North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain

Prepared by:AECOM5080 Commerce Boulevard 905.238.0007 telMississauga, ON, Canada L4W 4P2 905.238.0038 faxwww.aecom.com

Project Number:

60114048

Date:October 2011

Water

Regional Municipality of Peel

North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir andFeedermain – Schedule C Class EA StudyEnvironmental Study Report

AECOM Regional Municipality of Peel North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir andFeedermain – Schedule C Class EA StudyEnvironmental Study Report

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of theclient (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of workdetailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and thequalifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the

preparation of similar reportsmay be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verifiedhas not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time

period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issuedmust be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such contextwas prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreementin the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing

and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or overtime

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and hasno obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances thatmay have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental orgeotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that theInformation has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, butConsultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express orimplied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

as agreed in writing by Consultant and Clientas required by lawfor use by governmental reviewing agencies

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who mayobtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising fromtheir use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use ofthe Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and relyupon the Report and the Information. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall beborne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of theReport is subject to the terms hereof.


Distribution List

# of Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

3 1 Region of Peel

4 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

2 1 Ministry of the Environment

4 1 Town of Caledon

Revision Log

Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description

1 I. Ponce September 28, 2011 Draft

2 M. Osojnicki October 6, 2011 Draft

3 M. Osojnicki October 26, 2011 Final ESR

AECOM Signatures

Report Prepared By:Mirjana Osojnicki, BESSenior Environmental Planner

Report Reviewed By:Chris Hamel, P.Eng.Project Manager


List of Acronyms

AADT Average Annual Daily TrafficANSI Area of Natural or Scientific InterestBMP Best Management PracticesBH Borehole - GeotechnicalC&D Consultation and DocumentationCEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment ActClass EA Municipal Class Environmental AssessmentCOSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in CanadaCVC Credit Valley ConservationDFO Department of Fisheries and OceansDPCDSB Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School BoardDWWP Drinking Water Works PermitEA Environmental AssessmentEAA Environmental Assessment ActEPBM Earth Pressure Balancing MachineESA Environmentally Sensitive AreaESC Erosion and Sediment ControlESR Environmental Study ReportGBR Geotechnical Borehole ReportGGH Greater Golden HorseshoeGTA Greater Toronto Areaha hectareHADD Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish HabitatHDD Horizontal Directional DrillingHST Harmonized Sales Taxigpm imperial gallons per minuteINAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canadakm kilometreLWL Low Water Levelm metremasl metres above sea levelMEA Ontario Municipal Engineers AssociationMEI Ministry of Energy and Infrastructuremm millimetreMMAH Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and HousingMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesMOE Ontario Ministry of the EnvironmentMTO Ontario Ministry of TransportationNAS Natural Areas SurveyNHIC Natural Heritage Information CentreNWPA Navigable Water Protection ActOPSD Ontario Provincial Standards Specifications DocumentORAC Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer ComplexORC Ontario Realty Corporation


ORM Oak Ridges MoraineORMPL Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation PlanPIC Public Information CentrePDSB Peel District School BoardPOH Public Open HousePPS Ontario Provincial Policy StatementProvince Province of OntarioPTTW Permit to Take WaterRegion Region of PeelROPA Region of Peel Official Plan AmendmentROW right-of-waySGV Smaller Geographical UnitsSVG scalable vector graphicsSWL Static Water LevelSWMP Stormwater Management PondTIA Traffic Impact AssessmentTMP Traffic Management PlanTNHS Terrestrial Natural Heritage StrategyTRCA Toronto and Region Conservation AuthorityTWL Top Water LevelWTP Water Treatment Plant


i

Executive Summary

A. BackgroundThe Region of Peel is one of a number ofmunicipalities in the Greater GoldenHorseshoe Area situated around thesouthwestern end of Lake Ontario and one ofthe fastest growing areas in North America.The Region of Peel provides water andwastewater servicing to existing residentsand businesses and provides long termplanning for the water and wastewaterservices to support future growth.

The community of Bolton within the Town ofCaledon is an area within the Region withexisting Lake Ontario-based water servicingand is also an area designated for futuregrowth.

As part of long term infrastructure planning,the Region has completed a Water andWastewater Master Plan. Therecommendations of the Master Plan Updateidentified a need for additional trunkwatermain servicing and additional waterstorage to support the servicing conditions and additional growth in Bolton.

The Region of Peel retained AECOM to complete the Class EA study for the North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoirand Feedermain. This Study has been completed as a Schedule C and has followed Phases 1 through 4 of theClass EA process.

The technical objectives of this study are to:

Provide additional water storage to the communityProvide enhanced level of water service to the community and specifically North Bolton through water pressurestabilization, improved fire flows and increased security of supplyDetermine the optimum orientation for the storage (i.e., inground/at grade reservoir or elevated tank)Determine the optimum location for the storage facilityDetermine the feedermain requirements including size, alignment and construction methodologiesComplete the evaluation of alternatives for the water storage and feedermain through the Class EA processconsidering natural, social and technical factors.

B. Municipal Class EA Planning ScheduleThe North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain Study has been conducted as a Schedule C undertakingunder the Class EA process developed by the Municipal Engineer’s Association (October 2000, as amended in2007). The completion the Region’s Master Plan and update in 2007, fulfilled Phase 1 - Identify the Problem, andPhase 2 - Identify and Assess Alternative Solutions, of the Class EA process. This study provides further review ofPhases 1 and 2, and satisfies Phase 3 - Identification and Assessment of Alternative Methods/Design Concepts and


ii

Selection of Preferred Alternative, and Phase 4 - Preparation of an Environmental Study Report, of the Class EAprocess.

C. Problem/Opportunity StatementThe problem/opportunity statement for this North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain Class EA Studyis defined as follows:

Bolton Zone 6 is deficient in water storageBolton North Hill area currently experiences larger pressure fluctuations and pressures at the lower range ofacceptable levels of serviceAdditional growth is planned within the existing urban boundary and there is also potential growth pressureexternal to the existing urban boundaryAdditional storage and distribution upgrades are required to meet the future water demands from growth inBolton and to ensure adequate level of service and security of supply to the existing Bolton service areaAdditional study is required to refine the recommendations of the 2007 Region of Peel Master Plan Update thatidentified a new Bolton Zone 6 elevated tank and new feedermain to the North Hill.

In order to address the above, the Region initiated this Class EA study in 2008 which provides:

Comparative analysis of storage options including in-ground/at-grade reservoir versus elevated tankEvaluation/selection of potential sites for the water storage facility (reservoir or elevated tank)Evaluation of feedermain route alternativesSelection preferred solution based on alternative solutions and consideration of public/agency input; andDetermines and documents mitigation and monitoring requirement for Phase 5, that is, implementation ofproposed improvements.

D. Alternative Solutions to the ProblemAlternative solutions to the problem included:

1. Do nothing;2. Limit community growth;3. Reduce Water Consumption; and4. Expand the Existing Water Supply System.

The “Expand Existing Water Supply System” solution was selected, however a comparative analysis of the twowater storage methods (i.e., elevated tank and the reservoir) was conducted. This comparative analysis was doneto identify the alternative that was considered most realistic; and to avoid the need to carry unrealistic alternativesthrough the detailed evaluation step.

E. Feedermain Route Identification Guidelines and ConsiderationsThe potential feedermain alignment options were identified with consideration given to the following initial screeningcriteria:

Connection points to existing supply and final distribution system must be maintainedAlignments on public lands (roads, utility easements, parks) are preferred as compared to those on private landsSufficient space should be provided for any necessary permanent and working easementsSufficient room should be provided to allow for construction and installation using conventional methodsAlignments should have land available for construction staging for trenchless installations, and minimizepurchase of additional land


iii

Alignments should minimize construction challengesAlignments should allow easy access to feedermain valves and chambers for subsequent maintenancepurposesAlignments should consider simplicity in design, with minimized: length, changes in topography, depth of cover,lengths of tunnels, creek crossings, etc.Alignments should consider system security, i.e., maintaining minimum separations from other existing trunk anddistribution feedermainsAlignments should have sufficient available underground corridors to allow for the placement of the feedermainutilizing conventional construction techniques with minimum relocation of existing utilitiesAlignments should consider or take advantage of other construction work occurring in the same area

F. Feedermain Construction MethodsWith consideration given to the construction methods a combination of open cut and trenchless methods along thefeedermain route was evaluated.

As a general rule, open cut construction method was considered when depth of the feedermain was less than 10 m,and areas adjacent to the feedermain alignment provided sufficient space for the trench so that disruption to trafficand surface activities was considered acceptable. Trenchless feedermain construction was chosen for thosesections of the alignment where traditional open cut method would result in significant traffic disruption,environmental, and/or socio cultural damage.

G. Preferred Water Storage OptionThe comparative analysis of the two recommended alternative solutions for water storage requirements, (i.e.,Elevated tank and Reservoir) resulted in identifying the construction of an elevated tank as the most viablealternative.

A comparison of feedermain lengths showed that the lengths of feedermain associated with reservoir option is 172%longer then the length of feedermain for elevated tank option.

The elevated tank option was preferred due to the following reasons:

Provides better water qualityIt can be located away from the environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., Niagara Escarpment and Oak RidgesMoraine)Requires fewer watercourse crossings due to shorter length of feedermainLower capital cost.

H. Evaluation of Alternative Concept Areas for the Elevated Tank SiteThree (3) alternative Concept Areas for elevated tank sites were identified within the study area.

Concept Area 1: Bolton North HillThe benefits of siting the elevated tank within Concept Area 1 in the North Hill area of Bolton were the proximity tothe areas of low pressure and sufficient ground elevations. It is also in close proximity to existing residential areas.If Concept Area 1 is selected, a longer and larger diameter trunk feedermain (transmission main) will be requiredfrom the existing elevated tank at South Hill to the new elevated tank in North Hill, as compared to a shorter andsmall diameter trunk feedermain under Concept Area 3. The feedermain route associated with an elevated tank atthis location is the proposed Bolton Arterial Road. As discussed later in Section 7.2.4, although siting for theelevated tank is acceptable, the costs for the longer and larger diameter feedermain construction (i.e. trenchless


iv

crossing of the Humber River valley lands, timing issues associated with the BAR and permitting required from theTRCA eliminated Concept Area 1 from further consideration.

Concept Area 2: North West BoltonSimilarly for Concept Area 2 in northwest Bolton, ground elevations were ideal for the siting of the elevated tank.Land acquisition would be required, however costs would be minimal since the land is publicly owned (TRCA) andcurrently vacant. The lands would require an amendment to the Town of Caledon’s Official Plan as the land iscurrently designated as Agricultural. The site is also further away from built-up residential and visual impacts wouldbe less than Concept Area 1. A moderate impact to existing vegetation and permitting would be expected due toTRCA regulations. The feedermain route associated with an elevated tank at this location is the proposed BoltonArterial Road. As mentioned above, although siting for the elevated tank is acceptable, the costs for the construction(i.e., trenchless crossing under Humber River valley lands, timing issues associated with the BAR and permittingrequired from the TRCA) eliminated Concept Area 2 from further consideration.

Concept Area 3: Bolton South HillSiting the elevated tank within Concept Area 3 provides multiple benefits. First, the location is in the vicinity of theexisting elevated on Coleraine Drive which would allow for a shorter distance of the larger feedermain from theexisting elevated tank to the new tank. Although ground elevations are lower than Concept Area 1, they remainsufficient to satisfy pressure demands. Further, the proposed use is consistent with Town of Caledon Official Planland use designations (i.e. industrial/commercial). The feedermain route associated with an elevated tank at thislocation was introduced at Public Information Centre #2 in December 2010, which would run within existing roadright-of-ways, with a smaller diameter pipe through the Bolton core area and a minimum distance to the North Hillservice area.

Based on high social and environmental impacts discussed above, it was concluded that Concept Area 3 tobe selected as Preferred Concept Area for the elevated tank site.

I. Alternative Sites for the Elevated TankThree alternative sites were assessed under Concept Area 3 for the proposed elevated tank which are located at theintersection of Coleraine Drive and King Street, in the vicinity of the existing elevated tank.

Elevated Tank Site No. 1Site No. 1 is located at 3 Manchester Court on the west side of Coleraine Drive, in the vicinity of the existingelevated tank. The site is privately owned and the land uses are compatible for an elevated tank. The groundelevations at the site are adequate to provide satisfactory pressures in all parts of Zones 6. There are no naturalfeatures on-site and the size meets the requirements for the elevated tank and overflow pond.

Elevated Tank Site No. 2Site No. 2 is located at 13352 Coleraine Drive, across the street and just south of the existing elevated tank. Thesite is privately owned and the land uses are compatible for an elevated tank. The ground elevations are just lowerthan Site No. 1 and relatively equal to that of Site No. 3. This would result in a slightly taller elevated tank but it stillprovides satisfactory pressures in all parts of Zone 6. There are no natural features on-site with the exception of acrossing culvert which runs the north-south length of the site and the western portion of the site meets therequirements for the elevated tank and overflow pond. The owner showed a willingness to sell the west portion ofthe property. Property acquisition will also be required for a permanent access road and feedermain to the elevatedtank.


v

For this option, the trunk feedermains to and from the new elevated tank will run on the permanent easement on theadjacent south property (13304 Coleraine Drive). A temporary construction easement will also be required at 13304Coleraine Drive for the construction of the elevated tank.

Elevated Tank Site No. 3Site No. 3 is located at 13304 Coleraine Drive, just to the south of Site No. 2. The site is privately owned and theland uses, similar to Sites No. 1 and 2 are compatible for an elevated tank. The ground elevations are relativelyequal to that of Site No. 2. An unnamed watercourse runs through the property, requiring a minimum 30 m setbackas per Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requirements. Property acquisition will also be required for apermanent access road and feedermain to the elevated tank.

J. Preferred Elevated Tank SiteThe preferred site location for the elevated tank in Bolton is a rectangular land parcel located at 13352 ColeraineDrive, Caledon. The legal description of the site is Part of Lot 7, Concession 5, Albion Road, designated as Part 4on Reference Plan 43R – 25235, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel. The site is generally flat with agentle slope to the northwest. The total area of the site is approximately 4.2 hectares (~10.4 acres). The site isbounded by Coleraine Drive to the east, 3 Manchester Court to the north, and vacant parcels of land to the southand west. The site is currently active and is partied to 1209119 Ontario Limited. It is occupied by a two (2) storeyconcrete building fronting Coleraine Drive.

K. Identification of Alternative Feedermain OptionsBased on the guidelines and consideration described above, three alternative feedermain routes were identified asfollows:

Option A: Predominantly Along Future Bolton Arterial Road (BAR), Highway 50This route begins at the proposed elevated tank sites and runs north along Coleraine Drive and predominantlyfollows the proposed Bolton Arterial Road until it reaches Highway 50. From the intersection of Highway 50/QueenStreet North and the BAR, the feedermain route turns south until it reaches Columbia Way and then runs east to aconnection point at Kingsview Drive.

This lengthy feedermain route would require six trenchless crossings through TRCA regulated lands, as compared totwo waterbody crossings under Option B and C.

The length of feedermain under Option A (7.5 km) is 40% percent longer then feedermain Option C (4.5 km).Although environmental impact while crossing water bodies is minimized by trenchless crossing, the cost offeedermain installation increases due to longer length of feedermain construction by trenchless method. Longerfeedermain length reflects to increased impact to ground water table while installing the feedermain, either by open-cut or trenchless method.

There are also timing issues associated with the construction of the BAR which may not be in line with the proposedfeedermain construction schedule. In consideration of the length of this option and the trenchless crossing methodsrequired, the estimated cost of Option A is $63 million. Overall capital cost of the feedermain alignment Option A isexpected to increase due to mobilizing/demobilizing of the tunnelling equipment for six different locations alongBolton Arterial Road (BAR).

This option does not lend itself to providing community enhancement.

Based on expected environmental impacts and higher capital cost, it was concluded that Option A be eliminatedfrom the feedermain alternatives options.


vi

Option B: Predominantly Through Potentially Sensitive Humber River Valley Forest LandsThis route begins at the proposed elevated tank site and runs north to Glasgow Road, to the Old Well # 6 site ownedby the Region of Peel. At this point the route turns east, through TRCA regulated lands and would require tunnellingunder the Humber River to an exit point at Cross Country Boulevard and east to Highway 50/Queen Street North.The feedermain would then run north until it reaches Columbia Way and then east to a connection point atKingsview Drive.

The feedermain crosses the Humber River Valley Lands via Grand Tunnel. Tunnel construction is by its very naturecomplex, risky, and often fraught with geological unknowns. Surprises can always occur when boring tunnels.Extensive and Detailed Geotechnical and Hydrogeological investigation will be required to help evaluate thefeasibility, safety, design, and economics of a tunnel project; and for fewer cost overruns and fewer disputes duringconstruction. The unanticipated problems could create costly delays and disputes during tunnel construction.

Although the estimated cost of $52 million is less than Option A ($63 million), there are significant environmentalimpacts associated with this route (open-cut construction and tunnelling through TRCA regulated lands) andobtaining TRCA approval would prove a challenge. A higher risk is also associated with this route in the event of afeedermain break through the Humber River valley. As with Option A, there is no opportunity for communityenhancement.

Taking into consideration the risks associated with the construction of grand tunnel beneath the Humber River Valleyforest lands, it was concluded that Route B will not be carried forward for further analysis.

Option C: Predominantly through Bolton Core, Highway 50This route begins at the proposed elevated tank and runs north to King Street West. At this point the route turnseast and runs along King Street to Temperance Street, right along Sterne Street and then north and through theBolton Core parking lot to Highway 50/Queens Street West. Once at this location a crossing of the Humber River isrequired and the feedermain continues north until it reaches Columbia Way and then east to a connection point atKingsview Drive.

Two options were presented for the feedermain crossing of the Humber River. The first option was a trenchlesscrossing under the river (i.e., Horizontal Directional Drilling). The second option was to suspend the pipe across theriver either from the existing bridge or along a new structure.

The estimated cost for Option C is $42 million; a significant cost saving as compared to Options A and B due toreduced length of the feedermain route and the proposed installation within road right-of ways. There is lessenvironmental impact associated with Option C although public coordination will be needed in order to minimizeimpacts to the land uses in the Bolton Core area.

Temporary traffic disruption is anticipated on roads where construction is to occur, however this will be balanced bypermanent community enhancement (i.e., pavement rehabilitation on local roads, parking lot improvements and treeplanting, where required). These activities will be coordinated with the Town of Caledon and integrated with longterm plans for the Bolton Core area.

Based on high social and environmental impacts discussed above, it was concluded that route Option C willbe selected as Preliminary Preferred Feedermain Alternative.

L. Preferred Feedermain RouteThe preferred design concept for feedermain alignment in the Community of Bolton will be Option C, the constructionof approximately 5.0 km of feedermain length with sizes ranging from 1050mm to 400mm diameter, from the


vii

proposed elevated tank site in the South Hill area of Bolton to the North Hill area, through the Bolton Core. Thefeedermain is expected to be constructed, for most part within Road right-of-way.

The recommended feedermain route alignment and is summarized as follows:

Northwest on Coleraine Drive from proposed elevated tank site to King Street WestNortheast on King Street West to Temperance StreetNorthwest on Temperance Street to Sterne StreetNortheast on Sterne to Queen Street North/Hwy-50 through Bolton Core Parking lotNorthwest on Queen Street North/Hwy 50 to Columbia WayNortheast on Columbia Way to Kingsview Drive.

The majority of the land use surrounding the preferred feedermain route is either residential or commercial, invarious stages of development, with an undeveloped open space area along Hwy 50.

The feedermain for the most part, will be installed underground by open cut method. This proposed constructionmethod provides the least impact to the natural environment and results in reduced disruption to residents and thegeneral public. Some of the major advantages presented by this route include:

Least impact to the natural environment (i.e., watercourse crossings and removal of trees)Construction that may be completed within road right-of-wayCan be coordinated with planned Town of Caledon improvement worksProvides opportunity for community enhancementLow and mitigable social/cultural impactsGood constructabilityRelative low construction costs.

M. Watercourse Crossing AlternativesAn assessment of feasible construction methods for the proposed feedermain crossing of the Humber River wasundertaken as part of this process. The crossing alternatives included pipe suspension and trenchless crossing (i.e.HDD) method. The two methods are briefly described below and were evaluated.

Pipe SuspensionThe methodology of pipe suspension provides a means of crossing the Humber River without tunnelling underneaththe feature and requiring major installation shafts. Pipe suspension can be accommodated by either structurallyattaching the pipe to either a new or existing structure. In the case of the Humber River crossing in the Bolton Core,there is an existing Humber River bridge that could be considered for structural suspension. Alternatively, a newstructure, immediately adjacent to the Humber River bridge could be considered. The pipe would be installed toraise out of the ground and be exposed/attached to the structure. The exposed pipe would be insulated andprotected.

Horizontal Directional DrillingDirectional drilling is a trenchless technology that mitigates damage to sensitive environmental features by drillingunderneath potential sensitive areas, such as the Humber River and pulling the feedermain through the borecreated. The proposed crossing of the Humber River would be through the use of the HDD. The results of thegeotechnical investigations undertaken for this study have confirmed that this trenchless method is technicallyfeasible provided appropriate construction mitigation measures are utilized. Construction activity above ground isminimal as compared to open cut construction. However, trenchless method is generally slower than open cut andsignificantly more expensive.


viii

The preferred method of crossing the Humber River bridge is the suspension of the feedermain pipe from a newstructure. It is anticipated that the concept involving a new structure adjacent to the existing bridge on the west side(Refer to Appendix H) is preferred. This type of installation would allow for the independent servicing of bothstructures and would not interrupt delivery of water services during future rehabilitation or removal of the existingbridge. It would also allow for potential sidewalk expansion on the west side of the bridge. The new structure wouldhave minimal environmental impact as the design would include:

Helical pile foundation behind the bridge wingwallsConcrete cap and wingwallTwo steel girders connected by spaced channel, to support the feedermainThere is opportunity to mask / cover the feedermain, if desired.

The design and permanent location of the new structure will be further refined during detail design and inconsultation with the TRCA.

N. Implementation ScheduleThe design of the elevated tank is estimated to begin in the winter/spring of 2012, with construction to begin in thespring of 2013. The elevated tank is estimated to be online in 2014.

The design of the preferred feedermain along the proposed alignment is expected to begin in the winter/spring of2012, with sections of the alignment being constructed as early as spring 2013 pending permit and approvals.

O. Mitigation MeasuresImpacts related to construction of the elevated tank and feedermain are expected to be short term and in mostcases, relatively minor in nature. Impacts can be minimized by incorporating proper best management practices andconstruction techniques and controls, including specific measures such as traffic management, dust control andlimiting construction according to Town of Caledon noise by-laws.

It is expected that construction will cause temporary traffic disruptions, including lane restrictions along the preferredroute. As part of detailed design, specific traffic management plans will be developed to mitigate impacts to trafficand pedestrians and to maintain access to properties. The Region will continue to inform the public of constructionplans as this project proceeds. It is recommended that the mitigating measures described in Section 10 of thisreport be further confirmed and defined during detailed design, and employed during construction to reduce thepotential impacts of the proposed works.

P. Remaining ApprovalsThe following table summarizes the identified agencies and commitments, based on the environmental sensitivitiesand correspondence that have been identified for the construction of the elevated tank and feedermain route.

Table of CommittmentsAgency Commitment

NAV Canada NAV CANADA maintains up-to-date aeronautical publications.Notification of project completion is required by returning a completed,signed copy of the Construction Completion Notice (Appendix A) by e-mail at [email protected] or fax at 613-248-4094

Ministry of Culture Stage 2 investigations will be undertaken prior to construction for thetemporary and permanent easement area on the south side of theelevated tank site.

TRCA TRCA under O. Regulation 162/06 - Development, Interference withWetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses approvalrequired


ix

DFO Mitigation for the protection of watercourses during overhead bridgeconstruction is well documented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada(www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca) and within current construction Best ManagementPractices (i.e. BMP) typically used for such projects

Ministry of the Environment A Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required from the Ministry of theEnvironment in the event construction dewatering discharge isestimated to be greater than 50 000 litres per day

Town of Caledon Council Resolution required for the purchase of lands for the elevatedtank site

Community improvements following completion of works to include:plantings, new sidewalks, resurfacing of roads, curbs and new stormsewers along the feedermain route

Transport Canada Approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, should it bedetermined that construction at the Humber river crossing will not meetthe criteria outlined in the Minor Works and Waters Order of the Act

CP Railway Approval for Underground Pipeline Crossing (under the CP tracks) fromCanadian Pacific Railway

ORC Confirm if ORC-owned lands in the vicinity of Highway 50/Queen Streetand Coleraine drive will be subject to ORC screening as part offeedermain installation

Q. Consultation ProgramAs part of the Municipal Class EA planning process, a variety of communications and consultation methods wereundertaken with various stakeholders, including the Town of Caledon, Toronto and Region conservation Authority,external review agencies, property owners and other interested members of the public to inform them of the natureand scope of the project and to solicit input and comments. These methods included a project specific consultationplan, including mailings of public newsletters during Phases 2 and 3 of the project, publication of Notices ofcommencement, Public Open Houses (No. 1-3) and a Notice of Completion in local newspapers. A project specificwebsite was also available to the public www.peelregion.ca/pw/water - Caledon.

R. RecommendationsThe North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain Study has completed and followed the Schedule CClass EA process. The recommendations in the report are:

Proceed with detail design of the new 9.0 ML (2.38 MG) elevated storage tank located on the west side ofColeraine Drive near the existing elevated tank; located at 13352 Coleraine DriveProceed with detail design of 1050/600/400 mm (42”/24”/16”) diameter feedermain, approximately 5 km in lengthfrom the proposed elevated tank on Coleraine Drive through the community of Bolton with connection to theNorth Hill distribution systemBased on the identified property requirements, the Region begin to negotiate all required permanent andtemporary easements as detailed in this report; andThe mitigation measures identified in Section 10 of this report should be confirmed and further elaborated uponduring detailed design and implemented as part of the construction process.

With filing this ESR and further to no additional co-ordination requirements under the Class EA process, the Regionof Peel will move forward to implementation including detailed design and construction of the works.

This infrastructure will provide the community of Bolton with additional equalization and emergency storage as wellas provide improved level of service and security of supply.


x

S. Summary

This Municipal Class EA ESR ensures that the proposed North Bolton Elevated Tank and Feedermain project meetsthe requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. An evaluation of potential impacts was included in theevaluation of alternative water storage options and locations and the evaluation of alternative feedermain routes andindicated generally, minor and predictable impacts what can be addressed by the recommended mitigation, aspresented in Section 10, are expected. Public and agency notification was provided and no comments werereceived that cannot be adequately addressed as the project proceed through detailed design.


Table of Contents

Statement of Qualifications and LimitationsLetter of TransmittalDistribution ListExecutive Summary

page

1. Introduction and Study Background .......................................................................................... 11.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 11.2 Format of This Report ................................................................................................................................ 31.3 Overall Study Process ................................................................................................................................ 41.4 Objectives of the Environmental Study Report ........................................................................................ 51.5 Public Review of this Report and Next Steps ........................................................................................... 5

2. Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process ....................................................................... 82.1 Municipal Class EA Planning Process ...................................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act...................................................................................... 82.1.2 Principles of Environmental Planning .......................................................................................... 92.1.3 Class Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................... 9

2.2 Consultation and Communication Program ............................................................................................112.3 Class Environmental Assessment Planning Schedule ..........................................................................12

3. Study Area Features and Considerations ................................................................................ 133.1 Location .....................................................................................................................................................133.2 Socio-Economic Environment .................................................................................................................16

3.2.1 Existing Land Uses .....................................................................................................................163.2.1.1 Residential ................................................................................................................163.2.1.2 Employment .............................................................................................................163.2.1.3 Institutional ...............................................................................................................163.2.1.4 Recreational .............................................................................................................163.2.1.5 Agriculture ................................................................................................................18

3.2.2 Archaeology and Built Heritage Features .................................................................................183.3 Natural Heritage Features........................................................................................................................18

3.3.1 Watershed Context and Local Hydrology .................................................................................203.3.2 Oak Ridges Moraine ...................................................................................................................203.3.3 Species at Risk and Sensitive Species .....................................................................................203.3.4 Significant Features ....................................................................................................................20

3.3.4.1 Significant Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species .................213.3.4.2 Significant Wetlands ................................................................................................213.3.4.3 Significant Woodlands .............................................................................................213.3.4.4 Significant Valleylands ............................................................................................223.3.4.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat.......................................................................................223.3.4.6 Fish Habitat ..............................................................................................................223.3.4.7 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Environmentally Sensitive

Areas ........................................................................................................................223.3.5 Topography, Physiographic, Geology and Groundwater Conditions ......................................22

3.4 Transportation Systems ...........................................................................................................................233.5 Official Plan Designations and Future Land Uses .................................................................................23

3.5.1 Town of Caledon Official Plan....................................................................................................23


3.5.2 Region of Peel Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan ...............................................233.5.3 Urban Boundary Analysis ...........................................................................................................26

3.6 Servicing and Planning ............................................................................................................................263.6.1 Proposed Service Area...............................................................................................................263.6.2 Population Projection ..................................................................................................................263.6.3 Water Demand Projection ..........................................................................................................283.6.4 Existing Water Supply ................................................................................................................303.6.5 Water Storage Criteria ................................................................................................................303.6.6 Fire Flow Requirement ...............................................................................................................313.6.7 Water Storage Requirement ......................................................................................................313.6.8 Existing Utilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................343.6.9 Places to Grow Plan ...................................................................................................................343.6.10 Provincial Policy Statement........................................................................................................343.6.11 Greenbelt Planning Area ............................................................................................................353.6.12 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ...................................................................................353.6.13 MOE Guidelines D-5, Planning for Sewage and Water Services............................................36

4. Phase 1: Identification and Description of the Problems and Opportunities ........................ 374.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement ..............................................................................................................37

5. Phase 2: Alternative Solutions to the Problem ........................................................................ 395.1 Master Plan Recommendations ..............................................................................................................39

5.1.1 Screening Criteria .......................................................................................................................395.1.2 Do Nothing...................................................................................................................................405.1.3 Limit Growth and Development .................................................................................................405.1.4 Reduce Water Consumption ......................................................................................................415.1.5 Expand Existing Water Supply System .....................................................................................415.1.6 Screening Results .......................................................................................................................41

5.2 Water Storage Facility Siting Guidelines ................................................................................................425.2.1 Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade) Site Identification Guidelines and Considerations ................425.2.2 Elevated Tank Site Identification Guidelines and Considerations ...........................................43

5.3 Feedermain Route Identification Guidelines and Considerations .........................................................445.4 Alternative Feedermain Routes ...............................................................................................................44

5.4.1 Description of Alternative Feedermain Options for the Elevated Tank Option .......................475.4.2 Description of Alternative Feedermain Routes for the Reservoir Option ................................50

5.5 Feedermain Construction Methods .........................................................................................................515.5.1 Open Cut Construction ...............................................................................................................51

5.5.1.1 Design Assumptions ................................................................................................525.5.2 Trenchless Construction .............................................................................................................52

5.5.2.1 Tunnelling .................................................................................................................525.5.2.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) ......................................................................535.5.2.3 Design Assumptions ................................................................................................54

5.5.3 Suspended Watermain ...............................................................................................................545.5.3.1 Design Assumptions ................................................................................................55

5.5.4 Valve Chambers .........................................................................................................................555.5.4.1 Design Assumptions ................................................................................................55

6. Comparative Evaluation of Water Storage Tanks .................................................................... 566.1 Choosing a Water Storage Facility Type ................................................................................................566.2 Type of Storage Reservoirs .....................................................................................................................56

6.2.1 Elevated Tank .............................................................................................................................56


6.2.2 Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade)...................................................................................................576.3 Evaluation Criteria and Results ...............................................................................................................58

6.3.1 Natural Environment ...................................................................................................................586.3.2 Social/Cultural Environment .......................................................................................................586.3.3 Technical Suitability ....................................................................................................................596.3.4 Economical/Financial ..................................................................................................................59

6.4 Preferred Water Storage Option ..............................................................................................................59

7. Evaluation of Alternative Elevated Tank Site ........................................................................... 627.1 Evaluation of Alternative Concepts Areas for Elevated Tank Sites ......................................................627.2 Alternative Sites for the Elevated Tank ...................................................................................................65

7.2.1 Elevated Tank Site No. 1............................................................................................................657.2.2 Elevated Tank Site No. 2............................................................................................................657.2.3 Elevated Tank Site No. 3............................................................................................................657.2.4 Evaluation Criteria and Results .................................................................................................697.2.5 Preferred Elevated Tank Site .....................................................................................................69

8. Evaluation of Alternative Feedermain Alignments .................................................................. 718.1 Approach for Assessing Alternatives ......................................................................................................718.2 Screening Results for Feedermain Alignments ......................................................................................718.3 Bolton Core Feedermain Alternative (Option C) ....................................................................................778.4 General Discussion on Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C ...................................................77

8.4.1 Natural Environment ...................................................................................................................788.4.2 Social/Cultural Environment .......................................................................................................788.4.3 Technical Suitability ....................................................................................................................798.4.4 Economical/Financial ..................................................................................................................80

8.5 Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C .............................................808.5.1 Preferred Feedermain Route .....................................................................................................86

9. Phase 3: Alternative Designs to the Preferred Solution .......................................................... 899.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................899.2 Description of the Preferred Elevated Tank Site ....................................................................................89

9.2.1 Natural Environment ...................................................................................................................899.2.1.1 Aquatic Habitat .........................................................................................................899.2.1.2 Terrestrial .................................................................................................................899.2.1.3 Wildlife Habitat .........................................................................................................89

9.2.2 Socio-Economic Environment ....................................................................................................899.2.3 Archaeology and Built Heritage .................................................................................................929.2.4 Geotechnical Investigation .........................................................................................................92

9.3 Description of Preferred Feedermain Route ...........................................................................................939.3.1 Natural Environment ...................................................................................................................93

9.3.1.1 Aquatic ......................................................................................................................939.3.1.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................................959.3.1.3 Terrestrial Environment ...........................................................................................96

9.3.2 Social Environment .....................................................................................................................989.3.3 Archaeology and Heritage Features ..........................................................................................999.3.4 Geotechnical Investigation – Phase I ..................................................................................... 1009.3.5 Geotechnical Investigation – Phase II .................................................................................... 1009.3.6 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................... 1019.3.7 Town of Caledon Work ............................................................................................................ 102

9.4 Watercourse Crossings ......................................................................................................................... 102


9.5 Humber River Crossings Alternatives .................................................................................................. 1039.5.1 Pipe Suspension ...................................................................................................................... 1039.5.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling .................................................................................................. 103

10. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................... 10510.1 Elevated Tank Site ................................................................................................................................ 105

10.1.1 Construction Related Impacts ................................................................................................. 10510.1.1.1 Archaeology and Heritage Resources ................................................................ 10510.1.1.2 Surface Water ....................................................................................................... 10510.1.1.3 Groundwater Control ............................................................................................ 10510.1.1.4 Aesthetic Impacts ................................................................................................. 10510.1.1.5 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 10610.1.1.6 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 10610.1.1.7 Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 10610.1.1.8 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 106

10.1.2 Post Construction Impacts ...................................................................................................... 10610.2 Feedermain Route ................................................................................................................................. 107

10.2.1 Construction Related Impacts ................................................................................................. 10710.2.1.1 Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 10710.2.1.2 Public Notification ................................................................................................. 10910.2.1.3 Archaeology and Heritage Resources ................................................................ 10910.2.1.4 Noise and Dust Control ........................................................................................ 10910.2.1.5 Re-Use/Disposal of Excavated Materials............................................................ 10910.2.1.6 Backfill Compaction .............................................................................................. 11010.2.1.7 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities............................................................ 11010.2.1.8 Aquatic Habitat and Communities ....................................................................... 11110.2.1.9 Dewatering ............................................................................................................ 11110.2.1.10 Surface Water Dewatering ................................................................................... 11210.2.1.11 Navigation ............................................................................................................. 11310.2.1.12 Construction Timing .............................................................................................. 11310.2.1.13 Staging Areas........................................................................................................ 11310.2.1.14 Restoration ............................................................................................................ 113

10.2.2 Post Construction..................................................................................................................... 114

11. Table of Commitments ............................................................................................................ 118

12. Consultation and Communication Program ........................................................................... 11912.1 Project Contact List and Agency Notification ...................................................................................... 11912.2 Notice of Study Commencement.......................................................................................................... 11912.3 Public Information Centre #1 ................................................................................................................ 11912.4 Information Bulletin ................................................................................................................................ 12012.5 Public Information Centre #2 ................................................................................................................ 12012.6 Town of Caledon Meeting ..................................................................................................................... 12112.7 Public Information Centre #3 ................................................................................................................ 12212.8 Agency and Municipal Consultation ..................................................................................................... 123

12.8.1 Town of Caledon ...................................................................................................................... 12312.8.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority .......................................................................... 123

12.9 First Nation and Aboriginal Consultation ............................................................................................. 12412.10 Property Owners Consultation.............................................................................................................. 12412.11 Consultation Summary .......................................................................................................................... 124

13. Preferred Feedermain Alternative ........................................................................................... 125


13.1 Property Easements .............................................................................................................................. 12513.2 Estimated Capital Cost.......................................................................................................................... 12513.3 Implementation Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 12713.4 Required Approvals ............................................................................................................................... 127

14. Preferred Elevated Tank Site ................................................................................................... 12814.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 12814.2 Property Easements .............................................................................................................................. 128

14.2.1 Permanent Easement .............................................................................................................. 12814.2.2 Temporary Construction Easement ........................................................................................ 12814.2.3 Permanent Access Easement................................................................................................. 129

14.3 Estimated Capital Cost.......................................................................................................................... 12914.4 Implementation Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 12914.5 Required Approvals ............................................................................................................................... 12914.6 Preliminary Design of Elevated Tank ................................................................................................... 12914.7 Water Mixing System ............................................................................................................................ 130

15. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 131

List of Figures

Figure 1 Preferred Bolton Water Servicing Strategy ..................................................................................................... 2Figure 2 Overall Study Timeline ...................................................................................................................................... 4Figure 3 Municipal Class EA Process...........................................................................................................................11Figure 4 Planning and Consultation Process ...............................................................................................................12Figure 5 Study Area .......................................................................................................................................................14Figure 6 Service Area ....................................................................................................................................................15Figure 7 Land Use Schedule for the Community of Bolton .........................................................................................17Figure 8 Natural Features ..............................................................................................................................................19Figure 9 Water Servicing Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................25Figure 10 Smaller Geographical Units (SGU) for Population Projection for Year 2031 ..............................................27Figure 11 Existing Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................33Figure 12 Alternative Feedermain Routes Under Elevated Tank Option .....................................................................45Figure 13 Alternative Feedermain Alignments Under Reservoir Option ......................................................................46Figure 14 Potential Alternative Feedermain Routes for the Elevated Tank .................................................................49Figure 15 Alternative Locations (Concept Areas) for Elevated Tank Sites ..................................................................63Figure 16 Alternative Tank Sites .....................................................................................................................................66Figure 17 Preferred Elevated Tank Site .........................................................................................................................70Figure 18 Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C .................................................................................................87Figure 19 Preferred Feedermain Route ..........................................................................................................................88Figure 20 Natural Features ..............................................................................................................................................91Figure 21 Easement Layout ......................................................................................................................................... 126Figure 22 Easement Layout at Elevated Tank Site ................................................................................................... 128


List of Tables

Table 1 Population Projection – Bolton Zone 6 ..........................................................................................................28Table 2 Region of Peel Water Demand Design Criteria ............................................................................................28Table 3 Water Demand Projections (MLD) Bolton Zone 6 ........................................................................................29Table 4 Projected Storage Requirement for Bolton Pressure Zone 6.......................................................................31Table 5 Additional Storage Requirements for Year 2031 ..........................................................................................32Table 6 Region of Peel Population and Employment Projections, 2001 - 2031.......................................................34Table 7 Screening the Alternative Solutions ...............................................................................................................42Table 8 Alternative Feedermain Routes for Elevated Tank Options .........................................................................47Table 9 Alternative Routes for Proposed Feedermain for the Reservoir Option ......................................................50Table 10 Comparative Analysis of Elevated Tank versus Reservoir ..........................................................................60Table 11 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternative Conceptual Areas for the Elevated Tank Site .............62Table 12 Comparative Analysis of Alternative Elevated Tank Site .............................................................................67Table 13 Evaluation of Feedermain Alignment Options ...............................................................................................74Table 14 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C ..................................83Table 15 Fish Species Occurrence Records for the Study Area Reach of the Main Humber River .........................94Table 16 Watercourse Crossings Methodology ......................................................................................................... 103Table 17 Evaluation of Humber River Crossing Methodologies ............................................................................... 104Table 18 Potential Construction Related Impacts and Associated Mitigation for the Elevated Tank .................... 107Table 19 Potential Construction Related Impacts and Associated Mitigation for the Feedermain Route ............. 114Table 20 Identified Agencies and Commitments ....................................................................................................... 118Table 21 Summary of PIC #1 Comments................................................................................................................... 120Table 22 Summary of PIC #2 Comments................................................................................................................... 121Table 23 Summary of Town of Caledon Meeting Comments ................................................................................... 121Table 24 Summary of PIC #3 Comments................................................................................................................... 122Table 25 Estimated Capital Cost - Feedermain ......................................................................................................... 127Table 26 Estimated Capital Cost – Elevated Tank .................................................................................................... 129

Appendices

Appendix A ConsultationAppendix B Archaeological Assessment ReportAppendix C Natural Environment ReportAppendix D Socio Economic ReportAppendix E Hydrogeological Assessment ReportAppendix F Geotechnical Investigations ReportsAppendix G Transient Analysis ReportAppendix H Plans and Profile DrawingsAppendix I Environmental Site AssessmentsAppendix J Hydraulic Analysis


1

1. Introduction and Study Background1.1 Background

The Region of Peel is one of a number of Municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area situatedaround the south western end of Lake Ontario and one of the fastest growing areas in North America.The Region of Peel provides water and wastewater servicing to existing residents and businesses andprovides long term planning for the water and wastewater services to support future growth.

The community of Bolton within the Town of Caledon is an area within the Region with existing LakeOntario based water servicing and is also an area designated for future growth.

As part of long term infrastructure planning, the Region has completed a Water and Wastewater MasterPlan. This Master Plan was most recently updated in 2007. The recommendations of the Master PlanUpdate identified a need for additional trunk watermain servicing and additional water storage to supportthe servicing conditions and additional growth in Bolton. The Master Plan Update identified the potentialinfrastructure requirements, as well as a need for an additional Class Environmental Study (Class EA) torefine the study. These recommendations are identified for future study and are attached as Figure 1.

The Region of Peel retained AECOM to complete the Class EA study for the North Bolton ElevatedTank/Reservoir and Feedermain. This Study has been completed as a Schedule C and has followedPhases 1 through 4 of the Class EA process.

The technical objectives of this study are to:

Provide additional water storage to the communityProvide enhanced level of water service to the community and specifically North Bolton through waterpressure stabilization, improved fire flows and increased security of supplyDetermine the optimum orientation for the storage (i.e., inground/at grade reservoir or elevated tank)Determine the optimum location for the storage facilityDetermine the feedermain requirements including size, alignment and construction methodologiesComplete the evaluation of alternatives for the water storage and feedermain through the Class EAprocess considering natural, social and technical factors.


2

Figure 1 Preferred Bolton Water Servicing Strategy


3

1.2 Format of This Report

This Environmental Study Report (ESR) was prepared to meet the requirements of the MEA MunicipalClass EA planning process. The report combines all phases of the planning process under one coverand incorporates steps considered essential for compliance with the requirements of the EnvironmentalAssessment Act in the following sections:

Section 1: Provides background information, including a description of the steps which lead to theinitiation of the study, as well as the format of the report.

Section 2: Presents an overview of the Municipal Class EA planning process. This section alsoidentifies the Class EA planning schedule followed for this project.

Section 3: Provides the problem and opportunity statement as required by the Class EA process.

Section 4: Provides an overview of the study area, including the existing water supply and storageservice area, existing land uses, socio-economic and natural environment, and servicing anplanning considerations. This information was also considered when reviewing alternativereservoir/elevated tank siting options and feedermain alignments.

Section 5: Describes the finding of the 1999 Region of Peel Water and Wastewater Servicing MasterPlan (including 2002 Addendum and September 2007 Update), possible reservoir/elevatedtank and feedermain alternatives and siting guidelines, as well as construction methods. Itdescribes how the evaluation framework and criteria were developed and applied to thealternative reservoir/elevated tank siting options and feedermain alignments.

Section 6: Provides a comparative evaluation of water storage tanks, i.e., in-ground reservoir versesElevated tank.

Section 7: Provides a comparative evaluation of alternative elevated tank sites.

Section 8: Provides a comparative evaluation of alternative feedermain alignments.

Section 9: Describes the alternative designs to the preferred solution for the elevated tank andfeedermain route, including rationale for selection.

Section 10: Identifies the potential environmental effects and mitigation and monitoring in order tominimize effects.

Section 11: Presents a table of commitments to be undertaken during the detail design stage.

Section 12: Provides a description of the consultation process undertaken for this Class EA.

Section 13: Presents the preferred feedermain route, including rationale for its selection as well as anoverview of construction, property requirements and the implementation schedule.


4

Section 14: Presents the preferred elevated tank site, including rationale for its selection as well as anoverview of construction, property requirements and the implementation schedule.

Section 15: Presents final study conclusions and recommendations.

The appendices cover the following supporting information:

Background environmental reports including archaeological, natural environment, hydrogeotechnicaland geotechnical.Additional technical pre-design informationAdditional consultation information

1.3 Overall Study Process

The Schedule C Class EA process for this study was initiated in 2008. The overall timeline of the projectis depicted in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Overall Study Timeline

Preliminary study information was presented to the public in late 2008. Further to review of preliminaryevaluation of the storage options and locations, as well as feedermain alignments, it was determined thatadditional hydraulic study and supporting analysis was required. These tasks were undertaken through2010 and 2011. The study information and recommendations were presented in late 2010. Further toadditional comment resulting from the public information centre, the preferred solutions were refinedincluding finalization of the storage site and confirmation of the feedermain alignment and constructionmethodology. This updated information was presented again in summer 2011. Based on the current


5

review period for the Environmental Study Report, upon successful completion of the Class EA process,the Region will move forward to implementation in 2012/2013.

1.4 Objectives of the Environmental Study Report

The purpose of this Municipal Class EA study is to provide a comprehensive and environmentally soundplanning process, which is open to public participation, to select the preferred water storage tank site andpreferred feedermain route. Study objectives include:

Protection of the environment, as defined in the EAA, through the wise management of resources;Extensive consultation with all affected and interested parties, including participation of a broad rangeof stakeholders to allow for the sharing of ideas, education, testing of creative solutions anddeveloping alternatives;Facilitating dialogue between those with different or contrasting interests;Documentation of the study process in compliance with all phases of the Municipal Class EA planningprocess; andMitigation and monitoring to ensure minimal disruption during construction to residents, businessesand the natural environment.

By completing the Class EA planning process, the preferred water storage tank site and preferredfeedermain route should be endorsed by the majority of residents and the general public and beacceptable to stakeholders and review agencies.

1.5 Public Review of this Report and Next Steps

This Environmental Study Report (ESR) documents the selection of alternative sites for an elevatedtank/reservoir and the alternative feedermain alignments considered. Impacts and mitigation measuresof theses design concepts, rationale for the preferred design concept and implementation plans are alsopresented. The ESR also documents the public and agency consultation process undertaken.

The documentation for this Schedule C project consists of an Environmental Study Report (ESR), whichis presented as this document. The placement of the ESR for public review completes Phases 1-4 of theClass Environmental Assessment Process (2000 as amended in 2007). The ESR is available for public,stakeholders and review agencies to review and comments for a period of 30 calendar days starting fromOctober 28, 2011 and ending on November 28, 2011. A public notice (Notice of Completion) will bepublished to announce the review period. Copies of the ESR are available during regular business hoursat the following locations:

Region of Peel Clerk’s Department10 Peel Centre Drive, 5th Floor, Suite ABrampton, ON L6T 4B9Phone: 905-791-7800

Town of CaledonTown Clerk’s Department6311 Old Church RoadCaledon, ON L7C 1J8Phone: 905.584.2272

Albion-Bolton Community Centre, Branch Library150 Queen Street SouthBolton, ON L7E 1E3Phone: (905) 857-3356


6

A copy of this document is also available online at http://www.peelregion.ca/pw/water/environ-assess/north-bolton.htm.

If, after reviewing this report, you have questions or concerns, please follow this procedure:

1. Contact Italia Ponce at the address below to discuss your questions or concerns:

Italia Ponce, P.Eng.Project ManagerWater Studies, Water DivisionPublic Works - Region of Peel10 Peel Centre Dr., 4th Floor, Suite ABrampton, ON L6T 4B9Phone: 905-791-7800 ext. 4583Fax: 905-791-0728E-mail: [email protected]

2. Arrange a meeting with the above if you have significant concerns that may require more detailedexplanations

3. If you have major concerns, the Region will attempt to negotiate a resolution of the issue(s). Amutually acceptable time period for this negotiation will be set. If the issue remains unresolved, youmay request the Minister of the Environment, by order, to require the Region to comply with Part IIof the EAA before proceeding with the project. This is called a Part II Order (“bump-up”) request.The Minister may make one of the following decisions:

Deny the request Refer the matter to mediation, or Require that the Region comply with Part II of the EAA by undertaking one of the following:

Set out directions with respect to the Terms of Reference and prepare an IndividualEA for the undertaking;

Declare that the Region (proponent) has satisfied the requirements for thepreparation of an EA, as are specified in the order; or

Impose conditions, in addition to those imposed upon the approval of the Class EA,with respect to the proposed undertaking that is to proceed in accordance with theClass EA.

Requests must be submitted in writing to the Minister of the Environment at the following address withinthe 30-day review period:

The Honourable Jim BradleyMinister of the Environment77 Wellesley Street West11th Floor, Ferguson BlockToronto, ON M7A 2T5

A copy of the request must also be forwarded to the attention of Ms. Italia Ponce at the Region of Peel atthe address provided above.


7

If no Part II Order requests are received, the Region may proceed with detailed design and constructionof the recommended works as presented in this report.

Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection ofPrivacy Act. All comments, with the exception of personal information, will become part of the publicrecord.


8

2. Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process2.1 Municipal Class EA Planning Process

This section describes the Municipal Class EA process and its place in the overall legislation governingenvironmental assessment in Ontario.

2.1.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) was passed in 1975 and proclaimed in 1976. The EAAct requires proponents to examine and document the environmental effects that might result from majorprojects or activities and their alternatives. Municipal undertakings became subject to the Act in 1981.

The Act defines the environment broadly as:

Air, land, or waterPlant and animal life, including human lifeThe social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a communityAny building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by humansAny solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or indirect fromhuman activitiesAny part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them.

The purpose of the EA Act is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providingfor the protection, conservation, and wise management in Ontario of the environment (RSO 1990, c.18,s.2).

As set out in Section 5(3) of the EA Act, an EA document must include the following:

1. A description of: The purpose of the undertaking The alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking Alternatives to the undertaking.

2. A description of: The environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected,

directly or indirectly The effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the

environment The actions necessary or that may reasonably be expected to be necessary to prevent,

change, mitigate, or remedy the effects upon or the effects that might reasonably beexpected upon the environment; by the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying outthe undertaking, and the alternatives to the undertaking

An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking,the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, and the alternatives to theundertaking (RSO 1990, c.18, s.2).


9

2.1.2 Principles of Environmental Planning

The Act sets a framework for a systematic, rational and replicable environmental planning process that isbased on five key principles, as follows:

1. Consultation with affected parties2. Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives3. Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the environment4. Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, to determine

their net environmental effects5. Documentation of the planning process in such a way that it may be repeated with similar results.

2.1.3 Class Environmental Assessment

All municipalities in Ontario, including the Region of Peel, are subject to the provisions of theEnvironmental Assessment Act (EAA) and its requirements to prepare an Environmental Assessment forapplicable public works. The Ontario Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) “Municipal ClassEnvironmental Assessment” document (October 2000, as amended in 2007) provides municipalities witha five-phase planning procedure, approved under the EAA, to plan and undertake all municipal sewage,water, stormwater management and transportation projects that are:

RecurringSimilar in natureUsually limited in scalePredictable range of environmental impactsResponsive to mitigation.

In Ontario, infrastructure projects such as new water storage and feedermain, are subject to the MunicipalClass Environmental Assessment process and must follow a series of mandatory steps as outline in theMunicipal Class EA document. As depicted in Figure 3 the process includes five phases:

Phase 1 Problem DefinitionPhase 2 Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to determine a Preferred SolutionPhase 3 Examination of Alternative Methods of Implementation of the Preferred SolutionPhase 4 Documentation of the Planning, Design and Consultation ProcessPhase 5 Implementation and Monitoring.

Public and agency consultation is an integral component of the Class EA planning process. Consultationwith the public and review agencies is carried out at key stages of the Class EA process to review andobtain input about the project.

The latest update to the Municipal Class EA document (2007) classifies municipal infrastructure projectsas Schedule A, A+, B, or C depending on their level of complexity and impact on the environment asfollows:


10

Schedule A Projects consist of normal operational and maintenance activities, are limited in scale andhave minimal environmental impacts. Schedule A projects are pre-approved without furtherconsideration for the Class EA process.

Schedule A+ Introduced in the 2007 updates to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, ScheduleA+ projects are similar to Schedule A in that they are pre-approved. However, the publicshould be informed prior to project implementation. The manner in which the public is informedis determined by the project proponent.

Schedule B Projects require a screening of alternatives for their environmental impacts and Phases 1 and2 of the planning process must be completed. Relevant review agencies and members of thepublic who may be directly affected must be informed and have their concerns addressed.Provided that there are no outstanding concerns and no “Part-II Order” is invoked, Schedule‘B’ projects are approved. A 30-calendar-day public review period follows.

Schedule C Projects require detailed study and documentation due to their potential for significant impacts.

Provided no significant impacts are identified and no requests for an Order by the Minister under Part IIfor an Individual Environmental Assessment are received, Schedule B projects are approved and mayproceed directly to implementation (Phase 5). If outstanding issues remain after the public review period,any party may request that the Minister of the Environment consider a Part II Order.

Schedule C projects must satisfy all five phases of the Class EA planning process. These projects havethe potential for greater environmental impacts. Phase 3 involves the assessment of alternative methodsof carrying out the project, as well as public consultation on the preferred design concept. Phase 4normally includes the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) that is filed for public review.Provided no significant impacts are identified and no Part II Order requests are received, Schedule Cprojects are then approved and may proceed directly to implementation. Part II Order requests must bedirected to the MOE.

The North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain Study has been conducted as a Schedule Cundertaking under the Class EA process developed by the Municipal Engineer’s Association (October2000, as amended in 2007). The completion the Region’s Master Plan and update in 2007, fulfilledPhase 1 - Identify the Problem, and Phase 2 - Identify and Assess Alternative Solutions, of the Class EAprocess. This study provides further review of Phases 1 and 2, and satisfies Phase 3 - Identification andAssessment of Alternative Methods/Design Concepts and Selection of Preferred Alternative, and Phase 4- Preparation of an Environmental Study Report, of the Class EA process.

This document comprises the ESR for the North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain, anddocuments the complete planning process carried out as part of this Class EA study.


11

Figure 3 Municipal Class EA Process

2.2 Consultation and Communication Program

As part of the Municipal Class EA Schedule C planning process, the Region undertook an extensiveconsultation and communication program to inform and seek input from regulatory agencies, affectedlandowners, the local community, businesses and the general public of the project.

The Municipal Class EA document outlines specific mandatory public and agency contact points andmethods. The following activities were undertaken as part of this Class EA:

Publication of newspaper notices for project milestones including: Project Commencement, PublicInformation Centres and the Notice of CompletionDirect mailing of notices to regulatory agencies, stakeholders and affected landowners regarding atthe project milestones listed abovePosting project milestones on the Region’s project website, including those listed above.Three (3) rounds of Public Information CentresProject newsletterMeetings with key affected stakeholders (i.e., property owners), regulatory agencies (i.e., Toronto andRegion Conservation Authority)


12

Details of the above communications and consultation program are found in Section 12 - Consultationand Communication Program, of this report.

2.3 Class Environmental Assessment Planning Schedule

Figure 4 illustrates the planning and consultation process followed for this project.

Figure 4 Planning and Consultation Process

AECOM Regional Muncipality of Peel North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir andFeedermain – Schedule C Class EA StudyEnvironmental Study Report

13

3. Study Area Features and ConsiderationsThis section provides a description of the existing natural, physical, socio-economic, cultural and technicalsetting for the study area. In preparing the baseline description of the study area, available backgroundinformation was assembled and reviewed and applicable regulatory agencies were consulted (i.e., TRCA,MNR, Town of Caledon) regarding specific data. Based on these activities, a number of secondaryinformation sources (i.e., maps and reports) were obtained and used to characterize the study area andrecord significant natural, socio-economic and cultural features.

In addition, field reconnaissance activities and natural environment investigation was carried out duringthe course of the study to confirm and augment the secondary information collected and reviewed. Thescope of the data collection exercise was to provide the Region of Peel with information to identify,evaluate and compare alternatives.

Based on the above activities, the description of the study area is provided below. This descriptionidentifies the constraints and opportunities that form the basis for selecting alternatives. Furthermore, itserves as the baseline for identifying and assessing potential impacts associated with the proposedundertaking.

3.1 Location

The Study Area, including the community of Bolton is located within the Town of Caledon in the Region ofPeel as shown in Figure 5. The community, formally known as Bolton's Mill, was founded in 1794 whenJames Bolton built a flour mill on the banks of the Humber River. The Humber River traverses the BoltonCore area just north of the intersection of King Street West and Highway 50/Queen Street. Bolton is thelargest community within the Town of Caledon with a 2011 population of approximately 26,478 residentsin 8,721 households (Town of Caledon, 2011).

The general boundaries of the study area for this Class EA study include:

North of Mayfield RoadSouth of Columbia DriveWest of Caledon King Town Line/Albion VaughanEast of Coleraine Drive.

As discussed later in the document and shown in Figure 6, the general boundaries of the servicing areainclude:

Current settlement area of BoltonExisting rural areaProposed expansion of the urban area boundary, as per Official Plan Amendment 203External Servicing area.


14

Figure 5 Study Area


15

Figure 6 Service Area


16

3.2 Socio-Economic Environment

3.2.1 Existing Land Uses

A review of the Town of Caledon Official Plan (December 2008) was undertaken for this study. Chapter 7of the Official Plan divides the study area as follows: the Bolton South Hill Secondary Plan, Bolton CoreArea Secondary Plan, the West Bolton Secondary Plan and the North East Bolton Secondary Plan.These Secondary Plans establish detailed land use policies and policies regarding future land use.

Figure 7 presents Schedule C – Bolton Land Use which provides a graphic description of the land uses inthe study area.

Bolton has been designated a Rural Service Centre in recognition of its traditional role in servicing thesurrounding rural area and smaller settlements, in addition to providing for additional new opportunitiesrelating to service provision, housing mix and employment opportunities (Town of Caledon, 2008)

3.2.1.1 Residential

There are both historic and recent residential land uses within the study area and they include the Boltoncore, West Bolton, Northeast Bolton and South Hill areas.

3.2.1.2 Employment

Employment lands include the Bolton Highway 50 Commercial Area, the Bolton Community ShoppingCentre Commercial Area and the South Hill commercial Area. The service and employment areas areconcentrated along Highway 50 to the south of Bolton with limited commercial and service uses north ofthe community.

3.2.1.3 Institutional

There is a variety of institutional land uses located in Bolton including schools, places of worship andseniors homes. There are numerous churches located within the Bolton Core and Laurel Hill Cemetery ison the west side of Highway 50, just north of King Street.

3.2.1.4 Recreational

There are extensive recreation amenities throughout the area including community centres, outdoorfacilities such as tracks, parkland and open space as well as walking and hiking trails. On Highway 50,south of King Street, is the site of the Albion-Bolton Community Centre, the library and fairgrounds. TheCaledon Centre for Recreation and Wellness is located on the east side of Queen Street, just south ofColumbia Way.

There are seven parks within the community: Fountainbridge Community Park, Bolton Mill Park,Kingsview Drive Park, Albion-Bolton District Park, Edelweiss Park, Dick’s Dam Park, Steven DriveCommunity Park and Foundry Park.


17

Figure 7 Land Use Schedule for the Community of Bolton


18

3.2.1.5 Agriculture

There are extensive and highly productive lands to the west and north of the Bolton community.

3.2.2 Archaeology and Built Heritage Features

A Stage I Archaeological Assessment was completed for the study area in two separate stages toillustrate areas of high archaeological potential concern and to address the specific features contributingto the classification of high potential zones within these limits. The Stage 1 and 2 ArchaeologicalAssessment Report can be found in Appendix B. Archaeological potential was identified by conductingbackground research and undertaken a non-intrusive field assessment of the study area limits.

The first stage was a review of the study area identified as bounded by Old Church Road, Humber StationRoad, Queensgate Boulevard and Caledon-King Townline, in the Town of Caledon. A review of the studyarea within the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Peel County revealed that numerous historicalhomesteads, structures and historical villages were formerly located within these limits. Therefore, thebackground research also supports high potential for locating historical remains within undisturbedportions of the study area.

The Stage 1 field review revealed that the overall study area is primarily rural in nature comprised ofundisturbed herbaceous covered and agricultural fields, valleylands and woodlots. Disturbances can beattributed to light commercial and industrial land uses, as well as residential subdivision development andgolf courses. Based on historical documentation, visual documentation of suitable topography andproximity of water sources, there is a high potential for the recovery of subsurface Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian historic sites with the study area.

3.3 Natural Heritage Features

An assessment of the existing natural environment in terms of vegetation, wildlife and aquatic resourceswithin the study area was conducted as part of the Class EA study and is found in Appendix C. A NaturalEnvironment Assessment Technical Report/ Memorandum describing the existing terrestrial and aquatichabitat conditions, and their potential sensitivities in relation to this project was also completed by GartnerLee/Ecoplans in March 2007.

Figure 8 provides a description of the natural heritage features within the study area.


19

Figure 8 Natural Features


20

3.3.1 Watershed Context and Local Hydrology

The study area occurs within the Humber River watershed which is in the jurisdiction of the TorontoRegion Conservation Authority (TRCA). The Humber River Watershed is composed of three mainbranches, the West Humber, Main Humber and East Humber. Regionally, the watershed flows southeasterly draining into Lake Ontario (Great Lakes Basin). The Main Humber River is the most significantdrainage feature flowing within the study area. Several small un-named drainage features were alsoidentified within the study area. With the exception to the most southerly drainage feature which is part ofthe West Humber River sub-watershed, all drainage features are part of the Main Humber River sub-watershed. Drainage within the study area is heavily altered due to local urbanized land use.

3.3.2 Oak Ridges Moraine

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), which was enacted as a regulation under the OakRidges Moraine Conservation Act in 2002, places land use planning restrictions lands within the ORM inorder to maintain and where possible improve or restore the ecological integrity of the Plan area. Theprovincially significant Oak Ridges Moraine is located in the north end of the study area therefore, certainareas if selected, will be subject to the requirements of the Plan. Additional information with respect tothe ORMCP is found in Section 3.6.12.

3.3.3 Species at Risk and Sensitive Species

NHIC biodiversity explorer database was accessed to identify potential species at risk of occurring in thevicinity. Three species were identified within 10 km of the site. One was identified as the avian speciesCerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean) and was last recorded in 1962. The species is listed asendangered federally by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).Provincially it is listed as a species of concern. The species habitat is in large deciduous forests.Consequently it is highly unlikely to occur within the study area. The dragonfly Clamp-tipped Emerald(Somatochlora tenebrosa) was identified as present. The species is listed as imperilled and vulnerable(S2, S3 Rank) by the NHIC. The Woodland Pinedrops (Pterospora andromedea) is a vascular plantspecies that is listed as imperilled (S2 Rank) by the NHIC. The dragon fly is a pond species while thePinedrops normally occurs in undisturbed forests and therefore neither is likely to occur in the immediatevicinity of the feedermain route. The NHIC records search did not identify any fish, reptilian, reptilian ormammal species at risk within 10 km of the study area. DFO Species at Risk mapping was alsoconsulted for the presence of species at risk fish and mussels, none were identified within the study area.

Sensitive coldwater species are present within the main Humber River. Such species may include BrownTrout Brook Trout and Atlantic Salmon, all of which are identified in the HRFMP (TRCA & MNR, 2005).

3.3.4 Significant Features

As defined within Section 2.1 of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), there are seven types ofnatural heritage features to be protected. These features include:

Significant habitat of endangered species and threatened speciesProvincially significant wetlandsSignificant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield


21

Significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian ShieldSignificant wildlife habitatFish habitatANSIs.

Natural heritage features may also be considered locally significant as defined under the Region of Peel’sOfficial Plan (2008) as well as the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife HabitatStudy (North-South Environmental Inc. et al. 2009).

3.3.4.1 Significant Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species

NHIC database was accessed to identify endangered and threatened species occurring in the study area.The only record is for Cerulean Warbler which was last recorded in 1962. This species occurs in largedeciduous forests. Consequently, it is highly unlikely to occur within the study area. Moreover, nosignificant habitat of endangered or threatened species is known to be present within the study area.

3.3.4.2 Significant Wetlands

No local or provincially significant wetlands are located within the study area.

3.3.4.3 Significant Woodlands

Based on the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study (North-SouthEnvironmental Inc. et al. 2009), the forested communities (likely excluding some areas) within the HumberRiver valley and along the valley slopes would likely be considered regionally significant woodlands. Thisis based on the following criteria, extracted from all the significant woodland criteria, for which the HumberRiver Valley woodlands would meet or likely meet:

Woodlands outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) planning boundaries satisfying one of the followingcriteria should be considered significant:

Woodland size: Option 1 - Rural System: all woodlands equal to or larger than 16 haWoodland size: Option 2 - Rural and Urban system below the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlandsequal to and greater than 4 haAny woodland (>0.5 ha) identified as supporting a linkage functionWoodlands within 30 m of a watercourse, surface features or evaluated wetlands.

The narrow strip of woody vegetation along the Humber River crossing is so narrow that it really does notconstitute woodland. Nevertheless it may qualify as Significant Woodland because it provides a linkagefunction that is narrowly connected to woodland that is larger than 0.5 ha. It also occurs immediatelyalong the Humber River and therefore within 30 m of a watercourse.

The adjacent woodlands located to the north of the Humber River crossing are all less than 4 ha in areaand therefore would not qualify under the size criteria.


22

3.3.4.4 Significant Valleylands

The portion of the Humber River Valley along HWY 50/Queen Street is proposed to be designated ascore valley and stream corridor in the current Official Plan Review, which would equate to significantvalleyland regionally. The Humber River Valley would also equate to significant valleyland under thePPS. In any case, the existing valley feature will not be impacted.

3.3.4.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat

The existing ROW through the Bolton urban area for nearly all of its length and therefore the footprintcannot be considered wildlife habitat. The only area of apparent functional wildlife habitat is located atthe Humber River crossing, within the Humber River Valley on the immediate west side of Highway50/Queen Street. A very narrow band of deciduous riparian woodland occurs along the river between anasphalt parking lot on the south and established residential lots on the north. The natural vegetationalong the Humber River functions as an important wildlife corridor. Although very narrow at this point(about 20 m on either side of river’s edge), the vegetation provides cover that allows for wildlife to movebetween larger areas of core habitat to the northwest and southeast. Consequently, it would likely qualifyas significant wildlife habitat under the animal movement criteria as identified by MNR (2000). TheHighway 50/Queen Street bridge likely allows wildlife to move underneath without having to cross theroad. The vegetation is narrow, disturbed and near the busy road, therefore it probably would not qualifyunder any of the other significant wildlife habitat criteria.

3.3.4.6 Fish Habitat

Direct fish habitat is present within the Main Humber River as well as the three identified un-namedwatercourses. The Humber River is managed for a coldwater fishery and contains salmonids while theun-named creeks are managed for darter species and likely have highly tolerant fish communities.

3.3.4.7 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Environmentally Sensitive Areas

There are no ANSI’s or ESA’s present within the study area.

3.3.5 Topography, Physiographic, Geology and Groundwater Conditions

The Hydrogeological Assessment for Class EA and Route Section Study, Elevated Tank andFeedermain, Bolton, ON June 20, 2011 is found in Appendix E. The Bolton area is located in thephysiographic region known as the South slope (Chapman and Putnam, 1984), which is characterized byundulating tracts of land faintly drumlinized. The south Slope deposits typically consist of sand and siltand clay and are primarily surficial soils. The surficial sediments are underlain by bedrock belonging tothe Upper Ordovician Queenston Formation. The bedrock consists of shale with inter-bedded limestone.

The Bolton area lies approximately 2.0 km south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The silty sand/sandysilt layers located within the subject area are influenced by an aquifer system known as the Oak RidgesMoraine Aquifer Complex (ORAC). The upper till layer (Halton) acts as a weak to moderate confininglayer in the area. The ORM sediments occur as channel deposits within the Newmarket or Northern Till.The sediments in this aquifer generally consist of silty fine sand and fine sand and can occur at variousdepths. These layers have the potential to produce significant amounts of groundwater. Sandy bedsbelonging to ORM can be expected at various depths in the area. The sand layers found belowapproximately 50 m can be considered to be part of the intermediate and deeper aquifers in the area.


23

3.4 Transportation Systems

Regional roads Highway 50 and King Street (Highway 11) provide direct access to the Bolton Core andsupport traffic flows from both local roads and inter-community commuting. The Bolton Arterial RoadNetwork Conceptual Corridor (BAR) is unopened road allowance to the west of Bolton, extending in anortherly direction. Local roads primarily service residential neighbourhoods and industrial lands. Thereare six Bolton GO bus stops. CP Rail extends through the community in a north-westerly direction.

3.5 Official Plan Designations and Future Land Uses

3.5.1 Town of Caledon Official Plan

Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 203 is the Town’s population forecasting exercise to allocate populationto specific communities for 2021 and 2031. This forms the basis for determining the need for newresidential Greenfield designations and appropriate timing with respect to such needs.

3.5.2 Region of Peel Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan

In May 1999, the Region of Peel (Region) completed the Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan.The Master Plan identified the long term water and wastewater servicing strategies to service the lake-based areas in the Region (traditionally known as the South Peel System). In 2004, the Regioncompleted a review of the Master Plan in order to address recent legislation that impacted the operationand planning of key water and wastewater infrastructure and new provincial policies that upgraded thegrowth forecast for the Region. As a result, the servicing strategies identified in the 1999 Master Planwere reviewed and updated to support the growth in the Region and continue to provide a high level ofservicing in the existing service areas.

The intent of the Region’s Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan was to establish preferredservicing strategies for the water and wastewater systems in the Region in order to meet projectedapproved growth to 2031. The Master Plan was originally prepared in 1999 and subsequently updated in2007 to include an investigation of alternatives available to supply potable water to the cities ofMississauga, Brampton and the town of Caledon. As growth continues to progress further north withinthe Region of Peel, greater focus is placed on the facilities in the northern zones.

The recommendation made in the Master Plan 2007 update for this area in Caledon was to constructeither a new elevated tank or an in-ground/at-grade reservoir in Bolton to satisfactorily provide therequired storage and service to the appropriate areas.

Through the Master Plan review process, the concept of pumped storage for Zone 5 and Zone 6 hasbeen reviewed and updated to reflect the need for additional floating storage for these zones as shown onthe following Figure 9.

It was determined that equalization, fire and emergency storage facilities not dependent on pumpedsupply was required or service areas in North Bolton through numerous elevated tanks and in-ground/at-grade reservoirs at the appropriate ground elevations.


24

The Master Plan process is recognized under the provisions of the Municipal Class EA. As such, the2007 updates to the Region of Peel Master Plan satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process.


25

Figure 9 Water Servicing Infrastructure


26

3.5.3 Urban Boundary Analysis

In March 2010 AECOM prepared the Bolton Urban Community Water and Wastewater Analysis on behalfof the Town of Caledon, in support of the Town’s settlement expansion study. AECOM also prepared theBolton Urban Community Water and Wastewater Analysis, Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for theSouth Albion-Bolton Community Plan Employment Land and North Hill Supermarket Area. The focus ofthe second study was to evaluate servicing within the existing boundary rather than develop multiplescenarios based on long term growth options. The study found that Bolton’s average day water demandby 2031 is expected to be 14.79 MLD and its Peak Hour demand is expected to be 44.36 MLD. Thisanalysis reflects the projected population that can potentially be accommodated within the currentsettlement boundary.

Based on the water modelling analysis carried out, growth due to intensification or new developmentwithin the current settlement boundary will not significantly impact pressures within the urban community.Therefore, no new upgrades to the existing and proposed water distribution system were identified as aresult of potential growth in the current settlement boundary (Master Plan 2007). In addition to theproposed elevated water tank, a number of projects are currently planned by the Region and are eitherunderway or identified in the long term budget forecast. No new upgrades are required as a result of theproposed North Hill commercial land expansion, as a part of addressing existing low pressure in the NorthHill and the need to provide secure water supply and storage for the community.

Based on the water servicing needs of the future employment lands, the analysis in the report did notidentify any additional upgrades to the existing and planned water system external to the candidatesettlement expansion areas. The existing system under existing, future and intensified conditions isadequate to service the future employment lands.

3.6 Servicing and Planning

3.6.1 Proposed Service Area

The general boundaries of the study area are previously described and shown in Figure 5.

3.6.2 Population Projection

The study area population and employment projections are based on the Region of Peel Official Planprojections used in the Master Plan Update. The planning data was developed by the Region of Peelwhereby Region-wide projections were geographically allocated by smaller geographical units (SGU).The planning projections including population and employment data, were developed through analysis ofvacant lands, intensification opportunities and boundary expansion requirements. The data was providedto AECOM in 1-year intervals for separate smaller geographical units covering the entire Region. SGUswithin the study area of Bolton were selected and consequently population and employment figures weresummarized in following Table 1. The graphical presentation of SGU taken into consideration forprojected population for Year 2031 is shown in Figure 10. The population projections will be revisited andverified during the detail design stage of the project.


27

Figure 10 Smaller Geographical Units (SGU) for Population Projection for Year 2031


28

Table 1 Population Projection – Bolton Zone 6

MUNSGUID 2011Population

2021Population

2031Population

2011Employment

2021Employment

2031Employment

21240981 558 543 476 101 101 101

21240427 6141 6012 5,275 785 899 1,002

21240445 1286 1251 1,098 178 198 216

21240428 6774 6737 6,038 1810 1742 1,664

21240426 6588 6793 6,305 2449 2319 2,180

21240449 45 44 39 47 38 29

21240430 4732 4868 4,459 293 464 624

21240444 4006 3942 3,459 1792 1970 2,051

21240429 287 285 250 15583 16315 16,292

21240469 294 352 358 916 956 959

Total 30,710 30,826 27,757 23,955 25,001 25,118Note: MUNSGUID includes some portion of Zone 5 of the City of Bolton which will be excluded to determine the total

Population for Zone 6 BoltonZone 5 Bolton 6,308 6,331 5,701 1,558 1,626 1,634

Zone 6 Bolton 24,403 24,495 22,056 22,396 23,375 23,484

3.6.3 Water Demand Projection

The average unit consumption rate for the service area of the Community of Bolton is based on theRegion design criteria confirmed in the Master Plan Update. Table 2 shows the criteria and peakingfactors for Municipal Water Supply system as described in Region of Peel Water and Wastewater MasterPlan (2007).

Table 2 Region of Peel Water Demand Design Criteria

Average Day Demand Maximum Day Factor Peak Rate FactorResidential 280 l/cap.d 2 3

Employment 280 l/cap.d 1.4 3

As per the population projections received from the Region of Peel, the combined population (includingemployment) for year 2021 is higher than year 2031. Therefore, the average unit consumption ratetogether with the projected serviceable population for the water system for the year 2021 was used todetermine the future day demand for City of Bolton service area.

It was determined that for the year 2021, a total demand of 22,880 m3/d (264.81 L/s) is required; asdetermined in Table 3 below:

AECOM Regional Municipality of Peel North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain –Schedule C Class EA StudyEnvironmental Study Report

29

Table 3 Water Demand Projections (MLD) Bolton Zone 6

MUNSGUID 2011 ResDemand

2021 ResDemand

2031 ResDemand

2011 EmpDemand

2021 EmpDemand

2031 EmpDemand

2011 MDD(MLD)

2021 MDD(MLD)

2031 MDD(MLD)

21240981 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.35 0.34 0.31

21240427 3.44 3.37 2.95 0.31 0.35 0.39 3.75 3.72 3.35

21240445 0.72 0.70 0.61 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.79 0.78 0.70

21240428 3.79 3.77 3.38 0.71 0.68 0.65 4.50 4.46 4.03

21240426 3.69 3.80 3.53 0.96 0.91 0.85 4.65 4.71 4.39

21240449 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.03

21240430 2.65 2.73 2.50 0.12 0.18 0.24 2.77 2.91 2.74

21240444 2.24 2.21 1.94 0.70 0.77 0.80 2.95 2.98 2.74

21240429 0.16 0.16 0.14 6.11 6.40 6.39 6.27 6.56 6.53

21240469 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.52 0.57 0.58

Total 17.20 17.26 15.54 9.39 9.80 9.85 26.59 27.06 25.39Note: MUNSGUID includes some portion of Bolton Zone 5 which will be excluded to determine the total Demand for Zone 6 Bolton

Zone 5 Bolton 3.53 3.55 3.19 0.61 0.64 0.64 4.14 4.18 3.83

Bolton Zone 6Zone 6 Bolton 13.67 13.72 12.35 8.78 9.16 9.21 22.44 22.88 21.56


30

3.6.4 Existing Water Supply

The Community of Bolton, within the Town of Caledon is currently supplied with water from Lake Ontario.The Region also maintains nine municipal groundwater systems for other parts of the Town of Caledon.Two water treatment plants, Lakeview Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and the Lorne Park WTP, as well astrunk transmission main and the pumping stations and reservoirs which service the system, comprisewhat is known as the South Peel Water Transmission System. The Region water supply system is shownin Figure 11.

The rise is ground elevation northerly form the shore of Lake Ontario to the service area boundary inBrampton and Mayfield West, has led to the establishment of seven separate pressure zones, eachspanning an elevation difference of approximately 30 metres. The Lakeview Water Treatment Plantsupplies the eastern system (including the Community of Bolton), which spans the seven zones, througha system of six inground reservoirs and pumping stations and one elevated tank. The western system,serviced by the Lorne Park Treatment Plant, will ultimately also supply the seven separate pressurezones. Currently, a system of three inground reservoirs and pumping stations and one elevated tankservice the west trunk system. Both trunk systems provide direct supply to the local water distributionsystem which consists of the watermains extending down to the water service level for each user. Mostpressure zones have multiple pump supply directly to the distribution system watermains for the east andwest trunk facilities, as well as facilities at the south and north limits of the zones.

The existing Bolton elevated water tank on Coleraine Drive is in good condition and in compliance withMOE guidelines. This elevated tank provides a 3700 m3 of storage. The top water level (TWL) is 297.4meters and the low water level (LWL) is 290.8 meters.

3.6.5 Water Storage Criteria

Storage within a Water Pressure Zone is generally provided for three main purposes:

EqualizationFire protectionEmergencies.

For most systems, a water storage tank located at a suitable elevation necessary to supply the system bygravity is an economical and operationally reliable means for meeting significant short-term demandsplaced on a water supply system, such as Fire Protection. If storage tanks were not provided to meetwater demands for a fire fighting purpose, then larger transmission mains and larger pumping stationsand treatment plant capacity would be required.

Another primary function of storage facilities is Equalization storage. Water treatment plant operates bestwhen they operate at a relatively constant flow rate, and pumping stations generally work best whenpumping at a steady flow rate. However, water use in most Municipal water systems varies significantlyover the course of the day. These variations are most efficiently met by filling or draining storage tanks.Facilities serving portions of a distribution system with storage tanks generally only need to be sized tomeet Maximum Day Demands, with storage tank providing water during short-term Peak Demands.


31

Emergency storage is provided for emergencies other than fire fighting, such as power outages,watermain breaks, treatment plant shut-downs and pump mechanical failures, which can cause significantimpact if sufficient water is not available in storage. Storage tanks are therefore designed to meetdemands during emergency situations.

3.6.6 Fire Flow Requirement

The level of fire protection has been carried forward from the Region of Peel’s Water and WastewaterMaster Plan (2007). As the Master Plan document states, it has been previously determined that thelargest industrial use within each pressure zone did not require more than 303 L/s for 4 hours ascalculated under the fire underwriters survey. It should be noted that this fire storage has been allocatedin each facility. As such, pressure zones with multiple pumping and storage facilities would benefit fromlevels of fire protection greater than 303 L/s for 4 hours depending on the ability of the distribution systemto meet these conditions. For example, for pressure zones with 4 facilities, the volume of fire storagewould equate to 404 L/s for 6 hours which is greater than the highest fire requirement identified in theMOE guidelines.

3.6.7 Water Storage Requirement

Water storage requirement for Bolton Pressure Zone 6 for the planning year of 2031 are calculated inaccordance with MOE Guidelines and the 2007 Water and Wastewater Master Plan as follows:

Total Storage Requirement, S = A + B + C

Where,A = Fire Storage in accordance with the standard of Municipal Fire protection of the

Canada Underwriters Association (modified from the MOE criteria)B = Equalization Storage = (25% of Maximum Day Demand of pressure zone)C = Emergency Storage = 25% of A+B

The maximum flows and storage requirements for Bolton Pressure Zone 6 are summarized in Table 4below:

Table 4 Projected Storage Requirement for Bolton Pressure Zone 6

Year System Demand Flows(ML/d)

Storage Requirements (ML) Current/ProposedStorage

(ML)Average

DayDemand

Max. DayDemand

FireStorage

(A)

EqualizationStorage

(B)

EmergencyStorage

(C)

TotalStorage

(A)+ (B)+ (C)2011 13.10 22.44 4.36 5.61 2.49 12.47 12.602021 13.40 22.88 4.36 5.72 2.52 12.60 12.602031 12.75 21.56 4.36 5.39 2.44 12.19 12.60

Fire Flow = 303 l/s for 4 hrs = 4.3632 ML = 4363.2 m3

Equalization Storage = 25% x 22.88 ML/d (Max. Day demand) = 5.72 ML/d = 5720 m3

Emergency Storage = 25% x (A+B) = 25% x (4363.20 + 5720) = 2520.8 m3 = 2.52 ML/d


32

Table 5 below presents the calculated minimum storage requirements for Bolton Area for the 2031planning year. Additional storage volume of 9.0 ML (2.38 Million Gallon) is required, based on keepingexisting Bolton elevated water tank on Coleraine Drive elevated tank in use.

Table 5 Additional Storage Requirements for Year 2031

Item Volume (m³) Volume (ML)

Total Storage Required 12,6040 120.60

Available in existing elevated tank 3,700 3.7

Additional Storage Required 8,490.60 8.9

The storage volume and population projections will be recalculated based on the Region’s updatedestimate of population growth at the detail design stage.


33

Figure 11 Existing Water Supply


34

3.6.8 Existing Utilities and Infrastructure

The future storage and the feedermain will be located within the existing urban areas. While some sitesand alignments may be within various states of development, there are utilities and infrastructure presentin the study area that must be considered in the evaluation and siting (including design) of the potentialfeedermain route.

3.6.9 Places to Grow Plan

Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) establishes a framework foraccommodating growth and development to 2031. The Region of Peel is forecasted to grow by 610,000residents and 340,000 jobs by 2031 as shown in Table 6 below:

Table 6 Region of Peel Population and Employment Projections, 2001 - 2031

Year Population Employment2001 1,030,000 530,0002011 1,320,000 730,0002021 1,490,000 820,0002031 1,640,000 870,000

% Change 59.2 64.2YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENTPlaces to Grow forecasts a 59.2 percent increase in population and a 64.2 percent increase in jobsbetween 2001 and 2031. Much of this growth will be accommodated by Downtown Brampton which hasbeen designated an ‘Urban Growth Centre’ with a target density of 200 residents and jobs combined perhectare. A much smaller amount of growth will be accommodated by Bolton. Places to Grow designatesthe northern portion of the EA study area ‘Greenbelt Area’ as defined by the Greenbelt Act. Growth anddevelopment within the EA study area will be concentrated in Bolton to ensure the community’s uniqueagricultural lands are protected for future generations. Section 2.2.9 of the PPS describes how landsdesignated ‘Greenbelt Area’ will be subject to the Greenbelt Act.

3.6.10 Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related toland use and development. The PPS is intended to provide for appropriate development while protectingresources of provincial interest, public health, and safety. The PPS is relevant to the North BoltonElevated Tank and Feedermain Class EA because it provides policy direction with respect toinfrastructure and servicing. Section 1.6.1 of the PPS describes how infrastructure and public servicefacilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner to accommodate projectneeds. Infrastructure and growth planning initiatives should be integrated to ensure services areavailable to meet current and projected needs. Section 1.6.4.1 of the PPS states that planning for waterservices shall:

Direct and accommodate expected growth in a manner that promotes the efficient use of existingmunicipal water services and private communal water services.Ensure water systems are provided in a manner that:Can be sustained by the water resources upon which such services rely


35

Is financially viable and complies with all regulatory requirementsProtects human health and the natural environmentPromotes water conservation and water use efficiencyIntegrates servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process.

The North Bolton Elevated Tank and Feedermain Class EA is influenced by the policy direction put forthin the PPS as it strives to: eliminate or reduce risk of public health problems; improve water quality;expand the capacity of the system; improve system efficiency and to prevent system failure.

3.6.11 Greenbelt Planning Area

The Greenbelt Plan generally identifies areas where urbanization should not occur to permanently protectthe ecological land base and ecological features and functions occurring along the landscape. There arepockets of land at the north end of the study area that are located within the ‘Greenbelt’. These pocketsof land are designated ‘Protected Countryside’ and ‘River Valley Connection.’ Lands adjacent to theHumber River link a conservation area within the Region of Peel with a conservation area within theRegion of York.

With respect to infrastructure, Section 4.2 of the Greenbelt Plan describes how the location andconstruction of infrastructure and expansions, extensions, operations and maintenance of infrastructure inthe ‘Protected Countryside’ shall:

Minimize the amount of land traversed or occupied particularly in the ‘Natural Heritage SystemMinimize the disturbance of the existing landscape including impacts caused by light, noise and roadsaltOptimize existing infrastructure to ensure the rural and existing character of the ‘ProtectedCountryside’ and the overall urban structure of southern Ontario is supported and reinforcedAvoid key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features unless need has been demonstratedand it has been shown that no reasonable alternative exists.

Section 4.2.2 of the Greenbelt Plan describes how proposals for infrastructure within or crossing the‘Protected Countryside’ shall:

Demonstrate that sewage and water servicing can be provided in a manner that does not negativelyimpact ecological features and functions, quality and quantity of ground and surface waterEnsure any sewage and water servicing installation is planned, designed and constructed to minimizesurface and groundwater disruption.

The south end of the study area is designated ‘Settlement Area Outside the Greenbelt’.

3.6.12 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) is an ecologically-based plan to provide land useand resource management direction for ±190,000 ha of land and water within the Oak Ridges Moraine.The north end of the study area is subject to the policies put forth in the ORMCP. The north end isdesignated ‘Natural Linkage Area’ with pockets of land designated ‘Countryside Area’. The ORMCP


36

describes how ‘Natural Linkage Areas’ are meant to protect critical natural and open space linkagesbetween ‘Natural Core Areas’ and lands along rivers and streams. These lands may accommodateagriculture, low intensity residential development, transportation and utility uses as well as homebusinesses. Lands designated ‘Countryside Areas’ are intended to provide a rural and agriculturaltransition between the ‘Natural Core Areas’ and the ‘Natural Linkage Areas’ and the ‘UrbanizedSettlement Areas’. This land use designation also serves to protect prime agricultural areas and naturalfeatures.

3.6.13 MOE Guidelines D-5, Planning for Sewage and Water Services

As discussed in Section 3.5.2 the MOE Guidelines D-5, Planning for Sewage and Water Services wasfollowed to prepare the Region of Peel Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan.


37

4. Phase 1: Identification and Description of the Problemsand Opportunities

Phase 1 of the five-phase Municipal Class EA planning process requires the proponent of an undertaking(i.e., the Region) to first document factors leading to the conclusion that the improvement is needed, anddevelop a clear statement of the identified problems or opportunities to be investigated. As such, theProblem/Opportunity Statement is the principle starting point in the undertaking of a Municipal Class EAand becomes the central theme and integrating element of the project. It also assists in setting the scopeof the project.

In developing the Problem/Opportunity Statement for this Class EA, the following points were considered:

The Region of Peel currently operates a lake-based (Lake Ontario) water system that suppliesmunicipal water (potable drinking water) to all of Mississauga, most of Brampton and specific areaswithin Caledon.The Region of Peel’s Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update (2007) identified watersupply requirements for providing additional water storage and associated feedermain in Bolton.In 2006, the Province (former Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal) approved its “Growth Plan forthe Greater Golden Horseshoe”. This Growth Plan sets out the planning framework under whichmunicipalities (including the Region) are expected to manage their local growth and development.The Growth Plan sets specific population and employment forecasts for upper tier municipalities andalso prescribes density targets for intensification and Greenfield development. Municipalities will beexpected to review their current plans with respect to established growth projections and planningpolicies.The Provincial Policy Statement (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, March 2005) requires thatmunicipalities promote “efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial wellbeing of the Province and municipalities over the long term and promote cost effective developmentstandards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs”. In order that these objectives mayreasonably be achieved, the Provincial Policy Statement encourages municipalities to focus growthinto defined ‘settlement’ areas where a full level of water and sewer services are or can reasonablybe made available.The Provincial Policy Statement promotes the expansion of any service in a coordinated, efficient andcost effective manner to accommodate projected needs and requires that planning for infrastructureand public services facilities “be integrated with the planning for growth so that these are available tomeet current and projected needs”.Section 1.1.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement states: “Sufficient land shall be made availablethrough intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas, toaccommodate an appropriate range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other landuse to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 years”.

4.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement

The Region’s Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update (June 2007) identified that as growth continuesto progress further north within the Region, greater focus is placed on facilities in the northern zones.While the traditional planning and operating practices in the upper zones may have been successful in


38

the past, it has been demonstrated, particularly during emergency operating conditions, that the approachfor water pumping and storage capacity requires revision.

The Master Plan 2007 Update identifies population growth within Peel is expected to be 1.49 million by2021 and 1.64 million by 2031. Within the Town of Caledon, growth is located primarily in the centre ofBolton, Caledon East and Mayfield West. The Town of Caledon population is expected to grow to 87,000by 2021 and 116,000 by 2031 (Region of Peel, 2007).

As such, the problem/opportunity statement for this North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir andFeedermain Class EA Study is:

Bolton Zone 6 is deficient in water storageBolton North Hill area currently experiences larger pressure fluctuations and pressures at the lowerrange of acceptable levels of serviceAdditional growth is planned within the existing urban boundary and there is also potential growthpressure external to the existing urban boundaryAdditional storage and distribution upgrades are required to meet the future water demands fromgrowth in Bolton and to ensure adequate level of service and security of supply to the existing Boltonservice areaAdditional study is required to refine the recommendations of the 2007 Region of Peel Master PlanUpdate that identified a new Bolton Zone 6 elevated tank and new feedermain to the North Hill.

In order to address the above, the Region initiated this Class EA study in 2008 which provides:

Comparative analysis of storage options including in-ground/at-grade reservoir versus elevated tankEvaluation/selection of potential sites for the water storage facility (reservoir or elevated tank)Evaluation of feedermain route alternativesSelection preferred solution based on alternative solutions and consideration of public/agency input;andDetermines and documents mitigation and monitoring requirement for Phase 5, that is,implementation of proposed improvements.


39

5. Phase 2: Alternative Solutions to the Problem5.1 Master Plan Recommendations

The Region’s Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Update (June 2007) reviewed global solutions tomeet the current water demand and the growth requirements with pressure Zone 6. The concept ofpumped storage for Zone 6 was reviewed and updated to reflect the need for additional floating storage inthese zones. It was determined that equalization, fire and emergency storage in facilities not dependenton pumped supply was required for service areas in Bolton, North Brampton and Mayfield West.

At the broadest level, the following alternative solutions were identified for providing water supply to theNorth Bolton service area to the year 2031.

Do nothingLimit Growth and DevelopmentReduce Water ConsumptionExpand Existing Water Supply System

Extend existing feedermainExpand storage capacity

Elevated tank, orReservoir (in-ground/at-grade).

5.1.1 Screening Criteria

The above list of alternative solutions at the broadest level was screened to identify those alternativesthat were considered feasible for this project. This avoids the need to carry unrealistic alternativesthrough the detailed evaluation step. Screening was accomplished by applying the following “must meet”criteria, as appropriate to the alternatives under consideration:

ComplianceAlternative will comply with existing and proposed regulations and land use policies,

including:Safe Drinking Water ActOntario Drinking Water StandardsClean Water Act, 2006Policies and legislations pertaining to the Greenbelt Protection AreaMunicipal and community plans for Peel Region and the Lower Tier municipalities.

CapacityAlternative will be capable of providing capacity as it is required, or sooner

Technical feasibilityThere are no logistical, transport, infrastructure, storage or technology performancerequirement associated with the alternative that cannot be fulfilled using reasonable andproven engineering solutions


40

These criteria are considered “pass” or “fail” and if an alternative failed against any or all of the criteria, itwas not carried forward for further analysis. Only those alternatives that met all the “must meet” criteriawere considered feasible.

5.1.2 Do Nothing

The “Do Nothing” alternative represents a scenario where no improvements or expansions would beundertaken doe nay of the Region’s infrastructure to address the identified problem or deficiency.

The planned growth of Bolton is approved under the Town of Caledon Official Plan. The Region musttherefore plan to provide the infrastructure, including water supply, to meet this planned growth.

The “Do Nothing” alternative:

Does not satisfy the current approved DevelopmentPlace the current and future residencies, businesses, and industries at risk from lack of fireprotection, as well as lack of supply and pressureDoes not comply with the goals and objectives of the Regional Official Plan.

The “Do Nothing” alternative is not acceptable to the Region of Peel and does not provide a viablesolution to the problem identified and will not be considered further.

5.1.3 Limit Growth and Development

The “Limit Growth and Development” alternative presents a scenario where community growth is limitedto the extent that the existing water supply facilities are sufficient to service the population of theCommunity of Bolton.

The Peel Region Official Plan serves the basis for managing growth. The planned serviced population, asapproved by Town of Caledon Official Plan, is estimated to reach 26,500 persons by 2021, and theRegion is required to provide water supply for the projected population growth.

Based upon existing population and the projected growth, the current water supply system in theCommunity of Bolton (Pressure Zone 6) will not meet the Ministry of Environment Design Guidelines forthe Fire Protection, Equalization and Emergency Storage in the immediate future. Additional storage isrequired to alleviate storage shortfalls and ensure Emergency and Maximum Day supply is available.

The “Limit Growth and Development” alternative:

Does not comply with the goals and objectives of the Region of Peel Official PlanPlace the current and future residencies, businesses, and industries at risk from lack of fireprotection, as well as lack of supply and pressureDoes not satisfy the current approved development.

The “Limit Growth and Development” alternative does not provide a viable solution to the problemidentified and will not be considered further.


41

5.1.4 Reduce Water Consumption

The “Reduce Water Consumption” alternative represents a scenario where improvements in waterconservation and water efficiency will reduce water consumption to the extent that the existing facilitieswill be sufficient to serve the service the planned population of Community of Bolton.

Implementation of “Water Conservation” program alone will not provide the additional water supplycapacity required to adequately service the current uses and planned growth in the Bolton Zone 6.

The “Reduce Water Consumption” alternative does not provide a complete solution to the problemidentified and additional water supply solutions are required to satisfy the current uses and plannedgrowth.

5.1.5 Expand Existing Water Supply System

The alternative to “Expand the Existing Water Supply System” represents a scenario where infrastructureexpansion will accommodate the growth requirements of the community, by extending the transmissionmains from the lake-based water system and by increasing the storage capacity of Bolton Zone 6 servicearea (Bolton). The storage capacity can be increased by providing either:

Elevated tank, orReservoir (in-ground/at-grade).

The viable solution to increase the water supply to Bolton Zone 6 is to extend the existing infrastructure(i.e., water transmission mains together with increasing the Storage capacity to Bolton North servicearea.)

This alternative can adequately satisfy the current water demands and planned growth identified for theCommunity as per the approved Official Plan of Town of Caledon. Appropriate water storage methodswill be investigated in the sections below. Alternative alignments for the new feedermain associated withappropriate water storage method is also considered in the analysis.

5.1.6 Screening Results

The alternative solutions were screened against the criteria noted in Section 5.1, with results asdocumented in Table 7.

Using the “must meet” screening criteria, recommended feasible alternative solution was the“Expand Existing Water Supply System”.


42

Table 7 Screening the Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solution

Screening CriteriaHighlights of Screening

Results RecommendationCompliance Capacity Technical

FeasibilityDo Nothing Capacity would not be

provided for anticipatedgrowth

Not Recommended

Limit Growth andDevelopment

Local and Regional planshave already projectedfuture growth

Not Recommended

Reduce WaterConsumption

These improvementswould not providesufficient additionalcapacity to provide forfuture growth

Not Recommended

Expand ExistingWater SupplySystem

This solution wouldprovide water for futuregrowth

Recommended

Legend:

Positive Outcome or Lesser Overall Impact

Negative Outcome or Greater Overall Impact

5.2 Water Storage Facility Siting Guidelines

The “Expand Existing Water Supply System” solution was selected as per the analysis conducted in thesections above. However, a comparative analysis of the two water storage methods, i.e., Elevated Tankand the Reservoir is conducted in this section. This comparative analysis was done to identify thealternatives that was considered most realistic; and to avoid the need to carry unrealistic alternativesthrough the detailed evaluation step.

5.2.1 Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade) Site Identification Guidelines and Considerations

The primary factors to consider when selecting a suitable location for a reservoir are ground elevation;availability of property; proximity to a trunk water main; location relative to water supply sources and soilconditions. The significance of these factors is described in the following:

Ground elevation – The water storage facility will supply water to Pressure Zone 6, North of Bolton;by gravity and therefore needs to be located at a highpoint of land. The existing Bolton elevated tankoperates at a top water level (TWL) of 297.4 meters. The same water-level has to be maintained inthe new water storage tank which will result in the creating of a full pressure zone. Land elevationsserviceable within this pressure zone would be approximately 295 to 300 metres.Availability of property – the minimum size of the site for a reservoir should be at least 1.0 hectare(i.e., 100m x 100m).Proximity to a trunk water main and road – ideally, the reservoir should be located in the vicinity of anexisting trunk water main and road since the cost for construction of a new main and road to the newreservoir would result in additional cost.


43

Soil conditions – foundations for reservoir must be able to support a tremendous amount of weight.Foundation conditions can significantly affect the capital costs. In addition, it will be necessary toensure that the proposed site for the reservoir is not contaminated by low-level radioactive waste.Social and environmental impacts – avoid designated Natural Heritage Areas, minimize impacts tovegetation, trees, avoid watercourses, avoid valleylands and flood plains, locate at least 100m fromany house, and minimize impact on agricultural lands.

5.2.2 Elevated Tank Site Identification Guidelines and Considerations

The primary factors to consider when selecting a suitable location for an elevated tank are groundelevation; availability of property; proximity to a trunk water main; location relative to water supplysources; height restrictions; and soil conditions. The significance of these factors is described in thefollowing:

Ground elevation – the height of an elevated tank must be high enough to provide satisfactorypressures in all parts of Zone 6 and Zone 7. The highest ground in Zone 6 is at an elevation of 300 m(i.e., north of King St.). In order to maintain the required pressures within the system, the top waterlevel in the elevated tank should be at least 297.4 m. Ideally, the height of the tank should be as shortas possible and not greater than 45 m in order to minimize its construction cost. In this case, the tankshould be constructed above a ground contour of 245 m.Availability of property – the minimum size of the site for an elevated tank will depend upon the sizeand height of an elevated tank as well as the proximity of adjacent buildings and other potential usesfor the site. For an elevated tank that is 40 - 45 m high, the site should be at least 1.0 hectare (i.e.100 m x100 m).Location relative to pumping stations – ideally, the elevated tank should be constructed at a remotelocation from the pumping stations in order to maximize the capacity of the water distribution system.In other words, the available fire flows in Zone 6 would be greater if the elevated tank wereconstructed in the northern part of Zone 6 since the fire flow would be supplied from two elevatedtanks (i.e., the South Hill and North Hill).Proximity to a trunk water main and road – ideally, the elevated tank should be located in the vicinityof an existing trunk water main and road since the cost for construction of a new main and road to theelevated tank would result in additional cost.Height restrictions – elevated tanks can interfere with airport flight paths. There are no airports inclose proximity to Bolton and therefore, there should not be any restrictions in terms of location orheight for any of the elevated tank locations however, NAV Canada was included on the study mailinglist. An application has been made to Transport Canada for Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance forthe proposed elevated tank. Transport Canada will identify the need for any markings or lighting onthe elevated tank.Soil conditions – foundations for elevated tanks must be able to support a tremendous amount ofweight. Foundation conditions can significantly affect the capital costs. In addition, it will be necessaryto ensure that the proposed site for an elevated tank is not contaminated by low-level radioactivewaste.Social and environmental impacts - avoid designated Natural Heritage Areas, minimize impacts tovegetation, trees, avoid watercourses, avoid valleylands and flood plains, locate at least 100m fromany house, minimize impact on agricultural lands and locate greater than 1km from the nearestairport.


44

5.3 Feedermain Route Identification Guidelines and Considerations

A step-by-step approach, initially considering the feasibility of different alternatives in addressing theproblem, and ultimately leading to detailed evaluation of potential alternatives to identify a preferredsolution, was undertaken. In order to pre-select alternative feedermain routes in an unbiased manner,potential feedermain alignment options were identified with consideration given to the following initialscreening criteria:

Connection points to existing supply and final distribution system must be maintained.Alignments on public lands (roads, utility easements, parks) are preferred as compared to those onprivate landsSufficient space should be provided for any necessary permanent and working easementsSufficient room should be provided to allow for construction and installation using conventionalmethodsAlignments should have land available for construction staging for trenchless installations, andminimize purchase of additional landAlignments should minimize construction challengesAlignments should allow easy access to feedermain valves and chambers for subsequentmaintenance purposesAlignments should consider simplicity in design, with minimized: length, changes in topography,depth of cover, lengths of tunnels, creek crossings, etc.Alignments should consider system security, i.e., maintaining minimum separations from otherexisting trunk and distribution feedermainsAlignments should have sufficient available underground corridors to allow for the placement of thefeedermain utilizing conventional construction techniques with minimum relocation of existing utilitiesAlignments should consider or take advantage of other construction work occurring in the same area.

5.4 Alternative Feedermain Routes

An initial list of twelve (12) alternative routes was developed following the preliminary screening. Thetwelve (12) feedermain alignments included four (4) for the reservoirs and eight (8) feedermainalignments for the elevated tank options. These are described in Table 8 and Table 9. A graphicdescription of the twelve (12) alternative routes was presented to the public at the Public InformationCentre (PIC) No. 1 held on November 25, 2008, as shown on Figure 12 and Figure 14.


45

Figure 12 Alternative Feedermain Routes Under Elevated Tank Option


46

Figure 13 Alternative Feedermain Alignments Under Reservoir Option


47

5.4.1 Description of Alternative Feedermain Options for the Elevated Tank Option

The presentation display boards at PIC No. 1 showed the general layout of the various feedermainalignments. Under the elevated tank options the feedermain is connected to the existing 750 mmdiameter pipe in Coleraine Drive in the Bolton South Hill area and terminated at the potential elevatedtank location. The final connection from the elevated tank to the distribution system was shown as beingon the east side of Hwy. 50.

Similarly, under the reservoir options the feedermain connected to the existing 750 mm diameter pipe onColeraine Drive in the South Hill area and terminated at the potential reservoir location. The finalconnection from the reservoir to the distribution system was shown as being on the east side of Hwy. 50,at Columbia Way.

The tables below describe the feedermain alignments for both the elevated tank and reservoir options:

Table 8 Alternative Feedermain Routes for Elevated Tank Options

AlternativeRoute No.

Description

1 The alignment for the proposed feedermain starts at the existing elevated tank site on Coleraine Drive in the Bolton SouthHill area. The alignment proceeds northward within Right-of-way (ROW) of the new Bolton Arterial Road (BAR). The BARintersects with Hwy. 50 about 1150 m north of Columbia Way. From this intersection point the feedermain will beinstalled south wards on the west side of Hwy. 50 to the potential tank location in Concept Area 1. The three (3) potentialelevated tank locations in this area lie west of the intersection of Hwy. 50 and Columbia Way. The feedermain willconnect to the elevated tank. The North Hill area will be serviced by the connection of the tank discharge pipe to theexisting distribution system at Columbia Way and / or at Bolton Heights. The pipe size finally serving the area will besmaller than the feedermain.

2 The feedermain start point is the same as for Option 1. The feedermain then proceeds northward within the ROW of thenew BAR, then along Chickadee Lane. It continues northward along Chickadee Lane and then east along GlasgowRoad. It follows the narrow Glasgow Road to and crosses under the Humber River. It follows the Humber River up toHickman Drive. It turns east on Hickman Drive and north along Hwy. 50 on the west side. It then continues northerly toColumbia Way. At this point it will connect to the elevated tank within Concept Area 1. The connections to the elevatedtank and the existing distribution system would be as per Option 1.

The total length of the feedermain through this route is approximately 6.0 km.

3 The route starts at the new connection to existing 750 mm diameter feedermain on Coleraine Drive at Holland Drive. Itcontinues 115 m east along Holland Drive and turn Northeast to a privately owned industrial property. It will then crossunder C.P. rail tracks and enter a residential area in Station Road. It travels north along Station Road, crosses King Roadand enters Deer Valley Drive, also a residential area. From here it turns eastwards on Glasgow Road and then followsthe same alignment as Option 2. Connections to the Elevated tank and the existing distribution system would be thesame as Option 1.


4 The route starts at the new connection to existing 750 mm diameter feedermain on Coleraine Drive at Healey Road in theBolton South Hill area. It continues easterly to Hardwick Road after crossing Holland Simpson Road. This is a very activeindustrial area. Then it continues easterly crossing under the C.P. tracks and on to Hwy. 50 through an area owned byHusky (major local employer). It crosses Hwy. 50 to enter 5th Sideroad, and continues north west along LandsbridgeStreet. From here, it turns northward to Queensgate Blvd that is surrounded by a residential area. Then, it continues


48


Description

eastward from here to Albion Vaughan Road. It continues northward along Albion Vaughan Road and at approximately 1km south of Columbia Way on Albion Vaughan Road, it turns westerly into private properties towards Mount Hope Road.From here it turns northward to the proposed elevated tank location within Concept Area 1 at Columbia Way.


5 The route starts at the exiting elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northwards within the ROW of the proposedBAR and then north along Chickadee Lane. From here it turns east and into the Regions Well Site No. 6. The well sitewill be used for the contractors work area, including a tunnel shaft. The feedermain will be tunnelled under the HumberRiver in the Valley. A second shaft just north of Cross Country Boulevard will allow the feedermain to be brought to thesurface again. The feedermain will then go along Cross Country Boulevard and north along Hwy. 50 on the west side. Itwill then be installed on the west side of Hwy. 50 and go north for connection to the elevated tank within Concept Area 1.Connections to the Elevated tank and the existing distribution system would be the same as Option 1.

A smaller feedermain will be installed westerly from the Chickadee Road and the Glasgow Road intersection to connectinto the distribution network adjacent to King Road.


6 The route starts at the exiting elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northward within the ROW of the new BARto Chickadee Lane. It continues northward along Chickadee Lane crossing Glasgow Road, to 60 m north of GlasgowRoad and into the existing soccer fields. From here, it turns easterly into the Region’s Well Site No. 6. From this point thefeedermain alignment would be the same as Option 5 to its final connection to the proposed elevated tank in ConceptArea 1 existing distribution system.

The total length of the feedermain through this route is approximately 4.80 km

7 The route starts at the exiting elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northward within the ROW of the new BARto approximately 1.0 km North of King Road where it connects to the potential elevated tank location within Concept Area2. This potential site within Concept area #2 is owned by the TRCA. From this point, feedermain exits from elevated tankand continues southward within the ROW of the BAR to Duffy’s Lane. From here it continues southerly to King Road.From here, it turns easterly to Chickadee Lane continuing on Glasgow Road. Approximately 280m along Glasgow Roadit enters the Region’s Well Site No. 6. From this point the feedermain alignment would be the same as Option 5 to itsfinal connection to the existing distribution system.


8 The route starts at the exiting elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northward within the ROW of the BAR toapproximately 1.0 km North of King Street where it connects to the potential elevated tank in Concept Area 2. Thispotential site within Concept area 2 is owned by the TRCA. From this point, feedermain exits from elevated tank siteand continues northerly within the ROW of Bolton Arterial Road to Hwy. 50. From this point, it runs southward toColumbia Way for connection to existing water distribution system.

A smaller feedermain will also be installed southerly along Duffy’s Lane to connect to the distribution system adjacent toKing Road.


Following a series of investigations on the proposed feedermain routes in early 2010, additional routesthrough the Bolton Core were added under the elevated tank option as shown in Figure 14.


49

Figure 14 Potential Alternative Feedermain Routes for the Elevated Tank

[Type a


50

5.4.2 Description of Alternative Feedermain Routes for the Reservoir Option

For the feedermain alignments under reservoir option that were presented to the public at the PublicInformation Centre 1 held on November 25, 2008, the ending point for the feedermain is the proposed in-ground/at-grade reservoir south of Old Church Road; either at Mount Hope Road or at Mount PleasantRoad. Figure 11a shows the alternative routes of the proposed feedermain under the reservoir option.

The proposed feedermain alignments for the reservoir option are described in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Alternative Routes for Proposed Feedermain for the Reservoir Option


Description

9 The route starts at the exiting elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northwards within ROW of the BAR toDuffy’s Lane. It continues northerly along Duffy’s Lane, crossing under Castlederg Side Road to Old Church Road.From here it turns easterly to Mount Hope Road for connection to proposed in-ground/at-grade reservoir at Mount HopeRoad.Due to the elevations the Reservoirs cannot service the areas north of Old Church Road and to some distance to thesouth of the site until an appropriate head can be generated.

From here a smaller feedermain exits the reservoir and continues southwards along Mount Hope Road to Columbia wayfor connection to existing water distribution system.

The total length of the feedermain through this route is approximately 17.90 km.10 The route starts at the exiting elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northwards within ROW of the new BAR to

its intersection with Hwy. 50. From this point, it runs northwards to Old Church Road. From here it turns easterly to MountHope Road for connection to the proposed in-ground/at-grade reservoir.

Due to the elevations the Reservoirs cannot service the areas north of Old Church Road and to some distance to thesouth of the site until an appropriate head can be generated.

From here feedermain exits and continues southwards along Mount Hope Road to Columbia Way for connection toexisting water distribution system.

The total length of the feedermain through this route is approximately 17.90 km.11 The route starts at the new connection to existing 750 mm diameter feedermain on Coleraine Drive at Healey Road. It

continues easterly to Hardwick Road after crossing Holland Simpson Road. This is a very active industrial area. Then itcontinues easterly crossing under the C.P. tracks and on to Hwy. 50 through an area owned by Husky (major localemployer). It crosses Hwy. 50 to enter 5th Sideroad, and continues north west along Landsbridge Street. From here, itturns northward to Queensgate Blvd that is surrounded by a residential area. Then, it continues eastward from here toAlbion Vaughan Road. From here it turns onto and North along Mount Pleasant Road, crossing Castlederg Side Road toOld Church Road. Then it turns westerly to Mount Hope Road for connection to proposed in-ground/at-grade reservoir.


From here feedermain exits and continues southwards along Mount Hope Road to Columbia Way for connection toexisting water distribution system.

The total length of the feedermain through this route is approximately 21.40 km.12 The route starts at the new connection to existing 750 mm diameter feedermain on Coleraine Drive at Healey Road. It

continues easterly to Hardwick Road after crossing Holland Simpson Road. This is a very active industrial area. Then itcontinues easterly crossing under the C.P. tracks and on to Hwy. 50 through an area owned by Husky (major localemployer). It crosses Hwy. 50 to enter 5th Sideroad, and continues north west along Landsbridge Street. From here, itturns northward to Queensgate Blvd that is surrounded by a residential area. Then, it continues eastward from here toAlbion Vaughan Road. From this point it continues northwards along Albion Vaughan Road, continues along Caledon


51


Description

King Town Line South. From here it turns onto and north along Mount Pleasant Road, crossing Castlederg Side Road toOld Church Road, for connection to proposed in-ground/at-grade reservoir.


From here feedermain exits and continues westerly to Mount Hope Road and turns southwards to Columbia Way forconnection to existing water distribution system.


5.5 Feedermain Construction Methods

The following provides an overview of construction methods that could be used to construct the proposedfeedermain.

5.5.1 Open Cut Construction

Open cut construction follows the typical procedure of using a backhoe to excavate a trench which is wideenough to allow insertion of the pipe and bedding material as the work proceeds. To minimize the widthof excavation and to provide a safe working environment for construction workers, the trench is protectedwith temporary shoring such as a trench box. As the feedermain sections are installed, the trench can bebackfilled to ground level so that open excavation and pipe installation is continually moving along theroute.

Construction by open cut results in relatively short term, localized activity in the immediate area ofexcavation where the feedermain is being installed. For example, as the trench advances along thestreet, there may be a need to temporarily close some traffic lanes and/or provide for traffic detours,depending upon the width of road ROW. For a 1050/600/400 mm diameter pipe (as proposed for theBolton feedermain), the rate of progress for the excavation, pipe placement and backfilling procedure canbe up to 30 to 40 metres per day, depending on a significant number of construction variables.

Surplus excavated material requires haulage off site and, as a result, designated haul routes are required.Depending upon soil quality and moisture content, a significant amount of the excavated material may beused to backfill the trench up to the road base for local roads. However, if the soil is poor in quality therewill be a need to import suitable material to backfill the excavation. Granular or non-shrink backfill isrequired for collector and higher designated roads.

As sufficient backfilled trench is made available, the surface roadway can be restored on a temporarybasis, allowing for its return to use. Base asphalt or short-term granular base is typically used fortemporary restoration. Permanent restoration that involves placement of finished asphalt typically occursonce sufficient segments of the feedermain are complete (including testing).

For open cut areas, special care will be taken to locate the feedermain to minimize or avoid existingfeatures. Where existing trees and/or vegetation are disturbed or lost due to feedermain construction, thearea will be replanted with suitable native species to be specified during detailed design. Where required,relocation of existing utilities to allow for installation of the feedermain will be done in accordance with the


52

respective utility company, Region of Peel, Town of Caledon standards and MOE permits andconstruction procedures, in advance of the feedermain installation.

5.5.1.1 Design Assumptions

The following open cut construction design assumptions have been made:

For a proposed feedermain of this size (1050/600/400 mm diameter), the total affected area(including use of the boulevard, where applicable) would be approximately 8 to 12 metres in width.This includes a minimum 2-metre wide trench and 6 to 10 metres for truck and crane movementsfeedermain depth should allow a minimum of 1.8 metres of cover materialThe requirement to relocate existing services must be minimizedThere should be a minimum separation distance of a minimum of one pipe diameter (600-mm), eithervertically or horizontally, from existing major pipelines (e.g., Trans Canada pipeline, sanitary sewers,etc.)There should be adequate overhead clearance (e.g., from high voltage wires, bridges, etc.) to allowfor cranes and heavy equipment usageTraffic disruption during construction should be minimized as much as practically possible.

5.5.2 Trenchless Construction

For this project, construction of the proposed feedermain using trenchless techniques is based ontunnelling (i.e., hand mining or use of a Tunnel Boring Machine) or Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)methods.

5.5.2.1 Tunnelling

Generally speaking, tunnelling is a multi-stage process that involves installation of the pipe casing or linervia construction of an entrance or “entry” pit and retrieval or exit pit. Following installation of the liner, thepipe is then inserted through the liner.

The only surface works involved with tunnelling would be access and exit shafts. An access pit is an areaset aside for the construction of a temporary, horizontal jacking platform and starting alignment trackwithin the entrance pit. The pipe casing or liner is then jacked by manual control along the startingalignment track, with simultaneous excavation of the soil accomplished by a rotating cutter head at thefront end of the track. As the cutter head moves ahead, the excavated material is carried back to theentrance pit by rotating parts inside the machine, where it can then be temporarily stockpiled or removedto disposal sites. Directional and positional control of the tunnelling system is by means of a laserguidance system. Once installation of the liner is completed, the machine is removed at the retrieval pitat the outlet end of that trenchless segment and the pipe is then inserted through casing.

It is essential that thorough subsurface investigations be carried out to identify the geologic conditionsalong the pipeline alignment. The anticipated geologic conditions are the most important factors indetermining the feasibility of any trenchless methods and analyzing the risks of the proposed crossing. Insandy or unstable soil conditions, there is a possibility of void formation in the line of bore, and in thiscondition, grouting of the casing is strongly recommended. To ensure quality control, all carrier pipes areusually televised and pressure tested.


53

Regarding location of the access and exit shafts, it is necessary that they are located at a safe distancefrom existing structures (e.g., existing buildings or infrastructure). Siting of the access and exit shafts willbe established by minimizing interference with ground surface uses. Considerations for each of the shaftsites will include maintaining safe access to existing properties, temporary relocation of existing utilities.Each shaft site must also be protected to provide for public safety. All shafts will be short-term in nature,vary in size and shape (dependent on land use). The duration of shaft compounds to be in placedepends on the length of the trenchless segment.

5.5.2.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

Directional drilling is a trenchless technology that mitigates damage to sensitive environmental featuresby drilling underneath potential sensitive areas, and pulling the feedermain through the bore created.

In the HDD method, pipelines are laid in three stages. First, a pilot drill is carried out from the launch point(pit), using rotating drilling rods. The excavated material is transported to the surface by the drilling fluidwhich also gives the chisel extra drive. In the second phase, the retraction of the drilling pipeline, theexcavating diameter is gradually enlarged with a reamer.

In most cases, the borehole is supported by a Drilling fluid (bentonite suspension) which at the same timeserves as the transport medium for the excavated material. Drilling fluid is injected under pressure aheadof the drill bit to provide hydraulic power to the down hole mud motor (if used), transport drill cuttings tothe surface, clean build-up on the drill bit, cool the drill bit, reduce the friction between the drill and borewall, and stabilize the bore hole.

The third stage consists of pulling the pipeline back into the enlarged hole. This method is suitable fordiameters of up to 56 inches (approx. 1.5 meters) and for lengths of up to around 3,000 meters,depending on the diameter. Drilling in less stable geologies, such as gravel, is not always possiblebecause, unlike in the pipe jacking or segmental lining methods, the drill hole is not immediatelystabilized. HDD has the advantage of requiring less space on the surface.

Pipe is welded into a pipe string or drag section, that is slightly longer than the length of the drill, on theexit side of the bore hole. The pipe is commonly hydrostatically pretested to ensure pipeline integrity. Thepipe string is pulled over rollers into the exit hole and the pull back continues until the entire pipe stringhas been pulled into the bore hole. The external coating of the pipe string visible at the entry point isinspected for damage upon completion of the pull back.

Workspace for an HDD may require clearing and grading, depending on the entry and exit sites selectedfor the drill. Since the drill entry location or entry side accommodates the drill rig and supportingequipment, the entry side location requires satisfactory access as well as stable ground conditions tosupport heavy equipment. Equipment typically found on the entry side of a HDD include:

Rig unitPower unit and generatorsDrill pipe rack and drill pipeWater pumpDrill mud supply


54

Drill mud mixing tankDrill mud pumpmud handling and cleaning system.

Since the drill exit side is the location for the fabrication of the pipe string as well as where the pipe stringis inserted into the bore hole, the workspace required is typically longer to accommodate the pipe stringand may require extra temporary workspace. Equipment typically found on the exit or pipe side of theHDD includes:

Exit mud containment tanks/pitsCuttings settlement tanks/pitsPipe racks and product pipeRollers and pipeline handling equipmentSide booms and other heavy equipmentPipelines, welding, coating and testing equipment.


The following trenchless construction design assumptions have been made:

The requirement for trenchless construction must be minimized but, where necessary, theeffectiveness must be maximized (e.g., avoid sensitive surface features but also minimize excavationdepth and water taking requirements, or optimize the number of structures/features crossed by onerun)Pit (shaft) compounds would be required at both the start and end of each trenchless section;Pit (shaft) compound dimensions vary; however, an average compound would measureapproximately 30 metres by 30 metres, with an anticipated dimension for the pit itself ofapproximately 10 metres by 4 metresThere should be a minimum separation distance of at least one pipe diameter, either vertically orhorizontally, from existing major pipelines, depending upon the nature of the soilsShaft/pit and trenchless locations should minimize effects on the natural environment (e.g., surfacewater or groundwater)Shaft/pit locations should be set back from watercourses and consideration given to contingencies inthe event of a large rainfallDepth of the trenchless section will vary depending on soil conditions and clearance requirementsfrom the TRCA, MTO and pipeline authorities.

5.5.3 Suspended Watermain

The structural material of the existing bridge exterior or new structure and its design configuration willgenerally dictate the arrangement for installing a feedermain from a crossing structure. The basic designof the supports and attachments should be directed or approved by the structural bridge engineer, withdue consideration for the structure to which the pipeline is to be attached. This type of construction isfurther discussed in Section 9.4 of this report for the crossing of the Humber River.


55


The design choices for any placement location are many; however, these specific points need to beobserved:

At least one support per length of pipe is required (unless “long span” pipe is utilized)The minimum pressure class of feedermain is sufficient in all sizes to support the weight of the pipeand its contentsThe feedermain should be adequately supported, protected from damage, and insulated to protectthe pipe from freezingExpansion or flexible joints should be installed as necessaryShut-off valves should be installed on both sides of the bridge crossingProper lateral and vertical support is needed to prevent “snaking”.

5.5.4 Valve Chambers

Regardless of whether open cut or trenchless construction methods are used, permanent operating andmaintenance facilities such as valve chambers will be required. In addition, the proposed feedermain willalso need to connect into the existing Zone 6 distribution system at several major streets, including DeerValley Drive, Hickman Street and Colombia Way.


The following valve chamber design assumptions have been made:

Chambers must be sized to allow adequate space to house equipment and for operations andmaintenance personnel movement when inside (isolation valve chambers typically measureapproximately 5 metres by 4 metres)Chambers must be located to allow for easy access for operations and maintenance crews, includingaccess roads where requiredConfined space issues and lock-out requirements when servicing equipment must be accounted forAir valve chambers will be placed directly on the feedermainDrain chambers will use a double chamber designPre-cast structures will be used when possible to minimize cast-in-place structures.


56

6. Comparative Evaluation of Water Storage TanksThe “Expand Existing Water Supply System” solution was selected as per the analysis conducted in theSection 5. However, a comparative analysis of the two water storage methods, i.e., Elevated Tank andthe Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade) is conducted in this section. This comparative analysis was done toidentify the alternatives that was considered most realistic; and to avoid the need to carry unrealisticalternatives through the detailed evaluation step.

The water storage facility will supply water to Pressure Zone 6 north of Bolton; by gravity and thereforeneeds to be located at a highpoint of land. The existing Bolton elevated tank operates at a top water level(TWL) of 297.4 meters. The same water-level has to be maintained in the new water storage tank whichwill result in the creating of a full pressure zone. Land elevations serviceable within this pressure zonewould be approximately 230 to 260 metres.

6.1 Choosing a Water Storage Facility Type

Water storage may be obtained in accordance with Ministry of Environment guidelines, in one of thefollowing means:

In-ground/at-grade reservoirElevated tank.

Typical water consumption rates for residential and commercial properties are multiplied by projectedpopulation and land uses within the Pressure District in order to provide the necessary Average and Peakdemand figures used to design various components of the water supply system.

Water treatment plants and pumping stations are typically designed to meet the Maximum Day whilestorage is required to meet the Peak hour demands as well as fire Flow requirements.

Based on the amount of water storage required, it was also determined that both, an elevated tank and areservoir could be sized to meet the water storage requirements for the study area.

6.2 Type of Storage Reservoirs

6.2.1 Elevated Tank

An elevated tank located within the service area pressure zone would rely on gravity to convey water fromthe tank to the service area. To provide the floating storage, the elevated storage tank is constructed on apedestal such that the top of the elevated tank is located at the pressure zone’s hydraulic grade line andthe bottom of the tank is located 30 m higher than the pressure zone’s high ground elevation. The waterlevel within the elevated tank would vary (“float”) based on the water supply from the pumping station andthe water demand of the service area. An elevated tank would fill during low water demand and drainduring peak water demands.

Based on the required storage volume, an elevated tank of this size would be approximately 40 to 45 mtall. Based on a Top Water Level (TWL) of 297.4 m, the siting requirement for this option would therefore


57

be on land with an elevation of approximately 245 m to 260 m. Suitable land elevations can be foundwithin the west of study area at Duffy’s Lane and on the centre of the study area along Columbia Waygenerally between Highway 50 and Mount Hope Road. Further investigations identified the area in thevicinity of the existing elevated tank on Coleraine Drive to be suitable, as well.

As a result, three (3) alternative Concept Areas for elevated tank sites were identified within the studyarea, as shown in Figure 15 and as detailed in Table 11.

Concept Area 1 - Bolton North HillConcept Area 2 - Northwest BoltonConcept Area 3 - Bolton South Hill.

Advantages and disadvantages: The operating cost is moderate relative to the other reservoir alternativessince it would require frequent maintenance for corrosion protection, painting, etc.

6.2.2 Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade)

The second option, in lieu of the elevated tank was to consider either an in-ground or at-grade reservoirfor storage purposes. The operating levels would be the same as the elevated tank.

An in-ground/at-grade storage reservoir operates similarly to an elevated storage tank but can be moreeconomically constructed to provide a large storage volume. This reservoir alternative is suitable for areaswith topography that is suited to a reservoir at the appropriate elevation. The in-ground/at-grade reservoiris to be located at an elevation 30 m (100 feet) higher than the high ground elevation within the pressurezone it serves such that the minimum pressure within the service area is 275 kPa (40 pounds per squareinch). The water pressure at the reservoir location is approximately 0 kPa (0 pounds per square inch)since it is located at the hydraulic grade line of the service area.

An in-ground reservoir would be located at the appropriate elevation closest to the service area tominimize the length of the feedermain from the service area to the reservoir location. The feedermainwould convey water to the reservoir during low demand periods and conveys water from the reservoir tothe service area during high demand periods. The operating water depth within the reservoir is typically 6m (20 ft) such that the hydraulic grade line would fluctuate to provide a minimum of 40 pounds per squareinch (275 kPa) at the high ground within the service area when the reservoir is nearly empty and amaximum pressure of 100 pounds per square inch (689 kPa) at the lowest ground within the service areawhen the reservoir is full. The in-ground reservoir consists of a reinforced concrete tank typicallyconstructed to be half below and half above existing ground and covered with approximately 1 m of fillmaterial.

The water level within the in-ground reservoir would vary (“float”) based on the water supply from thepumping station and the water demand of the service area. The in-ground/at-grade reservoir would fillduring low water demand and drain during peak water demands.

Advantages and disadvantages: The in-ground/at-grade storage reservoir operating cost is low withrespect to the other reservoir alternatives since it is constructed with low maintenance and long lastingmaterials resulting in low maintenance cost.


58

Therefore, the ground elevation that would support a in-ground/at-grade reservoir need to be about 295 mto 300 m. Suitable land elevations can be found within the north of study area, in the vicinity of:

1. The intersection of Mount Pleasant Road and Old Church Road.2. The intersection of Mount Hope Road and Old Church Road.

These two sites are approximately 6.1 Km north of Columbia Way. Description of the alternativefeedermain alignments, and lengths associated with the elevated tank or the reservoir sites is detailed inTable 9. A comparison of feedermain lengths showed that the lengths of feedermain associated withreservoir option is about 300% to over 400% longer then the length of feedermain for Elevated Tankoption.

Table 10 summarizes the comparative analysis of Elevated Tank versus Reservoir (inground/at-grade).

6.3 Evaluation Criteria and Results

6.3.1 Natural Environment

Potential effects to the natural environment: effect on air, land, water and biota siting/routingconsideration or constraints (where applicable).

Under both storage tank options, (i.e., reservoir and elevated tank), there is a potential to impact theenvironment pertaining to the location of feedermain alignment and the storage tank location.

Under both storage tank options, the watercourses crossing by the feedermain will be conducted usingtrenchless technologies wherever possible, hence minimizing impact to watercourses and fisheries.

Under the reservoir option, the associated feedermain is approximately 172 percent longer than theelevated tank option, hence has potential impacts to more groundwater drawdown (i.e. impact togroundwater table, vegetation, stream baseflow). Also, the reservoir option has higher potential to impactthe natural environment since elevation of land needed to support a reservoir is be located at or very nearthe Niagara Escarpment and within the Oak Ridges Moraine, as compared to the land needed to supportan elevated tank which can be located south of the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Overall, elevated tank option shows lower potential to impact natural environment than reservoir option.

6.3.2 Social/Cultural Environment

Conformity with local/provincial planning policies and Potential land use impacts includingcompatibility with surrounding land use as well as cultural/heritage/agricultural resources.

In both storage tank options, there is a potential impact on the existing public/private property and currentland uses. However, due to longer length of feedermain associated with the reservoir option, potentialimpact on local traffic is higher under the reservoir option as compared to the elevated tank option.

The reservoir option (in-ground/at-grade) however, has less visual impact than the elevated tank.


59

6.3.3 Technical Suitability

Operation and Maintenance

Under the reservoir option, the associated feedermain is approximately 172 percent longer than theelevated tank option, therefore, a longer feedermain needs to be operated and inspected under reservoiroption as compared to elevated tank option.

Moderate impact on the quality of water under reservoir option is expected due to longer feedermain ascompare to shorter feedermain length under elevated tank option.

Since the reservoir option shows higher operation and maintenance requirements as compared toelevated tank, elevated tank option is considered to be technically viable option.

Operation and maintenance costs will be higher under the reservoir option due to a larger feedermain, ascompared to a shorter feedermain required under the elevated tank option.

6.3.4 Economical/Financial

Estimated capital, operation and maintenance costs including life cycle costs.

The elevated tank option has the lowest overall cost, mainly due to the shorter feedermain lengthassociated to Elevated tank as compared to the Reservoir option.

6.4 Preferred Water Storage Option

The comparative analysis of the two recommended alternative solutions for water storage requirements,(i.e., Elevated tank and Reservoir) as summarized in Table 10 resulted in identifying the construction ofan elevated tank as the most viable alternative.

A description of the alternative feedermain routes (including feedermain lengths) associated with theelevated tank/reservoir sites is detailed in Table 8. A comparison of feedermain lengths showed that thelengths of feedermain associated with reservoir option is 172% longer then the length of feedermain forelevated tank option.

The elevated tank option was preferred due to the following reasons:

Provides better water qualityIt can be located away from the environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., Niagara Escarpment and OakRidges Moraine)Requires fewer watercourse crossings due to shorter length of feedermainLower capital cost.


60

Reasons of Eliminating Reservoir Option

As mentioned earlier, the suitable land elevations of approximately 295-300 m were found on the northand south end of the study area as compared to the new elevated water tank which can be sitedapproximately in the centre of the study area. The reservoir option would also increase the overall lengthof the feedermain by 172 percent, hence would:

Increase the cost of feedermain which would increase the capital costIncrease disruption to local residents and businessesIncreased environmental impact due to more water-crossingsIncrease the cost of operation and maintenance due to longer feedermainIncrease cost of restoration.

After reviewing the preliminary alternative methods, and based on the potential environmental andeconomical impacts, it was determined that an Elevated Tank would provide the most economicalenergy efficient and technically preferred solution. Hence, the reservoir option will be removedfrom further consideration.

Table 10 Comparative Analysis of Elevated Tank versus Reservoir

Evaluation Criteria Elevated tank Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade)Natural Environment The elevation of land needed to support an

elevated tank will locate the tank south ofthe Niagara Escarpment and the OakRidges Moraine

Shorter feedermain requires fewerwaterbody crossings

Smaller area required, therefore lower siteimpact (trees to be cut, plants to bedisposed etc.)

Tanks are near areas to be serviced.Generally resulting in lower impacts in mostaspects

Smaller construction duration, henceimpact scaled down (environmental, social,business etc.)

The elevation of land needed to support areservoir will be located at or very near theNiagara Escarpment and within the Oak RidgesMoraine

Longer feedermain requires more waterbodycrossing

Larger site area required, therefore more siteimpact (trees to be cut, plants to be disposedetc.)

Reservoirs are about 6.1 Km north of areas tobe serviced. Therefore piping has to be installedto convey flow from the reservoirs to theconnection points on the North Hill. This willresult in greater impacts in most aspects

Larger construction duration, hence increasedimpacts (environmental, social, business etc.)

Social/CulturalEnvironment

Requires smaller area of land

Less impact on local traffic due to shorterfeedermain length

Smaller number of driveways and roadcrossings (residential and business).

Greater visual impact due to height

Requires larger area of land

High impact on local traffic due to longerfeedermain length.

Larger number of driveways and road crossings(residential and business).

Less visual impact since in-ground or at-grade


61

Evaluation Criteria Elevated tank Reservoir (in-ground/at-grade)Technical Suitability Difficult to inspect due to height

Less feedermain to maintain

Better quality of water due to shorterfeedermain length

More expensive to maintain due torepainting of steel tank

Can be expanded by adding a secondelevated tank at same site, however, highcapital cost for this type of expansion

Requires fewer water bodies, railways androad crossings, resulting in reduceddegree construction of difficulty

Geology is less variable resulting from thesmaller lengths of the feedermain involved.Therefore fewer construction differencesand construction challenges

Smaller quantities of construction materialsto complete resulting in reduced transportvehicles, generally precast panels

Smaller impact (length) to existingvehicular traffic routes, residential areasresulting from smaller length of thefeedermain

Smaller feedermain will require reducedmaintenance effort, including repair offewer in-line valves, air release and drainvalves

Easy to inspect since in-ground or at-grade

Feedermain 172% longer than elevated tankoption, i.e. longer feedermain to maintain

Potential for water quality due to longerfeedermain length

Less expensive to maintain and requires lessmaintenance

Can be expanded by adding cells adjacent toexisting cells. Generally, lower cost thanbuilding a second tank on site

Requires more water bodies, railways and roadcrossings, resulting in an increased degree ofconstruction difficulty, shoring and dewateringetc.

Geology is more variable resulting from thelarger lengths of the feedermain involved.Therefore more construction differences,variations and construction challenges

Larger quantities of construction materials tocomplete resulting in larger number of transportvehicles, generally in-situ construction

Larger impact (length) to existing vehiculartraffic routes, residential areas resulting fromlarger length of the feedermain

Longer feedermain will require maintenance andrepair of more in-line valves, air release anddrain valves.

Economical/Financial Elevated tank including feedermain -$31 to $48 million (Less due to shorterlength of feedermain required)

Reservoir including feedermain -$88 to $97 million (greater due to longer lengthof feedermain required)

Recommendations

Legend:

Positive Outcome or Lesser Overall Impact

Negative Outcome or Greater Overall Impact


62

7. Evaluation of Alternative Elevated Tank Site7.1 Evaluation of Alternative Concepts Areas for Elevated Tank Sites

The location of elevated tank was initially cited in the vicinity of Columbia Way and Mount Hope Road andthis was presented in Public Information Centre No.1 on November 25, 2008. After further considerationand subsequent meetings with staff from Peel Region, Town of Caledon and the TRCA, three conceptualareas as shown in Figure 15 and as detailed in Table 11 were identified for the location of the proposedelevated tank. Further, early in 2010, additional hydraulic study was undertaken to confirm the storagesize required and to confirm the benefit of the feedermain. The Project Team also decided that additionalinvestigations were needed to confirm the preferred site of the elevated tank and feedermain route as thefinancial implications associated with each alternative presented at PIC #1 proved to be significant.

Three (3) alternative Concept Areas for elevated tank sites were identified within the study area. Acomparative evaluation of the same is presented in Table 11.

Table 11 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternative Conceptual Areas for the ElevatedTank Site

Evaluation Criteria Concept Area 1Bolton North Hill

Concept Area 2Northwest Bolton

Concept Area 3Bolton South Hill

Natural Environment No vegetation on site

No impact to existing watercourse

Agricultural uses and within TRCAregulated lands

No impact to existing watercourse

No vegetation on site

No watercourse on site

Social / CulturalEnvironment

Significant visual impact onresidential area

Compatible land uses

Site away from built-up residentialarea; less visual impact thenAlternative 1

Agricultural land use

Site away from built-upresidential area; least visualimpact than Alternative 1 and 2

Compatible land uses

Technical Suitability Ground Elevations (~261-263 m)

Less height of tank due to higherelevation than Concept Area 3

Greater distance of largefeedermain from the existing tank tonew tank

Ground Elevations (~259-260 m) –lower than Concept Area 1

Higher tank height due to lowerelevation than Concept Area 1

Greater distance of large feedermainfrom the existing tank to new tank

Ground Elevations (~259-260m) – lower than Concept Area 1

Higher tank height due to lowerelevation than Concept Area 1

Shorter distance of largefeedermain from existing tank tothe new tank

Economical /Financial

Cost of land will be minimal since itis a publicly owned property.

Significantly higher capital cost dueto longer feedermain alignmentand trenchless crossings beneaththe Humber River valley lands

Cost of land will be minimal since it isa publicly property owned by TRCA,however acquisition would be difficult

Significantly higher capital cost due tolonger and large diameter of trunk

Cost of land may be slightlyhigher due to privately ownedland

Significantly lower capital costdue to a shorter feedermainalignment through the Boltoncore area

Recommendations

Legend: Positive Outcome or Lesser Overall ImpactNegative Outcome or Greater Overall Impact


63

Figure 15 Alternative Locations (Concept Areas) for Elevated Tank Sites

pe a quoe


64

Concept Area 1: Bolton North Hill

The benefits of siting the elevated tank within Concept Area 1 in the North Hill area of Bolton were theproximity to the areas of low pressure and sufficient ground elevations. It is also in close proximity toexisting residential areas. If Concept Area 1 is selected, a longer and larger diameter trunk feedermain(transmission main) will be required from the existing elevated tank at South Hill to the new elevated tankin North Hill, as compared to a shorter and small diameter trunk feedermain under Concept Area 3. Thefeedermain route associated with an elevated tank at this location is the proposed Bolton Arterial Road.As discussed later in Section 7.2.4, although siting for the elevated tank is acceptable, the costs for thelonger and larger diameter feedermain construction (i.e. trenchless crossings under the Humber Rivervalley lands), timing issues associated with the BAR and permitting required from the TRCA eliminatedConcept Area 1 from further consideration.

Concept Area 2: North West Bolton

Similarly for Concept Area 2 in northwest Bolton, ground elevations were ideal for the siting of theelevated tank. Land acquisition would be required, however costs would be minimal since the land ispublicly owned (TRCA) and currently vacant, however the lands would required an amendment to theTown of Caledon’s Official Plan as the land is currently designated as agricultural. The site is also furtheraway from built-up residential and visual impacts would be less than Concept Area 1. A moderate impactto existing vegetation and permitting would be expected due to TRCA regulations. The feedermain routeassociated with an elevated tank at this location is the proposed Bolton Arterial Road. Also if ConceptArea 2 is selected, a separate dedicated feedermain to North Hill (Hwy-50 and Colombia Way) will still berequired to provide true redundancy to the water distribution system; as compare to Concept Area 1 inwhich the length of the trunk feedermain from the existing elevated tank to the new elevated tank will besignificantly shorter, with dedicated feedermain from South Hill to North Hill. As mentioned above,although siting for the elevated tank is acceptable, the costs for the construction (i.e. trenchless crossingunder Humber River valley lands), timing issues associated with the BAR and permitting required from theTRCA eliminated Concept Area 2 from further consideration.

Concept Area 3: Bolton South Hill

Siting the elevated tank within Concept Area 3 provides multiple benefits. First, the location is in thevicinity of the existing elevated on Coleraine Drive which would allow for a shorter distance of the largerfeedermain from the existing elevated tank to the new tank. Although ground elevations are lower thanConcept Area 1, they remain sufficient to satisfy pressure demands. Further, the proposed use isconsistent with Town of Caledon Official Plan land use designations (i.e. industrial/commercial). Thefeedermain route associated with an elevated tank at this location was introduced at Public InformationCentre #2 in December 2010, which would run within existing road right-of-ways, with a smaller diameterpipe through the Bolton core area and a minimum distance to the North Hill service area.

Based on high social and environmental impacts discussed above, it was concluded that ConceptArea 3 to be selected as Preferred Concept Area for the Elevated Tank site.


65

7.2 Alternative Sites for the Elevated Tank

Three alternative sites were assessed under Concept Area 3 for the proposed elevated tank which arelocated at the intersection of Coleraine Drive and King Street, in the vicinity of the existing elevated tank(Figure 16). The description of the three alternative sites for the elevated tank is detailed in Table 12shows the location of the three (3) alternative locations for the proposed elevated tank.

7.2.1 Elevated Tank Site No. 1

Site No. 1 is located at 3 Manchester Court on the west side of Coleraine Drive, in the vicinity of theexisting elevated tank. The site is privately owned and the land uses are compatible for an elevated tank.The ground elevations at the site are adequate to provide satisfactory pressures in all parts of Zone 6.There are no natural features on-site and the size meets the requirements for the elevated tank andoverflow pond.


Site No. 2 is located at 13352 Coleraine Drive, across the street and just south of the existing elevatedtank. The site is privately owned and the land uses are compatible for an elevated tank. The groundelevations are just lower than Site No. 1 and relatively equal to that of Site No. 3. This would result in aslightly taller elevated tank but it still provides satisfactory pressures in all parts of Zone 6. There are nonatural features on-site with the exception of a crossing culvert which runs the north-south length of thesite and the western portion of the site meets the requirements for the elevated tank and overflow pond.The owner showed a willingness to sell the west portion of the property. Property acquisition will also berequired for a permanent access road and feedermain to the elevated tank.

For this option, the trunk feedermains to and from the new elevated tank will run on the permanenteasement on the adjacent south property (13304 Coleraine Drive). A temporary construction easementwill also be required at 13304 Coleraine Drive for the construction of the elevated tank.


Site No. 3 is located at 13304 Coleraine Drive, just to the south of Site No. 2. The site is privately ownedand the land uses, similar to Sites No. 1 and 2 are compatible for an elevated tank. The groundelevations are relatively equal to that of Site No. 2. An unnamed watercourse runs through the property,requiring a minimum 30 m setback as per Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requirements.Property acquisition will also be required for a permanent access road and feedermain to the elevatedtank.


66

Figure 16 Alternative Tank Sites

.

AECOM Regional Municipality of Peel North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain – Schedule CClass EA StudyEnvironmental Study Report

67

Table 12 Comparative Analysis of Alternative Elevated Tank Site

Group ofEvaluation

CriteriaCriteria Component ELEVATED TANK SITE No. 1 ELEVATED TANK SITE No. 2 ELEVATED TANK SITE No. 3

Gen

eral

General Location 3 Manchester Court West side of Coleraine Drive

13352 Coleraine Drive West side of Coleraine Drive Across from Holland Drive

13304 Coleraine Drive West side of Coleraine Drive, south of Holland Drive

Site Area/Description ~65 acres; two separate parcels of land (~25 acres and ~40 acres,respectively)

Multiple structures and open gravel area

10.4 acres Narrow rectangular parcel of land Single narrow structure and open paved area

~65 acres Open field; single family dwellings fronting Coleraine Drive

Nat

ural

Env

ironm

ent

Vegetation Amount of woodlots or hedgerows

affected or removed

Site contains no woodlots, hedgerows or significant vegetation Existing vegetation communities are cultural in origin and not significant No impact to vegetation on site

Site contains no woodlots, hedgerows or significant vegetation Minor impact to open space area required for access easement

Site contains no woodlots, hedgerows or significant vegetation Existing vegetation communities are cultural in origin and not significant No impact to vegetation on site

Wildlife Impact on area wildlife habitat.

Species at risk (SAR)

Negligible Impact. Site has been historically disturbed and existing habitatsuitable for wildlife is low quality

No SAR present

Negligible Impact. Site has been historically disturbed and existing habitatsuitable for wildlife is low quality

No SAR present

Negligible Impact. Site has been historically disturbed and existing habitatsuitable for wildlife is low qualityNo SAR present

Watercourses andFisheries

Amount and quality of aquatichabitat that may be harmfullyaltered or disturbed

No watercourses on site No impact to watercourses

No watercourse on site No impact to watercourses Easement (Temporary and Permanent) for one crossing watercourse at 13304

Coleraine Drive Dam and pump method will be employed due to feedermain installation

Approximately 460 m of low quality, watercourse passing throughagricultural/vacant land

Low quality riparian features consisting of grasses, sedges and smallshrubs

Watercourse likely provides direct fish habitat Watercourse not currently managed for Redside Dace TRCA criteria for a regulated watercourse is a 30 m setback from top of

bank Low to moderate potential to impact the watercourse

Designated NaturalHeritage Areas (ESAs,ANSIs, Wetlands)

Amount of ESA, ANSI or wetlandsremoved or disturbed

No ANSIs/ESAs/PSW’s on site Project has a low potential to impact unassigned wetland features and or

ephemeral ponds on adjacent property

No ANSIs/ESAs/PSW’s on site No impact to Designated Natural Areas

No ANSIs/ESAs/PSW’s on site No impact to Designated Natural Areas

Soci

al E

nviro

nmen

t

Property Requirement Impacts to Privately Owned Landsand Acquisition

Privately owned; owner has indicated objection (written correspondence) andunwillingness to sell due to potential loss of business resources

Privately owned; owner is willing to sell’ Temporary and permanent easements required

Privately owned; owner is not willing to sell

Land Use Property and compatibility withcurrent land uses

Zoned Industrial Compatible industrial land use Within 100m – farmland, industrial development, across the street from the

existing water tower Within 100-200m- farmland, industrial development, existing water tower; CP

rail line

Zoned Industrial Compatible industrial land use Within 100m -farmland, industrial development Within 100-200m-farmland, industrial development, site is just south and

across the street from the existing elevated water tank

Zoned Agricultural; Town is looking to re-zone this area to EmploymentLands but would still require an Official Plan Amendment.

Compatible with existing industrial land uses to the north Within 100m - low density residential, farmland, industrial development Within 100-200m - low density residential, farmland, industrial development

Future Planning Policies Consistency with land usedesignations and future land uses

Compatible with industrial designation Long-term impact to existing business activities Future controlled access to Coleraine Drive

Compatible with industrial designation Insufficient room for construction of water tower and its associated

infrastructure Future controlled access to Coleraine Drive

Currently active agricultural uses on site Future controlled access to Coleraine Drive

Agricultural Land Impact on active farms No impact No impact Loss of approximately 1.2 ha of active agricultural landSocial Noise and vibration and dust

impacts during construction Within 100m- No residences or sensitive uses Within 100-200m -2 single family dwellings May have short-term moderate impact on 2 single family dwellings

Within 100m-2 single family dwellings Within 100-200m-no additional sensitive uses May have short-term minor impact on 2 single family dwellings (±6 residents)

Within 100m - 6 single family dwellings Within 100-200m - no additional sensitive uses May have short-term moderate impact on 6 single family dwellings (±20

Transportation Impacts on traffic operationsduring construction

Excellent accessibility Used for truck traffic May have moderate impact due to temporary road closures, detours and

travel delays

Excellent accessibility Easement from adjacent property would be required for an access road Used for truck traffic May have minor impact due to brief road closures, detours and travel delays

Excellent accessibility Easement from adjacent property would be required for an access road Used for truck traffic May have minor impact due to brief road closures, detours and travel

delaysAesthetics Visual impacts/viewshed

Nature of the existing surroundinglandscape

Two single family dwellings within 100-200m In back yard field of view for 1 dwelling Front yard for the other; Option 2 at back of property on flat terrain would be less intrusive. May have minor impact on ±2 single family dwellings (±6 residents)

Two single family dwellings within 100m In back yard field of view for 1 dwelling Front yard for the other– near depth of field, no buffer Industrial views predominate May have minor impact on ±2 single family dwellings (±6 residents)

In back yard field of view for 5 single family dwellings Front yard field of view for 1 – very near depth of field, no buffer, flat terrain Industrial views predominate May have moderate impact for 6 single family dwellings within 100m (±20

residents)


68

Group ofEvaluation

CriteriaCriteria Component ELEVATED TANK SITE No. 1 ELEVATED TANK SITE No. 2 ELEVATED TANK SITE No. 3

CommunityCohesiveness

Impact to Community vision,sense of belonging, communityrelationships and access to similarlife opportunities

No impact on community cohesiveness No impact on community cohesiveness No impact on community cohesiveness

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

Res

ourc

es

Archaeological Sites

Impacts to Archaeologicalresources

Site falls within high archaeological potential zones; however appears to bealmost entirely disturbed.

Due to the disturbed conditions of the site, archaeological potential isconsidered removed, and further systematic archaeological survey is notwarranted.

Site falls within high archaeological potential zones; however appears to bealmost entirely disturbed.

Site was previously assessed by Archeoworks Inc. in November of 2000;assessment resulted in the discovery of an isolated Late Archaic projectilepoint however, given the isolated of the find, the subject lands were cleared ofany further archaeological concerns.

Site consists of undisturbed active agricultural fields Stage 2 field investigations, involving the pedestrian survey of the active

agricultural fields would be required.

Built Heritage

Impacts to Built Heritageresources

No built heritage resources on site No built heritage resources on site Site consists of presence of the designated John Shore House. Given the designated status of the structure, it is highly recommended that

the historic integrity of the John Shore House be maintained. Stage 2 test-pit survey of the fallow fields and grassed lands surrounding

the historic structure required

Tech

nica

l Sui

tabi

lity

Environmental SiteAssessment

/Contamination

Results of Phase 1 EnvironmentalSite Assessment

Potential for impact to on-site soil and groundwater in association with formerUST, a spill of hydraulic fluid oil and fill of unknown origin.

Recommended Phase II work to be conducted (i.e. sampling and testing)

No significant concerns identified during Phase 1 ESA Potential for impact to on-site soil and groundwater which may bemigrating from the north adjacent property

Recommended Phase II work to be conducted (i.e. sampling and testing)

Constructability Ground Elevations (~260 m) Lower tank height due to lower ground elevations Tank height: 40m Potential site further away from main road (Coleraine Drive); approximately

650 m away

Ground Elevations (~255 m) Higher tank height due to lower ground elevations Tank height: ~45m Site too narrow for the elevated tank and access road Potential site further away from main road (Coleraine Drive); approximately

600 m away

Ground Elevations (~255 m) Higher tank height due to lower ground elevations Tank height: ~45m Potential site further away from main road (Coleraine Drive); approximately

600 m away

Econ

omic

al /

Fina

ncia

l

Capital Costs Construction and Operation Lower capital cost of elevated tank due to less tank height Longer feedermain to maintain Higher costs associated with expropriation

Higher capital cost of elevated tank due to higher tank height as compared toSite No. 1

Longer feedermain to maintain

Higher capital cost of elevated tank due to higher tank height as comparedto Site No. 1

Longer feedermain to maintain Higher costs association with expropriation

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION 2 1 3

Evaluation: Most Preferred Least Preferred


69

7.2.4 Evaluation Criteria and Results

The evaluation of the three sites determined that they are overall relatively equal. In discussions with theRegion’s staff, the owner of Site No. 2 at 13352 Coleraine Drive expressed a willingness to sell a portion ofthe property, while the owners of Site No. 1 and 3 stated that they were not willing. In order to keep in timewith long term servicing needs for the Bolton community and the slight advantages of Site No. 2, theRegion agreed to pursue Site No. 2 as the Preliminary Preferred Site for the Elevated Tank.

7.2.5 Preferred Elevated Tank Site

The preferred site location for the elevated tank in Bolton is a rectangular land parcel located at 13352Coleraine Drive, Caledon (Figure 17). The legal description of the site is Part of Lot 7, Concession 5, AlbionRoad, designated as Part 4 on Reference Plan 43R – 25235, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality ofPeel. The site is generally flat with a gentle slope to the northwest. The total area of the site isapproximately 4.2 hectares (~10.4 acres). The site is bounded by Coleraine Drive to the east, 3 ManchesterCourt to the north, and vacant parcels of land to the south and west. The site is currently active and ispartied to 1209119 Ontario Limited. It is occupied by a two (2) storey concrete building fronting ColeraineDrive. Figure 17 shows the preferred site for the elevated tank.


70

Figure 17 Preferred Elevated Tank Site


71

8. Evaluation of Alternative Feedermain Alignments8.1 Approach for Assessing Alternatives

A step-by-step approach, initially considering the feasibility of different alternatives in addressing theproblem, and ultimately leading to detailed evaluation of potential alternatives to identify a preferred solution,was undertaken following the evaluation methodology described in Section 5.3.

8.2 Screening Results for Feedermain Alignments

The alternative feedermain alternatives were screened against the criteria noted in Section 5.3 with resultssummarized in 8. The at-grade/in-ground reservoir option was screened out when compared with elevatedtank. Therefore, the four (4) feedermain alternative routes 9, 10, 11 & 12 associated with reservoir optionare also eliminated for further consideration.

Description of the alternative feedermain alignments, and lengths associated with the elevated tank or thereservoir sites is detailed in Table 8.

The reasons for eliminating the alternative routes are detailed below:

Elimination of Routes 9, 10, 11 and 12

The four feedermain alternative routes 9, 10, 11 and 12 are associated with at-grade/in-ground reservoiroption. The detailed comparison of elevated tank versus in-ground/at-grade reservoir conducted in Section 6has screened out the reservoir option. Therefore, with the elimination of the reservoir option, the feedermainalternative routes 9, 10, 11 and 12 are also eliminated.

Elimination of Route 2

The feedermain under this route is running very close to Humber River along Glasgow Road, which have avery narrow right-of-way (ROW). Since the road is only 3 – 4 m higher than the water level in the HumberRiver along Glasgow Road, a dewatering problem due to high water-table problem is expected. Also, sincethe Glasgow Road have a narrow ROW, it will not be possible to keep one lane open for local traffic whileinstalling the feedermain. A permanent road closure of Glasgow Road would be required duringconstruction.

Based on major environmental impacts (expected complications in dewatering) on Glasgow Road and socialimpact by disturbing local roadway and local traffic, it was concluded that Route 2 will not be carried forwardfor further analysis.


Most of the feedermain under this option is crossing residential sub-divisions. It also crosses a privateindustrial property at Holland Drive. A high impact to the activities on this industrial property is expectedwhile crossing from Holland Drive towards the CP railway tracks.


72

The feedermain runs along Station Road and Deer Valley Drive of densely populated residential subdivision.These roads have a narrow right-of-way, making it very difficult to keep one lane open for the traffic at alltimes while installing the feedermain. Due to permanent road closure of Station Road and Deer Valley Driveduring construction, a very high social impact to local residents and to the traffic is expected along theseroads.

Since the feedermain also runs along Glasgow Road, environmental and social problems identified underRoute 2 elimination are also expected.

Based on high social and environmental impacts discussed above, it was concluded that Route 3 will not becarried forward to further analysis.


The feedermain along this route crosses a commercial/industrial area, along Healey Road. Although theRight-of-Way (ROW) is wide along Healey Road, a moderate impact to the local commercial/industrialbusinesses is still expected.

A moderate impact to local residences is expected after the feedermain enters residential subdivision aftercrossing the CN-tracks at Hwy. 50 to Landsbridge Street. Although Queensgate Boulevard and AlbionVaughan Road has a wide ROW, major impact of traffic is expected along these roads since these are majorartery roads of the City of Bolton. Potential impact to local residents and to local traffic is expected when thefeedermain enters the residential subdivision that is on the south of Columbia Way.

The feedermain alignment crosses privately owned properties when at approximately 1.0 km south ofColumbia Way on Albion Vaughan Road, the feedermain turns easterly towards Mount Hope Road. TheRegion of Peel have to purchase, expropriate or secure easement to accommodate the new feedermain andinline valve chambers along the alignment crossing these private properties.

Taking into consideration major social impact on local businesses along Healey Road and major socialimpact while crossings twice through residential subdivisions and major impact on the existing privateproperty and current land use, it was concluded that Route 4 will not be carried forward for further analysis.


The feedermain crosses private property (a soccer field), north of Glasgow Road after it crosses ChickadeeLine up to the edge of the tunnelled portion below Humber River. The Region of Peel have to purchase,expropriate or secure easement to accommodate the new feedermain and inline valve chambers along thealignment crossing this private property.

Based on major impact on the existing private property and current land use, it was concluded that Route 6will not be carried forward for further analysis.

Elimination of Routes 7 and 8

The feedermain alternative routes 7 and 8 are associated with elevated tank option at Concept Area 2. Thedetailed comparison of the Concept Areas for the elevated tank site conducted in Section 7.1 has screened


73

out Concept Area 2 for further analysis. Therefore, with the elimination of Concept Area 2, the feedermainalternative routes 7 and 8 are also eliminated, hence not be carried forward for further analysis.


74

Table 13 Evaluation of Feedermain Alignment Options

Group ofEvaluation

Criteria

Criteria Indicator Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6

Nat

ural

Env

ironm

ent

Vegetation Amount of woodlots orhedgerows affected orremoved

Less impact since most of thefeedermain is within Roadallowance






Groundwater Recharge /Discharge Areas

Impact on area of landconsidered an establishedor potential groundwaterrecharge or discharge area

Trenchless crossing in the vicinity ofHumber River may impactgroundwater table


Potential dewatering problems onGlasgow Road since very close toHumber River


Potential dewatering problems onGlasgow Road since very close toHumber River





Amount and quality ofaquatic habitat that may beharmfully altered ordisturbed

Minor Impact on crossings beingTrenchless







Amount of ESA, ANSI orwetlands removed ordisturbed

No known impact No known impact No known impact No known impact No known impact however TRCApermit required to tunnel HumberRiver valley

No known impact

Natural Environment

Soci

al E

nviro

nmen

t

Land Use Impact on the existingpublic property and currentland uses.Impact on the existingprivate properties andcurrent land uses

Minor Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Major impact since crossing privateproperty

Minor Impact Major impact since crossing privateproperty

Future Planning Policies Consistency with land usedesignations, approveddevelopment plans, andproposed land use changes

No Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Major Impact since crossing privateproperty

Minor Impact Major Impact since crossing privateproperty

Agricultural Land Impact on active farms None None None None None NonePrivate Wells Affected Number of wells potentially

affectedNone None None None None None

Transportation Impacts on roadway,amount of traffic potentiallyusing the route and accessto business and/orsubdivisions

Minor Impact Major impact since crossingresidential subdivision

Permanent road closures will benecessary on Glasgow Rd.

Major impact since crossingindustrial/residential subdivision

Permanent road closures will benecessary on Station Rd., DeerValley Dr. and Glasgow Rd.

Major impact since crossingindustrial/residential subdivision

Minor impact Minor impact

Aesthetics Impacts of tank on adjacentinfrastructure, nature of theexisting surroundinglandscape and topographyof adjacent lands

Minor Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact

Property Requirement Impacts to privately ownedland

Minor impact Minor impact Minor impact Major impact since crossing privateproperty

Minor impact Major impact since crossing privateproperty

Social Environment

Cul

tura

lEn

viro

nmen

t Archaeological Sites Impacts to knownarchaeological sites at thesite or along the route

Stage 2 required for undisturbedareas






Built Heritage Impacts known heritagebuildings at the site oralong the route

None None None None None None


75

Group ofEvaluation

Criteria


Cultural Landscape Impacts to culturallandscapes

Minor impact Minor impact Minor impact Minor impact Minor impact Minor impact

Cultural Environment

Tech

nica

l Sui

tabi

lity

Existing Utilities(feedermain)

Impacts on the number andcomplexity of utilitiescrossings (gas, hydro,telephone, cable, municipalservices, roads, railways,TransCanada Pipelines)

Some impact on buried utilitiessouth of King Road onColeraine Drive

Minor impact on utilities northof King Road

Increased utility impacts onHwy. 50 south to Tank location

Some impact on buried utilitiessouth of King Road onColeraine Drive.

Utility impact minimal onChickadee Road to GlasgowRoad.

Some impact on Glasgow Roadto Hickman Drive

Significant utility and buriedservices (i.e. sewers, gas also)impact on Hickman

Possible relocation of hydropoles from Hickman to CrossCountry Boulevard on Hwy. 50,including other utilities

Minimal utilities impact north ofCross Country Boulevard onHwy. 50

Anticipate a major impact onutilities through the industrialarea along Holland Drive

A significant utilities impact canbe expected along theresidential Station and DeerValley

Impact on existing utilities willbe same for Options 2 and 3along Glasgow Road andHickman Drive up to the Tanknear Columbia Wa.

Anticipate a major impact onutilities such as hydro poles andburied utilities through theindustrial area along HealyRoad to the C.P. Rail tracks.

Anticipate utility conflicts alongQueens Gate

Albion Vaughan Road willrequire some hydro polerelocations, including diversionof existing storm sewers andstorm cross drains for the road

The privately owned area justsouth of Crestridge will requirethe entire access and serviceroad to be demolished alongwith any buried and overheadutilities

North along Mount Hope Roadthe feedermain cuts along aresidential area again. Buriedutilities and other services willbe encountered

Some impact on buried utilitiessouth of King Road onColeraine Drive

Some impact on utilities northof King Road along Chickadee.

No major utilities impactanticipated on Glasgow to theRegions Well site No. 6

Well site No. 6 should bedecommissioned along with thepumping facility and theobservation boreholes. This willfacilitate the contractors workarea and the tunnel shaft

Feedermain across theHumber Valley will be tunnelled

Second shaft, probably entrywill be north of Cross CountryBoulevard in the farm field. Nomajor difficulties anticipated.

The challenges and difficultiesnorth of Cross CountryBoulevard will be same asthose for Options 2 and 3

Same as Option 5

Existing InfrastructureSystem

Amount of additional workrequired to integrate withexisting infrastructure

No connections to existinginfrastructure alongfeedermain. Connection onlyto the Tank and to the existingDistribution system. Generalconstruction methods willsuffice

No connections to existinginfrastructure alongfeedermain. Connection onlyto the Tank and to the existingDistribution system. Generalconstruction methods will besatisfactory





Compatibility with Existingor Planned InfrastructureSystem

Ease of connecting to theexisting infrastructure

No potential problem isexpected






Ease of Construction(Feedermain)

The potential forencountering problems withthe construction of thisalternative

Includes construction alongColeraine Drive, across KingRoad, along Duffys Lane, alongKing Road to Tank andconnection and across Hwy. 50for connection to existingdistribution system. Being thelongest alignment will presentmost construction challenges

Includes 5 water bodycrossings that will betrenchless with shafts bothsides of all crossings.Challenges will includedewatering and soft groundconditions

C.P. Rail track will require a

Includes open cut andtrenchless construction alongColeraine Drive, across KingRoad, north along Chickadee toGlasgow. Glasgow is narrowand parallels the Humber River.There will be significantchallenges in shoring,dewatering, excavation anddisposal. No room for storage.Glasgow will need to be shut asconstruction proceeds

Hickman is narrow andresidential with many buriedservices. Construction will beextremely challengingconstruction vehicle

feedermain alignment cutsthrough a busy industrial area.Temporary lane closures willresult in disruption to businessactivities. Will increase degreeof difficulty leading to slowerprogress

C.P. Rail crossing will requireconformance with its codes andstandards. Trenchlesscrossings always requireadditional precautionsdepending on length of crossing

Open cut construction throughthe residential area will requirelane closures and will result inthe temporary closures of

feedermain alignment cutsthrough a busy industrial areaalong Healy Road. Temporarylane closures will result indisruption to business activities.Will increase degree of difficultyleading to slower progress

C.P. Rail crossing will requireconformance with its codes andstandards. Trenchlesscrossings always requireadditional precautionsdepending on length of crossing

Open cut construction throughthe residential area alongQueens Gate will require laneclosures of this busy road

Impact same as Option 1 toKing Road. Some residenceswill be impacted due to theopen cut installation alongChickadee and along Glasgowto the Regions Well Site No. 6.Construction is routine opencute installation, no difficultiesanticipated

Tunnel construction is by itsvery nature complex, risky, andoften fraught with geologicalunknowns

Preliminary geotechnicalinvestigation shows that tunnelshafts and tunnelling will bethrough stiff clay.

Less potential since notcrossing any developedsubdivisions and due to shorterfeedermain length


76

Group ofEvaluation

Criteria


trenchless crossing with shafts manoeuvring , shoring,dewatering, restrictions andtemporary closures ofresidential driveways

Construction for this option willbe extremely challenging

driveways, traffic diversions etc. Difficulty will increase as a

result of the narrow streets andthe potential for conflict,including support and diversionof existing utilities and otherburied services

Open cut construction alongAlbion Vaughan Road willrequire lane closures of thisbusy road, including hydropoles and other utilitiesdiversion

Trenchless crossings will berequired across the larger waterbody crossings complete withshafts, dewatering, includingmonitoring activities acrossroads etc.

Construction challenges alongHwy. 50 north of Cross CountryBoulevard will be same asthose for Options 2 and 3

Construction Noise effects duringconstruction on adjacentareas

Vibration effects duringconstruction and operation.Impacts of dust to adjacentland uses duringconstruction

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will increase forresidents backing on toColeraine Drive up to KingRoad. Dust impact can bemitigated by water sprayingand cleaning

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will be significant for thesingle dwelling north of theTRCA land east of DuffysLane. Dust impact can bemitigated by water sprayingand cleaning, equipment noiseand vibration will be difficult tocontrol

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will increase forresidents backing on toColeraine Drive up to KingRoad. Dust impact can bemitigated by water sprayingand cleaning

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will be significant for thesingle dwelling on Glasgowand Hickman and will becompounded by the fact thatboth roads are extremelynarrow. . Dust impact can bemitigated by water sprayingand cleaning, equipment noiseand vibration will be difficult tocontrol

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will increase along theindustrial area, including forresidents along Station Roadand Deer Valley. Dust impactcan be mitigated by waterspraying and cleaning

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will be significant alongthe industrial area, including forresidents along Station Roadand Deer Valley. Dust impactcan be mitigated by waterspraying and cleaning,equipment noise and vibrationwill be difficult to control

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will increase along theindustrial area, including forresidents along Queens Gateand Mount Hope Road. Dustimpact can be mitigated bywater spraying and cleaning

Construction noise andvibration is not easy to control

The private land south of CrestRidge will experience significantincreases in construction noise,dust, vibration, including trafficflow activity restrictions

Noise, vibration and dustimpact will increase forresidents backing on toColeraine Drive up to KingRoad and along Chickadee andGlasgow. Dust impact can bemitigated by water sprayingand cleaning

With the exception of the shaftwork, tunnelling will result in nonoise or vibration increase

Construction noise andvibration Hwy. 50 north of CrossCountry Boulevard will be sameas those for Options 2 and 3

Same as Option 5

Capital Costs Total capital costs and landacquisition costs

High due to longer feedermainlength and private landacquisition

High since crossing fullydeveloped residential/ industriallands

High since crossing fullydeveloped residential/ industriallands

High due to deeper gradetunnel

Less due to shorter feedermainlength


Operating and MaintenanceCosts / Issues

Total operating andmaintenance costs

High due to longer feedermainlength



High due to longer feedermainlength



Technical Suitability

Hig

hlig

hts

ofsc

reen

ing

resu

lts

Minimum social and land-useimpactFeedermain alignment notcrossing any subdivision orprivate property

Feedermain running very closeto river along Glasgow Rd.Potential dewatering problemsHigh impact on local residentsHigh environ. & social impact

Feedermain running very closeto river along Glasgow Rd.Potential impact to businesseson Holland Dr.High impact on local residents

Potential impact to businesseson Healey Rd.High impact on local residents

Minimum social and land-useimpactFeedermain alignment notcrossing any subdivision orprivate property

Potential land-use impact sincecrossing soccer field

Rec

omm

enda

tion

RecommendedNot

recommendedNot Recommended

NotRecommended

Recommended Not Recommended


Rpt-2011 10 27 Esr Bolton Elevated Tank 60114048 Final 77

8.3 Bolton Core Feedermain Alternative (Option C)

Following a series of investigations on the proposed feedermain routes in early 2010, an additional routethrough the Bolton core (new Option C) was added along with a new elevated tank site in the vicinity of theexisting tank. As a result, only Alternative Routes 1 (new Option A) and 8 (new Option B) were carriedforward for evaluation against Option C; all three routes originate from the proposed tank in the area ofColeraine Drive, south of King Street in Bolton South Hill.

The route starts at the existing elevated tank at Coleraine Drive and proceeds northward within the ROW toKing St. W. where it continues eastwards within the ROW of King St. W. to Temperance Street. From here itturns north to Sterne Street. The route continues easterly to Ann Street where it crosses the Bolton Coreparking lot and Humber River to Hickman Street. The feedermain will be installed via trenchless crossingacross the Humber River where it continues northerly along Hwy-50 on the west side to Columbia Way.From here it turns easterly for its final connection to the existing distribution system at Kingsview Drive inBolton North Hill.

Several Bolton Core alternative feedermain routes as shown in Figure 18 were analysed. The alternativeBolton Core feedermain route that was selected for further consideration was along Coleraine Drive, KingStreet, Temperance Street, Sterne Street, Highway 50 to Columbia Way.

The total length of feedermain through this route is approximately 4.5 km.

8.4 General Discussion on Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C

A detailed comparison of elevated tank versus reservoir was conducted in Section 6, and it resulted inscreening-out the reservoir option. Therefore, with the elimination of the reservoir option, the feedermainAlternative Routes 9, 10, 11, and 12 are also eliminated from further consideration.

The feedermain alternative routes 7 and 8 are associated with elevated tank option at Concept Area 2. Thedetailed comparison of the three Concept Areas for siting the new elevated tank resulted in Concept Area 2being screened out for further analysis. Therefore, with the elimination of Concept Area 2, the feedermainalternative routes 7 and 8 were also eliminated.

The comparative evaluation of the remaining six potential feedermain routes was undertaken and usingtechnical, environmental, social and economical criteria, it concluded in the elimination of alternativefeedermain Options 2, 3, 4, and 6 for further analysis. Thus resulting in the alternative feedermain Options 1and 5, ranking higher than the others.

Based on the above, the top three potential alternative routes remaining to evaluate were Options 1, 5 andBolton Core. A graphic description of these three potential alternative feedermain routes is shown in Figure18.

Under this section, these three alternatives will be assessed further.

For discussion purposes, Option 1, 8 and Bolton Core FM alignments will be called Option A, B and C,respectively.



The comparison of alternative feedermain routes A, B and C was focused on the natural environment(watercourse crossings), social/cultural environmental (land use), technical suitability (hydraulic performance,operation and maintenance) and economical/financial considerations.


Potential effects to the natural environment: effect on air, land, water and biota siting/routingconsideration or constraints (where applicable).

Alternative feedermain options A, B and C, all have the potential to impact the ground water when installingthe feedermain either by open-cut method or being trenchless installation. However, there is less impact togroundwater under Option C since the feedermain under this option is shorter and with less waterbodycrossings than Routes A and B.

Option A results in six waterbody crossings and Option B results in one larger and more complex waterbodycrossing; as compared to one waterbody crossing in Option C. However, any environmental impact resultingfrom each crossing would be minimized under all options as these crossings will be done using trenchlessmethods.

Impact to vegetation along the flood plain is also less under Option C due to a shorter feedermain length andthe route it follows when compared with Options A and B.

8.4.2 Social/Cultural Environment

Conformity with local/provincial planning policies and Potential land use impacts includingcompatibility with surrounding land use as well as cultural/heritage/agricultural resources.

Alternative feedermain options A, B and C all have the potential to affect traffic and accessibility (temporaryloss of sidewalks) in the Bolton area during construction of the feedermain. During construction hours noiseand dust will be generated for the installation of the feedermain.

Option A has the potential to create the least impact as compared to Options B and C since it would followthe EA approved BAR. In addition, Duffy’s Lane is a less travelled road having fewer properties andsignificantly less density. Properties along Coleraine have no direct access to the street and would thereforeexperience less traffic issues.

Option B has the potential to create significant short-term impact on traffic (i.e. lane closures along Highway50) particularly along Chickadee Lane, a short section of Glasgow Road and Highway 50. No impacts areexpected to be felt along other roads due to the proposed trenchless crossing. Along the open cut areas,access to private properties is expected to be compromised and loss of sidewalks is expected for atemporary period of time during construction.

Significant impacts to local residents and to traffic is also expected under Option C since the feedermain willbe crossing the Bolton Core area. Lane closures along Highway 50 and construction on King Street east ofDeer Valley Drive, where houses have direct access to King Street as well as along Temperance, Sterne,Ann and Highway 50, just north of the Humber River will have significant short-term impacts on traffic. ForOption C, there will be temporary loss of sidewalk use as well as loss of spaces in the parking lot area of the



Bolton Core. This will likely reduce accessibility for residents in the area (i.e. seniors residents and homesalong the feedermain route), as well patrons of businesses in the core area.

Since the construction of the feedermain will cause some traffic impacts on King Street and along otherroutes, it is recommended that the Region follows the MOE Noise Guideline NPC-206 (Sound levels due toRoad Traffic (MOE, October 1995)). Furthermore, it is recommended that during construction approved non-chloride dust suppressants are used and that proper maintenance of construction equipment is maintained tominimize NOx and VOC emissions.

Overall Options A and B rank similar in Social/Cultural impact but better than Route C.

8.4.3 Technical Suitability

Hydraulic Analysis, Operation and Maintenance

Theoretical hydraulic modelling was undertaken to assess, from a comparison standpoint, the differences inhydraulic operation between the three feedermain alternatives and the potential water quality within thefeedermains. A summary of the hydraulic modelling and the water quality analysis undertaken for these threeshort-listed alternatives is included in Appendix J.

The modelling has demonstrated that the feedermain alignments Option A, B and C; should operateacceptably; can effectively mitigate the low pressure issues in the North Hill areas; the new Bolton tank canbe effectively replenished, and the tank level can be stabilized after a fire flow event applied to the maximumday demand conditions for 3 hours (time 36 to 39hrs). Under the conditions modelled, the pressurefluctuations within the system are minimized, the headlosses through the feedermains are acceptable and anadequate flow of water from the tank can be obtained to meet the fire and emergency requirements ofPressure Zone 6 and Zone 6A.

Option B (4.2 km) and C (4.5 km) has a shorter feedermain length than Alternative A (7.5 km) whichtranslates into less volume of water within the feedermain, less head-losses through the feedermain, andmore turnover through the feedermain and elevated tank. In addition, the elevated tank is closer to both theexisting and future demands, which should increase the turnover in the elevated tank.

It is expected that the chlorine concentration is maintained slightly higher under Route B and C as comparedto Route A, due to shorter feedermain length. As with the hydraulic performance of the tank at Route B andC is better, the water in this tank location is "turned-over" more often and the chlorine concentration ismaintained at a slightly higher level.

Under Option B, chamber depths at the exit and entry shaft locations are about 50 m. Depth issue can bemitigated by design of mobile man and equipment retrieval davits. These chambers can be drained bymobile pumps. Access to fix the damaged section of pipe in deep tunnel will require specialized training.Above-ground access to any potential damaged section will be very difficult and will affect the naturalenvironment of the Humber River Valley lands. Deep feedermain in tunnel will increase maintenance cost.

Therefore, Options B and C rank similar but lower than Option A.



8.4.4 Economical/Financial

Estimated capital, operation and maintenance costs including life cycle costs.

Route A has the highest overall cost mainly due to the longer feedermain length of larger diameter, ascompared to Option B and C. A larger diameter feedermain is required to reduce overall headloss alonglonger feedermain.

Longer feedermain lengths under Option A results in six trenchless waterbody crossings which increases themobilization cost of the project as compared to two trenchless waterbody crossings under Option B.Although, the feedermain length under Option B is shorter, the width of crossing the Humber River under thisoption is larger with much higher depths as compared to the depth of crossing under Route A and B, whichrequires this crossing to be tunnelled, eventually increasing the overall cost of Option B close to Option A.

Under Option B, the feedermain crosses the Humber River Valley Lands via Grand Tunnel. Tunnelconstruction is by its very nature complex, risky, and often fraught with geological unknowns. Surprises canalways occur when boring tunnels. Extensive and detailed geotechnical and Hydrogeological investigationswill be required to help evaluate the feasibility, safety, design, and economics of a tunnel project; and forfewer cost overruns and fewer disputes during construction. The unanticipated problems could create costlydelays and disputes during tunnel construction.

Option C ranks lower than Option A and B.

8.5 Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C

The comparative analysis of the three alternative feedermain options resulted in identifying Option C (BoltonCore) as the most viable alternative route.

Table 14 below details the comparative evaluation of Alternate Feedermain Options A, B and C. The reasonsfor eliminating feedermain alignment Routes A and B are detailed below:

Option A: Predominantly Along Future Bolton Arterial Road (BAR), Highway 50

This route begins at the proposed elevated tank sites and runs north along Coleraine Drive andpredominantly follows the proposed Bolton Arterial Road until it reaches Highway 50. From the intersectionof Highway 50/Queen Street North and the BAR, the feedermain route turns south until it reaches ColumbiaWay and then runs east to a connection point at Kingsview Drive.

This lengthy feedermain route would require six trenchless crossings through the Toronto and RegionConservation Authority (TRCA) regulated lands, as compared to two waterbody crossings under Option Band C.

The length of feedermain under Option A (7.5 km) is 40% percent longer then feedermain Option C (4.5 km).Although environmental impact while crossing water bodies is minimized by trenchless crossing, the cost offeedermain installation increases due to longer length of feedermain construction by trenchless method.Longer feedermain length reflects to increased impact to ground water table while installing the feedermain,either by open-cut or trenchless method.



There are also timing issues associated with the construction of the BAR which may not be in line with theproposed feedermain construction schedule. In consideration of the length of this option and the trenchlesscrossing methods required, the estimated cost of Option A is $63 million. Overall capital cost of thefeedermain alignment Option A is expected to increase due to mobilizing/demobilizing of the tunnellingequipment for six different locations along Bolton Arterial Road (BAR).

This option does not lend itself to providing community enhancement.

Based on expected environmental impacts and higher capital cost, it was concluded that Option A beeliminated from the feedermain alternatives options.

Option B: Predominantly Through Potentially Sensitive Humber River Valley Forest Lands

This route begins at the proposed elevated tank site and runs north to Glasgow Road, to the Old Well # 6site owned by the Region of Peel. At this point the route turns east, through TRCA regulated lands andwould require tunnelling under the Humber River to an exit point at Cross Country Boulevard and east toHighway 50/Queen Street North. The feedermain would then run north until it reaches Columbia Way andthen east to a connection point at Kingsview Drive.

The feedermain crosses the Humber River Valley Lands via Grand Tunnel. Tunnel construction is by its verynature complex, risky, and often fraught with geological unknowns. Surprises can always occur when boringtunnels. Extensive and detailed geotechnical and Hydrogeological investigations will be required to helpevaluate the feasibility, safety, design, and economics of a tunnel project; and for fewer cost overruns andfewer disputes during construction. The unanticipated problems could create costly delays and disputesduring tunnel construction.

Although the estimated cost of $52 million is less than Option A ($63 million), there are significantenvironmental impacts associated with this route (open-cut construction and tunnelling through TRCAregulated lands) and obtaining TRCA approval would prove a challenge. A higher risk is also associated withthis route in the event of a feedermain break through the Humber River valley. As with Option A, there is noopportunity for community enhancement.

Taking into consideration the risks associated with the construction of grand tunnel beneath the HumberRiver Valley forest lands, it was concluded that Route B will not be carried forward for further analysis.

Option C: Predominantly through Bolton Core, Highway 50

This route begins at the proposed elevated tank and runs north to King Street West. At this point the routeturns east and runs along King Street to Temperance Street, right along Sterne Street and then north andthrough the Bolton Core parking lot to Highway 50/Queens Street West. Once at this location a crossing ofthe Humber River is required and the feedermain continues north until it reaches Columbia Way and theneast to a connection point at Kingsview Drive.

Two options were presented for the feedermain crossing of the Humber River. The first option was atrenchless crossing under the river using Horizontal Directional Drilling or HDD. The second option was tosuspend the pipe across the river either from the existing bridge or along a new structure.



The estimated cost for Option C is $42 million; a significant cost saving as compared to Options A and B dueto reduced length of the feedermain route and the proposed installation within road right-of ways. There isless environmental impact associated with Option C although public coordination will be needed in order tominimize impacts to the land uses in the Bolton Core area.

Temporary traffic disruption is anticipated on roads where construction is to occur, however this will bebalanced by permanent community enhancement (i.e., pavement rehabilitation on local roads, parking lotimprovements and tree planting, where required). These activities will be coordinated with the Town ofCaledon and integrated with long term plans for the Bolton Core area.

Based on high social and environmental impacts discussed above, it was concluded that routeOption C will be selected as Preliminary Preferred Feedermain Alternative.


83

Table 14 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C

Group ofEvaluation

Criteria

Criteria Indicator Option A (BAR)Coleraine/Duffy/Highway 50

Option B (Grand Tunnel)Coleraine/Highway 50

Shafts – Glasgow Rd. & Cross Country Blvd.

Option C (Bolton Core)Coleraine/King St. W./Highway 50

NaturalEnvironment

Vegetation Amount of woodlots/trees or hedgerowsaffected or removed

Minor impact to vegetation as feedermain would follow EA approved BAR On both sides, parts of the feedermain in the valley are not installed bytrenchless methods and would require the removal of some naturalvegetation that may include young regenerating deciduous forest, youngpine plantation, a row of mature sugar maple, larger planted conifers,mixed forest, etc.

Some tree removal required; along King Street there are±9 trees of primary concern adjacent to the roadway, 200m west of Temperance Street

Least impact environmentally

Wildlife Impact wildlife habitat and Species atRisk

No impact due to construction within the right of way Humber River Valley considered significant wildlife habitat No impact due to construction within the right of way

Groundwater Recharge/ Discharge Areas

Impact on area of land considered anestablished or potential groundwaterrecharge or discharge area

Trenchless crossing in the vicinity of Humber River may impactgroundwater Table; some dewatering may be required

Trenchless crossing in the vicinity of Humber River may impactgroundwater table; some dewatering may be required

Trenchless crossing in the vicinity of Humber River mayimpact groundwater table; some dewatering may berequired


Amount and quality of aquatic habitatthat may be harmfully altered ordisturbed

Potential crossing of one permanent warm water, three permanent coldwater, and one intermittent warm water watercourses

Moderate impact due to trenchless tunnelling under Humber River Potential crossing of one permanent warm water, three permanent cold

water, and one intermittent warm water watercourses

Minor impact impact due to pipe suspension across theHumber River bridge


Amount of ESA, ANSI or wetlandsremoved or disturbed

No ESA/ANSI or wetlands impacted No ESA/ANSI or wetlands impacted No ESA/ANSI or wetlands impacted

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

SocialEnvironment

Land Uses Impact on the existing public propertyand current land uses.

Impact on the existing private propertiesand current land uses

Minor short-term impact as feedermain would follow EA approved BAR.Duffy’s Lane is a less travelled road having fewer properties andsignificantly less density. Properties along Coleraine have no directaccess to the street.

Route crosses Residential, Industrial, Environmental Policy Area andRecreational land uses. Along the open cut areas, access to privateproperties and public space will be compromised for a temporary periodof time during construction.

Least impact to residences and businesses as the Bolton Core area isavoided, as compared to Option B and C

Temporary loss of sidewalks

Significant short-term impact on traffic (i.e. lane closures along Highway50) particularly along Chickadee Lane, a short section of Glasgow Roadand Highway 50. No impacts will be felt along other roads due to theproposed tunnelling.

Moderate short-term impact as the route crosses Residential, Industrialand Recreational land uses. Along the open cut areas, access to privateproperties and public space will be compromised for a temporary periodof time during construction.


Significant short-term impact on traffic (i.e. lane closuresalong Highway 50) particularly on King Street east of DeerLake, where houses have direct access to King Street,and along Temperance, Sterne, Ann and Highway 50, justnorth of the Humber River.

Significant short-term impact to local residences,businesses, seniors home during construction.

Significant short-term impact to Bolton core parking lotduring construction; temporary loss of use


Noise /Dust / Vibration Impacts during construction Minor short-term moderate as feedermain route will be within 100m of ±4industrial/commercial properties, ±50 single family dwellings, ±17multi-family dwellings, and 2 heritage sites.

Moderate short-term impact due to within 100m there is 1 works yard, 1commercial property, ±30 single family dwellings, ±29 multi-familydwellings, and 3 recreational properties.

Significant short-term impact due to within 100m there are±147 single family dwellings, ±27 multi-family dwellings, 1fire hall, 1 police station, 1 paramedic service, 1community service, ±2 banks and ±32 commercialproperties.

Aesthetics Impacts to viewshed during construction There will be moderate short-term impact on ±2 single family dwellings onDuffy’s Lane, where natural views predominate.

There will be short-term moderate impact on ±8 single family dwellingsalong Chickadee and Glasgow Road, where natural views predominate.

There will be moderate short-term impacts on ±2 recreational propertiesand ±12 multi-family dwellings along Highway 50.

There will be significant short-term impacts on ±58 singlefamily dwellings along King, Temperance, Sterne, Annand ±6 single family dwellings along Highway 50, that donot have a buffer.

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

CulturalEnvironment

Archaeological /BuiltHeritage Sites

Impacts to known archaeological or builtheritage sites at the site or along theroute

Minor/no impact due to construction within right-of-way and approvedBAR alignment; Stage 2 archaeological assessment may be required forpreviously undisturbed areas

Minor impact to two (2) heritage sites within 110 m

Stage 2 archaeological assessment required along new feedermain routethrough Humber River; high archaeological potential

Minor/no impact due to construction within right-of-way. Albion Congregational Church Cemetery north of the

Humber River on the east side of Highway 50 will beavoided as the feedermain will be installed on the westside of Highway 50.

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

TechnicalSuitability

Existing Utilities

(Feedermain)

Impacts on the number and complexity

of utilities crossings (gas, hydro,telephone, cable, municipal services,roads, railways, TransCanada Pipelines)

Some impact on utilities such as hydro poles, gas, water and other buriedutilities south of King on Coleraine

Along Coleraine Dr. after crossing Harvest Moon Dr., the feedermaincould be located to the east of Coleraine Dr. to avoid hydro pole impact

Some impact on utilities north of King St. along the BAR Increased (significant) utility impacts on the west side of Hwy 50. Hydro

Some impact on utilities such as hydro poles, gas, water and other buriedutilities south of King on Coleraine

Minimal impact on utilities north of King St. along Chickadee andGlasgow Road to the Region’s Well Site No. 6

No existing utilities impact in the tunnel section Increased (significant) utility impacts on the west side of Hwy 50. Hydro

Some impact on utilities such as hydro poles, gas, waterand other buried utilities south of King on Coleraine

Major impact to existing utilities along King St. Existingfeedermain and gas main might require relocation

Along King St. Hydro poles may require temporarysupport during construction


84

Group ofEvaluation

Criteria





poles may require temporary support during construction and some mayrequire relocation

poles may require temporary support during construction and some mayrequire relocation

Along King St., Temperance St. and Sterne St., theexisting utilities running parallel to the proposed FM willrequire temporary protection during construction

Major utility (large sanitary and storm sewer) crossing atTemperance, Ann and Hickman

A detailed SUE investigation will be required at DetailedDesign stage of this project

No major impact to existing utilities along Hwy-50

Existing InfrastructureSystem

Amount of additional work required tointegrate with existing infrastructure

Connection to Harvest Moon Dr. along King St. Connection required to the proposed and existing elevated tank in South

Hill and to the existing distribution system in North Hill on east of Hwy 50at Columbia Way

Connection to Harvest Moon Dr. along King St. Connection required to the proposed and existing elevated tank in South

Hill and to the existing distribution system in North Hill on east of Hwy 50at Columbia Way

The new feedermain will be connected to existing waterdistribution system at Station, Hickman and ColombiaWay

Connection required to the proposed and existingelevated tank in South Hill and to the existing distributionsystem in North Hill on east of Hwy-50 at Columbia Way

Compatibility withExisting or PlannedInfrastructure System

Ease of connecting to the existinginfrastructure

No potential impact is expected No potential impact is expected No potential impact is expected

Ease of Construction(Feedermain)

The potential for encountering problemswith the construction of this alternative

Crosses the CP tracks south of Ellwood Dr. by trenchless methods.Trenchless methods increase the degree of difficulty

At the stormwater pond (south of Harvest Moon Dr. along Coleraine Dr.)the alignment would be to the east of and north along Coleraine to avoidhydro poles

Across King St. along the BAR, to Hwy 50; generally open cut installationbut contains 6 trenchless water body crossings. Increases the degree ofdifficulty and complexity to the project resulting from shafts both sides ofall crossings in the overburden. Challenges will include dewatering andpossibly wet, soft ground conditions.

Trenchless crossing across Hwy 50 for connection to existing distributionsystem at Colombia Way should not present challenges

Being the longest alignment, will present most construction challenges

Impact similar to Option A to King St. from proposed elevated tank Some residences will be impacted due to open cut installation along

Chickadee and along Glasgow to the Region’s Well Site No. 6 Tunnel construction is by its very nature complex, risky, and often fraught

with geological unknowns Surprises can always occur when boring tunnels. Extensive and detailed

geotechnical and Hydrogeological investigations will be required to helpevaluate the feasibility, safety, design, and economics of a tunnel project;and for fewer cost overruns and fewer disputes during construction. Theunanticipated problems could create costly delays and disputes duringtunnel construction

Preliminary geotechnical investigation shows that tunnel shafts andtunnelling will be through stiff clay leading to reduced dewatering;however, minimal dewatering will likely be required

Along Hwy 50 the construction is routine open cut installation, nodifficulties anticipated.

Trenchless crossing across Hwy 50 should not present challenges No construction difficulties for the off-feed west along King St. from

Chickadee Lane. and Glasgow Road and at Elwood Drive West

Impact same as Option A to King St. from proposedelevated tank

Residences will be impacted due to open cut installationalong King, Temperance and Sterne

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) or suspension from acrossing structure will be used to install FM crossing theHumber River. HDD activity or suspension constructiondoes not require extensive dewatering; however, shaft willrequire continuous dewatering

Bolton Core parking lot will experience significantdisruption during construction due to HDD activity forHumber River crossing Moderate disruption for thesuspension option.

Dewatering will likely be required for feedermaininstallation along King, Temperance and Sterne

Construction is routine open cut installation alongColeraine Drive and Hwy 50; no difficulties anticipated.

Preliminary geotechnical investigation shows that HDDshafts and HDD will be through silt, sandy silt and clayeysilt

Construction challenges along Hwy 50 north of CrossCountry Boulevard will be similar to those for Option B.

Major utility (large sanitary and storm sewer) crossing atTemperance, Ann and Hickman

Construction Noise effects during construction onadjacent areas.

Vibration effects during construction andoperation.Impacts of dust to adjacent land usesduring construction

Construction noise, vibration and dust impact will increase for residentsbacking on to Coleraine Drive up to King/Glasgow. Dust impact can bemitigated by water spraying and cleaning

Noise, vibration and dust impact increase will be significant for the singledwelling north of the TRCA land east of Duffy’s Lane. Noise and vibrationwill be difficult to control

Noise, vibration and dust impact will increase for residents backing on toColeraine Dr. up to King St., along Chickadee and part of Glasgow

With the exception of the shaft work, tunnelling will result in no noise,dust or vibration increase from the Region’s Well Site 6 on the west to theeast shaft site in Cross Country Boulevard

Noise will increase slightly in Cross Country Boulevard. Both shafts willbe enclosed in solid wood hoarding to a minimum height of 2.4 m. Thiswill provide significant noise attenuation

No lane closures expected. The contractors work area will be just north ofCross Country ROW

Noise, vibration and dust impact will increase along Hwy 50 forbusinesses west of Hwy-50 to Colombia Way

Noise, vibration and dust impact will increase for residentsbacking on to Coleraine Drive and along King,Temperance and Sterne

May result in increased noise, dust or vibration in theBolton Core parking lot due to construction activity

The staging areas will be enclosed in solid wood hoardingto a minimum height of 2.4 m. This will provide significantnoise attenuation

Only one lane will be left open for traffic duringconstruction along King, Temperance and Sterne

Noise, vibration and dust impact will increase along Hwy50 for businesses west of Hwy 50 to Columbia Way

Construction noise and vibration along Hwy 50 north ofCross Country Boulevard will be similar to those forOption B

Operation Operational requirements such as Chamber depths between 5m and about 20m. Chamber depths about 5 m except at the 2 shafts. At shafts, chamber Chamber depths about 5 m except the drain chamber at


85

Group ofEvaluation

Criteria





drainage and maintenance Drain chambers by mobile pumps Being the longest alignment will increase the operational and

maintenance requirement

depths are about 50 m. Region has been operating and maintainingchambers about 30 m deep for the Herridge Feedermain

Depth issue can be mitigated by design of mobile man and equipmentretrieval davits

Drain chambers by mobile pumps Access to fix the damaged section of pipe in deep tunnel will require

specialized training Aboveground access to any potential damaged section will be very

difficult and will affect the natural environment of the Humber River Valley Deep feedermain in tunnel will increase maintenance cost

Humber River crossing Shallow depths will result Being the shortest alignment will result in lower

operational and maintenance requirement

BAR Schedule Dependence on the BAR schedule Significant section of this alignment is dependent on the BAR schedule Major section of this alignment is independent of the BAR schedule This alignment is independent of the BAR schedule

Capital Costs Total capital costsLand acquisition costs

Feedermain - $63M Elevated Tank - $8.5M Land Acquisition - $3.0M (Elevated Tank Site)



Operating andMaintenance Costs /

Issues

Total operating and maintenance costs.Life Cycling Costs

High due to longer feedermain length Less due to shorter feedermain length; however, deep tunnel section willresult in higher cost

Low due to shorter feedermain length

TECHNICAL SUITABILITY

OVERALL FEEDERMAIN RANKING

Evaluation: Most Preferred Least Preferred


86

8.5.1 Preferred Feedermain Route

Based on the preceding evaluations, the preferred design concept for feedermain alignment in theCommunity of Bolton will be Option C, the construction of approximately 5.0 km of feedermain length withsizes ranging from 1050mm to 400mm diameter, from the proposed elevated tank site in the South Hillarea of Bolton to the North Hill area, through the Bolton Core. The feedermain is expected to beconstructed, for most part within Road right-of-way.

Figure 19 represents the recommended feedermain route alignment and is summarized as follows:

Northwest on Coleraine Drive from proposed elevated tank site to King Street WestNortheast on King Street West to Temperance StreetNorthwest on Temperance Street to Sterne StreetNortheast on Sterne to Queen Street North/Hwy-50 through Bolton Core Parking lotNorthwest on Queen Street North/Hwy 50 to Columbia WayNortheast on Columbia Way to Kingsview Drive.

The majority of the land use surrounding the preferred feedermain route is either residential orcommercial, in various stages of development, with an undeveloped open space area along Hwy 50.

The feedermain for the most part, will be installed underground by open cut method. This proposedconstruction method provides the least impact to the natural environment and results in reduceddisruption to residents and the general public. Some of the major advantages presented by this routeinclude:

Least impact to the natural environment (i.e., watercourse crossings and removal of trees)Least noise and dust related impacts during constructionConstruction that may be completed within Road right-of-wayCan be coordinated with planned Town of Caledon improvement worksProvides opportunity for community enhancementLow and mitigable social/cultural impactsGood constructabilityRelative low construction costs.


87

Figure 18 Alternative Feedermain Options A, B and C


88

Figure 19 Preferred Feedermain Route


89

9. Phase 3: Alternative Designs to the Preferred Solution9.1 Overview

The Preferred Solution for the elevated tank site and the feedermain route comprises:

A new 9.0 ML (2.38 MG) elevated storage tank located on the west side of Coleraine Drive near the existingelevated tank at 13352 Coleraine Drive (refer to Section 7.2 for the detailed evaluation of all sites investigated)A new 1050mm/600 mm/400 mm (42”/24”/16”) diameter feedermain, approximately 5 km in length from theproposed elevated tank on Coleraine Drive through the Bolton Core with connection to the North Hill distributionsystem.

9.2 Description of the Preferred Elevated Tank Site

Detailed site investigations were undertaken for the preferred elevated tank site to identify potential impacts andidentify mitigation measures. The findings are presented in this section.


The identified natural features are presented in Figure 20 and summarized below. The Natural Environment Reportis found in Appendix C.

9.2.1.1 Aquatic Habitat

No aquatic features are present within the study area. There is however a small un-named warmwater watercourseis present to the south of the property. Historical TRCA fish occurrence records from approximately 8 kmdownstream of the site included historic records of Bluntnose and Fathead Minnows from 1946, also a single recordof Blacknose Dace in 1994. The watercourse is managed for Darter Species downstream of Healey Road under theHumber River Fisheries Management Plan (MNR & TRCA, 2005) and is currently not identified as Redside Dacehabitat nor is it considered under the Redside Dace recovery strategy.

The project is not considered to directly or indirectly impact this watercourse, including its riparian forms andfunction.

9.2.1.2 Terrestrial

The preferred tank and overflow pond location is contained within an existing paved parking lot and work yard of theproperty and has no existing vegetation.

9.2.1.3 Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife habitat is considered to be of poor quality or non-existent due to the highly disturbed urban landscape andlimited natural features of significant size or function. Species using the area are expected to be common to urbanenvironments (i.e., squirrel, racoon, robin, sparrow, etc.).

9.2.2 Socio-Economic Environment

The property at 13352 Coleraine Drive abuts the Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers on the north and is zoned GeneralIndustrial (Caledon Official Plan 2008). The existing elevated tank is located across Coleraine Drive on the eastside. To the south is an existing active agricultural field, currently zoned Prime Agricultural, however, the Town ofCaledon is proposing to re-designate these lands to Employment Lands, and has already undertaken an Agricultural


90

Impact Study. There are ±2 single family dwellings within 100m which will have direct view of the elevated tank;however this line of sight will be buffered by future development. There are no other sensitive uses within100-200m.


91

Figure 20 Natural Features


92

9.2.3 Archaeology and Built Heritage

A detailed review of the potential elevated tank sites in the South Hill area occurred in 2010 by Archeoworks Inc.(Refer to Appendix B for Archeoworks Inc. report). Consultation of the Ontario Heritage Properties Database, aswell as, the Town of Caledon’s Database confirmed the presence of one (1) listed and three (3) designated heritageproperties within 100 metres of the study area limits and one designated property, identified as the John ShoreHouse within the limits of 13304 Coleraine Drive (Site No. 3). Background research has also determined thattwenty-nine (29) archaeological sites have been registered within a 2000 metre radius of the study area of whichtwelve (12) are located within 250 metres of the study area limits. This would indicate that the potential for locatingadditional sites within this region is possible. In addition, the Humber River and its associated tributaries bisect thestudy area; therefore research supports high potential for locating Aboriginal artifactual remains within 300 metres ofthese water sources. A review of the study area within the 1859 Tremaine’s Map of Peel County and 1877Illustrated Historical Atlas of Peel County indicated that numerous historical features, including the historic village ofBolton, were formerly located within or in close proximity to the limits of the study area. As such, the backgroundresearch also supports high potential for locating historical remains within undisturbed portions of its limits.

With the exception of the proposed 13352 Coleraine Drive site, which was subject to previous Stage 1-2 assessmentand was cleared of any further archaeological concerns, the sites comprising potential elevated tank sites in theSouth Hill area were subjected to a Stage 1 field review. The sites were considered to be highly disturbed due toresidential subdivision development, light commercial land uses and on-going construction. As well, disturbancesadjacent to most roadways included narrow gravel shoulders, paved shoulders and sidewalks, drainage ditches,landscaping, underground utilities and sloping embankment. Furthermore, physiographic factors affecting potentialincluded sloping terrain and low-lying wet areas identified in select locations throughout the study area. Due to thedisturbed and physiographic conditions of these areas, archaeological potential can be considered removed and assuch these areas do not warrant systematic archaeological survey.

Prior to the construction of the proposed feedermains within the permanent easement on property 13304 ColeraineDrive a Stage 2 Archaeological investigation will be required for previously undisturbed areas.

9.2.4 Geotechnical Investigation

A geotechnical investigation was completed by Exp. Services Inc. (previously known as Trow Associates Inc.) in July2011, to support all on site work required for the construction of the elevated tank. The complete GeotechnicalReport is included in Appendix F.

The information contained in the geotechnical report is based on the available subsurface and groundwaterinformation and it is not intended to provide the basis for the detailed design of the elevated tank; therefore,additional investigations will be conducted prior to the detailed design stage of the project. A brief discussion of themain issues and recommendations stated in the geotechnical report is as follows:

The investigation consisted of drilling a total of three (3) boreholes to 12.7 m depth, with BH1 instrumented with50 mm a monitoring wellWet and caving conditions were noted in BH 1 & 2, where no free water was observed in BH3The five-day groundwater level in BH1 was recorded at 3.5 m below gradeThe finding in BH1 and 2 within the proximity of the proposed tank structure indicated very stiff clayey silt tillencountered at foundation levelFootings or a raft foundation founded on the native very stiff clayey silt till at or below depth of about 2.0 m belowexisting grade may be designed for a factored SLS bearing value of up to 300 kPa and a factored ULS bearingvalue of up to 450 kPa, subject to review during construction


93

The total and differential settlements of well designed and constructed foundations placed as recommended ingeotechnical report, are expected to be small and well within the normally tolerated limits of 25 mm and 20 mm,respectivelyThe Class for the proposed Site is “D” as per Table 4.1.8.4.A, Site Classification for Seismic Site Response OBC2006Visual examination of the recovered soil samples does not show any signs (i.e., staining, odours, etc.) whichmay indicate potential environmental problemsThe site is generally suitable for the construction of the proposed elevated tank.

9.3 Description of Preferred Feedermain Route

Detailed site investigations were performed along the proposed route to determine potential impacts and identifymitigation measures are summarized in the following Sections.


The following sections provide a summary of ecological features within the feedermain segments and the elevatedtank and reservoir location and the Natural Environment Report is included in Appendix C. The segments weredivided as follows:

Segment 1 - Coleraine Drive (Elevated tank Location to King Street West)Segment 2 – King Street West (Coleraine Drive to Temperance)Segment 3 – Temperance (King to Sterne) and Sterne StreetSegment 4 – Highway 50/Queen Street Humber River CrossingSegment 5 – Highway 50/Queen Street.

9.3.1.1 Aquatic

Segment 1- Coleraine Drive (Elevated tank location to King Street West)

The Segment 1 feedermain route crosses an un-named watercourse at Coleraine Drive, approximately 210 m southof its intersection with King Street). The watercourse is a tributary to the West Humber River and originates from astormwater management pond (SWMP) located to the west side of Coleraine Drive. It is classified as a warmwatersystem with an intermittent flow regime. The watercourse flows easterly as a small meandering channel passingthrough a semi-naturalized, narrow, steep valley corridor. For approximately 300 m, the watercourse channel runsparallel to King Street before entering a separate SWMP near the intersection of King and Station Road. From thispoint onward, flow from the SWM pond is directed below ground to the north across King Street to the Main HumberRiver.

No TRCA or MNR fish occurrence records exist for this watercourse. Based on similar watercourses where suchinformation is known, this watercourse is expected to be comprised of highly tolerant warmwater baitfish species.Specifically, this watercourse is managed for Darter species under the Humber River Fisheries Management Plan(HRFMP) (MNR & TRCA, 2005) and is currently not identified as Redside Dace habitat nor is it considered under theRedside Dace recovery strategy. Barriers in fish migration are not confirmed, but likely present at Coleraine Drive aswell as at the crossing of King Street. Water quality is expected to be poor due to influence from upstream sourcesand surrounding land use. This includes oil, metals and hydrocarbons from road runoff.

The available fish habitat within this warmwater watercourse is of low quality.


94

Segment 2 – King Street West (Coleraine Drive to Temperance)

The Segment 2 feedermain route crosses the same un-named watercourse. This watercourse is directed belowground to the north across the feedermain route (King Street), below a residential area ultimately discharging intothe Main Humber River approximately 0.5 km to the north. Since the watercourse is buried at this crossing, itprovides no direct habitat function, but likely provides some indirect contributions to the Main Humber. Thewatercourse upstream provides limited warmwater fish habitat and is of low quality. Fish community assemblage isexpected to be highly tolerant. The watercourse is highly impacted by anthropogenic influences including moderateto high density urban land use upstream of the crossing location.

Segment 3 – Temperance (King to Sterne) and Sterne Street

No aquatic features are present.

Segment 4 – Highway 50/Queen Street Humber River Crossing

The principle aquatic feature within this segment is the Humber River. The proposed method for routing the watermain within the vicinity of the Humber River is bridge suspension from a new crossing structure to be built adjacentto the existing bridge. Bridge suspension avoids potential adverse impacts to the watercourse associated withalternate construction methods such as any trenchless crossing or open cut construction. Moreover, bridgesuspension takes advantage of existing infrastructure and right of way to minimize impacts to previously undisturbedlands. Mitigation for the protection of watercourses during overhead bridge construction is well documented byFisheries and Oceans Canada (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca) and within current construction Best Management Practices(i.e. BMP) typically used for such projects.

Minimizing the potential adverse impacts to the Humber is important because of the overall importance andsensitivity of the Humber River as fish habitat. The Main Humber River is a permanent coldwater system containinga sensitive sportfish community. The MNR manages this system for Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Brown trout(Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) under the Humber River Fisheries Management Plan (MNR &TRCA 2005). Currently the study area reach is not identified as Redside Dace habitat nor is it considered under theRedside Dace recovery strategy. Fish species occurrence records provided from TRCA characterizes the local fishcommunity within the Main Humber River at the location of the feedermain crossing. These species are provided inTable 15 below.

Table 15 Fish Species Occurrence Records for the Study Area Reach of the Main Humber River

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific NameCommon Shiner Notropis cornutus Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractaeBlacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Stonecat Noturus flavusCreek Chub Semolitus atromaculatus Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleumFaintail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrumBrown Trout Salmo trutta Pumpkinseed* Lepomis gibbosusWhite Sucker Catostomus commersonii American Brook Lamprey* Lampetra aepypteraNorthern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans Bluntnose Minnow* Pimephales notatusRiver Chub Nocomis micropogon Fathead Minnow* Pimephales promelas

Note: *Historical presence (1970s, TRCA)

The Main Humber River flows within a naturalized valley corridor that narrows considerably through the Town ofCaledon. The River can be described as a wide and shallow watercourse. Substrates at the crossing consist of


95

fines, cobbles and boulders. It is unknown if spawning occurs within the vicinity of the crossing, but any potentialimpacts would be addressed through use of applicable construction timing window restrictions.

Overall, the watercourse provides high quality coldwater fish habitat for sensitive coldwater species such as BrownTrout.

Segment 5 – Highway 50/Queen Street

The Segment 5 feedermain route crosses an un-named watercourse on Highway 50/Queen Street, approximately325 m south of the intersection with Columbia Way). The watercourse is a tributary to the West Humber River and isclassified as a war water system with an intermittent flow regime. The un-named watercourse originates from astormwater management pond (SWMP) located to the east side of Highway 50/Queen Street. To the west, thewatercourse is characterized as a small meandering channel that flows through a naturalized corridor. It continuesto flow in a southwesterly direction for approximately 625 m before entering the Main Humber River.

The fish assemblage of this system is comprised of warm water tolerant species. Currently, this watercourse ismanaged for Darter species under the HRFMP (MNR & TRCA, 2005). Redside Dace habitat is not present withinthis reach and the system is not considered under the Redside Dace recovery strategy. Barriers in fish migration arenot confirmed, but likely present at Highway 50/Queen Street with the presence of the SWMP. Water quality isexpected to be poor due to influence from upstream source and surrounding land use. This includes oil, metals andhydrocarbons from road runoff as well as fertilizers and pesticides from local parkland.

9.3.1.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Segment 1- Coleraine Drive (Elevated Tank Location to King Street West)

Wildlife habitat is considered to be of poor quality or non-existent due to the highly disturbed urban landscape andlimited natural features of significant size or function. Species using the area are expected to be common to urbanenvironments (i.e., squirrel, racoon, robin, sparrow, etc.). The presence of a stormwater pond on the west side ofColeraine Drive may provide additional amphibian habitat, but there is no migratory pathways from this location toadjacent areas.


Wildlife habitat is considered to be of poor quality or non-existent due to the highly disturbed urban landscape andlimited natural features of significant size or function. Species using the area are expected to be common to urbanenvironments (i.e., squirrel, racoon, robin, sparrow, etc.). The presence of a stormwater pond on the south side ofKing Street West may provide additional amphibian habitat, but there is no migratory pathways from this location toadjacent areas.




Wildlife habitat is considered to be of poor quality or non-existent due to the highly disturbed urban landscape andlimited natural features of significant size or function. Species using the area are expected to be common to urban


96

environments (i.e., squirrel, racoon, robin, sparrow, etc.). Although the area is largely urbanized with limited naturalfeatures along the alignment, there are areas of higher quality habitat. Specifically, the feedermain portion thatborders this habitat is through the Humber River Valley (Figure 20). In this area, parts of, or most of the Valley to thenorthwest of Bolton are likely to be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) based on several potential criterialisted in the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study (North-South EnvironmentalInc. 2009). These include: Highly Diverse Areas, Habitat for Area-sensitive Forest Interior Breeding Bird Species,Raptor-nesting Habitat (Red-shouldered Hawk), Species Identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened byCOSEWIC which are not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (e.g.,Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) which has been recorded here), and animal movement corridors,and possibly others.

Moreover, it is important to note that available habitat within the study area is very limited (narrow strip) andtherefore species noted are unlikely to be present.



9.3.1.3 Terrestrial Environment

Segment 1- Coleraine Drive (Elevated tank location to King Street West)

There is no vegetation within the Segment 1 feedermain route occurring within the Coleraine Drive ROW. Adjacentvegetation is predominantly manicured grass and individual ornamental tree plantings along the ROW. Limitedareas of cultural meadow, deciduous forest and coniferous plantation are present within a small semi-naturalizedvalley where the feedermain crosses an un-named watercourse south of King Street).


There is no vegetation within the Segment 2 feedermain route occurring within the King Street West ROW. Adjacentvegetation along the ROW is described below.

Cultural meadow is the predominant vegetation community along on the north side of King Street between ColeraineDrive and Deer Valley Drive). As this area is periodically mowed vegetation is disturbed. At the northeast andnorthwest corners of King Street and Deer Valley Drive are small inclusions of plantings of White Spruce (Piceaglauca) approximately 5 m tall. Immediately east of Coleraine Drive is a small deciduous forest community locatedalong a small watercourse feature, although it will not be affected as located between this feature and thefeedermain route is a developed area (mowed grass with building). Areas of cultural thicket are also present.

Vegetation on the south side of King Street lies within a narrow creek valley that is semi-natural with successionalvegetation. Vegetation communities include cultural meadow, cultural thicket, deciduous forest and coniferousplantation. Tree species in the valley include American Elm (Ulmus americana), Red Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),Crack Willow (Salix X rubens) and European Buckthorn (Rhamnus catharticus).

At the southeast corner of King Street and Deer Valley Drive there is a small cultural thicket on bottomland thatconsists largely of Crack Willow and Red Ash. Disturbance to this area should be avoided if possible, as it is likelyan area with a higher groundwater table than surrounding areas. A stormwater pond surrounded by culturalmeadow also occurs on the southwest side of the intersection at King and Station Road. A small area of cultural


97

thicket and mixed forest is also present between Station Road and Hesp Drive, although will not be affected aslocated between this feature and the feedermain route is urban residential development.

The remainder of King Street moving east to Temperance Road is predominantly urban residential and thereforedominated by lawn and ornamental street trees. Some very mature Bur Oak (Quecus macrocarpa) and SugarMaple (Acer saccharum) occur on the north side of King Street, just west of Temperance Street. There are ±9 treesof primary concern adjacent to the roadway, 200 m west of Temperance Street. Construction mitigation such ashoarding will be performed to ensure that impact to trees is minimal. In general, new trees will be planted along KingStreet between Coleraine Drive and Station Road once construction is complete.


There is no vegetation within the Segment 3 feedermain route occurring within the King Street West ROW).Adjacent vegetation along the ROW is limited to manicured grass and individual street trees. A small portion ofdeciduous forest is located within 120 m of the feedermain route at the end of Temperance Street. This forest is partof the Humber River Valley woodland systems and according to the Peel Region Official Plan (OP) this woodland ispart of a larger designated core-greenland area. Construction activities and feedermain alignment are notanticipated to encroach on this woodland.


There is no vegetation present within the paved parking lot, located on the south side of the Main Humber River,west of Highway 50/Queen Street.

Adjacent features include the Humber River and its valleylands; which are buffered by a narrow strip (approximately20 m) of young riparian deciduous woodland dominated by non-native Manitoba Maple. According to the PeelRegion Official Plan (OP) this woodland is part of a larger designated core-greenland area. The River and itsvalleyland, including these woodlands are located within the Humber River crossing section (i.e. pipe suspension ofthe feedermain route) which is not expected to create significant impact.

Within the areas north of the river crossing up to Centennial Drive (north shaft location) on the west side ofHighway 50/Queen Street, vegetation is limited to street trees and manicured lawn associated with residences alongthe alignment. A small portion of deciduous forest is located along Centennial Drive but will be unaffected byconstruction activities. On the east side of Highway 50/Queen Street and north of Warbrick Lane, there is a smalldeciduous forest containing Sugar Maple, White Ash and American Basswood. This forest is part of the HumberRiver Valley woodland systems and according to the Peel Region Official Plan (OP) this woodland is part of a largerdesignated core-greenland area. A narrow strip of cultural meadow with scattered White Ash and Sugar Maplesaplings occurs along Highway 50/Queen Street between the forested area and the ROW.


There is no vegetation within the Segment 5 feedermain route occurring within the Highway 50/Queen Street ROW.Adjacent vegetation along the ROW is limited to manicured grass and individual trees with the exception to a small,poor quality deciduous forest located at the southern edge of the cemetery (west side of Highway 50/Queen Street,north of Centennial Drive, where trees are scattered throughout and the canopy is approximately 8 m from thesidewalk (which closely boarders the road). Cultural meadow is also located within areas adjacent to the ROW.


98

9.3.2 Social Environment

Effects on land use associated with the feedermain route are short-term and moderate. Along open cut areas,particularly on King Street east of Deer Valley Drive, where houses have direct access to King Street, and alongTemperance, Sterne, Ann and Highway 50, just north of the Humber River, access to private properties and publicspace will be compromised for a temporary period of time during construction.

Nuisance effects such as noise, dust and vibration will have significant short-term impacts with Option C. Within100 m there are ±174 residential dwellings, ±32 commercial properties, 1 police station. 1 fire hall, ±2 banks, andseveral properties that will be particularly affected by nuisance effects: 1 paramedic service, 1 community service,and 1 nursing home.

As Option C will be installed through the Bolton Core area, there will be significant short term disruptions totransportation due to temporary road closures, detours, and travel delays as well as temporary loss of sidewalks.The most considerable impact may be to the fire hall and paramedic services on Temperance, and on the policestation on the east side of Queen Street. Also, there will be considerable impact felt on King Street east of DeerValley Road, where houses have direct access to King Street, and along Temperance, Sterne, Ann and Highway 50,just north of the Humber River.

The aesthetic impacts for Option C are considered to be significant but short-term. There are ±58 dwellings alongKing, Temperance, Sterne and Ann, and ±6 dwellings along Highway 50 that do not have a buffer.

Although impacts associated with Option C will be significant, they will be short-term and community enhancementpost-construction, through coordination with the Town of Caledon, will be permanent. Parking lot and parketteimprovements will be coordinated with the Town of Caledon’s long-term plans. New sidewalks and curbs alongTemperance and Sterne Streets will be constructed, as well as new storm sewers and re-paving of the Bolton Corearea streets, where construction will occur.

View looking east on Sterne Street

Conceptual sidewalk on north side of Sterne Street


99

On the north side of the Humber River, sidewalk improvements will occur along Highway 50/Queen Street, on thewest side of Highway 50 from Hickman Street to Bolton Heights Drive and on the east side of Highway 50 fromBolton Heights Drive to Columbia Way. This new sidewalk will link downtown Bolton to Bolton Heights andColumbia Way and will provide access between the Albion-Bolton District Park and the Caledon Centre forRecreation and Wellness.

Queen Street/Highway 50 and Bolton Heights Drive, Bolton

Since the construction of the feedermain will cause some traffic impacts on King Street and other routes, it isrecommended that the Region of Peel follows the MOE Noise guideline NPC-206 (Sound levels due to Road Traffic– MOE, October 1995). Furthermore, it is recommended that during construction, approved non-chloride dustsuppressants are used, and that the Region of Peel ensures that proper equipment maintenance is kept to minimizeNOx and VOC emissions

9.3.3 Archaeology and Heritage Features

The preliminary preferred feedermain alignment was reviewed as part of this assignment by Archeoworks Inc. withthe understanding that trenchless crossing methods are proposed for the crossing of the Humber River at Highway50. At the time that borehole investigations were occurring in the parking lot area a sample of the borehole materialextracted was examined by Archeoworks Inc. to determine archaeological potential on the area south of HumberRiver for proposed shaft for trenchless crossing of the Humber River and the material did not yield anything thatwould indicate archaeological potential, therefore the proposed shaft location on the south side of the Humber Riveris considered clear of further archaeological concerns.

A shaft location was originally located on the north side for the trenchless crossing of the Humber River, within thesloping embankment along the east side of the Queen Street North. While the immediate embankment is classifiedas low in archaeological potential, located at the top of the hill is the Albion Congregational Church Burying Ground.Stage 3 archaeological investigations immediately north of Warbrick Lane, on the east side of Highway 50 wereundertaken on November 19th, 2010. Burial remains, including human bone and nails were found at the northernedge of the proposed tunnel shaft and were encountered immediately underneath the overlying grass and roots andappeared to have been partially removed by the previous construction work. When the bones were exposed andinspected, work at the site was halted and the local Police and Coroner were immediately contacted to confirm thatthe site had no forensic interest and as such was released back to Archeoworks. A letter-report was submitted tothe Cemeteries Regulation Section of the Ministry of Government Services and is found in Appendix B.

Given the findings and due to other issues related to the alignment on that side of the road, the feedermainalignment was reconfigured to the west side of Highway 50 within the road right-of-way.

With respect to the archaeological potential for the area within the downtown Bolton parking lot, a review ofnumerous easement properties in this area indicated that the proposed feedermain route has been disturbed by


100

existing parking lot construction or previous installation of water/sewer facilities. Therefore, no archaeologicalinvestigation is required for the feedermain alignment within the Bolton Core parking lot area.

9.3.4 Geotechnical Investigation – Phase I

A geotechnical investigation was undertaken to obtain information about the subsurface soil and groundwaterconditions along the preferred feedermain route and to make recommendations based on the findings, for the designand construction of the preferred feedermain. The complete Geotechnical Report is included in Appendix F.

The information contained in the geotechnical report is based on the available subsurface and groundwaterinformation and it is not intended to provide the basis for the detailed design of the feedermain; therefore, additionalinvestigations will be conducted prior to the detailed design stage of the project. A brief discussion of the mainissues and recommendations stated in the geotechnical report is as follows:

The north and south ends of the feedermain route will be installed by open cut trench in Fill overlaying silty claytill or clayey silt tillThe middle portion of the feedermain route, i.e., with the Bolton core will be installed by open cut trench in Filloverlaying wet, dilatants silt, sandy silt and clayey siltThe results of the organic parameter test indicated fraction of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in western limits of theBolton Core parking lot. it is suggested that a Follow-up Petroleum Impacted Soil Investigation to be carried outduring detail design stage of this projectMost of the soil types encountered in the boreholes provide good support to the proposed feedermains. In wettrench conditions Clear Stone or High Performance Bedding completely wrapped with a non-woven filter fabric tobe used as pipe beddingOpen-cut installation of the feedermain in Bolton core, approximately within the TRCA regulation limits mayrequire temporary dewatering. The method of temporary dewatering will be selected during detail design stageof the projectA Permit-To-Take-Water from the MOE may still be required depending on the amount of dewatering required.It is further noted, that the feedermain, once constructed, is not anticipated to have any significant long-termimpact on local groundwater flow.The proposed 1050 mm diameter feedermain will cross CP Railway tracks on Coleraine Drive via tunnelling.Tunnelling can be either hand mining within a shield with forward hood, or a tunnel boring machine (TBM).Detailed design drawings will be submitted to CP Railway for review and approval during detail designconstruction stageThe proposed 400 mm diameter feedermain will cross the Humber River along Hwy-50 via. If trenchlessunderground feedermain installation is selected, the report recommends the use of Horizontal Directional Drilling(HDD) method. Silt, Sandy silt, and Clayey silt were encountered in the boreholes along this trenchless crossing.

Piezometric level measurements were taken on two occasions following completion of the drilling. Appropriatemeasures will be undertaken to install and support the feedermain in wet areas or areas of incompetent soilconditions.

9.3.5 Geotechnical Investigation – Phase II

A Phase II Geotechnical Investigation was undertaken to complete a Follow-up Environmental investigation of aportion of the feedermain alignment crossing Bolton Core parking lot. The work program for this investigation wasdeveloped based on the findings contained in Phase I Geotechnical investigation discussed above. This Follow-upEnvironmental Investigation Report is included in Appendix F.


101

The Phase I investigation indicated that Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) at concentrations exceeding applicableMinistry of Environment Standards were detected in soil at one test location. Follow-up investigation was required todetermine the extent of the feedermain alignment affected by the presence of petroleum impacted soils. AnElectromagnetic Scan of the parking lot through which the feedermain is scheduled to pass was also to be carriedout to check for the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) in the area.

The objective of this Follow-up Environmental investigation was to assess the subsurface soil condition of the Site.The work was carried out to meet the requirements of the current CSA Standard Z769-00, “Phase II EnvironmentalSite Assessment”.

Based on the findings of this Follow-up Environmental investigation and Phase I - Geotechnical Investigation, thefollowing conclusions and recommendations are provided:

The subsurface electromagnetic scan identified no underground storage tanks (USTs) within the boundaries ofthe portion of the parking lot scanned and included as the site for this investigationPetroleum impacted soil along the proposed feedermain alignment extends along the western limits of theparking lotSoil exhibiting exceedances of the selected MOE Table 2 Standards for Inorganic parameters was identified atapproximately 0.7 to 1.2 m below grade detailed in the Follow-up Environmental Investigation ReportConstruction Procedures should include a health and safety plan to address issues related to petroleumimpacted soilThe specifications for the watermain pipe in the vicinity of the petroleum impacted soil should be checked forcompatibility which such conditions.

9.3.6 Hydrogeology

The hydrogeological assessment included a review of the MOE Water Well Records, a review of the physiography,geology and hydrogeology of the preferred feedermain alignment, as well as a site inspection to observe localgroundwater characteristics. The Hydrogeology Report is included in Appendix E.

A brief discussion of the main issues and recommendations stated in the Hydrogeological report is as follows:

The Bolton area is located in the physiographic region known as the South Slope, which is characterized byundulating tracts of land faintly drumlinizedApproximately 22 wells were identified within 500 m of the preferred feedermain alignment. All the wells withinthe 500 m of the preferred feedermain alignment draw water from overburden aquifers.The groundwater elevations along the proposed feedermain route varied from approximately 0.76 m to 11.97mbgs. The static water level (SWL) monitoring of the existing monitoring wells suggests that the most part of thefeedermain is at or above the SWL. Due to the complex nature of geomorphology of the area, the shallowgroundwater flow pattern is expected to be relatively complexThe horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the overburden in the area close to the Humber River varies from 1.84 x10-7 to 5.9 x 10-7 m/sApproximately 22 of the wells are located within 500 m of the proposed feedermain alignment. All the wellswithin 500 m of the feedermain alignment are screened in overburden aquifersThe maximum predicted zone of influence to lower and maintain the groundwater level to a depth 0.5 m belowthe invert elevation of the feedermain is 9 m from the dewatering areaThe predicted zone of influence to drop and maintain the groundwater level below 8.0 m to 12 m below the SWLis in the range of 14 m to 28 mThe estimated seepage rate for the open cut section of the feedermain is 66.3 m3/day. This dewatering rate wasestimated for the full length of the open cut excavations extend into the saturated zone


102

There are no potential impacts of the dewatering activities at the site on the existing residential water wellsConduct a residential well monitoring program for the wells located within 500 m of the feedermain alignment.

9.3.7 Town of Caledon Work

The Town of Caledon is undertaking plans for the long term revitalization of the Bolton Core area including re-construction of the south west Bolton Core parking lot, reconstruction of Ann Street and the construction of aparkette adjacent to the Humber River. Town of Caledon and Region of Peel have met to discuss coordinationefforts between Region’s initiative and the Town’s upgrades to the downtown in order to reduce impacts to thecommunity construction. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix A.

9.4 Watercourse Crossings

The proposed Feedermain route traverses many watercourses. Most of the water crossings are technicallystraightforward and have minimal environmental impacts. The pipelines will cross 6 identified watercourses asdetailed in Table 20 below.

The following watercourse crossing methods were considered for watercourse crossing under this project:

Open cutIsolationTrenchless.

Open TrenchOccurs without any isolation or diversion of flow away from the work areaStreams that cannot be crossed using the other methods may be crossed this wayAny stream that is dry or frozen to the bottom can be crossed with this method.

IsolationThe work area is isolated from the flow of the stream and the pipeline is installed in dry conditions. Pipelines areinstalled by applying isolated (dry) crossing technique (i.e. dam and pump) to minimize the effects of instreamconstruction during feedermain crossing installation.

TrenchlessIncludes horizontal directional drill, “bore” microtunnel and aerial (above ground) optionsConstruction of the crossing and installation of the pipeline has little impact on the stream itselfStreams that have high flows during construction and/or high fisheries sensitivity may be crossed this way.

Determining the most suitable watercourse crossing method requires consideration of a number of factors such as:

Fish and fish habitatGeotechnical issues - including Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) feasibility, the stability of the valley slopesand the risk of debris flowHydro-technical issues such as flow volumes and channel stabilityConstruction issues - including complexity, risk, safety, schedule and costRegulator, resource managers, Aboriginal group, community and stakeholder inputTemporary and permanent access requirementsPipeline operational and pipeline integrity issuesReliability, robustness, cost and maintenance issues over the life of the pipelinesWildlife habitat, such as migration routes for animals and nesting areas for birdsAboriginal Traditional use.


103

During the project planning phase, discussions regarding watercourse crossings were conducted with TRCA.

As per TRCA requirements, 2.0 m clearance will be provided between the invert of the watercourse and obvert of theproposed feedermain.

The following Table 16 provides the list of watercourses identified along the Feedermain alignment, and its crossingmethodologies:

Table 16 Watercourse Crossings Methodology

Watercourse Location Crossing MethodologyPermanent Easements on 13304 Coleraine Drive

(South of new Elevated Tank Site)Isolated (dry) crossing technique (i.e., dam and pump)

Coleraine Drive, 100 m south of Harvest MoonDrive

Open-cut

King Street West, 50 m west of Jane Street Isolated (dry) crossing technique (i.e., dam and pump)Hwy-50, Humber River Aerial - Feedermain will be suspended along a new bridge structure

72 m south of Columbia Way Isolated (dry) crossing technique (i.e., dam and pump)312 m south of Columbia Way Isolated (dry) crossing technique (i.e., dam and pump)

9.5 Humber River Crossings Alternatives

An assessment of feasible construction methods for the proposed feedermain crossing of the Humber River wasundertaken as part of this process. The crossing alternatives included pipe suspension and trenchless (HDD)method. The two methods are briefly described below and are evaluated in Table 17.

9.5.1 Pipe Suspension

The methodology of pipe suspension provides a means of crossing the Humber River without tunnelling underneaththe feature and requiring major installation shafts. Pipe suspension can be accommodated by either structurallyattaching the pipe to either a new or existing structure. In the case of the Humber River crossing in the Bolton Core,there is an existing Humber River bridge that could be considered for structural suspension. Alternatively, a newstructure, immediately adjacent to the Humber River bridge could be considered. The pipe would be installed to riseout of the ground and be exposed/attached to the structure. The exposed pipe would be insulated and protected.

9.5.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling

Directional drilling is a trenchless technology that mitigates damage to sensitive environmental features by drillingunderneath potential sensitive areas, such as the Humber River and pulling the feedermain through the borecreated. The proposed crossing of the Humber River would be through the use of the HDD. The results of theGeotechnical investigations undertaken for this study have confirmed that the trenchless is technically feasibleprovided appropriate construction mitigation measures are utilized. Construction activity above ground is minimal ascompared to open cut construction.


104

Table 17 Evaluation of Humber River Crossing Methodologies

Trenchless (HDD) Method Pipe SuspensionProperty acquisition will be required (working and permanenteasements from different property owners)

Minor property acquisition (working easements may be requiredduring construction) for new structure (for pipe suspension)

Large staging area required within the Bolton core parking lot No staging area within the parking lotLonger duration of disruption -approximately 3 months Longer duration of disruption -approximately 3 monthsDeep shaft required on south side of the Humber River No shafts requiredMore impact to businesses in the Bolton core parking lot Reduced impact on businesses in Bolton coreExtensive de-watering at shaft locations Reduced dewatering due to shallow constructionNo impact to residences on west side of Highway 50/QueenStreet between Hickman St. and Centennial Drive

Minor impact to residences on west side of Highway 50/QueenStreet between Hickman St. and Centennial Drive

No Traffic impact between Hickman St. and southern end ofCentennial Drive

Traffic will be impacted between Hickman St. and southern endof Centennial Drive

Not Preferred Preferred

The preferred method of crossing the Humber River bridge is the suspension of the feedermain pipe. The preferredsuspension crossing methodology will be finalized during detail design. It is anticipated that the concept involving anew structure adjacent to the existing bridge on the west side is preferred as detailed in Drawing No. 12 in AppendixH of this report. This type of installation would allow for the independent servicing of both structures and would notinterrupt delivery of water services during future rehabilitation or removal of the existing bridge. It would also allowfor potential sidewalk expansion on the west side of the bridge. The new structure would have minimalenvironmental impact as the design would include:

Helical pile foundation behind the bridge wingwallsConcrete cap and wingwallTwo steel girders connected by spaced channel, on which the water main will sitThere is opportunity to mask / cover the water main, if desired.

The design and permanent location of the new structure will be further refined during detail design and inconsultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.


105

10. Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresBased on the results of the elevated tank and feedermain evaluations, the North Bolton elevated tank andfeedermain project may result in some negative impacts that are considered manageable with the appropriatemitigation techniques. The impacts and mitigation measures for both the elevated tank and the feedermains arediscussed in the sections below. Such impacts will generally be limited to temporary impacts associated withconstruction activities of the feedermain and elevated tank.

10.1 Elevated Tank Site

10.1.1 Construction Related Impacts

The impacts associated with the proposed elevated tank site are generally related to its construction; these will beshort-term and minor. By incorporating proper and best management practises and construction controls, theseimpacts can be minimized. Anticipated and/or potential construction related impacts and their associated mitigativemeasures are described in the following sections and summarized in Table 18.

10.1.1.1 Archaeology and Heritage Resources

The proposed elevated tank site was subjected to a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment by Archeoworks inNovember of 2000. The assessment resulted in the discovery of an isolated Late Archaic projectile point. Given theisolated nature of the find, no further archaeological concerns were warranted and the subject lands at 13352Coleraine Drive were cleared of any further archaeological concerns.

10.1.1.2 Surface Water

Mitigation measures recommended to minimize risk associated with potential impacts to the aquatic environmentduring construction include the implementation of standard BMPs, as described in the following subsections. Site-specific mitigation measures will be identified during the detailed design phase. A specific contingency plan shouldbe developed in the event that the overflow reservoir tops over and discharges uncontrolled water into thedownstream unnamed watercourse. This would include sediment and erosion controls and water quality mitigativemeasures.

10.1.1.3 Groundwater Control

During excavation for the construction of the elevated tank some seepage of free water from fill or more perviousseams and layers within the native soil is anticipated. Temporary pumps should be used to control and remove anysuch seepage. Further, all excavation will be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Healthand Safety Act. The construction contract will specify that all dewatered volumes be settled before discharging intothe environment.

10.1.1.4 Aesthetic Impacts

The new elevated tank to be located at 13352 Coleraine Drive will create minimal impacts in terms of visibility andshadows. The preferred location was selected to mitigate impacts to the surrounding community to the largestextent possible and results in a net positive impact considering the following:

Location is the extreme southwest corner of the community, as opposed to residential or potentially intrusiveareasLocation is not considered a community gatewayLocation is in the vicinity of the existing water tower and its function is in line with approved land uses, accordingto the Town of Caledon Official Plan.


106

10.1.1.5 Air Quality

Material handling, such as excavation, loading and hauling will be the most significant source of dust duringconstruction of the elevated tank. Dust control will be achieved through planning and proper implementation ofconstruction controls and mitigation which include, but are not limited to, use of dust suppression measures such asspraying down the site and roadways, limiting excavation on windy days, washing trucks on a regular basis and useof dust covers on haulage trucks. The construction contract will specify the need for street sweeping and the use ofmud scraping.

Construction activities associated with the elevated tank are not expected to create quantities of dust that will exceedacceptable MOE guidelines; appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented during construction to reducelocalized dust emissions around the site.

To prevent air quality impacts associated with construction vehicle exhaust fumes, emission control devices onequipment should be functional and effective. Further, new or well maintained heavy equipment and machinery,preferably fitted with muffler/exhaust system baffles as well as the use of engine covers should be used.

10.1.1.6 Noise

There is potential for short-term construction related noise impacts to occur in the immediate vicinity of the elevatedtank site, although sound levels are expected to be well below MOE Sound Level Limits. Construction activities willbe restricted to hours prescribed by the Town of Caledon noise by-law. Further, the construction contract will specifythe use of hoarding around the site.

Ensuring that equipment is in sound working order and using noise attenuation devices (i.e. mufflers on motorizedequipment) will ensure compliance with government requirements and will result in sound levels being withinacceptable levels both on and off-site.

Although these recommended mitigation measures will be effective at minimizing the likely environmental effectsdue to construction –related noise, minimal residual localized effects may result, particularly for those buildings invery close proximity to the elevated tank site.

10.1.1.7 Traffic

There will be occasional disruptions to traffic in the vicinity of Coleraine Drive and King Street during construction ofthe elevated tank. Where this may occur, disruptions should be restricted to off-peak hours, advanced notificationshould be provided, in addition to the use of signage to direct motorists.

10.1.1.8 Utilities

Construction schedules will be coordinated with the local hydro utility company and similarly, with other municipalservices and utilities to ensure any disturbance to service is minimal.

10.1.2 Post Construction Impacts

The normal operation of an elevated tank is relatively benign. The tower itself releases no air emissions and there isno equipment to create noise disturbances such as diesel generators; nor are there any moving parts. Region ofPeel (Water Quality – Public Works) Staff will require access to the elevated tank site approximately 3 times a week(Monday, Wednesday and Friday) to sample and measure chlorine residual. The duration of these activities may beapproximately 30 – 60 minutes. Staff would access the site in a clearly marked regional truck and/or provideidentification, if requested.


107

Regular maintenance of the elevated tank would likely occur twice per year to address mechanical and/or electricalequipment however, access may be required at any time for an unlimited duration of time.

Every 7-12 years, the Region will need to apply fresh paint to the tank in order to maintain aesthetic appeal. Thisprocess takes approximately 2 months to complete and would require a tank and painting equipment to be storedon-site. Region of Peel Health and Safety, as well as Ministry of Environment, measures would be applied andadhered to at all times during the painting process.

Table 18 Potential Construction Related Impacts and Associated Mitigation for the Elevated Tank

Potential Impacts Proposed MitigationAquatic Resources

Groundwater Temporary pumps should be used to control and remove any water seepage during excavation. All excavation will be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Surface Water Contingency plan should be developed in the event that the overflow reservoir tops over and dischargesuncontrolled water into the downstream unnamed watercourse. This would include sediment and erosioncontrols and water quality mitigative measures. The construction contract will specify that all dewateredvolumes be settled before discharging into the environment.

Socio-EconomicAir Quality Use of dust suppression measures such as spraying down the site and roadways, limiting excavation on

windy days, washing trucks on a regular basis and use of dust covers on haulage trucks. Emission control devices installed on construction on equipment and vehicles should be functional and

effective. New or well maintained heavy equipment and machinery, preferably fitted with muffler/exhaust system

baffles as well as the use of engine covers should be used.Noise Construction activities will be restricted to hours prescribed by the Town of Caledon noise by-law.

Hoarding around the site. Ensure that equipment is in sound working order and use of noise attenuation devices (i.e. mufflers on

motorized equipment) to ensure compliance with government requirements.Traffic Traffic disruptions should be restricted to off-peak hours

Advanced notification should be provided, in addition to the use of signage to direct motorists.TechnicalUtilities Construction schedules will be coordinated with the local hydro utility company and similarly, with other

municipal services and utilities

10.2 Feedermain Route

10.2.1 Construction Related Impacts

Impacts related to the proposed feedermain will be limited to the period of its construction and during periodic futuremaintenance. With the appropriate measures, these impacts can be minimized. The potential construction impactsand the appropriate mitigation are discussed in Sections below and are summarized in Table 19.

10.2.1.1 Traffic

Traffic flow will be affected throughout the duration of the project due to the installation of the feedermain and thelarge amount of material and equipment that will be transported to the site. There are three locations where open-cutinstallation of the feedermain within the road corridor will temporarily impact local traffic. The first location is alongthe north side of King Street West from Colerain Drive to Hesp Drive and on the south side from Hesp Drive toTemperance Street; the second location is within the Bolton Core parking lot and the third location is along west sideof Queen Street/Highway 50.


108

The traffic plan for these roadway work zones will consider worker and motorist safety, motorist mobility, advancewarnings, work site identification and positive guidance. The Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 7 and the FieldEdition address the application of control devices in temporary construction, maintenance and utility work zone.

For all stages of construction, delineators will be used to separate the vehicle traffic from the work zone. In addition,the speed limit will be reduced within the construction zone for the duration of the project. All night-time roadclosures and extended daytime delays will require one-week advanced public notification. All construction activitiesshall comply with the local noise by-law. Emergency vehicles will be allowed access through the construction site atall times.

King Street West

King Street west is a 6.0m wide local road with two way traffic and parking lane on the south side. Traffic impactsvary depending on each stage. During the installation of the feeder main, 100m to 200m portions of the existingpavement on the north side of King Street West from Colerain Drive to Hesp Drive and on the south side from HespDrive to Temperance Street will be excavated and will be inaccessible to public. The contractor will protect the workzone from local traffic and, where practicable, workers will be positioned at least 3.0m from a live traffic lane (1.5mfor low speed). A minimum of one 3.0m wide traffic lane should be maintained for traffic. When necessary,temporary detours and temporary lane closure of one direction of traffic will be maintained with appropriate use oftraffic control devices, in accordance to OTM Book 7. The pedestrian sidewalk along King Street and access tointersecting roadways will be maintained during construction.

All business and residential access will be maintained at all times.

Bolton Core Parking Lot

The Bolton Core Parking lot serves as the main parking lot for many business establishments in the area. Duringconstruction, portions of the parking lot, generally by the south-west corner, will be fenced off as staging area for thedrilling and construction vehicles will continuously access the site. The contractor will minimize the number ofparking spots taken for the staging area and will locate the access gate to provide safe movements for constructionvehicles and patrons. Safe access to the remaining open parking spaces will be maintained at all times duringconstruction and the contractor shall arrange proper parking locations for the crew and the construction vehiclesoutside the parking lot. Adequate pedestrian access route to the parking lots from local business will also bemaintained.

Any utilities located around the construction area will be protected and will remain accessible to utility owners.

During the construction of the drain chamber south of Humber River, the entrance from Queen Street to the parkinglot will be temporarily closed to public. Some parking access will be provided to the management of Black Bull Pub.Pedestrian access to buildings will be maintained at all times through Timothy Street. All temporary conditions willbe in accordance with OTM Book 7.

Queen Street North / Highway 50

Queen Street North / Highway 50 is a 3-lane major arterial, with 2 northbound lanes and 1 southbound lane. Theproposed exit shaft/pit of the trenchless drilling will exit north of Centennial Drive and Queen Street intersection, andwill be closed to traffic. One lane of Centennial Drive to remain open at all times to traffic.

The proposed open-cut feeder main installation will be within the west boulevard. The contractor shall protect thework zone from local traffic and, where practicable, workers shall be positioned at least 3.0m from live traffic lane


109

(1.5m for low speed). When necessary, some portion of the southbound lane will be used as construction zone to laydown the pipe prior to installation. This will require partial traffic lanes shifting to the east in accordance to OTMBook 7. Two northbound lanes and one southbound lane with a minimum width of 3.0m per lane will be maintainedat all times during construction. Pedestrians will be directed to use the east side of Queen Street/Highway 50 duringconstruction.

10.2.1.2 Public Notification

Public notification will occur in advance of construction to ensure that users of the proposed feedermain route andparking lot area are informed. Adjacent businesses, residents, the King Nursing Home and community services (i.e.Town of Caledon Fire and Emergency Services, Dufferin-Peel and Peel School boards, GO Transit etc.) will benotified directly of impending works.

10.2.1.3 Archaeology and Heritage Resources

Upon completion of the final design of the proposed feedermain alignment, all undisturbed sections falling withinthese designs, to be impacted by construction activities, should be subjected to a Stage 2 archaeological fieldassessment n order to minimize impacts to heritage resources. Should significant archaeological resources beencountered additional background research or fieldwork may be required by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture.

10.2.1.4 Noise and Dust Control

There will be temporary impact on the residential areas during the installation of the feedermain. Noise disturbancewill be limited by ensuring that construction takes place during normal working hours.

Material handling, such as excavation, loading and hauling, is the most significant sources of dust duringconstruction. However, dust control during construction can be easily achieved through planning and properimplementation of construction practises and mitigation measures which may include spraying down the site androadways, limiting excavation on windy days, washing of trucks and use of dust covers on haulage trucks.

The construction activities required are not expected to create quantities of dust that will exceed acceptable Ministryof the Environment Guidelines. However, while the appropriate measures will be implemented during construction,there may be localized residual dust emissions around the construction site.

To prevent air quality impacts associated with construction vehicle exhaust fumes, emission control devices onequipment should be functional and effective and new or well-maintained heavy equipment and machinery,preferably fitted with muffler/exhaust system baffles and engine covers should be used. Dust will be controlledthrough construction contract obligations.

10.2.1.5 Re-Use/Disposal of Excavated Materials

Apart from the organic alluvial deposits, it should be feasible to reuse most of the excavated native material forbackfilling. The silt, sandy silt and clayey silt could be too wet for good compaction, in which case these materialsshould be partially dried prior to re-use.

Fill materials containing topsoil or a high proportion of organic matter, should not be re-used.

Based on the results of a limited number of chemical tests, excavated materials from the vicinity of Borehole 6A areconsidered environmentally unsuitable for re-use on-site. The lateral extent of the unsuitable materials should beconfirmed by further investigation and testing at the detailed design stage.


110

10.2.1.6 Backfill Compaction

Under roads, walkways and other areas where long term ground settlement is not acceptable, the backfill materialshould be placed in 300 mm lifts and compacted according to industry standards. Where trench boxes are used fortemporary support, the trenched above the pipe zone should be backfilled with non shrink grout if long termsettlement is not acceptable.

10.2.1.7 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities

Erosion and Sediment Control

Mitigation measures must be used for erosion and sediment control to prohibit sediment from entering adjacentvegetation communities. The primary principles associated with sedimentation and erosion protection measures areto: (1) minimize the duration of soil exposure, (2) retain existing vegetation, where feasible, (3) encourage re-vegetation, (4) divert runoff away from exposed soils, (5) keep runoff velocities low, and (6) trap sediment as close tothe source as possible.

To address these principles, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

According to Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications, silt fencing (OPSD 219.110) is required along allconstruction areas.All surfaces susceptible to erosion should be re-vegetated through the placement of native seeding, uponcompletion of construction activities. Dogwood (Cornus sp.), alder (Alnus sp.) and willow (Salix sp.) in order tostabilize expose or disturbed soils.

These measures should be incorporated into the initial detailed design drawings and contract specifications.

Tree Removal

Tree removal limits should be clearly delineated with high visibility fencing or marking. Install tree protection fencingand establish buffer setbacks in consultation with a TRCA or qualified biologist prior to any tree removal or start-upof construction. A tree removal or Protection Plan will be required as part of the application, trees identified forprotection should be hoarded as directed by By-law or qualified professionals.

Breeding Birds

Vegetation clearing should be completed within an allotted time period as to not interfere with breeding bird activityand shall adhere to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Breeding generally occurs in southern Ontario betweenMay 1 and July 31 but may differ at the site level. Clearing outside of this timing window is acceptable. Forvegetation clearing in small areas between May 1 and July 31 a qualified ecologist must survey the area for breedingbird activity and advise whether vegetation clearing may proceed at that time.

Construction activities should be limited to a period after 7:00 a.m. and before 7:00 p.m. daily. Also, constructionduring early spring bird breeding should be avoided. Reasons to avoid the bird nesting period are due to the need tonot interfere with territory selection, mate selection, nest construction, egg-laying, and nestling to fledgling periods.

Depending on the timing of construction, netting to prevent nest establishment may be required for areas under theexisting bridge structure.


111

10.2.1.8 Aquatic Habitat and Communities

Mitigation measures recommended to minimize risk associated with potential impacts to the aquatic environmentduring construction include the implementation of standard BMPs, as described in the following subsections. Site-specific mitigation measures will be identified during the detailed design phase. A specific contingency plan shouldbe developed in the event that the overflow reservoir tops over and discharges uncontrolled water into thedownstream unnamed watercourse. This would include sediment and erosion controls and water quality mitigativemeasures.

Although appropriate mitigation measures will be employed, there is always potential that construction activity mayresult in loss of fish habitat. If this occurs, adequate compensation will be required.

Timing of Works

All in-stream construction activities must adhere to watercourse specific timing windows set by the MNR as to avoidcritical spawning/migration periods. In general, construction activities near water or in-water should take place withinthe low flow period in the late summer months as to avoid or minimize impacts. In the case of rain events (20 mm in24 hours) and significant snow melts, construction should be prepared to temporarily stop until soils stabilize as tonot exacerbate erosion and the potential for sediment releases into nearby watercourses. A Flood Response Planshould also be developed to deal with on-site flooding as to mitigate any possible effects to the aquatic environment.

Erosion and Sediment Control

To minimize the potential for construction related sediment release into nearby watercourses a comprehensiveerosion and sediment control (ESC) plan will be developed. The ESC plan will minimize sediment and erosionimpacts to stream through the incorporation of specific elements as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelinefor Urban Construction, December 2006 (ESC Guideline), prepared by the Greater Golden Horseshoe AreaConservation Authorities (GGHACA). This also includes the development and implementation of a site specific ESCPlan prior to the commencement of construction.

The goal of the ESC plan is to preserve and protect the aquatic resources and other natural features of identifiedenvironmentally-sensitive sites affected by the construction. On all sites, multiple layers of protection are to beemployed prior to the commencement of construction along with a regulated process for monitoring andmaintenance to ensure that the measures are functioning within approved limits. Where ESC measures are found tobe in an unacceptable condition they are to be repaired or replaced immediately.

10.2.1.9 Dewatering

Limited dewatering is anticipated for the construction of the feedermain although may require a Permit to Take Water(PTTW) from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Anticipated discharge rates and estimated ZOIs should beevaluated in relation to the associated watercourse(s) to ensure the volumes will not impact steam corridor functionor baseflow. Typical dewatering mitigation is discussed for the following impacts:

Water qualityStream temperatureStream erosion and sedimentationStream baseflow loss.


112

Water Quality

To mitigate potential effects associated with the discharge, water quality samples must be obtained prior todischarge to ensure the quality is suitable for discharge and will not result in an impact to the receiving watercourse.If the groundwater is not suitable for discharge, alternate locations of disposal must be considered or adequatetreatment must be carried out. At a minimum, groundwater is to be passed through a sediment filtration system priorto being discharged to a watercourse. The success of all mitigation will be verified though groundwater qualitysampling.

Temperature

Thermal mass balance calculations should be completed prior to discharging to a watercourse to ensure thedischarge will not result in an impact to the fish community. To mitigate for potential changes to streamtemperatures groundwater discharge should be staged at the time of dewatering onset by incrementally increasingdischarge to each location to avoid a single large pulse of coolwater, this approach will reduce the initial impact ofthe thermal response and pose a smaller risk to fish a sudden change in stream temperature. To further mitigatepotential thermal changes groundwater discharge can be split to two or more discharge locations. It may also bepossible to direct some or all of the groundwater discharge to a sanitary sewer system or a holding tank/pond,further reducing or eliminating any potential impacts on stream temperature.

Erosion and Sedimentation

Erosion thresholds should be determined by a fluvial geomorphologist prior to discharging to any watercourse. Thiswill ensure the proposed discharge rate is ecologically appropriate as to not cause erosion or damage to fish habitatto the receiving watercourse. Depending on rates and erosion thresholds, discharge may be required to be split tomore than one location in the watercourse. Flow dissipaters (i.e., sand bags, hay bales, etc) should also be installedat the location of discharge(s) to mitigate potential for erosion.

Baseflow

Although adverse impacts to baseflow are expected to be minor, the discharge of groundwater upstream of the ZOIwill nonetheless act to provide additional mitigation to the potential loss of baseflow. A Baseflow Loss ResponsePlan must be developed where a watercourse is located within a ZOI. Site stream levels must be monitored todetermine if dewatering activities resulted in baseflow loss dropping within 10% of low baseflow (measured as awater level in watercourse). If this level is reached, the Baseflow Loss Response Plan must be initiated and includethe supplementation of stream flow with water of a quality appropriate for discharge. In general, stream flow shall bemaintained for fish passage throughout the entire duration of work.

10.2.1.10 Surface Water Dewatering

Limited surface dewatering is anticipated for construction. Since these areas will be isolated (i.e., coffer dams)surface dewatering is not expected to interfere with creek levels or baseflows. Applicable mitigation measures forsurface dewatering are provided for the following impacts:

Water qualityStream erosion and sedimentationStream flow loss.


113

Water Quality

To mitigate for potential effects associated with the discharge, in situ turbidity measurements must be obtained priorto discharge to ensure the quality is suitable for discharge and will not result in an impact to the receivingwatercourse. If the surface water is not suitable for discharge, adequate settling or filtration must be carried out. Atminimum, water is to be passed through a sediment filtration (i.e., filter bags) prior to discharge into a watercourse.Monitoring of the success of mitigation should be conducted though the collection of in situ turbidity measurements.

Erosion and Sedimentation

Erosion thresholds should be determined by a fluvial geomorphologist prior to discharging to any watercourse. Thiswill ensure the proposed discharge rate is ecologically appropriate as to not cause erosion or damage to fish habitatto the receiving watercourse. Depending on rates and erosion thresholds, discharge may be required to be split tomore than one location in the watercourse. Flow dissipaters (i.e., sand bags, hay bales, etc) should also be installedat the location of discharge(s) to mitigate potential for erosion.

Isolated Stream Flow Loss

Prior to dewatering, all fish should be removed from the area to be dewatered. Fish should be released downstreamof the work area and nets installed to prevent their reintroduction into the work area. Dewater pump intakes shouldbe screened in a manner that prevents fish from becoming impinged and injured. Fish passage must be maintainedat all times. Silt and debris accumulated around the temporary cofferdams should be removed prior to the removalof all isolation materials to prevent entry of sediments to the watercourse. Monitoring will determine if dewateringactivities will result in significant baseflow loss.

10.2.1.11 Navigation

NAV Canada was circulated with a description of the preferred elevated tank site and dimensions of the structureitself. A letter was received from NAV Canada on March 22, 2011 (Appendix A) stating that it has no objection to theproject as submitted however, in the interest of aviation safety, the agency requested that it be notified uponcompletion of construction in order to maintain up-to-date aeronautical publications.

10.2.1.12 Construction Timing

Construction activities should be limited to a period after 7:00 a.m. and before 7:00 p.m. daily. Also, constructionduring early spring bird breeding should be avoided. Reasons to avoid the bird nesting period are due to the need tonot interfere with territory selection, mate selection, nest construction, egg-laying, and nestling to fledgling periods.

10.2.1.13 Staging Areas

Staging areas should not be located within the vicinity of the Humber River Valley woodland as to avoidcontamination through a chemical spill and the compaction of the soil.

10.2.1.14 Restoration

A Restoration Plan should be implemented in consultation with TRCA to restore the area to pre-constructioncondition or better. The Plan should consider salvage and reincorporation of topsoil and native seed banks.


114

10.2.2 Post Construction

Aquatic Habitat Protection

An adaptive management approach to aquatic habitat protection should be implemented. This requires regular siteinspections and monitoring by a designated on-site Environmental Monitor(s) (EM). Understanding the condition ofthe natural ecosystem throughout all phases of the project will form the basis upon which to consider alteringconstruction methods, environmental protection measures, and monitoring programs. Ultimately, any determinationrelated to the application of mitigation and contingency measures will be informed by ongoing analyses of monitoringdata, and rely on the experience and judgement of the on-site EM in consultation with TRCA, MNR and DFO asregulatory agencies governing fish and fish habitat.

Active construction monitoring will be required at all locations where drainage features and watercourses arepresent. Pre-construction monitoring is recommended where baseline conditions must be determined i.e., waterquality. Post-construction monitoring may also be required to certify that proper restoration, stabilization, and overallquality of runoff is returned to pre-construction conditions as well as to satisfy regulatory permitting and/orauthorizations. Detailed monitoring plans will be developed within the detailed design phase and will incorporateother monitoring required by regulatory permitting and authorizations i.e., Letter of Advice (LOA), Fisheries ActAuthorization, Permit to Take Water (PTTW) etc.

The following are general monitoring activities related to construction in or near surface water features:

On-site conditions such as erosion and sediment control (ESC), spills, flooding etc.Meteorological conditionsWater qualityFish habitat.

Monitoring activities specific to construction related groundwater dewatering include the following:

Water quality (groundwater and surface water)Stream baseflowReceiving stream temperatureStream erosion and sedimentation.

Table 19 Potential Construction Related Impacts and Associated Mitigation for the Feedermain Route

Potential Impacts Proposed Mitigation

Aquatic Resources

Water Crossings and Floodplain Management Stage 2 hydrogeological study (to be completed during detail design) will confirm anypotential impacts

During detail design, the TRCA, on behalf of the MNR should confirm the applicability for acoldwater fisheries construction timing window for any in-water or adjacent to water works(i.e. July 1 and September 15)

Develop a comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan as described below Mitigation for the protection of watercourses during overhead bridge construction is welldocumented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca) and within currentconstruction Best Management Practices (i.e. BMP) typically used for such projects

A minimum of 2m clearance to be provided between the invert of watercourse and obvert ofthe feedermain per TRCA requirements

Groundwater Resource Management Where significant dewatering is anticipated (i.e., > 50,000 L/day), a Permit to Take Water(PTTW) will be required from MOE prior to construction


115


Detailed design will identify and consider various technologies to minimize dewatering. Monitoring of nearby wells before, during and after construction Supplement affected water supplies, as required Longer-term measures include, as required, redevelopment of existing well(s) and

deepening or drilling new well(s)

Sediment Deposition Where applicable, follow MNR fisheries construction timing windows Ensure proper on-site monitoring of erosion and sediment control

Where construction occurs in proximity to watercourses, proper sedimentation/erosioncontrols will be employed to the satisfaction of the TRCA

Provide and maintain sediment control fencing along alignment corridor and top of bank tosatisfaction of all applicable agencies

Provide straw-bale check-dams at points of overland flow that cross or drain the alignmentarea

Proposed erosion and sediment control plan will, at a minimum, be consistent with therecommendations contained within the MOE “Guidelines for Evaluation Activities ImpactingWater Resources.” and where applicable, the “Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline forUrban Construction, December 2006” available at www.sustainabletechnologies.caAny areas disturbed by construction will be restored and stabilized as soon as practicallypossible

TRCA to review and comment at detailed design through permit applications

TerrestrialBreeding Birds Vegetation clearing should be completed within an allotted time period as to not interfere

with breeding bird activity and shall adhere to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Breedinggenerally occurs in southern Ontario between May 1 and July 31 but may differ at the sitelevel. Clearing outside of this timing window is acceptable. For vegetation clearing in smallareas between May 1 and July 31 a qualified ecologist must survey the area for breedingbird activity and advise whether vegetation clearing may proceed at that timeConstruction activities should be limited to a period after 7:00 a.m. and before 7:00 p.m.daily. Also, construction during early spring bird breeding should be avoided. Reasons toavoid the bird nesting period are due to the need to not interfere with territory selection,mate selection, nest construction, egg-laying, and nestling to fledgling periodsDepending on the timing of construction, netting to prevent nest establishment may berequired for areas under the existing bridge structure

Vegetation and Loss of Tree Cover According to Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications, silt fencing (OPSD 219.110) isrequired along all construction areas

All surfaces susceptible to erosion should be re-vegetated through the placement of nativeseeding, upon completion of construction activities. Dogwood (Cornus sp.), alder (Alnussp.) and willow (Salix sp.) in order to stabilize expose or disturbed soils

All trees to be retained shall be clearly marked Trees/vegetation that must be removed should be replaced after construction and clean up. Protect mature and mid-aged trees along the edge of the alignment; prepare tree

preservation plan, as required Restore disturbed areas/habitat to natural or better conditions

Removal/Pruning of Mature Tree Limbs Restrict the pruning and removal of tree limbs and branches to those that are required forconstruction, as required

Install tree protection fencing and establish buffer setbacks in consultation with a TRCA orqualified biologist prior to any tree removal or start-up of construction. A tree removal orProtection Plan will be required as part of the application, trees identified for protectionshould be hoarded as directed by By-law or qualified professionalsPrune roots within the alignment trench using proper root pruning equipment prior toexcavation, as to minimize root tear of adjacent trees, as required

Contaminated Soils Complete Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for feedermain route Soil contamination can be avoided by ensuring that fuel storage, refuelling and maintenance

of construction equipment are handled properly and not allowed in or adjacent towatercourses

Contingency plans for the control and clean up of a spill, should one occur, must be


116


prepared before project begins


117


Re-Use/disposal of Excavated Materials Apart from the organic alluvial deposits, excavated material should be re-used wheneverpossible for backfilling

Fill materials containing topsoil or a high proportion of organic matter, should not be re-usedExcavated materials from the vicinity of Borehole 6A are considered environmentallyunsuitable for re-use on-site. The lateral extent of the unsuitable materials should beconfirmed by further investigation and testing at the detailed design stageUnder roads, walkways and other areas where long term ground settlement is notacceptable, the backfill material should be placed in 300 mm lifts and compacted accordingto industry standards

Socio EconomicArchaeology and Built Heritage If any archaeological and/or historical resources are discovered during construction work,

performance of work in the area of the discovery is to halt. The Ministry of Culture(Archaeological Unit) will be notified for an assessment of the discovery. Work in the area ofthe discovery would not resume until cleared by the MinistryWhere any identified above ground built heritage resource is to be affected by loss ordisplacement, further research should be undertaken to identify both the specific heritagesignificance of the affected cultural heritage resource and appropriate mitigation measuresrequired to avoid or minimize impactWhere above ground built heritage features are to be disrupted by introducing physical,visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the features and/or theirsetting, suitable measures such as landscaping, buffering or other forms of mitigationshould be adopted and provincial guidelines consulted for advice

The front yard of any built heritage features should not be used as a construction stagingarea. The area should be fenced off to prevent potential disruption

Short-Term Construction Related TrafficImpacts

During the course of construction, traffic will be temporarily disrupted. The followingmeasures will be employed to ensure that impacts are eliminated or minimized:- Construction Traffic Management Plan-Advanced Notification Signage- Access to properties at all times.- Temporary access will be made available to residents/businesses if the access is

severed for an extended period of time.- Affected property owners will be individually notified in advance as to construction

schedule/duration.Future Ann Street reconstruction will be combined with feedermain installation (avoids twoseparate construction projects)

Noise, Vibration and Dust Construction activities will be restricted to hours prescribed by the Town of Caledon noiseby-lawEnsure that equipment is in sound working order and use of noise attenuation devices (i.e.mufflers on motorized equipment) to ensure compliance with government requirements.Toaddress construction related vibration impacts on nearby buildings, pre-constructionsurveys will be completed prior to construction. The surveys will document existing buildingconditions, as well as identify sensitive structures to be considered during construction.

Dust control by spraying water and street sweeping The feedermain alignment construction will be completed in accordance with MOE

guidelinesPublic Use and Access Public notification in advance of construction to ensure that users of the proposed

feedermain route and parking lot area are informedAdjacent businesses, residents, the King Nursing Home and community services (i.e. Townof Caledon Fire and Emergency Services, Dufferin-Peel and Peel School boards, GOTransit etc.) will be notified directly of impending works

Navigation In the interest of aviation safety, notify NAV Canada upon completion of construction inorder to maintain up-to-date aeronautical publications


118

11. Table of CommitmentsThe following Table 20 summarizes the identified agencies and commitments, based on the environmentalsensitivities and correspondence that have been identified for the construction of the elevated tank and feedermainroute.

Table 20 Identified Agencies and Commitments

Agency CommitmentNAV Canada NAV CANADA maintains up-to-date aeronautical publications.

Notification of project completion is required by returning a completed,signed copy of the Construction Completion Notice (Appendix A) by e-mail at [email protected] or fax at 613-248-4094

Ministry of Culture Stage 2 investigations will be undertaken prior to construction for thetemporary and permanent easement area on the south side of theelevated tank site.

TRCA TRCA under O. Regulation 162/06 - Development, Interference withWetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses approvalrequired

DFO Mitigation for the protection of watercourses during overhead bridgeconstruction is well documented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada(www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca) and within current construction Best ManagementPractices (i.e. BMP) typically used for such projects

Ministry of the Environment A Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required from the Ministry of theEnvironment in the event construction dewatering discharge isestimated to be greater than 50 000 litres per day

Town of Caledon Council Resolution required for the purchase of lands for the elevatedtank siteCommunity improvements following completion of works to include:plantings, new sidewalks, resurfacing of roads, curbs and new stormsewers along the feedermain route

Transport Canada Approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, should it bedetermined that construction at the Humber river crossing will not meetthe criteria outlined in the Minor Works and Waters Order of the Act

CP Railway Approval for Underground Pipeline Crossing (under the CP tracks) fromCanadian Pacific Railway

ORC Confirm if ORC-owned lands in the vicinity of Highway 50/Queen Streetand Coleraine drive will be subject to ORC screening as part offeedermain installation


119

12. Consultation and Communication ProgramPublic (including stakeholders and interested parties) and government review agency consultation is a key feature ofthe Class EA process. To meet the Class EA consultation requirements for this Schedule ‘C’ study, the Regionensured that the public and review agencies were informed of the Study and given the opportunity to provide input(both written and verbal) on the assessment and evaluation.

Two key points of consultation occurred; first at the beginning of Phase 2, once alternative solutions to the problemswere identified and presented to the public and second; at the end of Phase 2 once the alternative solutions havebeen identified and a recommended solution had been identified. Copies of notices discussed below and commentsreceived from the public and government review agencies are found in Appendix A.

All comments received from the public and agencies were documented and considered during the assessment of thealternative alignments and the selection of the preferred alignment for the new feedermain. Some of the issuesraised by different agencies such as permits and property acquisition will be specifically addressed during thedetailed design stages of the project.

12.1 Project Contact List and Agency Notification

A project contact list, including residents, landowners, members of community groups and technical review agenciesand organizations was developed. The project contact list was updated throughout the course of the study.

12.2 Notice of Study Commencement

A Notice of Study Commencement was published in the Caledon Citizen as well as the Caledon Enterprise onSaturday August 9 and Saturday August 16, 2008. Around this same time, letters were sent to external agenciesand stakeholders advising of the project start-up and requesting their input into the study.

12.3 Public Information Centre #1

The first Public Information Centre was held on:

November 25, 2008Humberview Secondary School - Cafeteria135 Kingsview Dr., Bolton ON7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

The PIC was held to provide the community with an overview of the Class EA process, background information onthe study and to discuss the proposed alternatives for meeting the study’s objectives. It was held as an Open Houseor ‘drop-in’ format with study plans and background information available to review by the public. The PIC Noticewas published in the same local papers as the Notice of commencement in advance of the PIC in order to notify thepublic and stakeholders of the public meeting.

Letters were sent to external agencies and municipalities containing a copy of the PIC notice.

Copies of the display boards are included in Appendix A. Members of the public were encouraged to complete andsubmit comment forms to provide input or express concerns related to the information presented. Members of theProject Team (Regional Staff and Consultant Staff) were available to discuss the study and answer questions.


120

Eighteen (18) people signed in at the PIC including municipal and regional politicians and staff members and localresidents.

Comments received at PIC #1 are included in Table 21 below:

Table 21 Summary of PIC #1 Comments

Comment/Concern

How is the water table being protected in the Oak Ridges Moraine? What assumptions are being made regarding Bolton growth to 2021 and 2031 Is the water tower needed to provide water to the new high school? Please minimize eye blight. If it’s a tower, work with the City to keep it away from homes

and make it a piece of art. Minimize light pollution

12.4 Information Bulletin

A project information bulletin was mailed to the residents in the Community of Bolton following further investigationsfor new options for the elevated water tank in the South Hill area of Bolton. The information bulletin was mailed to allBolton residents in June 2010.


A second PIC was held on:December 8, 2010Humberview Secondary School - Cafeteria135 Kingsview Dr., Bolton ON6:30-8:30 p.m.

The PIC was held to provide the community with an opportunity to provide input into the preliminary preferredelevated tank location as well as feedermain route. Similar to PIC #1, it was held as an Open House or ‘drop-in’format with study plans and background information available to review by the public. The PIC Notice was publishedin the same local papers as the Notice of Commencement in advance of the PIC in order to notify the public andstakeholders of the public meeting.


Copies of the display boards are included in Appendix A. Members of the public were encouraged to complete andsubmit comment forms to provide input or express concerns related to the information presented. Members of theProject Team (Regional Staff and Consultant Staff) were available to discuss the study and answer questions.Thirty-one (31) people signed in at the PIC including municipal and regional politicians and staff members and localresidents.

Comments received from PIC #2 are summarized in Table 22 below:


121


Comment/Concern

I agree with the location ]elevated tank] I prefer the yellow route ([preliminary preferred]; I would like the park left alone. Do not agree with the preferred elevated tank site. Yes, it [elevated tank] should be in an industrial are as chosen The development of ‘real’ sidewalks on both sides of Highway 50 is a real need. Good location within industrial area and relative to existing tank – too bad the first tank was

not built larger Traffic on highway 50 will always be an issue. Tree protection during construction is required along King Street. Additional trees should

be planted on King Street West from Connaught Crescent to Station Road Preferred route is inconsiderate of events and safety for the preservation of the original

village of Bolton Community Centre. Does not include prior decisions to create the By-pass to minimize traffic and service

impacts in the Bolton valley. No respect for existing environment designation as a sensitive flood plain area No respect for the historic values to preserve the historic village centre Inadequate cost and impact evaluation comparisons with by-pass route Historic buildings will be shaken to bits Downtown businesses will be interrupted resulting in financial loss not accounted for You are sending the wrong message when suggesting that it is ok to place no value on the

historical, cultural and economic activities of downtown Bolton The route following the by-pass has to be developed anyway so why not make a start with

the feedermain and leave our much-loved historic core alone. Please add us to the stakeholder list

12.6 Town of Caledon Meeting

On March 2, 2011, the Town of Caledon held a public meeting to present proposed improvements to the downtownarea of Bolton. Members of the Region of Peel Project Team were invited to attend the meeting to address anyquestions related to the Bolton new elevated tank and feedermain through the Bolton Core. A copy of the displayboards are found in Appendix A.

Town of Caledon Mayor, Marolyn Morrison, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Foley and Councillor Mezzapelli (LocalCouncillor) were in attendance in addition to other staff members. Table 23 below summarizes the commentsreceived at the meeting:

Table 23 Summary of Town of Caledon Meeting Comments

Comment/Concern

Mayor Morrison expressed concern about the timing of construction due to conflicts withimportant fall and winter activities of the community/businesses in the area (i.e. August -Midnight madness, November/December - Christmas shopping). Businesses in Boltonare currently struggling and they rely on these events to produce revenue. The Mayor andCouncillor Foley proposed changes to the construction schedule.

Mayor also expressed interest to coordinate the re-constriction of Ann Street with thefeedermain construction on Sterne/Temperance and the parking lot so that the disturbanceto the residents in the area occurs at the same time.


122

Comment/Concern

Mayor also proposed to include as part of the feedermain construction contract, the re-construction of Ann St, the parking lot and the parkette so that the Region and the Townobtain a better price for the work.

Councillor Foley advised that the senior’s home residents are concerned about theconstruction of the feedermain along Sterne Street as many of them like to go for walksduring the day and construction on that street may affect these activities.

One of the residents asked that the Region consider approaching Hydro to inquirewhether Hydro will be interested in burying the overhead hydro cables in the same trenchas the feedermain. (Currently the Hydro cables run along King Street, along Ann and northon Highway 50). The resident asked whether the Region would be willing to pay for thework as Hydro is not interested in spending money for such undertaking.

Other landscaping requests were proposed on the north side of the Humber River on boththe East and West side of Hwy 50.

Local business owners expressed concern over construction and the negative effects toparking and interruption to businesses


In response to comments received from the Town of Caledon following PIC #2 regarding the proposed feedermainalignment and the new elevated tank site, a third PIC was held on:

June 1, 2011Albion Bolton Community Centre, Room C,150 Queen Street South, Bolton, ON6:30-8:30 pm

The PIC was held to provide the community with an update on the location of the elevated tank and summarize theevaluation of the alternative designs for the tank site and feedermain route. The public was also given anopportunity to provide input into the preliminary preferred elevated tank location as well as feedermain route. Similarto the first and second PICs, it was held as an Open House or ‘drop-in’ format with study plans and backgroundinformation available to review by the public. The PIC Notice was published in the local papers as the Notice ofCommencement in advance of the PIC in order to notify the public and stakeholders of the public meeting.


Copies of the display boards are included in Appendix A. Members of the public were encouraged to complete andsubmit comment forms to provide input or express concerns related to the information presented. Members ofRegional Staff and the Town of Caledon Staff were available to discuss the study and answer questions. Twenty-seven (27) people signed in at the PIC including municipal and regional politicians and staff members and localresidents.

Comments received from PIC #3 are summarized in Table 24 below:


Comment/Concern

Will you be reconstructing Temperance Street with proper curb and gutter? Will there be sidewalks on both side of Sterne? Will you be reconstructing Sterne all the way to Highway 50?


123

Comment/Concern

The sidewalk on the highway 50 bridge is too narrow and very dangerous, can you widen the sidewalk? Will the bridge rehabilitation work be done at the same time as this project? Why are you extending sidewalks along Highway 50, it is too dangerous and will encourage students to walk

along highway 50. If you are extending these sidewalks, then sidewalks similar to the ones on King St. shouldbe constructed (i.e. with grass boulevard), also bank stabilization maybe required along highway 50.

Why wasn’t the BAR route chosen as the preferred alignment? The one going through downtown will causemore disruption.

Why wasn’t the tank located on the North Hill if that’s where it is needed? A resident who in the past used to be the Heritage officer at the Town mentioned that the Ministry of Culture

had expressed concern that the Region of Peel was not open to conducting a survey of the area where thebones were found.

I am all for improvement and growth, but am still concerned with the parking issue, as we have just recentlyhad to deal > with a very negative effect on the bottom line of our business due to the construction of thecondos. I have had an opportunity to review the proposed project. Is the "one month construction" in theparking area a realistic estimate, and > will it entail the entire parking lot at one time? When will the "preferred"method of 'pipe suspension' be determined? What is being done to reduce the negative impact of the parkingdisruption? Where will the construction workers park? Where will their trailer (office) be? Will the constructionmachines be stored off site? I hope we are really looking at one month of disruption.

12.8 Agency and Municipal Consultation

A list of agencies, including all relevant departments of the Region, Provincial Ministries, municipalities andagencies, First Nations groups, local associations and utilities, was prepared at the project initiation. Each party onthe list of stakeholders was contacted for information or comments. The opportunity for these agencies to participatein the project was provided through the distribution of all study notices, letter mail outs, and through directparticipation at the three (3) formal PICs.

12.8.1 Town of Caledon

Pre-consultation and coordination meetings were held with the Town of Caledon and the Toronto and RegionConservation Authority (TRCA) continually throughout the project. It is understood that coordination will be requiredwith the Town in order to implement the feedermain project through the Bolton downtown area. The Town isconcurrently working on improvements to roads, sidewalks and park (Refer to Section 9.3.7).

12.8.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

The project team met with the TRCA on November 17, 2011 at the TRCA offices to present the proposedfeedermain route as most of the lands within the Bolton core area fall under the TRCA regulatory limits. Issues werediscussed and the TRCA identified requirements to be met in order to receive approvals from the agency. Theseincluded an Application for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines andWatercourses, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 for borehole investigations along the feedermain route.

The Project Team corresponded with the TRCA on other occasions in order to ensure that the agency’srequirements and issues were met and addressed. TRCA provided comments on the Natural Environment Reportand Geotechnical Reports. In general, comments were primarily related to detail design commitments. Furthermeetings and communications with TRCA will be required during detailed design and TRCA approvals phases of theproject. Specifically, once completed, TRCA will be provided copies of any additional technical reports andinformation related to the Humber River crossing structure.


124

12.9 First Nation and Aboriginal Consultation

The following First Nations communities were included in the project mailing list and notified of all study consultationactivities:

Union of Ontario Indians; andAssociation of Iroquois and Allied IndiansChippewas of Kettle and Stony PointMississaugas of the New Credit First NationOneida Nation of the ThamesSix Nations of the Grand RiverBeaverhouse First NationsChapleau Ojibway First NationMattagami First NationBrunswick House First NationMatachewan First NationWagoshig First NationCaldwell First NationChippewas of the Thames First Nation.

The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) and the Environmental Assessment Coordination (EAC) Department ofIndian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) were included on the mailing list. The EAC replaces all of the existingINAC contacts. It was established in 2009 to ensure a coordinated and timely response to environmentalassessment notification.

12.10 Property Owners Consultation

The proposed site locations for the elevated tank are all privately owned. In order to carry out detailed fieldinvestigations for the propose sites. The Region obtained Permission to Enter from each of the property owners.The Region also consulted each of the property owners regarding their willingness to sell property for the elevatedtank and access routes.

12.11 Consultation Summary

In summary, several steps were taken to proactively inform stakeholders about this Municipal Class EA study, obtaintheir input and address their comments or concerns as much as possible as they arose. Through preliminary anddetail design it is expected that further comments will be received from those having a direct interest in the project,and if necessary, meetings will be convened to discuss stakeholder comments and resolve any remaining issues. Itis not anticipated that any concerns will be raised that the Region cannot further address during detail design.


125

13. Preferred Feedermain AlternativeBased on the preceding evaluations, the preferred design concept for feedermain alignment in the Community ofBolton will be the construction of approximately 5.0km of feedermain length with sizes ranging from 1050mm to400mm diameter through the Bolton Core, from the proposed elevated tank site in the South Hill area of Bolton tothe North Hill area. The feedermain is expected to be constructed, for most part within the road right-of-way.

The preferred feedermain alignment is summarized as follows:

Northwest on Coleraine Drive from Elevated tank site to King RoadNortheast on King Road to Temperance StreetNorthwest on Temperance Street to Sterne StreetNortheast on Sterne to Bolton Core Parking lot to Queen Street North/Hwy-50Northwest on Queen Street North/Hwy-50 to Columbia WayNortheast on Columbia Way to Kingsview Drive.

The majority of the land use surrounding the preferred feedermain route is either residential or commercial, invarious stages of development, with an undeveloped open space area along Hwy-50.

The feedermain, for the most part, will be installed underground by open cut method with the pipe suspended to anew structure as the preferred methodology for crossing the Humber River. This proposed construction methodprovides the least impact to the natural environment and results in reduced disruption to residents and the generalpublic. Some of the major advantages presented by this route include:

Least impact to the natural environment (i.e., watercourse crossings and removal of trees)Provides opportunities for community enhancementConstruction that may be completed within road right-of-wayCan be coordinated with planned Town of Caledon improvement worksLow and mitigatable social/cultural impactsGood constructabilityRelatively low construction costs.

13.1 Property Easements

Some property easements will be necessary to accommodate the new feedermain and in-line valve chambers alongthe proposed alignment.

The preliminary location of the easements and the limits of the property acquisition area is shown in the preliminarydesign drawings included in Appendix H; however, the exact location and size of the easements will be finalizedduring the detailed design stage. The easements required for the proposed feedermain construction have beenidentified based on the preliminary design contained in this ESR, and are shown in Figure 21.

13.2 Estimated Capital Cost

The estimated capital cost of the project based on the scope of work outlined in this conceptual design report, andshown in the preliminary design profiles is $42,200,000 excluding HST. The estimate is based on 2011 dollars. Thebreakdown of the total costs is presented in Table 25, and is subject to refinement during the detailed design stageof this project. The costs comprise the installation of approximately 5.0 km of feedermain with diameters rangingfrom 1050 mm to 400 mm.


126

Figure 21 Easement Layout


127

The construction costs shown in Table 25 include the installation of the feedermain by open cut methods, valves andchambers, relocation and replacement of utilities, property acquisition and restoration costs.

Table 25 Estimated Capital Cost - Feedermain

Category CostMobilization and Demobilization $ 1,800,000.00Bonds and insurances $1,500,000.001050mm dia. FM along Coleraine Dr. $ 5,400,000.00600mm dia. FM along King Road $ 7,800,000.00400mm dia. FM along Temperance St./Sterne St./Parking lot $ 2,000,000.00400mm dia. FM along Hwy-50 to Columbia Way $ 3,500,000.00750mm dia. FM along Easement on Coleraine Dr. $ 4,200,000.00Valves and Chambers $ 3,000,000.00Utilities Relocations $ 1,500,000.00Traffic Management $ 500,000.00Environmental Control Measures $ 500,000.00Agencies Approval (MOE PTTW, TRCA) $ 500,000.00Contingency Cost $ 5,000,000.00Easement (Temporary and Permanent) $ 1,000,000.00Engineering - Detail Designing $ 4,000,000.00

TOTAL COSTS $ 42,200,000.00

13.3 Implementation Schedule

The design of the preferred feedermain along the proposed alignment is expected to begin in the winter/spring of2012, with sections of the alignment being constructed as early as spring 2013 pending permit and approvals.

13.4 Required Approvals

Approvals required as a result of the construction of the preferred feedermain along the recommended route include:

Temporary Permit to Take Water for construction dewatering from the MOEApproval for Underground Pipeline Crossing (under the CP tracks) from Canadian Pacific RailwayCertificate of Approval from Ministry of EnvironmentApprovals from Town of Caledon Transportation and Works DepartmentApprovals from Toronto and Region Conservation AuthorityApprovals from Transport Canada.


128

14. Preferred Elevated Tank Site14.1 Overview

Based on the preceding evaluations, the preferred design concept for Preferred Elevated tank Site in the Communityof Bolton will be the construction of a 2.38MG (9.0 ML) elevated tank at Site Option 2, located at 13352 ColeraineDrive in the Town of Caledon. The conceptual design and layout of the proposed elevated tank is illustrated in Figure12 attached in Appendix H.

It is noted that the development of Site Option 2 includes components such as an access road, and an overflowdetention pond which would outlet to the existing ditch. An emergency overflow is a very rare event that is triggeredwhen there is an electronic communication problem between the reservoir (level transmitter) and pumping stationwhereby the pumps continue to run and as a result, the overflow occurs for a short period until an alarm is triggered.

14.2 Property Easements

Property will be required for the elevated tank and its components, as well as for permanent and temporary workingeasements from property to the south to accommodate the feedermains in and out of the tank. The permanent andtemporary working easements are shown in conceptual site layout as illustrated in Figure 11 attached in Appendix H.

14.2.1 Permanent Easement

A 12 m wide permanent feedermain easement will run from Coleraine Drive to the elevated tank along the northernside of 13304 Coleraine Drive; identified as Permanent Easement in Figure 22 below. This easement is required forthe proposed twin feedermains and potentially a sewer main. The depth of the feedermains will vary from 3 to 5 m.

14.2.2 Temporary Construction Easement

A 10.0 m wide temporary construction easement as shown in Figure 22 below will be required during tankconstruction to access the elevated tank site. It is anticipated that all construction work will utilize this temporaryconstruction easement.

Figure 22 Easement Layout at Elevated Tank Site


129

14.2.3 Permanent Access Easement

Access to the elevated tank will be provided by a permanent access easement. The access easement will share thecurrent access to 13352 Coleraine Drive and traverse the existing 10.6 m wide paved area along the northern side ofthe building, identified as Fixed Easement in Figure 22; then from the rear of the building the access easement willtraverse the remainder of the site to the Region’s Elevated Tank Site within the Blanket Easement. The minimumwidth of the easement required within the Blanket Easement is 5.0 m. The location of the access gate along theproposed east property line of the elevated tank site will be finalized at detail design stage.

14.3 Estimated Capital Cost

The estimated capital cost of the elevate tank based on the scope of work outlined in this conceptual design report,and shown in the preliminary design profiles is $11.5 million excluding HST. The estimate is based on 2011 dollars.The breakdown of the total costs is presented in Table 26, and is subject to refinement during the detailed designstage of this project.

Table 26 Estimated Capital Cost – Elevated Tank

Item CostProperty Acquisition $3 millionTank $8.5 millionTotal $11.5 million

14.4 Implementation Schedule

The design of the elevated tank is estimated to begin in the winter/spring of 2012, with construction to begin in thespring of 2013. The elevated tank is estimated to be online in 2014.

14.5 Required Approvals

Approvals required as a result of the construction of the preferred elevated tank include:

Building permit from the Town of CaledonToronto and Region Conservation Authority

14.6 Preliminary Design of Elevated Tank

The conceptual design and layout of the proposed elevated tank is illustrated in Figure 11 attached in Appendix H.

The proposed 2.38 MG (9.0 ML) storage tank will be a composite Elevated tank (CET) consists of a welded steelstorage cell supported on a reinforced concrete pedestal. The CET is a composite structure with a concretepedestal and a welded steel tank container. The welded steel tank container is supported by a reinforced concretepedestal. The design, fabrication and construction will be governed by American Water Works AssociationStandards.

The elevated tank will. The tank will have the following approximate dimensions:

Tank Volume: 2.38 MG (9.0 ML)Tank diameter: 32 mPedestal diameter: 18 mTank Height: 45 mConstruction Duration: 1 year


130

Pressure in the water distribution system is maintained by the top water level in the elevated tank: the required topwater level of the new elevated tank will be 297.4 metres above sea level (masl). This water level will be the sameas the existing elevated tank across the street.

The conceptual layout includes an emergency overflow pond. This storage pond will provide a detention area forany emergency overflow of the elevated tank or for tank drainage for maintenance and cleaning purposes. Details ofthe emergency overflow pond will be finalized during the detailed design stage. The existing overland swalecrossing at 13304 Coleraine Drive will be redesigned to accommodate flows from the overflow pond.

14.7 Water Mixing System

The increase in distribution system regulations and the increased use of chlorination have put more of an emphasison the water quality impact of distribution system, including storage tanks. Cycling, or turnover is a problem to storedportable water. To overcome this problem, through mixing of water within the tank is required.

An NSF approved, pneumatic water mixing system will be installed in the elevated tank to achieve through mixing ofwater within the tank. The mixing system will improve water quality in the elevated tank by preventing short-circuiting, stagnation and thermal stratification. This, will eliminate water quality problems such as loss of residual,bacteria regrowth, nitrification, taste and odour problems, excessive water age, etc.


131

15. ConclusionsThe North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain Study has completed and followed the Schedule CClass EA process.

The recommendations in the report are to construct:

A new 9.0 ML (2.38 MG) elevated storage tank located on the west side of Coleraine Drive near the existingelevated tank at 13352 Coleraine DriveA new 1050mm/600 mm/400 mm (42”/24”/16”) diameter feedermain, approximately 5 km in length from theproposed elevated tank on Coleraine Drive through the Bolton Core with connection to the North Hill distributionsystem

With filing this ESR and further to no additional co-ordination requirements under the Class EA process, the Regionof Peel will move forward to implementation including detailed design and construction of the works.

This infrastructure will provide the community of Bolton with additional equalization and emergency storage as wellas provide improved level of service and security of supply.

Documents

North Bolton Elevated Tank/Reservoir and Feedermain