Albe !( !(!(

! (

! (

ws ndr e

5-10 Years

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

St

ria Victo ! (

1-5 Years

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( !! " ! " ¬

(! !! ( (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Ave !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

Duration Until Replacement

! (

! (

! (

! (

N

pson Thom

! (

! (

St ! (

St Stewart

26

d Ridge R

! (

Meadow Lane

! (

Pump Upgrades SCADA Upgrades Instrumentation/Control Upgrades

! (

! (

! (

wa y High

( !! (

! (

! (

! (

Sanitary Sewers

! (

! (

! (

SPS # 3

! ( ! (

n St Hele !(

nS t

! (

Iv a

! ( ! (

dv ie

! (

! (

Sy ke s

St S ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

Area 6

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

Union S

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

t

SPS # 6

! (

! (

! (

re thmo Swa

Dr

! (

Centre

7th Line

New Developer

! ( ! (

! (

St

! (

! (

St M!(uir

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

Highway 26

! ( ! (

! (

Old H ighwa y

! (

oa Grey R

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

3 rd

d7

! (

Meaford Servicing Master Plan - Wastewater System 0

0.25

0.5

1

1.5

2 Kilometers

1:10,000

Lin e

26

A number of defects have been identified throughout the collection system that are not considered to be critical at this time, however they should be given future consideration for repair and will be reevaluated during Phase 4 of the improvement plan. Table 40 provides a listing of the defects and their locations.

Table 41 – Sanitary Collection System Defects for Future Consideration Location

Defect

Boucher Street MH 132 to MH 131 @ 1 m @ 31.0, 31.6 m MH 130 to MH 125 @ 16.9, 21.8, 30.3, 41.9 m Centennial Street MH 11450 to MH 11440 @ 78.1 m Coleman Street MH 12800 to MH 12790 @ 60.3 m Grandview Drive MH 32591 to MH 32600 @ 1.6 m MH 32591 to MH 32590 @ 40.1 m MH 32590 to MH 32580 @ 9.4 m Margaret Street MH 176 to MH 177 @ 49.3 m Marshall Street MH 10860 to MH 10850 @ 17.5 m Middle Avenue MH 22680 to MH 22670 @ 55.6 MH 20360 to MH 22670 @ 39 m Montgomery Street MH 20510 to MH 20500 @ 88.7 m Nelson Street MH 12161 to MH 12150 @ 47.8 m Noble Street MH 12211 to MH 12220 @ 79.3 m Parklane Crescent MH 22730 to MH 22740 @ 62.4 m MH 22730 to MH 22720 @ 57, 82.6 m MH 22700 to MH 22670 @ 19.6 m Trowbridge Street MH 12450 to MH 12451 @ 0.4, 2.4 m MH 12460 to MH 12470 @ 103 m MH 12460 to MH 12450 @ 7.7, 25.7, 93.4, 129.3 m MH 12460 @ 148.3 m

Pipe broken Longitudinal/ Circumferential Cracking Offset Joint Circumferential crack Intruding connection, Infiltration Open Joint Broken Pipe at Joint Joint Displacement Hole in sewer (possible repair) Broken Pipe Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration at joint Hole in pipe Infiltration Cracking Cracking Joint Displacement Multiple Cracks Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe Joint Offset

Municipality of Meaford Water & Wastewater Servicing

April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 104

Appendix – A Terms of Reference and Authorization

The assignment will include, but will not be limited to, the following tasks: Task 1: Problem Statement, and Background Review and Analysis (Class EA Phase I) Through consultation with Municipality staff, the Consultant is to finalize the Problem Statement for inclusion in the Notice of Study Commencement.

The Consultant shall review all available background studies and document/characterize existing conditions in the Study Area including land uses, topography, existing servicing systems, roads and natural features. This Study Area Profile will rely primarily on existing sources. However, fieldwork, as needed, will be completed to provide necessary information to prepare the Study Area Profile.

Based on input from the Steering Committee on population projections and growth areas, the Consultant shall confirm proposed service areas, water demands and wastewater generation rates.

Attend Steering Committee Meeting(s) to review and provide input into: i.

profile of the study area;

ii.

study area issues and data collection;

iii.

population projections, water demands, wastewater generation rates; and,

iv.

initial identification of alternative solutions.

Prepare Progress Report #1 and submit it to the Steering Committee for comment describing the problem statement, background studies and their findings, assumed population and growth areas, Profile of the Study Area, water demands and wastewater generation rates. Progress Report # 1 is to be in a format that can be easily converted to the Master Plan Report.

The Municipality intends to hold a Phase 1 Public Information Centre (PIC) to obtain comment on the Problem Statement, Study Area and the Service Area. The successful consultant is to allow for arranging, holding and attending a Phase 1 PIC. The Consultant shall prepare a letter to all technical agencies and prepare the Notice for the local newspapers advertising the PIC and soliciting comments on the Master Plan.

Task 2: Identification of Alternative Solutions (Class EA Phase II) The Consultant is to identify servicing alternatives including combinations of alternatives which would address the problem statement and the study objectives. Only reasonable alternatives

and combinations of alternatives which meet the study objectives will be carried forward. The Consultant will provide descriptions and cost estimates for each alternative solution, complete with drawings and other supporting materials for review by the Steering Committee.

In considering the preparation of the Class EA Master Plan, the Municipality is required to fully assess all reasonable alternatives to address the identified problem. As noted previously, with respect to water supply and wastewater treatment options, the Master Plan is to be based on the premise that the Meaford Water Treatment Plant and the Meaford Wastewater Treatment Plant will be used to service areas rather than the establishment of new facilities.

In addition the municipal servicing options, as required by the Class EA process, this Class EA study will assess the following activities within the Study Area as part of the possible alternatives:    

Do Nothing Limit Community Growth Water Efficiencies Reduction of Infiltration and Inflow

The successful consultant will be required to expand on all options to include new pipeline routes, upgrades to existing pump stations, new pump station and water storage facility locations.

Consideration is to be given to modular design of all future water and wastewater infrastructure, including pipelines, to allow for coordinated future growth throughout the Municipality. Land requirements for future pump stations and water reservoirs are to be adequately sized to allow for staging of modular designs.

In each of the series of possible solutions, the Master Plan will address the “Do Nothing” alternative to provide a baseline comparison for solutions.

Each respondent to this RFP is to provide with the Qualitative Submission, a preliminary Outline of their Master Plan Document in the form of a Draft Index. This submission will be used in the evaluation of the proposals.

The Project Team will develop social/environmental/technical criteria for the evaluation of alternatives.

As a key part of assessing the viability of proposed alternatives, the Study will identify a series of criteria by which to measure each alternative. These will include, but not be limited to, the following topics: 

Social Environment  Land Use – compatibility with Official Plan  Community cohesiveness  Noise and mitigation  Construction Impacts and mitigation  Heritage  Archaeology  Agricultural land  Quality of Life - Health and Safety



Natural Environment  Environmentally sensitive areas  Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s)  Woodlots  Creeks  Fisheries  Wetlands (including PSW’s)  Wildlife and Birds  Vegetation  Air quality  Stormwater issues



Technical  Ability to satisfy design criteria  Capacity  Phasing Capabilities  Geometrics (vertical and horizontal)  Reliability  Approvability (Review Agencies)  Land Requirements (ease of acquiring)  Structural Considerations (Geotechnical)  Maintenance and operating needs  Architectural considerations (general only based on surrounding development)  Utility considerations (hydro supply, etc.)



Cost  Capital  Operating

Attend Steering Committee meeting(s) to review and provide input into alternatives and combinations of alternatives, and criteria by which alternatives will be evaluated.

Task 3: Evaluation and Selection of Preliminary Preferred Solutions (Class EA Phase II) The Consultant shall assess alternatives using the selected evaluation criteria and identify “Recommended” solutions. This will be an iterative evaluation process, including refinement of alternatives, new options and combinations as they arise. A matrix evaluation method may be employed to ensure that each alternative is assessed against the same criteria.

Based on the Profile of the Study Area and selected evaluation criteria, the Consultant is to assess the potential impacts and net effects (after mitigation) of each of the alternative water and wastewater solutions. At this stage, the site location and/or route of each alternative will be presented in sufficient detail so that mitigation methods can be assessed and environmental impacts addressed.

The Consultant shall identify “Recommended” alternatives or combination of alternatives. This identification shall list the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative solution and clearly state the reasons for the selection of the “Recommended” alternatives. This assessment may use a single project-by-project method or take a systems approach.

The Consultant shall attend Steering Committee meeting(s) to review and provide input into:    

The identification of alternatives and combinations of alternatives; The evaluation of alternatives; The selection of “Recommended” solutions; and To present Draft public open house information to the Municipality for review and comment.

The Consultant shall prepare Progress Report #2 and submit it to the Municipality for comment prior to the Phase 2 PIC. Progress Report #2 will include documentation of all alternatives, evaluation criteria, the evaluation of alternatives and the rationale for the selection of the “Recommended” solutions.

Progress Report # 2 is to be in a format that can be easily converted to the Master Plan Report.

Task 4: Public Consultation The Consultant shall prepare a letter to all technical agencies and put a notice in local newspapers advertising the Phase 2 PIC and soliciting comments on the Master Plan.

The Steering Committee will host a Phase 2 PIC to solicit public comments and suggestions on the following:      

Problem statement; Existing conditions/background/Study Area Profile; Alternative solutions; Evaluation criteria; Evaluation of alternative solutions, and “Recommended” solutions.

This Phase 2 PIC will be in the form of an open house – drop-in centre.

The Consultant shall prepare Progress Report #3 to document the results of the PIC by compiling a summary of the comments and questions received along with a listing of the Municipality’s responses to same. Progress Report #3 is to be in a format that can be easily converted to the Master Plan Report.

Task 5: Prioritizing Preferred Solutions The successful consultant shall recommend a prioritization list of the recommended projects for Municipality review and approval and for inclusion in the Master Plan Document. The Consultant is to recommend a phasing program for all preferred solutions complete with anticipated completion dates.

Task 6: Master Plan Documentation

The Consultant shall document the results of the study by compiling Progress Reports #1-3 into a single Master Plan document.

The Master Plan will identify all water and wastewater projects required to address the problem statement and satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process. The Master Plan Document is to be structured such that each of the service areas has it own sections (water and wastewater). Along with this project listing, the Master Plan will provide detailed information about the following for each project:       

Class EA Schedule Proposed facility location and or pipeline route Dimensions of property required and preliminary layout of proposed facility Brief description of the function of the facility Anticipated construction date required Prioritization (based on criteria established) Capital cost estimate

The Master Plan will also include mitigation measures for the proposed preferred solutions outlining the steps necessary to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts of the proposed projects (e.g., best management practices included in the consideration of the net effects). The Master Plan will also address implementation measures in which all the required permits and approvals are clearly listed for each project (e.g., Certificate of Approval, Permit To Take Water, etc.).

This Master Plan will include results of the Steering Committee, technical agencies and public consultation.

Given the nature of the Class EA process, the outcome of the evaluation cannot be predicted. However, for the purposes of the terms of reference for this project, the Municipality has assumed that most of the projects will be classified as Schedule B Activities under the MEA Class EA Document. Creek crossings may need to be identified as Schedule C Projects, requiring additional Class EA planning. This will depend on the feasibility of using trenchless methods for pipeline installation giving consideration that creek crossings will be Schedule “B” Projects. However, the selected consultant will be required to identify all applicable projects and confirm their associated Class EA Schedules.

A Steering Committee meeting will be held to review and provide input into the draft Master Plan.

The Municipality will review the draft Master Plan and provide comments prior to the finalization of the Report to ensure that it incorporates the comments of the public, technical agencies and Steering Committee. The Consultant shall finalize the Master Plan and provide copies to the Municipality along with an electronic version. For budgeting and scheduling purposes, the following Report Deliverables must be included:    

Progress Report # 1 – one digital and 3 hard copies Progress Report # 2 – one digital and 3 hard copies Progress Report # 3 – one digital and 3 hard copies Draft Master Plan for Municipality review prior to the 2nd PIC – one digital and 3 hard copies (no Appendices)

  

Draft Master Plan for MOE review prior to 30 day public review – three digital and 6 hard copies, with all Appendices Draft Master Plan for 30-day public review complete with all Appendices and related background Reports – three digital and 5 hard copies (2 for public display) Final Master Plan following 30-day public review – three digital and five hard copies complete with all Appendices and related background Reports.

The consultant will make presentations to the Municipality of Meaford Council on three separate occasions to present the Progress Reports.

The Municipality will publish a Notice of Completion for the Schedule B Projects for the required 30-day review period and release the draft Master Plan for review and comment.

The Consultant shall identify a specific number of hours of time for the Project Manager to review and comment on written public or agency questions or comments resulting from the Notice of Completion.

No Time is to be budgeted for receiving and addressing any requests for a “Part II Order”.

The Consultant shall identify any Ministry of Transportation requirements with respect to obtaining easements and the installation of proposed infrastructure within the Highway 26 Corridor. The Consultant shall identify and determine the complexity of proposed specific works based on actual communications with MTO representatives on the potential construction methods and MTO requirements based on the complexity of the work. This information is to be included in a separate Clause of the Master Plan.

Appendix ‐ B Minutes of Meetings

AGENDA Ainley & Associates Limited 280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371

•

Fax: (705)

726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com

PROJECT MEETING # 1 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan

DATE:

June, 18 2014

TIME:

1.00 pm to 4.00 pm

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre

Introductions

Engineering Agreement

Project Goals and Objectives 

Discussion on Municipal goals for project

Team Roles  

Consultant Municipality o Steering Committee o Workshop attendees

Communications   

Management Data Collection Field work

Schedule and Workplan 

Fix Key Dates o Council Meetings? (Election?) o Steering Committee Meetings o Workshops o PICs

Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014

File No. 114066 Page 1

Public Consultation Program     

Agency Contact List First Nations Contact list Notice of Commencement Agency Letter Discussion on Public Contact sequence/PIC formats

Data Collection   

Populations/Growth/Official Plan Potential Developments WWTP Class EA Amendment

Other Issues Document6

Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014

File No. 114066 Page 2

MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited

280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com

MINUTES OF PROJECT INITIATION MEETING PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Study Ainley Project No. 114106

DATE:

Wednesday June 18, 2014

LOCATION:

Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line - Boardroom

TIME:

1:00 p.m.

PRESENT:

Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford Darcy Chapman, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Reid Mitchell, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group

DISTRIBUTION:

All Present

1.

Project Documentation Three copies of the Engineering Agreement have been signed by the Municipality and provided to Ainley. Ainley will sign and return two copies to the Municipality.

Action by Ainley Ainley has submitted its WSIB Clearance Certificate and Certificates of Insurance.

2.

Project Goals and Objectives The Municipality must reserve adequate funds for future development and expansion of the distribution, collection and treatment systems. A primary objective of the study is to provide a basis to determine adequate development charges to ensure funds are available for required capital projects.

This study will provide descendible costs to ensure all future costs are covered. Although there have been various projects completed to look at future servicing there has never been one comprehensive study linked directly to D.C. charges.

The study will also provide the Municipality with a basis to schedule ongoing maintenance of roadways with repairs or upsizing of pipelines as required minimizing long term costs. The

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014

File No. 114066 Page 1

study will provide for the proper coordination of infrastructure development.

The study is to be confined to build-out of the existing Meaford community and is not to consider developments remote from this community. The plan is to provide a logical growth plan in practical phasing. It is the policy of the Municipality to promote growth.

3.

Team Roles Ainley will be primarily responsible for all aspects of the servicing study. The Municipality will be responsible to support the Ainley team by providing required information for completion of the study.

The Steering Committee will be the primary source of guidance and reviews to Ainley from the Municipality.

Steering Committee Members:     

4.

Stephen Vokes Chris Collyer Rob Armstrong Darcy Chapman Brady Carbert

Communications All project communications from Ainley to the Municipality will be distributed to all members of the Steering Committee.

Gary Scott will be the primary source of contact for communications from the Municipality to Ainley, however other team members will be in contact with the Municipality as required.

5.

Schedule and Workplan A preliminary schedule was included in the Ainley proposal. This showed a completion date (after the 30 day review) of March 17, 2014. This is still the target date and will be sufficient to support the D.C. Study.

It is likely that the D.C. Study consultant will be appointed this year and that coordination will take place before the Servicing Study is complete.

Given the delayed start to the project a slightly revised table of key dates were presented and discussed.

The following “Key Dates” were discussed:  Steering Committee Meeting # 1: Rescheduled from July 30, 2014 to August 13, 2014  Council Presentation # 1: Cancelled (PIC will be schedules the same day as Council)  Public Information Centre # 1: Rescheduled from September 17, 2014 to September 8, 2014  Steering Committee Meeting # 2: Confirmed September 24, 2014  Steering Committee Meeting # 3: Confirmed October 29, 2014 Generally deliverables will be provided for Steering Committee review and revised following

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014

File No. 114066 Page 2

discussion with the steering committee. Any workshop, PIC’s or Council Presentations would follow review by the Steering Committee.

The current schedule provides adequate time for the Municipality to integrate the findings of the study into the changes to the development charges.

It was agreed upon that one Workshop should be replaced with an “Educational Session” for the new Council after the election takes place.

It was agreed that the local developers should be invited to a Workshop to be held before the initiation of Phase 2 of the project. It was suggested that the developers be split into two separate groups based on size. The Municipality will canvas interest among some of the developers and the workshops will be arranged accordingly.

Action by Municipality 6.

Public Consultation Program Copies of the Draft Agency Contact List, First Nations Contact List, Notice of Commencement, and Agency letter were distributed at the meeting to all attendees for review and comment.

Action by Municipality Ainley suggested that the Notice of Commencement be finalized and issued as soon as possible following review by the Steering Committee.

The Municipality will review and recommend changes to the draft documents and return to Ainley to be finalised.

Action by Municipality

7.

Data Collection Ainley will hold an internal meeting and complete an information gap analysis to determine what documentation is currently available to our team and what is required from the Municipality. The results of this analysis will be provided to the Municipality.

Action by Ainley A meeting will be held with the planning department to review development/ build-out plans.

8.

Next Meeting

The next meeting to be held will be Steering Committee # 1 and will be held at the Operations Centre – 157859 7th Line – Boardroom on August 13, 2014.

Any errors and/or omissions from these Minutes should be reported to the undersigned as soon as possible.

Minutes prepared by:

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014

File No. 114066 Page 3

S. D. Glass, E.I.T..

Ainley & Associates Limited SDG/ S:\114106\Minutes & Agendas\Minutes\Intiation Meeting MINUTES - Final.docx

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014

File No. 114066 Page 4

AGENDA Ainley & Associates Limited 280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371

•

Fax: (705)

726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com

PROJECT MEETING # 2 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan

DATE:

August, 25 2014

TIME:

1.00 pm to 4.00 pm

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre

1. Progress since Last Meeting

2. Overall Status/Ongoing Issues

3. PIC No.1  

Discussion on Timeline Review of presentation materials

4. Discussion on Overall System Summary      

Water Distribution Storage Treatment Sewage Collection Sewage Pumping Stations WWTP

5. Activities To Next Committee Meeting 6. Other Issues

Document6

Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014

File No. 114106 Page 1

MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited

280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com

MINUTES OF PROJECT MEETING #2 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Study Ainley Project No. 114106

DATE:

Monday August 25, 2014

LOCATION:

Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line - Boardroom

TIME:

1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

PRESENT:

Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford Darcy Chapman, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group

DISTRIBUTION:

All Present

1.

Progress Since Last Meeting The models of the water distribution and waste water collection systems are now up to date with existing infrastructure. Some minor improvements to the models are still being completed but they will be addressed in the near term.

All the required field inspections have been completed.

The majority of the data collection has been completed. At this time Ainley is reviewing the land area of vacant lots available for development and working towards ultimate flow projections.

The six technical memoranda that backup the information to be presented at PIC No.1 are under progress and will be submitted to the municipality by Friday, August 29th.

Action by Ainley

2.

Overall Status/ Ongoing Issues At this point in time Ainley is approximately 2 months behind the schedule provided to the Municipality as a part of the original proposal. Despite the early delays the completion date after the 30 day review period is not expected to change.

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014

File No. 114106 Page 1

3.

PIC No.1 An additional meeting to finalise the materials for PIC No.1 was proposed by Ainley.

A meeting was arranged for 1:00 pm on Thursday September 4th at the Operations Centre.

A newspaper advertisement will be prepared by Ainley and will be submitted to the Municipality by August 26th for publication in the Meaford Express. The advertisement will be run on the September 3rd and September 10th issues.

Final materials for PIC No.1 must be submitted by Tuesday September 9th to ensure it can be incorporated in the council meeting minutes.

PIC No.1 will be booked for 7:00 pm on Monday September 15th. The preferred location for the meeting is at the Meaford Town Hall but the final location will be subject to availability.

The current progress on the presentation materials was discussed and feedback was provided by the Steering Committee to Ainley. The suggested changes will be incorporated by Ainley.

Action by Ainley

4.

Discussion on the Overall System Summary The progress on the Technical Memoranda was discussed.

A draft copy of the population growth technical memorandum was distributed at the meeting.

The population growth projection based on the Grey County Growth Management Strategy was discussed. The Steering Committee has agreed to review the growth projections and determine if it is valid based on the historical trends. The reviewed document will be returned to Ainley by the end of the day on August 26th.

5.

Activities to Next Committee Meeting A newspaper advertisement for PIC No.1 will be prepared and submitted to the Municipality

by Tuesday August 26th to be published in the Meaford Express.

The six technical memoranda will be completed and submitted to the Municipality by Friday August 29th.

Presentation materials will be completed in draft form and submitted to the Municipality ahead of the review meeting scheduled for September 4th.

Action by Ainley

6.

Next Meeting The next meeting to be held will be Steering Committee # 3 and will be held at the Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Boardroom on September 4th, 2014.

Any errors and/or omissions from these Minutes should be reported to the undersigned as soon as possible.

Minutes prepared by:

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014

File No. 114106 Page 2

S. D. Glass, E.I.T..

Ainley & Associates Limited SDG/ S:\114106\Minutes & Agendas\Minutes\Intiation Meeting MINUTES - Final.docx

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014

File No. 114106 Page 3

AGENDA Ainley & Associates Limited 280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371

â&#x20AC;˘

Fax: (705)

726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com

PROJECT MEETING # 3 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan

DATE:

October, 30 2014

TIME:

1.00 pm to 4.00 pm

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre

Progress since Last Meeting (Models)

Water Opportunities

Wastewater Opportunities

Where to go from here?

Other Issues

Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Meeting #3 October 30, 2014

File No. 114106 Page 1

AGENDA Ainley & Associates Limited 280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371

•

Fax: (705)

726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com

MINUTES OF PROJECT MEETING # 4 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan

DATE:

February, 2 2015

TIME:

1.00 pm to 4.00 pm

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre

Progress since Last Meeting Overall Status/Ongoing Issues Summary of Wastewater Model Results Summary of Wastewater Alternatives Evaluation    

Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Sewage Collection

Wastewater Project Recommendations Summary of Water Model Results Summary of Water Alternatives Evaluation     

Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Storage Distribution

Water Project Recommendations Project Assignments   

Development Charges Developer Cost Town Cost

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 1

Project Priorities  

Sewage Collection (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20) Water Distribution (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20)

Suggested Completion Schedule for PIC and Deliverables Next Committee Meeting Other Issues

Document6

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 2

MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited

280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com

MINUTES OF PROJECT MEETING # 4 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Study Ainley Project No. 114106

DATE:

Monday February 2, 2015

LOCATION:

Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line - Boardroom

TIME:

1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

PRESENT:

Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group Julia Roest, Ainley Group

DISTRIBUTION:

All Present + Darcy Chapman

1.

Progress Since Last Meeting The models of the water distribution and waste water collection systems are now up to date with existing infrastructure. The trunk main layout for ultimate development is now reflected within the sewer and water models. Both models have been calibrated to existing conditions.

The technical memoranda for both the sewer and water model have been distributed to the Municipality for review/comment.

Action by Municipality The technical memoranda for water system and wastewater system alternatives have been completed in draft and have been distributed to the Municipality for review/comment.

Action by Municipality The two technical memoranda that backup the information to be presented at PIC No.2 will be updated based on the comments of the Municipality and finalised preceding the public meeting on February 26th, 2015.

Action by Ainley

2.

Overall Status/ Ongoing Issues At this point in time Ainley is approximately 1 month behind the schedule provided to the

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 1

Municipality as a part of the original proposal. Despite the delays the completion date after the 30 day review period is not expected to change.

An additional meeting to finalise the materials for PIC No.2 was proposed by Ainley. The follow-up meeting will be held on Tuesday February 17th.

A newspaper advertisement will be prepared by Ainley and will be submitted to the Municipality for review by February 13th. The ad will be run in the Meaford Express on February 19th and February 25th.

Final materials for PIC No.2 must be submitted by Friday February 13th for review by the Municipality preceding the meeting to be held on February 17th.

PIC No.2 will be booked for 7:00 pm on Thursday February 26th. The preferred location for the meeting is at the Meaford Town Hall but the final location will be subject to availability.

Action by Ainley 3.

Summary of Wastewater Model Results The results of the wastewater collection model were discussed.

In order to understand the impact the potential Meaford Highlands development would have on the sanitary collection system, the Municipality would like an understanding of available sewer capacity from the sewer main on Sykes Street at Muir Street to the WWTP. Available capacity is to be calculated for the present day and ultimate build out scenarios.

Action by Ainley

4.

Summary of Wastewater Alternatives Evaluation The progress on the Technical Memoranda was discussed.

A draft copy of the Wastewater Alternatives and Evaluation memorandum was distributed to the Municipality for review and comment.

Action by Municipality Progress on the draft report will be continued by Ainley and the report will be finalised when comments are received from the Municipality. The municipality identified that the final report recommendations should include a statement to the effect that SPS#4 should be decommissioned in the event that the Knights of Meaford factory on Boucher Street is shut down.

Action by Ainley

5.

Wastewater Project Recommendations The yearly target to be targeting for wastewater projects was discussed. The budget allocated to complete wastewater capital projects is approximately $400,000/year. However the Municipality does not want the planning process to be restricted by the existing budget. A target budget was not agreed upon during the meeting.

Project planning will be completed on the basis of prioritizing high impact projects particularly with respect to I/I reduction.

6.

Summary of Water Model Results The results of the water model were discussed. Following on from discussion at the last

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 2

meeting concerning low pressure areas in Zone 1, Ainley had completed further analysis supplying the Zone from the Tank and confirmed that there is an 4 – 12 psi change in pressure across the zone when the pumps at the WTP are cycled off with the largest swing in the NW area. Ainley had looked at two scenarios to correct this. 1 Is to increase the size of the boosted zone through the NW area. 2 Is to operate Zone 1 as a closed zone (as St Vincent area) at a higher pressure.

Since the pressure swings extend over the whole zone, increasing the Nelson Street Zone does not solve the problem for everyone. Based on this Ainley suggested that the best solution is to operate the main zone as a closed pressure system supplied by the WTP pumps 100% of the time. Adding VFD drives will also provide the opportunity to give everyone a constant pressure.

Town confirmed that during the tank repainting the pressure was better with the system running off the WTP pumps and when they switched back to the tank control they again experienced pressure swings. The Town is in agreement to switch to control from the WTP. The water model will be update to reflect the recommended changes to the Nelson Street boosted zone and the operation of the WTP high lift.

Action by Ainley 7.

Summary of Water Alternatives Evaluation The alternatives for the water distribution system were discussed. The main alternative Within the technical memorandum two water storage alternatives providing floating storage have been identified. One is an elevated tank and the other an in-ground tank. Although the evaluation is close the in-ground reservoir on 7 th Line South of Muir Street has been identified as the preferred solution on the basis of cost and operational safety as well as aesthetics. The Municipality will approach the property owners at the identified site prior to the PIC. Action by Municipality Action by Ainley

8.

Water Project Recommendations The priorities for the water distribution system were discussed and identified as follows: 1) Feeder main from the WTP to the Water Tower 2) Fire flow in the Nelson St. boosted zone 3) Fire flow/ Removal of 4”Cast Iron Pipes throughout the urban area The priorities identified will be reflected in the Master Plan Action by Ainley

8.

Project Assignments The assignment of water and wastewater projects to developer charges, developer costs or town costs were discussed. The Municipality preferred to discuss the separation of the projects with Darcy Chapman. Ainley provided a set of maps with future developments included for the Municipality to discuss internally and provide direction to Ainley.

Action by Municipality

9.

Next Meeting The next meeting to be held will be Steering Committee # 5 and will be held at the Operations Centre – 157859 7th Line – Boardroom on February 17th 2015.

Any errors and/or omissions from these Minutes should be reported to the undersigned as soon as possible.

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 3

Minutes prepared by:

S. D. Glass, E.I.T..

Ainley & Associates Limited SDG/

S:\114106\1 Project Management Gary Stuff\Project Meeting Minutes & Agendas\Minutes\Steering Committee Meeting No4 MINUTES.docx

Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 4

AGENDA Ainley & Associates Limited 280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 • Fax: (705) 726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com

PROJECT MEETING # 5 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan

DATE:

February, 17 2015

TIME:

1.00 pm to 4.00 pm

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre

Progress since Last Meeting Overall Status/Ongoing Issues Committee Comments on Draft Wastewater Alternatives Evaluation    

Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Sewage Collection

Committee Comments on Draft Water Alternatives Evaluation     

Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Storage Distribution

Review of Draft PIC Boards Suggested Completion Schedule for Deliverables Next Committee Meeting Other Issues

Document6

Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Meeting #5 February 17, 2015

File No. 114106 Page 1

AGENDA Ainley & Associates Limited 280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 • Fax: (705) 726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com

PROJECT MEETING # 6 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan

DATE:

April 15, 2015

TIME:

1.00 pm to 4.00 pm

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre

Progress since Last Meeting  

PIC Completion Completion of Draft Servicing Studies

Review of Draft Master Servicing Studies Review of Drawings Review of Draft Project Budget Tables Review of Sites for Schedule B Projects   

SPS Site Reservoir Site Optioning Land

Draft Notice of Completion Other

Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015

Issues

Meeting # 5 Page 1

MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited

280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com

MINUTES OF PROJECT # 6 PROJECT:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Plane

DATE:

Wednesday April 15, 2015

LOCATION:

Meaford Operations Centre – 157859 7th Line - Boardroom

TIME:

1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

PRESENT:

Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Darcy Chapman, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group Tori Giangrande. Ainley Group

DISTRIBUTION:

All Present

1.

Progress Since Last Meeting

PIC No. 2 took place on February 26th, 2015 at Meaford Hall. The information presented at the PIC included background information, problem statement, evaluation criteria, alternative solutions and recommended solutions.

The draft servicing plan has been completed and has been distributed to the municipality for review/comments. The Municipality has begun to review the document and will try to finish reviewing by Friday April 17th, 2015.

Action by Municipality 2.

Review of Draft Master Servicing Studies

The municipality has been able to review the first half of the draft master servicing document. No major issues were found in the review thus far. The municipality outlined the comments they have made so far on the document which were the following:  

Include a list of abbreviations and definitions. Make sure to refer to abbreviations by their full name the first time they appear in a document.

For the number of units left for the WWTP put “as per 2013” into the report. Make sure to highlight

Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015

Meeting # 5 Page 3

the number of units left for the WWTP in the presentation.  On page 9 put in “May 12th” as date of Notice of Completion.  Put units into full form (eg. Kilowatt-hour instead of kWh)  Review process description of WWTP  Refer to Meaford as Urban Meaford not Town.  Bighead river is one word Additional comments or corrections to the document will be sent to Ainley for review allowing a final copy of the master servicing document to be produced.

Action by Municipality The municipality identified that the new phosphorus limits will result in increased sludge production and was wondering if additional digester storage is needed. Ainley will check to see if this change will result in a need for additional digester storage.

Action by Municipality 3.

Developer Charges Additional projects were identified as being able to be covered by developer charges for both water and wastewater infrastructure. For water infrastructure the VFD installation, In-Ground Storage Reservoir on County Road 7 and Booster Station on Nelson Street can be partially paid for by developer charges. For the wastewater infrastructure sections of the new wastewater treatment plant and Sewage Pumping Station No. 6 can be paid for by developer charges. SPS No. 4 decommissioning is the responsibility of the developer. The water and wastewater systems will be split into zones and areas, respectively, to allow developer charges to be properly allocated. The developer charges need to include everything to full build-out.

Action by Municipality

4.

Review of Drawings

The zones and areas need to be overlaid onto the drawings. There are 3 zones for the water distribution system that have already been developed based on the booster zones. For the wastewater collection system 6 catchment areas are to be developed based on the pumping station collection areas.

Action by Municipality 5. Review of Draft Project Budget Tables A review of the current budget tables needs to be completed to not include development charges. A separate table should be constructed with a breakdown of the development charges. An average cost per year is not necessary for the Municipality charges. The cost breakdown chart should be put in the report to council and presented as well as placed in the executive summary.

Action by Ainley 6. Review of Sites for Schedule B Projects Meaford has talked to the owner of the land for the in-ground reservoir. The reservoir will require about half a Ha of land. For the Master Plan Ainley can complete a drawing with a reservoir outline on it.

Action by Ainley Different options were reviewed for the location and configuration of SPS No. 6. A site visit was conducted after the meeting to assess field conditions. It was decided that SPS No. 6 would only service Coleman Street Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015

Meeting # 5 Page 3

with a forcemain along Coleman Street to Muir Street. In the future when development in this area is planned more detailed design can occur for SPS No. 6.

7.

Draft Notice of Completion

The draft notice of completion was review by the Municipality. The publish date for the notice will be on May 13th, 2015 the first Wednesday following the council meeting. The second address that the Master Plan will be available at has to be changed to the Meaford Library.

Action by Ainley Minutes prepared by: V.E. Giangrande, E.I.T..

Ainley & Associates Limited

Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015

Meeting # 5 Page 3

Appendix ‐ C Select Background Reports

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date:

July 10, 2012

To:

Rakesh Sharma, GENIVAR

Copies: From:

Michelle Albert and Emily Ghosh, GENIVAR

Project No.:

OS-08-134-11-OS

Subject:

Meaford WWTP Assimilative Capacity Study Update

1.

Introduction

The Meaford Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was constructed in 1969 to service the Municipality of Meaford and to provide treatment for hauled wastes from neighbouring areas. In 2007, a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed to address long term wastewater treatment requirements for the Municipality. It was assumed at the time of the Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report (ESR) that the Municipality’s current population would double by 2026, thus doubling the hydraulic capacity of Meaford WWTP. In the ESR, the WWTP’s effluent limits and required treatment upgrades were determined based on this assumption. However, since the WWTP is currently operating below its rated capacity and based on the approved developments in Meaford at this time, a 20% increase in population would more likely represent future growth and future capacity requirements.

The objective of this Technical Memorandum is to confirm whether the effluent limits recommended in the 2007 ESR are still suitable for the Meaford WWTP if only a 20% increase to the rated capacity, from 3,910 m3/d to 4,692 m3/d, is undertaken.

2.

Wastewater Treatment Facility Description

2.1

Description of Facilities

Meaford WWTP is located at 35 Grant Street in the Town of Meaford, as shown on Figure 2-1 on the following page. Meaford WWTP receives raw sewage from four pumping stations in the Meaford service area. The WWTP operates as an activated sludge plant with aerobic sludge stabilization and storage and Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and is operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA). The key treatment processes and operations include: • • • • • •

Raw wastewater pumping station Preliminary treatment (screening) Conventional Activated Sludge System (aeration tanks, secondary clarifiers) UV Disinfection System Outfall to Georgian Bay Aerobic Digestion with land disposal of biosolids

2.2

Wastewater Flows and Plant Treatment Capacity

The Meaford WWTP operates under Certificate of Approval #0440-6A4JXX issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on March 15, 2005. The current rated capacity of the plant is 3,910 m3/d, however based on OCWA’s 2011 Performance Report, the plant’s 2011 annual average daily flow was only 2,679.3 m3/d which is 68.5% of the design capacity. This was a 12% increase from flows recorded in 2010.

MARKHAM

600 Cochrane Drive, 5th Floor, Markham, Ontario L3R 5K3

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Tel.: (905) 475-7270 Fax: (905) 475-5994

Technical Memorandum Page 2 Figure 2-1 Location of Meaford WWTP (Source: Municipality of Meaford Official Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Schedule A-1 Land Use Plan, 2005)

N

In light of the current flows to the plant and approved subdivisions planned for the future, it has been estimated that future plant flows will increase by 20% above the current rated capacity of 3,910 m3/d to 4,692 m3/d.

In the 2007 ESR, the peaking factor was assumed to be 3.5. Also, based on the 2011 Performance Report, a maximum peak daily flow of 9,505 m3/d was recorded at the plant, which is 3.5 times the plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual average daily flow in 2011. Therefore, a peaking factor of 3.5 will also be used for this report.

2.3

Treated Water Effluent Quality as per the 2007 ESR

The current and earlier proposed effluent limit are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Current and Earlier Proposed Effluent Limits Current Effluent Limit (C of A at 3,910 m3/d)Note1 Parameter

Earlier Proposed Effluent Limit (2007 ESR at 6,000 m3/d)Note 2

mg/L

kg/d

mg/L

kg/d

CBOD5

20

78.2

15

90.0

TSS

20

78.2

15

90.0

Total Phosphorus

4

15.6

0.8

4.8

Total Ammonia Note 3 non-freeze period

3

11.7

3

18.0

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Technical Memorandum Page 3 Current Effluent Limit 3 Note1 (C of A at 3,910 m /d)

Parameter

mg/L 5

freeze periodNote 3 pH

Earlier Proposed Effluent Limit (2007 ESR at 6,000 m3/d)Note 2

kg/d 19.6

mg/L 5

kg/d 30.0

6.0 – 9.5

6.0 – 9.5

Note 1

Certificate of Approval #0440-6A4JXX

Note 2

Municipality of Meaford Wastewater Treatment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report 3 (EarthTech, November 2007) (Values in ESR are incorrect for 6,000 m /d, updated values shown)

Note 3

Non-freeze period from May 15 to September 30 . Freeze Period from October 1 to May 14 .

3.

th

th

st

th

Receiving Water Impact Assessment

The level of impact of wastewater plant effluent on the receiving waters is based on the ability of the receiving waters to assimilate substances. Assimilative capacity is defined as “the limit of a water body to transform and/or incorporate substances (e.g. nutrients) by the ecosystem, to the point that the water quality does not degrade below a predetermined level” (MOEE, 1994a). An assessment of the capacity of the receiving waters (Georgian Bay) to assimilate 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), effluent total suspended solids (TSS), total ammonia and total phosphorous (TP) is discussed in this section.

3.1

Provincial and Federal Guidelines used to Quantify Impacts to Receiving Waters

To quantify the impact of the Meaford WWTP discharges on Georgian Bay was evaluated based on Ministry of Environment Procedure B-1-5 “Deriving Receiving Water Based Point Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Waters” (MOE 1994a) which includes water quality objectives (called the Provincial Water Quality Objectives or PWQOs) for various water quality parameters. Other important guidance and procedural documents utilized includes: • • • • • •

Recreational Water Quality Guidelines and Aesthetics (CCME, 1998), Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality (Health Canada, 2009), Procedure F-5-1 “Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters”, “Derivation of Effluent Criteria for Certificates of MOE” (MOE, 1992), “Guide for Applying for Approval of Municipal and Private Water and Sewage Works” (MOE, 2000) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Phosphorus: Canadian Guidance Framework for the Management of Freshwater Systems (CCME, 2004)

Both federal and provincial regulations were utilized in this assessment and therefore in the situation that a parameter had different federal and provincial criteria, the more stringent criteria were used.

3.2

Objectives of Receiving Water Assessment

The objectives of a receiving water assessment are: 1. to determine the effectiveness of the Meaford WWTP outfall and diffusers 2. to determine the representative background water quality and current velocities of Georgian Bay in the vicinity of the Meaford WWTP outfall; 3. to determine the representative effluent conditions; 4. to conduct an assessment of the assimilative capacity of the Georgian Bay receiving waters based on worst case conditions; and 5. to confirm the effluent limits for the Meaford WWTP

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Technical Memorandum Page 4

3.3

Previous Receiving Water Assessment at Higher Design Capacity (6,000 m3/day)

As part of the 2007 EA, a Technical Memorandum called the Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech was completed to address receiving water impacts for future flows of 6,000 m3/day. For this evaluation, data was gathered for the Meaford WWTP and Georgian Bay for integration into a CORMIX model to assess effluent impacts to the Bay. The background information gathered from the previous study and described in the following section will also be utilized for completing this tech memo. The results of the previous study will also be reviewed.

3.3.1

Meaford WWTP Outfall and Diffusers

The Meaford WWTP outfall consists of a 600 mm diameter concrete pipe and four (4) 450mm diffusers which discharges wastewater effluent into Georgian Bay. The outfall discharge point is located approximately 425 m from the shore and is approximately 3 km from the Meaford Water Treatment Plant Intake. As shown in Figure 3-1 below, the outfall pipe is buried below the lake bed with only the diffusers exposed above the lake bed surface. An underwater visual inspection completed by Watech Services in November 2006 as part of the 2007 EA Study found that the pipe was still under full cover and the diffusers were in good overall condition. However, the diffusers were covered in marine growth and zebra mussels and the caps were damaged or missing. Regular maintenance and removal of the remaining caps was recommended as part of the report.

Figure 3-1 Meaford WWTP Outfall and Diffuser Profile (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007)

Other characteristics of the outfall, diffuser and ports are summarized in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1 Meaford WWTP Outfall and Diffuser Details (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007) Parameter Value Outfall Length

450 m

Diffuser Length

15 m

Number of Diffuser Ports

4

Port Diameter

400 mm

Port Distance to the shore

425 m

Port Vertical Angle

90ยบ

Port Discharge Elevation

~0.9 m above lake bed

Lake Depth at Diffuser

3.3m in 2007, 3.7m long-term

Bathymetric data was also reviewed to establish circulation patterns near the outfall discharge ports. The bathymetry of Georgian Bay and local bathymetry near the outfall are shown on Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3, respectively. As discussed in the 2007 Study and shown in the figures, it is likely that the receiving waters have an unstratified water column at the diffuser ports due to the shallow shelf in that area.

Furthermore, the currents will mostly occur in the central part of the Bay, where the shelf is deeper.

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Technical Memorandum Page 5 Figure 3-2 Bathymetry of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay with Topography (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/huron.html) [Blue>130m; Green 70-130m; Yellow 40-70m; Red<40m]

Figure 3-3

Figure 3-3 Bathymetry at Meaford WWTP Outfall (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007)

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Technical Memorandum Page 6

3.3.2

Georgian Bay Background Water Quality and Current Conditions

The receiving water – Georgian Bay - ambient conditions and future effluent conditions were identified and used to simulate the impact on the receiving water by using LHOPS-POM and CORMIX modeling software. High background pollutant concentrations, pH levels and temperatures (75th percentile) in the receiving water body were determined in order to assess the suitability of wastewater effluent criteria under worst case conditions.

The ambient data that was reviewed included temperature, pH, and current velocities as summarized in Table 3-2. Ambient temperature values were provided by a 1974 study of Georgian Bay by E.A. Bennett (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and ambient pH values by the Ministry of the Environment. The results from the LHOPS – POM model were used to estimate current velocities in the vicinity of the Meaford WWTP outlet. All of this data was then incorporated into CORMIX to conduct an assessment of the assimilative capacity of the Georgian Bay receiving waters for a wide range of ambient and effluent conditions.

Table 3-2 Georgian Bay Background Water Quality and Current Conditions Parameter Value

Source

Ambient Temperature

Min Temp = 0ºC Max Temp = 19ºC (August)

1974 study of Georgian Bay by E.A. Bennett (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Lake Temperature

Summer = 19 to 20ºC Winter = 0 to 4ºC Lake turn over = 4ºC (occurs in November and April)

2007 ESR Assimilative Capacity Study

Lake pH

8.3

2007 Ministry of the Environment Email Correspondence

Current Velocities

Summer currents are long shore with maximum speed of 50 cm/s NNW to SSE or SSE to NNW. Winter currents have a maximum speed of 30 cm/s.

Baird Associates

3.3.3

Meaford WWTP Effluent Water Quality

The Meaford WWTP Effluent Water conditions are summarized in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Georgian Bay Background Water Quality and Current Conditions Parameter Value

Source

Effluent Temperature

Summer = 22.2ºC Winter = 8 to 11ºC Fall Lake Turnover = 13ºC Spring Lake Turnover = 10ºC

2007 ESR Assimilative Capacity Study

Effluent pH

6.4 to 8.0 (75% Percentile value = 7.6)

2006 Meaford WWTP Operations Data

3.3.4

Determination of Assimilative Capacity of Georgian Bay

Various water quality parameters were assessed under the worst case conditions using CORMIX modeling software. In order to use this software, it was first necessary to determine the dilution ratio at various distances from the outfall and the shore using CORMIX 2 software. The dilution ratios at 100m and 200m are provided in the following table.

Table 3-4 Dilution Ratios (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007) Parameter Dilution Ratio

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Technical Memorandum Page 7 Table 3-4 Dilution Ratios (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007) Parameter Dilution Ratio 100m from outfall

70:1 (median dilution) 35:1 (75th percentile dilution)*

200m from shore (or half distance to the shore)

115:1 (median dilution) 70:1 (75th percentile dilution)

*assumed that the dilution ratio will reduce to 18:1 under winter conditions due to ice cover.

All of the parameters were then entered into CORMIX to analyze various scenarios. The study concluded that the water quality objectives set by the MOE were met for all of the key parameters tested and that objectives were met within one half of the distance to shore or 200 m from the outfall. The parameters, their respective objectives and CORMIX modeling results are shown in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 2007 ESR Modeling Results for 6,000 m3/d Parameter Objective

CORMIX Modeling Parameters / Results

Un-ionized ammonia

20 µg/L (PWQO at edge of near field for protection of aquatic life)

Parameter (for worst case scenario): - Max Summer month effluent temperatures - 75%-ile effluent pH - 75%-ile dilution - 75%-ile ambient pH and water temp.

Result: - <4 µg/L at half distance to shore (Objective met)

Total Ammonia

500 µg/L (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Objective at water supply intakes)

Result: - <300 µg/L at 100 m from outfall during winter period (Objective met)

E.coli

100 counts/100 mL (PWQO for Swimming at the Beach)

Result: - Highest in winter at 3 counts per 100 mL at half the distance to shore (Objective met)

Total Phosphorus

20 µg/L (Interim PWQO for the control of algae. Objective at the Regulated Mixing Zone; Typically half the distance from the diffuser to the shore)

Parameter: - Max Summer/Winter effluent temperatures - 75%-ile effluent pH - 75%-ile ambient pH and water temp.

Result: - 7 µg/L in the summer (Objective met) - 14 µg/L in the winter (Objective met)

3.4

Evaluation of the Impact to Georgian Bay by the Newly Predicted Future Flow (4,692 m3/day)

Presented in Table 3-6 below, are the new proposed effluent criteria (concentrations and loadings), which can be discharged into Georgian Bay from the Meaford WWTP with no adverse environmental impacts on the Bay and/or shoreline. These criteria were based on those proposed in the Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech in 2007 for 6,000 m3/d because it is expected that the assimilative capacity model results will not worsen by lowering the effluent flows to 4,692 m3/d, but will actually improve.

The only exception is the total phosphorus (TP) limit which is proposed to be 1.0 mg/L. As per the Ministry of Environment Guideline F-8 “Provision and Operation of Phosphorus Removal Facilities at Municipal, Institutional and Private Sewage Treatment Works” (April 2004), it is required that the majority of municipal wastewater treatment plants in Ontario discharge TP concentrations of a maximum 1.0 mg/L in

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

Technical Memorandum Page 8

their effluent. As shown in the table below, despite the increase in the TP concentration limit, the mass loadings are still lower than what was originally being proposed in the 2007 ESR. This is because the lower discharge volume (4,692 m3/d) has a lesser impact on the Bay and/or shoreline.

Similarly, the other effluent parameters mass loadings are reduced more than 20% from the previous effluent limits due to the lower flow rate. Since the assimilative capacity study completed in 2007 meets all MOE water quality requirements, it is expected that the proposed effluent criteria for 4,692 m3/d will also be within the lake’s assimilative capacity limit and will satisfy the MOE water quality requirements.

Table 3-6 Effluent Limit Comparison Earlier Proposed Effluent Limit (2007 ESR Parameter at 6,000 m3/d)Note 1

Newly Proposed Effluent Limit (at 4,692 m3/d)

Difference in Mass Loadings

mg/L

kg/d

mg/L

kg/d

kg/d

CBOD5

15

90.0

15

70.4

-19.6

-28%

TSS

15

90.0

15

70.4

-19.6

-28%

Total Phosphorus

0.8

4.8

1.0

3.7

-1.1

-30%

3 5

18.0 30.0

3 5

14.8 23.5

-3.2 -6.5

-22% -28%

Total Ammonia Note 2 non-freeze period Note 2 freeze period pH

6.0 – 9.5

%

6.0 – 9.5

Note 1

Municipality of Meaford Wastewater Treatment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report 3 (EarthTech, November 2007) (Values in ESR are incorrect for 6,000 m /d, updated values shown)

Note 2

Non-freeze period from May 15 to September 30 . Freeze Period from October 1 to May 14 .

4.

th

th

st

th

Conclusion

In conclusion, based on the findings of this Technical Memorandum which was developed using sound engineering principles, there should not be any adverse water quality impacts to the receiving waters by increasing the effluent flow from Meaford WWTP by 20% and following the effluent limits proposed in Table 3-6.

S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx

420 Sheldon Drive, Suite 201 Cambridge, Ontario, Canada N1T 2H9 Tel: (519) 624-7223 Fax: (519) 624-7224 E-mail: info@hydromantis.com Web: www.hydromantis.com

20 November 2006 912-01 Robin Dunn, CET, PAdm., M.A. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, ON N4L 1A1 Subject: Peer Review of Capacity Analysis Report for the Meaford WWTP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report Dear Mr. Dunn,

Hydromantis is pleased to submit this letter report for the review of the Capacity Analysis completed by Ainley & Associates Limited and dated August 2006. Upon your review of our findings, we would be pleased to answer any questions or clarify any issues that the municipality may have.

The Municipality of Meaford Official Plan projected conservative growth of between 2000 and 4000 persons to the year 2023 (Operation Department Report 2006-02), but recent monitoring showed that the growth may occur more rapidly. The Municipality is aware that it has sufficient water supply capacity, but has insufficient wastewater treatment capacity to sustain the expected growth. Thus, the Municipality embarked on a Capacity Analysis of the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and recently has invited proposals for the Class EA for the upgrade and expansion of the WWTP. In this regard, Hydromantis was retained by Meaford to provide a Peer Review of the Capacity Analysis provided by Ainley & Associates Limited.

This letter report is the peer review of the Capacity Analysis. The review has focussed on the liquid processing train of the WWTP rather than the sludge train, since the sludge train is a newer process and appears to have excess capacity.

In general, the WWTP is described well in the Capacity Analysis Report and in the Certificate of Approval (C of A) attached to the report. Some treatment and performance data are provided in the report, together with an analysis of unit process loadings, particularly for the biological treatment system including an activated sludge system with aeration and secondary clarification.

There is no primary clarification process as usually provided in a conventional activated sludge system.

This report reviews the key calculations and the unit process ratings provided for the liquid train.

Certificate of Approval (3697-62MGNC) The C of A is the legal document that states treatment requirements at the WWTP in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). Several key parameters are stated in the C of A that governs the WWTP until an amended or new C of A is obtained. Some of these are noted below.

1. Type of Wastewater Treatment Plant = High Rate Activated Sludge 1

2. Average Day Design Flow (ADF) = 3910 m3/day 3. Peak flow to be treated before bypasses occur = 11,730 m3/day 4. Sanitary sewage pumping capacity = 12,700 m3/day (147 L/s) 5. Pre-treatment screening peak flow = 8640 m3/day (100 L/s) 6. UV Disinfection peak capacity = 5720 m3/day 7. Effluent objectives and effluent limits are stated in the C of A for CBOD5, suspended solids (SS), total phosphorus, total ammonia nitrogen (freezing and non-freezing periods), and pH. Freezing period for nitrification is more stringent (this should be verified with MOE). Our experience is that seasonal ammonia limits are more stringent in warm water conditions and greater un-ionized ammonia concentration at the higher temperature and likely receiver higher pH value. Excessively high un-ionized ammonia can lead to effluent toxicity to aquatic organisms.

Unit Process Criteria Stated in Capacity Analysis Report The Capacity Analysis report provides a desktop assessment of the process unit capacities of the Meaford WWTP. In particular, the following points summarize the major liquid stream capacities of the plant expressed in the Capacity Analysis report.

1. Pre-treatment design peak flow = 9842 m3/day 2. Bypass channel rated peak flow = 9842 m3/day 3. Aeration Tank ADF = 4404 m3/day to provide 6 hours hydraulic retention time (HRT) in aeration at ADF 4. Secondary Clarifier Peak Capacity = 6874 m3/day based on peak surface overflow rate (SOR) criteria for nitrifying biological system 5. UV Disinfection peak flow = 5280 m3/day (manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s specification) The report clearly states that the plant unit processes do not have the capacity to treat the C of A peak flow value of 11,730 m3/day, and we concur with this conclusion.

We have additional comments regarding the biological treatment system review as described below.

Aeration Process Criteria The Capacity Analysis report provides key operational calculations for the aeration tank as summarized in Table 1. These are compared to typical design parameters for High Rate, Conventional and Extended Aeration activated sludge systems in Table 1. The Meaford WWTP is unique in that it has no primary clarifiers, shorter HRT than an extended aeration WWTP and has a nitrification requirement.

Based on the C of A and Table 1, we believe that the aeration process is a major limiting factor for achieving nitrification.

The Capacity Report essentially indicates the unit process as a Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) process due to the 6-hour HRT; however, the C of A indicates it to be a High Rate Activated Sludge (HRAS) process. In this case we believe the HRAS better describes the situation, particularly for the nitrifying (ammonia removal) mandate in the C of A. Generally, a CAS system would include primary clarification in advance of secondary biological treatment and this is not the case at Meaford.

2

Table 1. Aeration Process Operational Parameters

Criteria

Units

Capacity Analysis Report

Organic Loading Rate

kg BOD5/m3.day

0.41

F/Mv

day-1

0.19 to 0.25

Detention Time or Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

hours

6

Solids Retention Time (SRT)

days

MLSS

mg/L

10.9 (@ 3000 mg/L MLSS)

High Rate Activated Sludge

Conventional Activated Sludge

Extended Aeration Activated Sludge

C of A indicates the plant is a HRAS; MOE design guidelines do not recommend for nitrification

MOE Guidelines for Nitrification

0.31 to 0.72

0.17 to 0.24

0.05 to 0.25

0.05 to 0.15

6

=15

> 10 at 5ยบC

>15

2749 to 3500

As seen in the above table, the Meaford WWTP key operational parameters are within the limits defining the activated sludge portion for a nitrifying CAS; however, there is no advantage obtained from primary clarification for removal of settleable organics and inerts. It is clear from the performance data (Appendix B of Capacity Analysis report) for final effluent that the plant is not always able to meet the ammonia limits under these conditions, despite providing excellent removal of the conventional parameters CBOD5 and SS. Twelve months from January 2003 to March 2006 were out-of-compliance with respect to ammonia plus ammonium nitrogen (if the C of A limits are correct). This occurs even at flows below the design ADF; however, several months are above the C of A ADF. Many Ontario plants are designed without primary clarifiers that provide nitrification, but these are usually designed as Extended Aeration Activated Sludge (EAAS) with long HRTs. The Meaford WWTP does not meet the design guidelines for this situation. Even for the CAS, Meaford is at the minimum range for F/Mv and SRT. Thus, we believe the Meaford WWTP is heavily constrained by biological capacity for nitrification. This is demonstrated by the out of compliance ammonia plus ammonium nitrogen observed compared to the C of A limits.

3

In our opinion, the WWTP should be designed with the ability to operate with SRT >>10 days and MLSS <3500 mg/L which is not likely feasible in the existing plant.

Secondary Clarifier Criteria The Capacity Analysis report provides key operational calculations for the secondary clarifiers as summarized in Table 2. These are compared to typical design parameters for Activated Sludge and Extended Aeration activated sludge systems in Table 2.

The Capacity Report clearly states that the secondary clarifiers are limiting at peak flows and up to the peak design flow at which bypasses are allowed according to the C of A. We concur with this conclusion. In fact, we believe that the secondary clarifiers are likely to be more heavily overloaded in terms of SOR and SLR (solids loading rate) than suggested in the Capacity Analysis report.

The Capacity Analysis report defines the SOR as the limiting factor (Appendix E) at a flow of 6874 m3/day by manipulating the MLSS concentration between 2750 and 3500 mg/L, and the return activated sludge flow rate as low as 50%. The report does state that the SLR is also potentially a constraining factor.

The clarifiers are shallow (2.9 m or ~9feet) compared to most modern secondary clarifiers which are frequently designed with a tank depth of as much as 4.6 m or 15 feet and sometimes deeper.

This provides better clarification and some capacity to handle higher solids loading with the buildup of an underflow sludge blanket. The Meaford clarifiers are too shallow to allow this particularly at peak flow, and unlikely to benefit by reduced recycle flow rate because of the buildup of a sludge blanket and its carry-over into the effluent at high flows.

Operationally it would be difficult to reduce the MLSS concentration in a timely fashion with higher flows and then increase it after the passage of high flow. In addition, the higher MLSS is required to enhance nitrification which is a major limiting factor, but other factors also limit nitrification.

Thus, we believe the SLR is more limiting than the SOR at Meaford and likely limits the clarifiers more severely than the Capacity Report states. In our opinion, with the shallow clarifiers, the recycle ratio should be kept near 100%. For nitrification, the MLSS and SRT should be as high as possible. From this standpoint the secondary clarifier hydraulic capacity is likely closer to the lower value of 3619 m3/day than the 5807 m3/day value. Under this scenario, the plant is unlikely to perform well at the peak design flow and not to the C of A peak flow before bypass is permitted.

A future combination of aeration expansion and clarifier expansion should be coupled to ensure the correct ratio of these two unit processes is obtained.

From a positive standpoint, the Meaford WWTP did provide nitrification to the required limits in some months and nitrates are evident in the effluent. In many months the nitrification criteria was met. In addition, the effluent SS concentration approached the design limit in a few of the months. However, as flows to the plant increase with community growth, it will continue to be more difficult to achieve nitrification and maintain the solids inventory in the plant.

4

Table 2. Secondary Clarifier Operational Parameters MOE Design Guidelines

Tank Depth

Surface Overflow Rate (SOR) @ Peak Flow

Solids Loading Rate (SLR) @ Peak Flow Notes:

Units

Meaford @ C of A Peak Flow of 11,730 m3/day

Activated Sludge with nitrification

Extended Aeration

Capacity Report

m

2.9

3.6 to 4.6

3.6 to 4.6

no comment made

L/m2.s (m3/m2.d)

kg/m2.day

0.58 (50)

0.34 (29.4)

241a

= 120

0.41 (35.4)

= 120

6874 m3/d using 0.34 (29.4)

3619 m3/da 5807 m3/db 8009 m3/dc using 120 kg/m2.day

a. 3500 mg/L & 100% RAS b. 2750 mg/L & 100% RAS c. 2750 mg/L & 50% RAS

Review of 2006 Process Information In November 2006, Hydromantis received and reviewed treatment plant operating data for analysis. In cold weather months (January to March) in early 2006, the plant flows were higher than the balance of the year with January and March above the C of A limit. During the cold months, the plant biomass in terms of MLSS (mixed liquor suspended solids) was the lowest ranging from about 1700 mg/L to 2200 mg/L from January through March. This is the most critical period for ammonia removal due to the lower wastewater temperature, and these months had the highest ammonia concentrations. Since ammonia removal is required in winter, the MLSS concentration must be higher; however, the clarification process is likely to limit the ability to raise the MLSS concentration in these winter months. This corroborates the limits commented upon regarding the criteria for F/Mv and SRT earlier in this report. In the 2006 winter period, these key parameters that are indicators of ability to remove ammonia would be at critical levels, i.e. not supportive of ammonia removal.

Ultraviolet Disinfection Based on the C of A, the manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s specification and the apparent problems that exist with disinfection, it is clear that the system is under-designed for the peak flow condition. We understand that the supplier may be providing perspective on this issue. Two other possible factors are the effect of leachate iron content on UV transmission and potential overtopping of 5

the system at high flows. We recommend that UV transmissivity and collimated beam tests be performed as a starting point. In addition, iron concentration of effluent during leachate input should be checked.

Digestion and Biosolids Storage We have done a cursory review of the biosolids management sections and have no comments regarding its capacity per se. One concern regarding odour control would be the degree and timing of decanting the tanks. If aeration is stopped during decanting, potential septic conditions may result in odour emanation.

Options for Optimization of the Existing System There are few options available for optimizing the existing plant.

1. One element that should be verified is the plant flow metering accuracy, although we have no information to indicate that it is incorrect. It is simply good policy to verify flow measurements, particularly when flows become critical.

2. Most importantly, the seasonal total ammonia criteria for the plant should be verified.

More stringent total ammonia limits in winter are unusual, unless specific reasons are indicated. Relaxation of the winter criteria may assist with future optimization.

Indications are that a possible error occurred and the seasonal criteria are mistakenly reversed in the C of A (see pages 3 and 4).

3. The potential to make use of the unused old digesters could be considered for day-by-day peak flow shaving. However, this will not assist with seasonally sustained high flows that occur over an extended time period. Peak flow shaving may assist in reduction of the peak flow rates and reduce these peak flow loadings to critical unit processes (see page 2).

4. Coagulant addition could be considered to improve clarification performance during critical periods.

Overall, we recommend that the Municipality wait until initial results of the Class EA underway indicate the likely direction of the work to be done for the long term.

If you have any questions, please contact us without hesitation.

Sincerely, Hydromantis, Inc. Joe Stephenson, M.Eng., P.Eng. Director cc: David Free, CAO/CFO

6

Appendix ‐ D Public Consultation Documentation

(Communication Plan, Correspondence, PICs, Notices)

Agency Contact Information Title First Last Provincial & Federal Agencies

Title

Company

Address 1

Address 2

Town

PC

Environment Canada Environmental Protection Operations Division Ontario Region

867 Lakeshore Road

P.O. Box 5050

Burlington, ON

L7R 4A6

905-336-4953

519-873-5013

Mr.

Rob

Dobos

Manager, Environmental Assessment Section

Mr.

Bob

Aggerholm

Regional Environmental Planner

Southwest Region Ministry of Environment & Climate Change

733 Exeter Road

London, ON

N6E 1L3

Mr.

Craig

Newton

Coordinator

Southwest Region Ministry of Environment & Climate Change

733 Exeter Road

London, ON

N6E 1L3

733 Exeter Road

London, ON

N6E 1L3

Regional EA Coordinator

Mr.

John

Ritchie

Water Compliance Supervisor

Mr.

Jeremy

Schultz

Project Manager, Ontario Region

Southwest Region Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Owen Sound District Office, Drinking Water Management Division, Ministry of the Environment

Telephone

101 - 17th Street East

3rd Floor

Owen Sound, ON

N4K 0A5

1-519-371-4687

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

55 St. Clair Avenue East

Suite 907

Toronto, ON

M4T 1M2

416-952-1576

Email only to: fisheriesprotection@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Fisheries & Oceans Canada

e-mail only

Att: Environmental Coordinator (PHE)

Transport Canada Ontario Region

4900 Yonge Street

A/Manager Navigable Waters Protection Operations Manager West Highlands Hub

Transport Canada Marine Safety & Security Ontario Region

100 Front Street South

Ontario Clean Water Agency

78 Centennial Road

Ministries of Tourism, Culture & Sport

400 University Avenue

Ms.

Kelly

Thompson

Mr.

Scott

Craggs

Mr.

Tom

Chrzan

Director, Regional Services Branch

Ms.

Kim

Benner

District Planner

Ms.

Carol

Neumann

Rural Planner

Ms.

Ann

Baldwin

Regional Director

Midhurst District Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ministry of Transportation, Corridor Management Section, West Region

1-855-852-8320 Toronto, ON

M2N 6A5

416-952-0485

Sarnia, ON

N7T 2M4

1-519-383-1863

Unit 6

Orangeville, ON

L9W 1P9

519-941-1938

2nd Floor

Toronto, ON

M7A 2R9

416-314-6680

Midhurst, ON

L0L 1X0

705-725-7534

Elora, ON

N0B 1S0

519-846-0941

London, ON

N6E 1L3

519-873-4335

4th Floor

2284 Nursery Road 6484 Wellington Rd. 7 659 Exeter Road

Unit 10

Mr.

Tyler

Shantz

Planner - Western Region Ontario

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

659 Exeter Rd. 2nd Floor

London, ON

N6E 1L3

1-800-265-4736

Mr.

Scott

Oliver

Team Lead Western Region Ontario

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

659 Exeter Rd. 2nd Floor

London, ON

N6E 1L3

1-800-265-4736

Grey Sauble Conservation Authority The Corporation of the County of Grey

237897 Inglis Falls Road 595 - 9th Avenue East

The Corporation of the County of Grey

595 - 9th Avenue East

The Town of The Blue Mountains

32 Mill Street

The Town of The Blue Mountains

32 Mill Street

Municipality of Grey Highlands

P.O. Box 409

Local Government & Other Agencies Mr.

Tim

Lanthier

Watershed Planner

Mr.

Lance

Thurston

CAO Director of Planning & Development Director Engineering & Public Works Interim Head of Planning Director of Transportation & Environmental Services

Mr.

Randy

Scherzer

Mr.

Reg

Russwurm

Mr.

Jim

Dyment

Mr.

Chris

Cornfield

Mr.

Will

Moore

CAO/Clerk

Township of Chatsworth

R.R. #1,

Ms.

Ruth

Coursey

CAO

City of Owen Sound

City Hall

Mr.

Murray

Hacket

CAO

177964 Grey Road 18

Mr.

Jim

Aitken

Supervisor of Maintenance

Township of Georgian Bluffs Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board Bluewater District School Board Student Transportation Service Consortium of Grey Bruce Land Ambulance EMS Grey County Ontario Provincial Police

317057 Hwys 6 & 10

Mr.

Peter

Wilgress

Mr.

Al

Gibb

Manager, Plant Services Administration

Mr.

Mike

Muir

Director of EMS

Mr.

Michael

Guilfoyle

Inspector

Mr.

Frank

Bassingthwaite

President

Grey County Historical Society Grey Bruce Health Services

R.R.#4

Owen Sound, ON

N4K 5N6 N4K 3E3

519-376-3076 519-376-8998

Owen Sound, ON

N4K 3E3

519-372-0219, ext. 1237

P.O. Box 310

Thornbury, ON

N0H 2P0

888-258-6867

P.O. Box 310

Thornbury, ON

N0H 2P0

888-258-6867

Markdale, ON

N0C 1H0

1-888-342-4059

Chatsworth, ON

N0H 1G0

519-794-3232

Owen Sound, ON

N4K 2H4

519-376-1440

316837 Highway 6 808 2nd Avenue East R.R.#3

799 - 16th Avenue 351 - 1st Avenue North

Owen Sound, ON

Owen Sound, ON Hanover, ON

Box 190

Chesley, ON

341 - 1st Avenue North

Chesley, ON

595 - 9th Avenue East

Owen Sound, ON P.O. Box 307, R.R.#2

Chatsworth, ON

Box 548

Markdale, ON

1800 8th St. E.

Owen Sound, ON

Mr.

Neil

Havens

Engineering Manager

Mr.

Chris

Munn

Director

Grey Bruce Health Unit

101 17th Street East

Owen Sound, ON

Dr.

Hazel

Lynn

Chief Medical Officer

Grey Bruce Health Unit

101 17th Street East

Owen Sound, ON

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA)

160 Bloor St. East

N4K 5N5 N4N 3A1 N0G 1L0 N0G 1L0 N4K 3E3 N0H 1G0 N0C 1H0 N4K 6M9 N4K 0A5 N4K 0A5

519-376-2729 519-364-5820 519-363-2014 519-363-2972 1-800-567-4739 519-794-7827 info@greycountyhs.ca 519-376-2121 1-800-263-3456 1-800-263-3456

Aboriginal Consultation Att: Consultation Unit

9th Floor

Toronto, ON

M7A 2E6

416-326-4757

Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development Canada Consultation Unit (AANDC-CAU)

5H - 5th Floor

Manager of Way of Life Framework

The Metis Nation of Ontario

500 Old St. Patrick St.

Administrative Office

Chiefs of Ontario

Saunders

Director

Native Affairs Secretariat Metis National Council

(AANDC not contacted for this project as project is not on Aboriginal lands)

Mr.

Brian

Tucker

Att: Mr.

Richard

Gatineau, QC

K1A 0H4

819-934-3696

Unit 3

Ottawa, ON

K1N 9G4

807-274-1386 (direct) 613-798-1488 (ssecretary)

111 Peter Street

Suite 804

Toronto, ON

720 Bay Street

4th Floor

Toronto, ON

M5V 2H1 M5G 2K1 K2P 0M6 L4R 4K6 L0K 2B0

613-232-3216

Ms.

Lynette

Davis

Director of Operations

Mr.

David

Dusome

President

Georgian Bay Metis Council

4-340 MacLaren Street 355 Cranston Crescent

Mr.

Larry

Duval

President

Moon River Metis Council

P.O. Box 386

Washago, ON

Ottawa, ON P.O. Box 4

Midland, ON

705-526-6335 705-689-3941

First Nation Communities as per ATRIS Search Chief

Christopher

Plain

Aamjiwnaang

978 Tashmoo Avenue

Sarnia, ON

Chief

James Robert

Marsden

Alderville First Nation

P.O. Box 46

Roseneath, ON

Chief

Patsy

Corbiere

Aundeck-Omni-Kaning

R.R. #1, COMP 21

Little Current, ON

Chief

Roland

Monague

Beausoleil First Nation

General Delivery

Cedar Point, ON

Chief

Donna

Big Canoe

Chippewas of Georgina Island

R.R. #2

Chief

Thomas M.

Bressette

Chief

Arlene

Chegahno

Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point Chippewas of Nawash First Nation Chippewas of Rama First Nation Chippewas of the Thames First Nation

P.O. Box 13

Sutton West, ON

6247 Indian Lane

Kettle & Stony Point First Nation, ON

R.R. #5

Wiarton, ON

200-5884-Rama Road

Rama, ON

R.R. #1

Muncey, ON

Ms.

Sandy

McKenzie

Chief

R.K. (Joe)

Miskokomon

Chief

Phyllis

Williams

Curve Lake First Nation

General Delivery

Curve Lake, ON

Chief

Gregory Lloyd

Cowie

Hiawatha First Nation

R.R.#2

Keene, ON

Chief

Joe

Hare

M'Chigeeng First Nation

P.O. Box 333

Chief

Kelly

Larocca

Mississauga's of Scugog Island First Nation

22521 Island Road

Port Perry, ON

Mr.

Danny

Stock

Mississauga's of the Credit

P.O. Box 260

Bala, ON

Chief

Maurice Bryan

LaForme

Mississaugas of the Credit

R.R.#6

Hagersville, ON

Chief

Michael

Mitchell

Mohawks of Akwesasne

P.O. Box 579

Cornwall, ON

53 Hwy 551

M'Chigeeng, ON

N7T 7H5 K0K 2X0 P0P 1K0 L0K 1C0 L0E 1R0 N0N 1J1 N0H 2T0 L3V 6H6 N0L 1Y0 K0L 1R0 K0L 2G0 P0P 1G0 L9L 1B6 P0C 1A0 N0A 1H0 K6H 5T3

519-336-8410 905-352-2011 705-368-2228 705-247-2051 705-437-1337 519-786-2125 519-534-1689 705-325-3611 519-289-5555 705-657-8045 705-295-4421 705-377-5362 905-985-3337 705-762-2354 905-768-1133 613-575-2250

Chief

Donald

Maracle

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

R.R. #1

Deseronto, ON

Chief

Barron

King

Moose Deer Point

P.O. Box 119

MacTier, ON

Chief

Randall

Kahgee

Saugeen First Nation

R.R.#1

Southhampton, ON

Chief

Richard

Shawanda

Sheguiandah

P.O. Box 101

Sheguiandah, ON

Chief

Gail Ava

Hill

Six Nations of the Grand River

P.O. Box 5000

Ohsweken, ON

Chief

Phillip Angus

Franks

Wahta Mohawk

P.O. Box 260

Bala, ON

Chief

Burton

Kewayosh, Jr.

Walpole Island

R.R.#3

Wallaceburg, ON

Chief

Warren L.

Tabobondung

Wasauksing First Nation

P.O. Box 250

Parry Sound, ON

Irene

Kells

Zhiibaahaasing First Nation

36 Sagon

Zhiibaahaasing, ON

Tony

Dominguez

Rogers Communications Inc.

1 Sperling Drive

Barrie, ON

Powerstream Inc.

161 Cityview Blvd.

Vaughan, ON

Bell Aliant

183 Hunter Street West

Hydro One

40 Olympic Drive

Dundas, ON

Enbridge Gas

500 Consumers Rd.

North York, ON

Enbridge Gas

municipalnotices@enbridge.com

Chief

K0K 1X0 P0C 1H0 N0H 2L0 P0P 1W0 N0A 1M0 P0C 1A0 N8A 4K9 P2A 2X4 P0P 1X0

613-396-3424 705-375-5209 519-797-2781 705-368-2781 519-445-2201 705-762-2354 519-627-1481 705-746-2531 705-283-3963

Utilities Mr.

System Planner Supervisor of Capital Access Network Manager Planning Department Manager of Area Planning & Design Field Rep., Customer Connections

Mr.

Todd

Bowman

Ms.

Mike

Johnson

Ms.

Joanna

MacDarmid

Mr.

Ian

Taylor

Ms.

Jennifer

Cooper

Mr.

Jake

Linklater

Office Coordinator

Saugeen Ojibway nation Environment Office

RR #5

Lands and Resources Consultation Coordinator

Historic Saugeen Metis

204 High Street

Great Lakes Metis Council

trylyline14@yahoo.ca

Chippewas of Rama First Nation

Ms.

Audrey

Erin Holden

Mr.

James Robert

Coture

Ms.

Karry

Sandy-McKenzie

Ms.

Diane

Sheridan

Ms.

Julie

Bottos

Mr.

Ken

Teasdale

Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations Land Resources Consultation Worker

Senior Project Manager

Floor 2

Peterborough, ON

L4M 6B8 L4H 0A9 K9H 2L1 L9H 7P5 M2J 1P8

Wiarton, ON

N0H 2P0

Southhampton, ON

N0H 2L0

8 Creswick Court

Barrie, ON

L4M 2J7

Hiawatha First nation

123 Paudash Street

Hiawatha, ON

K9J 0E6

SCS Consulting Group Ltd.

30 Centurian Drive

Ministry of Transportation

3659 Exeter Road

Box 1492

Suite 100

Markham, ON London, ON

L3R 8B8 N6E 1L3

705-737-4660 ext. 6907 905-417-6900 ext.31317 705-876-8759 905-627-6058 1-416-758-7927 (direct)

Ainley & Associates Limited 550 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 ď&#x201A;§ Fax: (705) 726-4391 E-mail barrie@ainleygroup.com

July 4, 2014.

File #114106

Environmental Protection Operations Division â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ontario Region Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road, P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Attn:

Mr. Rob Dobos Manager, Environmental Assessment Section

Re:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Notice of Study Commencement

Dear Mr. Dobos, The Municipality of Meaford has retained the services of the Ainley Group to develop a Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The objective of the study is to develop a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use.

This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process (Approach #2) as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011) with the intent to satisfy the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+ , and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects.

This notice is to advise you of the commencement of the Master Plan process and to provide you with opportunity to comment on the project. Please refer to the attached copy of the Notice of Study Commencement for further details regarding the project. Further correspondence regarding this project will follow in the coming months and you will be notified in advance of a Public Information Centre scheduled for this project.

Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Stephen Vokes, Director of Operations, Municipality of Meaford at 519- 538-1060 or via email at svokes@meaford.ca Yours truly, AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager T:\114106\07-Consultation\Notice of Commence\114106 Meaford SP N of C Agency letter June 2014 DRAFT.doc

Creating Quality Solutions Together

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT

The Study The Municipality of Meaford is undertaking a Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan with the objective of developing a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use within the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The process will involve an assessment of the existing servicing infrastructure to identify necessary upgrades and future servicing priorities.

The study area is described as the current limits of the Urban Settlement Area as identified in the Municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Official Plan and illustrated in the accompanying key plan.

The Process This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011). It will follow Approach #2 with the intent to fulfill the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+, and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects.

How to Get Involved As public consultation is a key component of the Class EA process, two Public Information Centres are planned for this project. Advance notice will be provided to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment.

For further information regarding this project, please contact either of the following members of the study team: Mr. Stephen Vokes Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca

Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com

This Notice issued July 4, 2014.

Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Ainley & Associates Limited 550 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 ď&#x201A;§ Fax: (705) 726-4391 E-mail barrie@ainleygroup.com

September 3, 2014.

File #114106

Rogers Communications Inc. 1 Sperling Drive Barrie, ON, L4M 6B8 Attn:

Mr. Tony Dominguez System Planner

Re:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Notice of Public Information Centre

Dear Mr. Dominguez: The Municipality of Meaford has retained the services of the Ainley Group to develop a Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The objective of the study is to develop a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use.

This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process (Approach #2) as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011) with the intent to satisfy the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+ , and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects.

This notice is to advise you of an upcoming Public Information Centre scheduled for this project. Please refer to the attached notice for additional details.

Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Stephen Vokes, Director of Operations, Municipality of Meaford at 519- 538-1060 or via email at svokes@meaford.ca Yours truly, AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager T:\114106\07-Consultation\02-Notice of PIC\01-FINAL PKG\114106 Meaford SP PIC Agency letter September 2014 DRAFT.doc

Creating Quality Solutions Together

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF PHASE 1 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE

The Study Further to the Notice of Commencement (issued July 4, 2014), the Municipality of Meaford is continuing to undertake the completion of a Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan with the objective of developing a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use within the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The process involves the assessment of the existing servicing infrastructure to identify necessary upgrades and future servicing priorities.

Problem Statement The Study will identify specific upgrades/expansions/extensions of the existing wastewater collection and treatment system and the existing water treatment, distribution and storage system that are necessary to meet the needs of growth in the Urban Settlement area of the Municipality of Meaford.

The Process This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011). It will follow Approach #2 with the intent to fulfill the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+, and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects.

Public Information Centre A Phase 1 Public Information Centre (PIC) is planned to provide further information to the public on the Problem Statement and to receive input and comment from interested persons.

Public Information Centre (PIC) Time: Date: Location:

Open House: 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Monday, September 15, 2014 Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East

Public input and comment on the Problem Statement will be incorporated into the planning process. Comments will be received until Monday September 29, 2014. A future Public Information Centre (Phase 2) will be held to present the evaluation of the proposed servicing options. A Notice will be issued prior to the future PIC date.

If you have any comments or questions, or if you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive project information, please contact the Consultant undertaking the study.

Mr. Stephen Vokes Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca

This Notice issued August 27, 2014.

Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com

Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Class Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE September 15, 2014 SIGN IN SHEET – PLEASE PRINT NAME

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NO.

E-MAIL ADDRESS

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre – September 15, 2014 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. – Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East

COMMENT SHEET Please print all responses.

NAME OF RESPONDENT:

REPRESENTING (Agency, Municipality, Property Owner, Tenant, etc.):

ADDRESS (Including Postal Code, Telephone Number & Email Address):

COMMENTS (Please use the back of this sheet if necessary)

Do you wish to be informed of additional PICs and the publication of the Notice of Study Completion?

□

Yes

□

No

Please submit this comment sheet by September 29, 2014 to: Mr. Stephen Vokes Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca

Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com

Ainley & Associates Limited 280 pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, Ontario, L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451  Fax: (705) 445-0968 E-mail collingw ood@ainleygroup.com

February 19, 2015.

File #114106

Environment Canada – Environmental Protection Operations Division – Ontario Region 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON, L7R 4A6 Attn:

Mr. Rob Dobos Manager, Environmental Assessment Section

Re:

Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Notice of Public Information Centre No. 2

Dear Mr. Dobos: The Municipality of Meaford has retained the services of the Ainley Group to develop a Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The objective of the study is to develop a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use. The Study is being conducted as a Master Plan within the MEA Class EA process.

Population growth has been identified in accordance with the Municipality of Meaford’s Official Plan. To meet the growth requirements and to address deficiencies within the existing water and wastewater systems, upgrades will be necessary and have been identified during Phase 2 of the study. Alternative solutions for both water and wastewater servicing have been evaluated and recommendations established.

This notice is to advise you of an upcoming Public Information Centre No. 2 scheduled for this project.

The evaluation and recommendations for the alternative solutions of each capital project will be presented at the upcoming Public Information Centre No. 2. Please refer to the attached notice for additional details.

Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Stephen Vokes, Director of Operations, Municipality of Meaford at 519- 538-1060 or via email at svokes@meaford.ca Yours truly, AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager

Creating Quality Solutions Together

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF PHASE 2 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE

The Study Further to the Notice of Commencement (issued July 4, 2014) and the Phase 1 Notice of Public Information Centre (August 27, 2014), the Municipality of Meaford is continuing to undertake the completion of a Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan with the objective of developing a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use within the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality.

The process involves the assessment of the existing servicing infrastructure to identify necessary upgrades and future servicing priorities.

Problem Statement The Study will identify specific upgrades/expansions/extensions of the existing wastewater collection and treatment system and the existing water treatment, distribution and storage system that are necessary to upgrade existing infrastructure and to meet the needs of growth in the Urban Settlement area of the Municipality of Meaford.

Alternative Solutions During Phase 2 of the study, alternative solutions were identified and analyzed for each component of the project to find the most appropriate solution for the Municipality of Meaford including do nothing and limit/ manage growth.

Preferred Alternative Solutions have been established for the Meaford Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and for the Meaford Water Supply System.

Public Information Centre A Phase 2 Public Information Centre (PIC) is planned to present the evaluation of the proposed servicing alternatives and to receive input and comment from interested persons.

Public Information Centre (PIC) Time: Date: Location:

Open House: 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Thursday, February 26, 2015 Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East

Public input and comment on the Problem Statement will be incorporated into the planning process. Comments will be received until Thursday March 12, 2015.

If you have any comments or questions, or if you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive project information, please contact the Consultant undertaking the study.

Mr. Stephen Vokes, P. Eng. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca

Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com

This Notice issued February 19, 2015.

Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre #2 – February 26, 2015 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. – Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East

COMMENT SHEET Please print all responses.

NAME OF RESPONDENT:

REPRESENTING (Agency, Municipality, Property Owner, Tenant, etc.):

ADDRESS (Including Postal Code, Telephone Number & Email Address):

COMMENTS (Please use the back of this sheet if necessary)

Do you wish to be informed of additional PICs and the publication of the Notice of Study Completion?

□

Yes

□

No

Please submit this comment sheet by September 29, 2014 to: Mr. Stephen Vokes, P. Eng. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca

Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com

The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN Further to the Phase 2 Public Information Centre (PIC) held on February 26, 2015, the Municipality of Meaford has prepared a Master Plan following Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to determine infrastructure requirements (water and wastewater) to service existing and future development areas in accordance with Meaford’s Official Plan. Based on study findings to date and comments received from the public and review agencies, the recommended solutions have been developed and are shown on plans in the Master Plan document.

The Master Plan identifies the preferred infrastructure that will be needed to maintain service levels to existing customers and to service future growth while minimizing environmental impacts. The main components are listed below. While the Master Plan addresses need and justification for the proposed infrastructure on a broad level, more detailed studies/planning for specific projects listed in the Master Plan will be completed at a later date, in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS This Notice of Study Completion is issued with respect to the following Schedule A, A+ and Schedule B projects.

Schedule C Projects are subject to additional study in accordance with Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Further notification will be issued with respect to the Schedule C Projects when they proceed to Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA planning process.

SCHEDULE A PROJECTS – Pre-approved projects:         

Repair of Existing Meaford Watermains Establish New Watermains for Planned Subdivisions Installation of VDFs at Water Treatment Plant Relining/Rehabilitation of Existing Meaford Sewermains Establish New Sewermains for Planned Subdivisions Sewage Pumping Stations 1 and 2 Upgrades WWTP Refurbish and Demolition of Old Sludge Storage Upgrade UV Disinfection Chamber at WWTP New Odour Control System at WWTP

SCHEDULE A+ PROJECTS – Pre-approved projects requiring this Notice:  





Replacement of Existing Undersized Meaford Watermains Establish New Meaford Watermains on: o Muir Street, o Centre Street, o Union Street, o Coleman Street, o St. Vincent Street.

Establish New Meaford Sewermains on: o Centre Street, o Union Street, o Coleman Street, o St. Vincent Street, o Muir Street, o Nelson Street, o Miller Street, o Lousia Street.

Sewage Pumping Station 3 Upgrades

SCHEDULE B PROJECTS – Activities which were subject to the Class EA screening process, and subject to this 30 day review period:     

In-Ground Storage Reservoir on County Road 7 and watermain on County Road 7 Water Booster Pump Station on Water Tower Site Decommission Nelson Street Booster Pump Station Construction of Sewage Pumping Station 6 and forcemain adjacent Coleman Street Construct Storm Equalization Basin at WWTP

SCHEDULE C PROJECTS – Activities which are subject to additional study through Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process based on the solutions outlined in the Master Plan:    

Repurpose Storm Equalization Chamber to Clarifier/Aeration New Headworks Building Construction at WWTP New Biosolids Works at WWTP New UV Disinfection Channel at WWTP

PUBLIC REVIEW The Master Plan document is available for review for a period of 30 days, at the addresses provided below from Thursday, May 14, 2015 to Friday, June 12, 2015. The Master Plan is also available on the Municipality website. The Master Plan will be reviewed and revised taking into consideration the comments which are received as a result of this Notice. The recommended Master Plan projects will be presented to Council for approval.

Municipal Administrative Building 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario Tel: 519-538-1060

Meaford Public Library 15 Trowbridge St. W. Meaford, Ontario

COMMENTS The Municipality is interested in receiving any comments that you may have about the projects outlined in the Master Plan. For further information you may contact either the Municipality or the Consultant undertaking the study.

During this 30-day review period, anyone who has any outstanding concerns with one or more of the Schedule B projects listed above that cannot be resolved through discussions with the Municipality of Meaford may request that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual environmental assessments.

Requests must be submitted to the Minister of the Environment at the Address below. Copies of the Part II Order requests should also be sent to the Study Contacts as listed below. If no request for a Part II Order is received by June 12, 2015, the Municipality of Meaford may proceed to design and construction of the Schedule B projects listed above as set out in the Master Plan.

The Honourable Glen Murray Minister of the Environment and Climate Change 11th Floor, Ferguson Block 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto ON M7A 2T5 STUDY CONTACTS Mr. Stephen Vokes, P. Eng. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca

Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com

This Notice issued April 13, 2015.

Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Appendix ‐ E Cost Estimates