Town of Lakeshore Water & Wastewater Master Planlakeshore.ca/media/files/Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan... · town of lakeshore water and wastewater master plan study

Town of Lakeshore Water & Wastewater Master Plan

October 2008

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY

Prepared for: Town of Lakeshore 419 Notre Dame St. P.O. Box 580 Belle River, Ontario N0R 1A0 Tel: (519) 728-2488 Fax: (519) 966-4577 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 3260 Devon Drive Windsor, Ontario N8X 4L4 Tel: (519) 966-2250 Fax: (519) 966-5523

Project No. 165600944 October, 2008


October 2008 ES.1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1.0 INTRODUCTION

ES.1.1 PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN

The Town of Lakeshore retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. in association with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to prepare a Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study including a Rate Review Study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The goal was to provide a consolidated framework to guide the planning and implementation of strategic water and wastewater infrastructure improvements over the next 20 year planning horizon and beyond with integrated consideration of the natural, social and economic environments.

ES.1.2 BACKGROUND AND SERVICE AREAS

The following sections briefly describe the existing water and wastewater service areas throughout the Town and identify potential future wastewater service areas which are not presently serviced by municipal wastewater systems.

ES.1.2.1 Water Service Areas

The Town of Lakeshore is presently serviced by five separate water supply systems. They include the Belle River, Stoney Point, Union, Tecumseh and Tilbury / Wheatley water supply systems.

ES.1.2.2 Wastewater Service Areas

There are presently five existing wastewater service areas in the Town of Lakeshore. They include the Belle River/Maidstone, Stoney Point, Comber, South Woodslee and North Woodslee Sewage Works.

ES.1.2.3 Future Wastewater Service Areas

As part of this study, residentially populated areas which are not currently being serviced by municipal sanitary sewage collection and treatment systems were identified for evaluation. These areas, listed below, are serviced by individual on-site private septic systems generally consisting of septic tanks and leaching beds:

• Lighthouse Cove Area (Including shoreline area West of Lighthouse Cove i.e. Laforet Beach, Crystal Beach and Couture Beach Roads).

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

October 2008 ES.2

• Rochester Place Area (Including Deerbrook, St. Joachim and shoreline areas generally between Charron Line Road and Rochester Town Line Road including along the Ruscom River).

• Belle River Road Area (North of North Woodslee hamlet and south of Belle River urban area)

• Essex Fringe Area (South-west corner of the Town along County Road 35 and including adjacent side streets)

• Potential Highway 401 Employment Area For the purposes of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, broad assumptions have been made with respect to the water and wastewater servicing requirements of the potential Highway 401 employment lands corridor.

ES.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The work undertaken in preparation of the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan follows the planning and design process of the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA, October 2000, as amended in 2007.

Typically, Master Plans are long range plans with broader scopes which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. These plans examine an infrastructure system or group of related projects in order to outline a framework for planning subsequent projects and/or developments.

Master Plans address (in part) Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process.

ES.2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Projects identified through the Master Plan process must be evaluated on the basis of the potential impact on the existing environmental conditions of the study area. The Master Plan report provides a general description of the existing natural, social and economic environmental conditions in the Town of Lakeshore.

With respect to the natural environment, the Master Plan report includes a discussion on the local climate, geology and physiology, soils, water resources, natural vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic animal life throughout the Town of Lakeshore. As part of documenting existing environmental conditions under the Class EA process, a Benthic Invertebrate Survey was undertaken on the watercourses within the Town of Lakeshore which receive effluent discharges from an existing wastewater treatment facility. Also, a pollution survey was conducted within the main settlement areas of the Town which are not currently serviced by a municipal wastewater system.


October 2008 ES.3

ES.3.0 GROWTH, WATER DEMAND AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

ES.3.1 COMMUNITY GROWTH PROJECTIONS The growth projections for the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan form the basis for establishing water demand and wastewater flow rate assumptions and ultimately the future servicing plans. Community growth projections were established for the 20 and 40 year planning horizons as well as the corresponding projected water demands and wastewater flows.

Residential and non-residential growth projections have been based on a report prepared for the Town of Lakeshore by Watson Associates Economists Ltd. (formerly C.N. Watson and Associates Ltd.) entitled “Town of Lakeshore Population, Household and Employment Forecast Final Report, April 28, 2006”.

ES.3.2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS Prediction and planning for water demand is one of the most important elements of water supply master planning. The historical water supply and consumption records for the Belle River and Stoney Point water systems were evaluated to establish current water demands. The following tables summarize the present, 20 year and 40 year water demand projections for the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems:

Table ES3.1: Existing and Projected Water Demands

Total Max Day Demand, m3/day (MIGD) Water Supply System

Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Belle River

Stoney Point

16,958 (3.7)

3,548 (0.78)

32,987 (7.3)

8,030 (1.8)

50,115 (11.0)

10,047 (2.2)

ES.3.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS

Sanitary sewage flows are made up of waste discharges from residential, commercial, industrial and institutional establishments plus extraneous non-waste flow components from sources such as groundwater and surface runoff.

The following table summarizes the present, 20 year and 40 year wastewater flow projections for the existing and potential wastewater service areas previously identified. The average per capita sewage flow including extraneous flow has been established for each respective service area based on a review of the historical flow records at the existing sewage treatment facilities.


October 2008 ES.4

For areas which are not presently serviced by a municipal sewage system, an average per capita sewage flow of 455 Lpcpd has been assumed.

Table ES3.2: Existing and Projected Average Daily Wastewater Flows (m3/d)

Wastewater Service Areas Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

1. BELLE RIVER / MAIDSTONE 7,730 15,593 24,532

2. STONEY POINT 1,092 2,100 3,108

3. COMBER 395 1,409 1,714

4. SOUTH WOODSLEE 71 123 146

5. NORTH WOODSLEE 0 320 381

6. LIGHTHOUSE COVE 0 1,186 1,795

7. ROCHESTER PLACE 0 1,302 1,769

8. BELLE RIVER ROAD 0 541 808

9. ESSEX FRINGE 0 296 296

10. HIGHWAY 401 CORRIDOR 0 816 2,992

ES.4.0 PROBLEM STATEMENTS

ES.4.1 WATER

The primary focus of the water component of the Master Plan is to evaluate the ability of the water treatment, storage and watermains within the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems to meet existing and projected water demands and identify constraints, improvements and or modifications.

The following problems have been identified for the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems to satisfy the needs of existing consumers and provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth based on projected 20 year demands.

ES.4.1.1 Belle River Water Supply System

1. Additional clear water storage capacity of approximately 9,000 m3 (2.0 MIG) is required in addition to existing available storage to meet MOE Guidelines (note: existing storage includes both the Belle River and Maidstone elevated water towers as well as the expanded Belle River WTP reservoir).


October 2008 ES.5

2. Improvements to the existing water distribution system are required to augment the existing pipeline network to convey the increased flows to meet projected demand as well as improve the level of fire protection.

ES.4.1.2 Stoney Point Water Supply System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 3,600 m3/d (0.8 MIG) is required.

2. Additional clear water storage capacity of approximately 2,500 m3 (0.6 MIG) is required in addition to the existing available system storage to meet MOE Guidelines.

3. Improvements to the existing water distribution system are required to augment the existing pipeline network to convey the increased flows to meet projected demands as well as improve the level of fire protection.

ES.4.2 WASTEWATER

The following problems have been identified for the existing and potential wastewater service areas throughout the Town of Lakeshore to satisfy the needs of existing development and provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth based on projected 20 year demands.

ES.4.2.1 Belle River / Maidstone Wastewater System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 2,000 m3/d (0.5 MIGD) is required to service the existing service area and anticipated growth areas.

2. Extension of the Oakwood trunk sanitary sewer westerly to service existing development and future growth within the existing service area and anticipated growth areas including provision of a new local collection system in the Pike Creek area to address pollution concerns

3. I&I into the existing collection system is an ongoing problem.

ES.4.2.2 Stoney Point Wastewater System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 1,200 m3/d (0.25 MIGD) is required to service the existing service area.

2. I&I into the collection system is an ongoing problem.

ES.4.2.3 Comber Wastewater System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 1,000 m3/d (0.22 MIGD) is required to service the existing service area and anticipated growth areas.


ES.4.2.4 South Woodslee Wastewater System

1. Upgrades to the existing collection system are required to address on-going problems with the existing septic tank effluent pumping (S.T.E.P) systems.


October 2008 ES.6

ES.4.2.5 North Woodslee Wastewater System

1. Construction of a new wastewater collection system to service the areas in North Woodslee east of the Belle River.

ES.4.2.6 Un-Serviced Settlement Areas

1. The Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, Belle River Road Corridor and Essex Fringe study areas require sanitary sewage servicing to address pollution problems related to existing malfunctioning septic systems and to address development pressures.

2. The proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands require sanitary sewage servicing to accommodate development.

ES.5.0 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

ES.5.1 PLANNING LEVEL CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

Several conceptual alternative solutions were identified to address the problems and needs of the water and wastewater systems. The following broad planning level alternative solutions were considered for providing adequate water and wastewater servicing in the Town of Lakeshore:

1. Do Nothing. 2. Restrict Community Growth. 3. Implement water use reduction and inflow / infiltration control measures. 4. Undertake projects to construct, expand or augment water and wastewater system capacity as

needed to service existing and future development.

The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative together with their effects on the socio-economic and natural environment were evaluated. The results of the preliminary screening clearly indicate that the preferred alternative solutions which address the identified problems and study objectives are as follows:

• Expand the capacity of the existing water and wastewater system components (treatment, distribution, collection, etc.) including the provision of additional capacity at new or existing facilities to meet the existing and future servicing requirements.

• Implement water efficiency and inflow and infiltration control measures.


October 2008 ES.7

ES.5.2 SERVICING ALTERNATIVES

Alternative servicing solutions were identified and evaluated to address the specific problems and needs of the water and wastewater systems and the unserviced settlement areas. A detailed evaluation of the various alternative solutions is included in the Master Plan report.

ES.6.0 PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION

Consultation is a key feature of a successful environmental assessment. The Municipal Class EA process identifies mandatory consultation requirements. The Master Plan has provided several opportunities for participation to date including:

• Notice of Study Commencement advertised to public and issued to review agencies.

• Three Public Information Sessions under Phase 1 of the EA Master Plan Study.

• Two Town Council Information Sessions under Phase 1 of the EA Master Plan Study.

• Consultation with local municipalities.

• Consultation with interested stakeholders including individual meetings with local development groups in Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, urban Maidstone and the Belle River Corridor areas.

• One Public Information Session under Phase 2 of the EA Master Plan Study.

• Consultation with interested stakeholders and review agencies under Phase 2 of the EA Master Plan Study.

• Notice of Completion advertised to public and review agencies

ES.7.0 PREFERRED SERVICING PLAN

ES.7.1 SERVICING PLAN

A servicing plan was developed outlining the preferred water and wastewater infrastructure works required within the Town of Lakeshore to service the needs of the community over the next 20 years and beyond.

Tables ES7.3 and ES7.4 at the end of this summary summarize the identified water and wastewater projects and associated capital budget estimates (in 2007 dollars), anticipated timing and Class EA Schedule.


October 2008 ES.8

ES.7.2 WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDY

Based on the recommendations established in the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, a separate report entitled “Town of Lakeshore – Financial Impact of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan on Consumer Rates, March 24, 2008” (Rate Study) was prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the financial aspects of the recommended servicing alternatives and identify the impact of water and sewer rates in the Town of Lakeshore. A copy of the report can be found in Appendix I.

The following tables summarize the calculated water and wastewater rates identified in the Rate Study based on the current rate structures over a 10 year period:

Table ES7.1: Water Rate Summary

Description 2007

Passed 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Base Charge ($, monthly)

12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50

Special Levy ($, monthly)

12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Volume Charge ($ /m3)

0.83 0.92 1.40 1.41 1.46 1.63 1.67 1.77 1.78 1.78 1.82

Avg. Annual Residential Bill*

501.50 524.25 500.27 502.94 514.55 557.29 580.70 604.84 606.66 606.88 616.20

* Average annual residential bill based on 250m3

Table ES7.2: Wastewater Rate Summary

Description 2007

Passed 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38


375.00 401.03 425.03 449.99 475.93 495.01 507.02 507.01 507.01 507.00 506.96



October 2008 ES.9

Possible alternative rate structures were evaluated and identified in the Rate Review. The alternatives involved maintaining the current special capital levy for water and establishing a new levy for wastewater.

ES.7.3 NEXT STEPS

To complete the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study process, the following activities will need to be undertaken:

• Advertise a “Notice of Completion” and place the Master Plan report on the public record for the required 30-day review period.

• Upon completion of the 30-day review period and assuming no Part II Order requests are submitted to the Minister of Environment, the Master Plan report can be adopted by Lakeshore Council in the form of a Council Resolution.

ES.7.4 MONITORING

The scheduling of planned projects is related to the anticipated growth in demand for water and sewer services.

Accordingly, the Town should closely monitor actual growth, water demand and wastewater flows and adjust the scheduling and implementation of related infrastructure projects as needed.

Specifically, the following actions are recommended:

1. Monitor actual water plant production records, wastewater treatment plant flows, and development growth annually and compare to Master Plan projections.

2. Establish and annually track the uncommitted reserve capacity of the Town’s existing water and wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with MOE Guideline D-5-1 - Calculating and Reporting Uncommitted Reserve Capacity at Sewage and Water Treatment Plants, March 1995.

3. Collect water distribution system and wastewater collection system component attribute data on new installations as they are constructed and update the Town’s G.I.S. database accordingly.

4. Implement a watermain and sewer rehabilitation / replacement program including water use and inflow & infiltration reduction measures and review priorities based on data collected and results of studies.

5. The Town of Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan should be reviewed annually and updated every five (5) years to ensure changing local conditions, new problems and system improvements which have been implemented are considered in the long-term planning for water and wastewater infrastructure.


October 2008 ES.10

Table ES7.3: Summary of Identified 20-Year Water Supply Projects

WATER PROJECTS PROBABLE COST

YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Watermains

300-mm along West Pike Creek Road from County Road 42 to Whisper Creek Cir. $565,000 Completed in 2007 A+

600-mm along West River St. from Caille Ave. to County Road 22. $420,000 Completed in 2007 A+

600-mm along County Road 22 from West River St. to Rourke Line $1,520,000 Completed in 2007 A+

400-mm along County Road 22 from Rourke Line to East Puce River Road $2,720,000 Completed in 2007 A+

250-mm along South St. from Saint Charles St. to Desjardins St. $200,000 Completed in 2007 A+

400-mm along First St. from Broadway St. to Notre Dame St. $290,000 Completed in 2007 A+

600-mm along Lakeview Ave. from Belle River WTP to West River St. (new crossing of Belle River) $750,000 2008 A+

400-mm along Little Baseline Road from existing 500-mm to Stonebrook St. $500,000 2010 A+

400-mm crossing of Pike Creek along Little Baseline Road $350,000 2010 A+

600-mm from West Puce River Road to Patillo Road (through Wallace Woods growth area) $1,470,000 2010 A+

600-mm along Rourke Line from County Road 22 to future Tower site $680,000 2011 A+

600-mm feedermain to 401 Employment Lands $3,100,000 2012 A+

600-mm crossing of Puce River along County Road 22 $460,000 2013 A+


October 2008 ES.11


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM (Watermains cont’d)

600-mm along West Puce River Road from County Road 22 southerly to existing 600-mm river crossing.

$500,000 2014 A+

400-mm along Renaud Line from County Road 22 to St. Clair Ave. $350,000 2015 A+

300-mm along Little Baseline Road from West Pike Creek Road westerly to existing 150-mm watermain.

$550,000 2016 A+

150-mm along 13-14 Sideroad from 9th Conc. Road to 10th Conc. Road $190,000 2016 A+

400-mm along County Road 22 from West Puce River Road to Patillo Road $1,780,000 2016 A+

400-mm along County Rd. 22 (Belle River crossing) from First St. to West River St. $260,000 2017 A+

250-mm along Notre Dame St. from Ducharme St. to Saint Peter St. $250,000 2017 A+

400-mm along Rourke Line from County Road 22 to Caille Ave. $400,000 2017 A+

Storage Facilities

New 1.25 MIG elevated water storage tank to replace existing Belle River Tower $4,500,000 2011 B

New 1.25 MIG elevated water storage tank to replace existing Maidstone tower $4,500,000 2013 B


October 2008 ES.12


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

STONEY POINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Watermains

300-mm along St. Clair Ave. from Comber Sideroad approx. 700m easterly $313,000 Completed in 2007 A+

300-mm along Saint Clair Ave. from Saint Peter St. westerly approx. 700m $319,000 2008 A+

200-mm along Gracie Sideroad from Couture Beach Road to 2nd Conc. Road $350,000 2009 A+

150-mm along County Road 2 (Tecumseh Road) from Gracie Sideroad to existing 50-mm watermain

$115,000 2009 A+

300-mm from Couture Beach Road to Martin Drive (connection to Lighthouse Cove) $625,000 2009 A+ / B

300-mm along Comber Sideroad from St. Clair Ave. to Tecumseh Road $320,000 2010 A+

100-mm connections along 3rd Concession Road, County Road 37 and 5th Concession Road (includes two crossings of Highway 401).

$770,000 2013 A+

100-mm connections along Rochester Townline Road generally between County Road 2 and 5th Concession Road

$450,000 2013 A+

300-mm along County Road 35 from Tecumseh Road to Highway 401 $2,600,000 2017 A+

Storage Facilities

New 0.7 MIG elevated water storage tank $2,500,000 2010 B

Treatment

1.0 MIGD expansion of Stoney Point WTP $3,500,000 2011 C


October 2008 ES.13

Table ES7.4 Summary of Identified 20-Year Wastewater Projects

WASTEWATER PROJECTS PROBABLE COST

YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

BELLE RIVER / MAIDSTONE WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Treatment

Expand Belle River / Maidstone WPCP to 4.0 MIGD $12,800,000 2022 C

Conveyance

Oakwood trunk sewer extension from Puce River to Pike Creek area. $8,500,000 2010 A+

Belle River Road corridor - sewer system including trunk sewer, pumping station and forcemain to BRMWPCP.

$9,000,000* 2015 A+

401 Employment Lands – pumping station and forcemain to Belle River / Maidstone collection system

$3,900,000 2010 A+

Local Collection

New gravity sewer collection system to service Belle River Road Corridor * Included in conveyance

2015 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service North Woodslee area $4,700,000 2015 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service South Woodslee area $1,200,000 2015 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service Pike Creek Area $3,900,000 2010 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service 401 Employment Lands $2,800,000 2010 A+


October 2008 ES.14


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

STONEY POINT WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Treatment

Upgrade and expand Stoney Point Wastewater Treatment Facility to 5,990 m3/d $12,530,000 2010 C

Conveyance

Pumping station and forcemain from Stoney Point service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$200,000 2010 A+ / C

Pumping station and forcemain from Comber service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$3,500,000 2010 A+ / C

Pumping station and forcemain from Lighthouse Cove service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$1,800,000 2010 A+ / C

Pumping station and forcemain from Rochester Place service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$2,500,000 2010 A+ / C

Local Collection

New gravity sewer collection system to service Lighthouse Cove area $24,000,000 2010 A+ / C

New gravity sewer collection system to service Rochester Place area $16,000,000 2010 A+ / C


October 2008 ES.15


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

ESSEX FRINGE SERVICE AREA

Treatment

Acquire treatment capacity at existing Town of Essex wastewater treatment facility. $1,400,000 2017 N/A

Conveyance

Pumping station and forcemain from Essex Fringe service area to Town of Essex treatment facility.

$2,600,000 2017 A+ / C

Local Collection

New gravity sewer collection system to service Essex Fringe area $2,600,000 2017 A+ / C


October 2008 i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1

ES.1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... ES.1 ES.1.1 PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN .................................................................... ES.1 ES.1.2 BACKGROUND AND SERVICE AREAS .............................................................. ES.1

ES.1.2.1 Water Service Areas ......................................................................................... ES.1 ES.1.2.2 Wastewater Service Areas................................................................................ ES.1 ES.1.2.3 Future Wastewater Service Areas .................................................................... ES.1

ES.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................................................... ES.2

ES.2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS...................................................... ES.2

ES.3.0 GROWTH, WATER DEMAND AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS.... ES.3 ES.3.1 COMMUNITY GROWTH PROJECTIONS ............................................................ ES.3 ES.3.2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS ............................................. ES.3 ES.3.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS...................................... ES.3

ES.4.0 PROBLEM STATEMENTS................................................................................... ES.4 ES.4.1 WATER ................................................................................................................. ES.4

ES.4.1.1 Belle River Water Supply System..................................................................... ES.4 ES.4.1.2 Stoney Point Water Supply System.................................................................. ES.5

ES.4.2 WASTEWATER..................................................................................................... ES.5 ES.4.2.1 Belle River / Maidstone Wastewater System .................................................... ES.5 ES.4.2.2 Stoney Point Wastewater System..................................................................... ES.5 ES.4.2.3 Comber Wastewater System ............................................................................ ES.5 ES.4.2.4 South Woodslee Wastewater System............................................................... ES.5 ES.4.2.5 North Woodslee Wastewater System ............................................................... ES.6 ES.4.2.6 Un-Serviced Settlement Areas.......................................................................... ES.6

ES.5.0 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS............ ES.6 ES.5.1 PLANNING LEVEL CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS....................... ES.6 ES.5.2 SERVICING ALTERNATIVES............................................................................... ES.7

ES.6.0 PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION ........................................... ES.7

ES.7.0 PREFERRED SERVICING PLAN......................................................................... ES.7 ES.7.1 SERVICING PLAN ................................................................................................ ES.7 ES.7.2 WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDY ........................................................... ES.8 ES.7.3 NEXT STEPS........................................................................................................ ES.9 ES.7.4 MONITORING....................................................................................................... ES.9

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

October 2008 ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1.1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN..................................................................................1.1 1.2 BACKGROUND AND SERVICE AREAS............................................................................1.1

1.2.1 Water Service Areas ............................................................................................1.1 1.2.2 Wastewater Service Areas...................................................................................1.3 1.2.3 Future Wastewater Service Areas .......................................................................1.4

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS.................................................................1.5 1.3.1 General ................................................................................................................1.5 1.3.2 Project Stages and Organization .........................................................................1.6 1.3.3 Master Plan Process............................................................................................1.6 1.3.4 Master Plan Report Outline..................................................................................1.7

1.4 RELATED STUDIES...........................................................................................................1.7 1.4.1 Water Servicing Studies.......................................................................................1.7 1.4.2 Wastewater Servicing Studies .............................................................................1.8 1.4.3 Other Related Studies..........................................................................................1.8

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS .......................2.1 2.1 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS............................................................................2.1

2.1.1 Belle River Water Supply System........................................................................2.1 2.1.2 Stoney Point Water Supply System.....................................................................2.4 2.1.3 Union Water Supply System................................................................................2.7 2.1.4 Tilbury-Wheatley Water Supply System ..............................................................2.8 2.1.5 Tecumseh Water Supply System.........................................................................2.8

2.2 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS.......................2.9 2.2.1 Belle River / Maidstone Sewage System.............................................................2.9

2.2.1.1 Background .........................................................................................2.9 2.2.1.2 Treatment System .............................................................................2.10 2.2.1.3 Collection System..............................................................................2.11

2.2.2 Stoney Point Sewage System............................................................................2.11 2.2.3 Comber Sewage System ...................................................................................2.12 2.2.4 South Woodslee Sewage System......................................................................2.12 2.2.5 North Woodslee Sewage System ......................................................................2.13 2.2.6 Areas Presently Serviced by Private On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems.........2.14

3.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT....................................................................3.1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................3.1 3.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................3.1

3.2.1 Climate.................................................................................................................3.1 3.2.2 Geology and Physiography..................................................................................3.1 3.2.3 Soils .....................................................................................................................3.1 3.2.4 Water Resources .................................................................................................3.2 3.2.5 Natural Vegetation ...............................................................................................3.2 3.2.6 Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Life ......................................................................3.3 3.2.7 Benthic Invertebrate Survey.................................................................................3.3


October 2008 iii

3.3 CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT.................................................3.3 3.3.1 Town of Lakeshore Study Area............................................................................3.3 3.3.2 Official Plan..........................................................................................................3.4

4.0 GROWTH, WATER DEMANDS AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS...............4.1 4.1 COMMUNITY GROWTH PROJECTIONS..........................................................................4.1

4.1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................4.1 4.1.2 Population Projections .........................................................................................4.2 4.1.3 Non-Residential Growth Projections ....................................................................4.3

4.2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS...........................................................4.4 4.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS ...................................................4.6

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MUNCIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS........................5.1 5.1 GENERAL...........................................................................................................................5.1

5.1.1 Average Day, Maximum Day and Peak Hour Demands......................................5.1 5.1.2 Storage Requirements .........................................................................................5.1 5.1.3 Water Distribution Systems..................................................................................5.2

5.1.3.1 System Pressure Requirements..........................................................5.2 5.1.3.2 Fire Protection .....................................................................................5.2 5.1.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis ...............................................................................5.3

5.2 BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM........................................................................5.4 5.2.1 Water Treatment Capacity – Belle River WSS ....................................................5.4 5.2.2 Storage Capacity – Belle River WSS...................................................................5.5 5.2.3 Water Distribution System – Belle River WSS.....................................................5.6

5.2.3.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................5.6 5.2.3.2 Future Conditions ................................................................................5.7

5.3 STONEY POINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ....................................................................5.8 5.3.1 Water Treatment Capacity – Stoney Point WSS .................................................5.8 5.3.2 Storage Capacity – Stoney Point WSS................................................................5.8 5.3.3 Water Distribution System – Stoney Point WSS................................................5.10

5.3.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................5.10 5.3.3.2 Future Conditions ..............................................................................5.11

5.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT - WATER .................................................................................5.11 5.4.1 Belle River Water Supply System......................................................................5.11 5.4.2 Stoney Point Water Supply System...................................................................5.11

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ..............................................6.1 6.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ..............................................................................6.1

6.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Capacity..........................................................................6.1 6.1.1.1 Belle River/ Maidstone WPCP Treatment Capacity ............................6.2 6.1.1.2 Stoney Point STF Treatment Capacity................................................6.2 6.1.1.3 Comber STF Treatment Capacity .......................................................6.2 6.1.1.4 South Woodslee STP Treatment Capacity..........................................6.2 6.1.1.5 North Woodslee STP Treatment Capacity ..........................................6.2


October 2008 iv

6.1.2 Collection / Conveyance Systems .......................................................................6.2 6.1.2.1 Belle River- Maidstone Wastewater Collection System ......................6.2 6.1.2.2 Stoney Point Wastewater Collection System ......................................6.3 6.1.2.3 Comber Wastewater Collection System..............................................6.4 6.1.2.4 South Woodslee Wastewater Collection System ................................6.4 6.1.2.5 North Woodslee Wastewater Collection System.................................6.5

6.2 UN-SERVICED SETTLEMENT AREAS .............................................................................6.5 6.2.1 Pollution Survey ...................................................................................................6.5

6.2.1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................6.5 6.2.1.2 Study Areas.........................................................................................6.6 6.2.1.3 Water Quality Sampling.......................................................................6.6 6.2.1.4 Septic Tank Permit Records................................................................6.8 6.2.1.5 Property Size Requirements ...............................................................6.8 6.2.1.6 Previous Findings................................................................................6.9 6.2.1.7 Pollution Survey Conclusions..............................................................6.9

6.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT - WASTEWATER.....................................................................6.10 6.3.1 Belle River / Maidstone Wastewater System .....................................................6.10 6.3.2 Stoney Point Wastewater System......................................................................6.10 6.3.3 Comber Wastewater System .............................................................................6.10 6.3.4 South Woodslee Wastewater System................................................................6.10 6.3.5 North Woodslee Wastewater System ................................................................6.10 6.3.6 Un-Serviced Settlement Areas...........................................................................6.10

7.0 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS .........................7.1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................7.1 7.2 PLANNING LEVEL CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ....................................7.1 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES ........................................7.1

7.3.1 Socio-Economic Environment..............................................................................7.1 7.3.1.1 Do Nothing ..........................................................................................7.1 7.3.1.2 Restrict Community Growth ................................................................7.2 7.3.1.3 Water Use Reduction and Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Measures.........7.2 7.3.1.4 Water and Wastewater System Capacity Expansion ..........................7.3

7.3.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures ................................................7.4 7.3.3 Screening Summary and Preferred Alternative Solutions....................................7.7

7.4 RECOMMENDED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS....................................7.9 7.4.1 Belle River Water Supply System........................................................................7.9

7.4.1.1 Recommended System Improvements – Belle River WSS...............7.10 7.4.1.2 Further Issues for Consideration .......................................................7.11

7.4.2 Stoney Point Water Supply System...................................................................7.11 7.4.2.1 Recommended System Improvements – Stoney Point WSS............7.12 7.4.2.2 Further Issues for Consideration .......................................................7.13

7.4.3 Cast Iron Watermain Replacement Program.....................................................7.13 7.5 WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................7.13

7.5.1 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Belle River/Maidstone Sewage System...............................................................................................................7.14

7.5.2 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Comber Sewage System ...........7.14


October 2008 v

7.5.3 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Stoney Point Sewage System....7.14 7.5.4 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Belle River Corridor Sewage Area:

(South Woodslee, North Woodslee, Belle River Road) .....................................7.15 7.5.5 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Rochester Place Sewage Area ..7.17 7.5.6 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Lighthouse Cove Sewage Area..7.17 7.5.7 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Essex Fringe Sewage Area........7.18 7.5.8 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Highway 401 Employment Lands

Sewage Area .....................................................................................................7.18 7.5.9 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems ......................................................7.18

7.5.9.1 Conventional Gravity Sewers ............................................................7.19 7.5.9.2 Vacuum Sewers ................................................................................7.19 7.5.9.3 Low Pressure Sewers .......................................................................7.20 7.5.9.4 Recommended Wastewater Collection System ................................7.21 7.5.9.5 Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures - Sewers7.21

7.5.10 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Processes...................................................7.21 7.5.11 Evaluation of Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions.................................7.22

7.5.11.1 Comber, Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove Area ...............................7.23 7.5.11.2 Rochester Place Area .......................................................................7.27 7.5.11.3 Essex Fringe Area.............................................................................7.28 7.5.11.4 Belle River Corridor Area ..................................................................7.31 7.5.11.5 Highway 401 Employment Lands Area .............................................7.33 7.5.11.6 Belle River / Maidstone Area.............................................................7.34

7.6 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATING MEASURES ......................7.35

8.0 PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION.........................................................8.1 8.1 GENERAL...........................................................................................................................8.1 8.2 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES ...............................................8.1 8.3 PHASE 1 - DISCRETIONARY CONSULTATION...............................................................8.2

8.3.1 Notice of Study Commencement & Public Information Session 1 .......................8.2 8.3.2 Public Information Session 2 – Study Update......................................................8.2 8.3.3 Town Council Information Session 1 – Study Update..........................................8.2 8.3.4 Public Information Session 3 – Study Update......................................................8.3 8.3.5 Town Council Information Session 2 – Presentation of Preliminary

Recommendations ...............................................................................................8.3 8.3.6 Consultation with Local Municipalities .................................................................8.3 8.3.7 Consultation with Interested Stakeholders...........................................................8.3 8.3.8 Consultation with Review Agencies & Mandatory Contacts ................................8.4

8.4 PHASE 2 - MANDATORY CONSULTATION .....................................................................8.5 8.4.1 Public Consultation ..............................................................................................8.5 8.4.2 Consultation with Review Agencies & Mandatory Contacts ................................8.5

8.5 NOTICE OF COMPLETION................................................................................................8.6 8.5.1 Consultation with Public, Review Agency & Mandatory Contacts .......................8.6

9.0 PREFERRED SERVICING PLAN ......................................................................................9.1 9.1 PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................9.1


October 2008 vi

9.2 WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDY .........................................................................9.8 9.3 NEXT STEPS......................................................................................................................9.9 9.4 MONITORING...................................................................................................................9.10 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Existing Residences Serviced by Private On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems 2.14 Table 4.1: Population Projections (Persons) 4.2 Table 4.2: Non-Residential Growth Projections (Hectares) 4.3 Table 4.3: Belle River WTP Historical Flows 4.4 Table 4.4: Stoney Point WTP Historical Flows 4.4 Table 4.5: Existing and Projected Water Demands – Belle River WSS 4.5 Table 4.6: Existing and Projected Water Demands – Stoney Point WSS 4.6 Table 4.7: Historical Wastewater Flows 4.7 Table 4.8: Existing and Projected Average Daily Wastewater Flows (m3/d) 4.8 Table 5.1: Water Treatment Capacity Requirements – Belle River WSS 5.4 Table 5.2: Water Storage Capacity Requirements – Belle River WSS 5.5 Table 5.3: Water Treatment Capacity Requirements – Stoney Point WSS 5.8 Table 5.4: Water Storage Capacity Requirements – Stoney Point WSS 5.9 Table 6.1: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Requirements 6.1 Table 7.1: Environmental Effects and Mitigating Measures 7.4 Table 7.2: Comparative Summary of Conceptual Planning Alternatives 7.8 Table 7.3: Belle River Corridor Area Wastewater Servicing Alternatives 7.16 Table 7.4: Comber, Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove Wastewater Servicing Alternatives 7.24 Table 7.5: Unit Costs to Provide Sewage Treatment at Tilbury STP 7.25 Table 7.6: Comber, Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove Present Value Analysis 7.26 Table 7.7: Present Value Analysis – Rochester Place Area Servicing Alternatives 7.28 Table 7.8: Present Value Analysis- Essex Fringe Area Servicing Alternatives 7.30 Table 7.9: Present Value Analysis - Belle River Corridor Servicing Alternatives 7.31 Table 9.1: Summary of Identified 20-Year Water Supply Projects 9.2 Table 9.2: Summary of Identified 20-Year Wastewater Projects 9.5 Table 9.3: Water Rate Summary 9.8 Table 9.4: Wastewater Rate Summary 9.8 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Public and Review Agency Consultation Appendix C – Benthic Invertebrate Survey Report – 2006 Appendix D - Pollution Survey Data Appendix E – Existing Watermain Inventory Appendix F – Existing Sanitary Sewer, Forcemain & Sanitary Pumping Station Inventory Appendix G – Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions Appendix H – Detailed Breakdowns of Net Present Value Analysis Appendix I – Financial Impact of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan on Consumer Rates Report (by Watson and Associates Economists, March 24 2008) Appendix J – Acknowledgements Appendix K – Files on Disk


October 2008 1.1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN

As of January 1, 2000, the Town of Belle River and the Townships of Maidstone, Rochester, Tilbury North and Tilbury West officially amalgamated to form the Town of Lakeshore. The Town of Lakeshore (the Town) is the largest municipality in Essex County in terms of geographic land area at approximately 530 square kilometers and is located in the north eastern portion of the County as shown in Figure 1.

The Town is responsible for the provision of infrastructure services to a population of over 34,500 people which is projected over the next 20 years to exceed 56,000. As a result, public officials and administration are faced with the task of managing existing water and wastewater infrastructure to service existing needs as well as the provision of future servicing for community growth and new development.

The Town of Lakeshore retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. in association with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to prepare a Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study including a Rate Review Study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The goal is to provide a consolidated framework to guide the planning and implementation of strategic water and wastewater infrastructure improvements over the next 20 year planning horizon and beyond with integrated consideration of the natural, social and economic environments.

The Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan is intended to provide timely and cost effective solutions to better manage the increased amount of infrastructure required to service growth within the municipality utilizing sound environmental assessment planning principles.

1.2 BACKGROUND AND SERVICE AREAS

The following sections briefly describe the existing water and wastewater service areas throughout the Town and identify potential future wastewater service areas which are not presently serviced by municipal wastewater systems.

1.2.1 Water Service Areas

The Town of Lakeshore is presently serviced by five separate water supply systems. The limits of each service area are shown in Figure 2 and include:

• The Belle River Water Supply System services the north-western portion of the Town of Lakeshore. The service area extends generally from Lake St. Clair to the north, Highway 401 to the south, Manning Road to the west and Rochester Townline Road to the east. The

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY INTRODUCTION

October 2008 1.2

water supply source for the Belle River system is Lake St. Clair and the Belle River WTP is located on Lakeview Drive in the community of Belle River.

• The Tecumseh Water Supply System, which in turn is supplied by the Windsor Water Supply System (WSS), services a portion of the Belle River WSS due to a lack of treatment capacity at the Belle River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and relatively low supply pressure in the rural areas south of County Road 42 and north of Highway 401 east of Manning Road. Under an agreement between the Town of Lakeshore and the Town of Tecumseh, which expired at the end of 2007, the Tecumseh WSS currently supplies water to Lakeshore’s St. Clair Shores commercial and residential subdivision as well as residents within Lakeshore along Manning Road north of Highway 401. The Tecumseh system also supplies water to the rural areas within Lakeshore south of County Road 42 and north of Highway 401 generally between Manning Road and 6th Concession Road.

• The Stoney Point Water Supply System services the communities of Stoney Point, the Surf Club area, Comber and the rural areas between Lake St. Clair and County Road 8 generally east of Rochester Townline Road and generally west of Big Creek. The water supply source is Lake St. Clair and the Stoney Point WTP is located on St. Clair Road in the community of Stoney Point.

• The Union Water Supply System services the south-west portion of the Town of Lakeshore. The water supply source for the Union System is Lake Erie and the Union WTP is located within the Town of Kingsville in the community of Ruthven. All areas south of Highway 401 between Manning Road and Rochester Townline Road, including Ruscom Station, North Woodslee and South Woodslee are within the Northwest Service Area of the Union WSS. System pressures in this area are generally governed by a combination of the water level in the elevated tank located in the Town of Essex and discharge pressures at the Cottam Reservoir and Booster Station.

• The Tilbury-Wheatley Water Supply System provides water to consumers within the Town of Lakeshore in the rural areas of the former Township of Tilbury North generally east of Big Creek as well as the residential community of Lighthouse Cove under a water supply agreement with the Public Utilities Commission for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The 5-year agreement was signed in 2006 and expires in 2011. The water supply source for the Tilbury-Wheatley system is Lake Erie and the Wheatley WTP supplies water to the community of Tilbury and to the consumers in Lakeshore through a 600-mm trunk watermain constructed in 2004.


October 2008 1.3

1.2.2 Wastewater Service Areas

There are presently five existing wastewater service areas in the Town of Lakeshore. The service areas are shown in Figure 3 and include:

• Belle River / Maidstone Sewage Works - The urban areas between Manning Road and Charron Line Road generally north of the CPR tracks are serviced by a sanitary sewage works system consisting of sanitary sewers, pumping stations, the Belle River / Maidstone Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) which is located on Rourke Line. The system was developed by the former Ontario Ministry of the Environment as a Provincial Sewage Works Project that was constructed and built between 1974 and 1981 under a total of ten construction contracts.

• Stoney Point Sewage Works - The Stoney Point urban area and adjacent lakefront areas are serviced by a wastewater collection and lagoon based treatment system. The first phase of the system was constructed in 1978 and included a gravity collection system, two pumping stations and two 14 acre oxidation ponds. The Stoney Point Sewage Treatment Facility (STF) is located on Tecumseh Road west of Little Creek. The collection system was extended in the late 1980’s westerly along St. Clair Road towards Rochester Townline Road to service lakefront properties.

• Comber Sewage Works - The Comber urban area is serviced by a wastewater collection and lagoon based treatment system. The system was constructed in 1974 and includes a gravity collection system, pumping station and two 2.43 ha (6 acre) oxidation ponds. The Comber STF is located in the south-east corner of Comber and accessible from Windsor Avenue.

• South Woodslee Sewage Works - The South Woodslee hamlet area is serviced by a wastewater collection and treatment system. The system was constructed in 2005 and consists of a low pressure sewage collection system and a mechanical sewage treatment plant located west of County Road 27 (Belle River Road) in the south-western corner of Woodslee Memorial Park adjacent to the Belle River and is accessible from King St.

• North Woodslee Sewage Works - A wastewater collection and treatment system was recently constructed in 2007 in the western portion of the North Woodslee hamlet area to service existing dwellings as well as a proposed subdivision development. The sewers convey wastewater to a new treatment facility located on West Belle River Rd. and which is sized to also treat sewage from the residences and future growth located in the hamlet area on the east side of Belle River. Planning and final design for local collection sewers to service the eastern portion of the hamlet area has not been initiated at this time.


October 2008 1.4

1.2.3 Future Wastewater Service Areas

As part of this study, residentially populated areas which are not currently being serviced by municipal sanitary sewage collection and treatment systems were identified for evaluation. These areas, listed below and shown in Figure 4, are serviced by individual on-site private septic systems generally consisting of holding tanks and leaching beds:

• Lighthouse Cove Area (including shoreline area west of Lighthouse Cove. i.e. Laforet Beach, Crystal Beach and Couture Beach Roads).

• Rochester Place Area (including Deerbrook, St. Joachim and shoreline areas generally between Charron Line Road and Rochester Town Line Road including along the Ruscom River).

• Belle River Road Area (north of North Woodslee hamlet and south of Belle River urban area)

• Essex Fringe Area (south-west corner of the Town along County Road 35 and including adjacent side streets)

• Potential Highway 401 Employment Area - To accommodate the need for additional industrial land, the Town’s 2007 Official Plan amendment includes provision of employment land development opportunities in the Highway 401 corridor area generally between County Road 19 (Manning Road) and County Road 25 (Puce Road) as shown in Figure 4. The economic potential and financial viability of the Highway 401 corridor as well as the specific locations, types of developments and land uses are being evaluated by the Town as part of other studies. For the purposes of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, broad assumptions have been made with respect to the water and wastewater servicing requirements of the potential Highway 401 employment lands corridor.

The service area boundaries shown in Figure 4 were selected for study purposes only and do not imply that development would be permitted everywhere within the boundary. Development will be dictated by Official Plan policies. These potential service areas were included in the study primarily because of the relatively dense population which are currently not serviced by municipal wastewater systems.


October 2008 1.5

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

1.3.1 General

The Environmental Assessment (EA) Act was passed in 1975 by the Province of Ontario to provide a mechanism for public participation in public projects.

The EA Act provides a means for the public or interest groups to receive the needed assurances that the environment is being protected from adverse affects on any significant public project. If there are necessary adverse affects on the environment, the public also needs assurances that all essential measures are being taken to minimize these impacts. The proponent is to weigh the impacts of a number of possible alternative ways to achieve the desired objective and to select the best alternative based on a thorough examination of each.

The EA Act recognized that certain municipal undertakings occur frequently, are small in scale, have a generally predictable range of effects or have relatively minor environmental significance. To ensure that a degree of standardization in the planning process is followed throughout the Province, the EA Act contemplated the use of the Class EA procedure for projects which require approval under the Act but which are not considered to be major environmental works. The work undertaken in preparation of the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan follows the planning and design process of the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA, October 2000, as amended in 2007.

The Class EA document also serves as a statement for public use in the decision making process under the EA Act. Municipal staff and consultants can use the Class EA in planning, design and construction of projects to ensure that the requirements of the EA Act are met. As part of the Class EA procedure, the proponent is required to state how the project is to proceed and gain approval under the EA Act. There are three approval mechanisms available to the proponent under the Class EA:

• Schedule A projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental affects and include a number of normal or emergency municipal maintenance and operational objectives. These projects are pre-approved and can proceed directly to implementation without following the full Class EA planning process.

• Schedule A+ projects include a new sub-class of activities introduced as part of the 2007 MEA Class EA amendments. Schedule A+ projects are also pre-approved similar to Schedule A, however, the public is to be advised prior project implementation. Advising the public of the project implementation is a means to inform the public of what is being undertaken in their local area. The manner in which the public is advised is to be determined by the proponent.


October 2008 1.6

• Schedule B projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities. In these cases, there is a potential for some adverse environmental impacts and therefore the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process including consultation with those who may be affected.

• Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. These projects proceed through the environmental assessment planning process outlined in the Class EA and require preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) to document the planning process.

1.3.2 Project Stages and Organization

The Class EA for municipal projects follows a five phase planning process that can be summarized as follows:

Phase 1 – Identification of the problem

Phase 2 – Identification of alternative solutions to the problem, consultation with review agencies and the public, selection of the preferred solution, and identification of the project as a Schedule A, A+, B or C activity.

Phase 3 – Identification of alternative design concepts (technical alternatives) for the preferred solution, evaluation of the alternative designs and their impacts on the environment, consultation with review agencies and the public and selection of the preferred design.

Phase 4 – Preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) to document the planning, design and consultation process for the project. The ESR is placed on the public registry for scrutiny by review agencies and the public.

Phase 5 – Final design, construction and commissioning of selected technical alternative. Monitoring of construction for adherence to environmental provisions and commitments.

The steps in each phase are identified in the flow diagram shown in Figure 5.

1.3.3 Master Plan Process

The preceding sections outline the planning and design process by which municipalities may plan municipal works on a project by project basis. In many cases it is beneficial to begin the planning process by considering a group of related projects or an overall system prior to dealing with project specific issues. This method provides a better way of defining the need for individual projects in the broader context and the solutions developed should reflect the goals of the Municipality.


October 2008 1.7

Master Plans are long range plans with broader scopes which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. These plans examine an infrastructure system or group of related projects in order to outline a framework for planning subsequent projects and/or developments. Master Plans address Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process.

1.3.4 Master Plan Report Outline

The Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study is structured as follows:

1. Introduction

2. Description of Existing Water and Wastewater Systems

3. Inventory of Existing Environment

4. Growth, Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Projections

5. Assessment of Existing Municipal Water Supply Systems

6. Assessment of Existing Wastewater Systems

7. Development and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

8. Public and Review Agency Consultation

9. Recommended Servicing Plan

10. Water and Wastewater Rate Study

1.4 RELATED STUDIES

Previous studies undertaken have been used as background reference information and are referenced in the following sections.

1.4.1 Water Servicing Studies

1. Belle River WTP Upgrade and Expansion Class Environmental ESR Amendment – Associated Engineering, August 2007.

2. Belle River WTP Upgrade and Expansion Design Brief – Associated Engineering, November 18, 2005.

3. Lighthouse Cove Water Supply Feasibility Study; Todgham and Case Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers, May 2005.

4. Belle River Water Supply Environmental Study Report; Stantec Consulting Ltd. & Dillon Consulting Ltd., January 2002.

5. Town of Lakeshore Water Distribution System Master Plan; Stantec Consulting Ltd., October 2001.

6. Northern Essex County, Water and Wastewater Conceptual Servicing Plan; KMK Consultants Ltd., June 1999.

7. Essex County Water Study; LaFontaine, Cowie, Buratto & Associates, December 1993.


October 2008 1.8

1.4.2 Wastewater Servicing Studies

1. Belle River / Maidstone Water Pollution Control Plant Capacity Assessment Study; Stantec Consulting Ltd., March 2006.

2. Preliminary Wastewater Servicing Plan – Lighthouse Cove Area; Sco-Tera Engineering, March 2004.

3. North Woodslee Sanitary Sewage System Class Environmental Assessment – Environmental Study Report; Dillon Consulting Ltd., November 4, 2003.

4. Hamlet of South Woodslee Sewage Works Addendum to Environmental Study Report; TSH Engineers, Architects, Planners, May 2001

5. Town of Lakeshore, former Police Village of Comber Sanitary Sewer Needs Study Final Report; Dillon Consulting Ltd, March 2001.

6. Northern Essex County, Water and Wastewater Conceptual Servicing Plan; KMK Consultants Ltd., June 1999.

7. Township of Maidstone Servicing Alternatives for the Expanded Pike Creek Area Class Environmental Assessment – Environmental Study Report; LaFontaine, Cowie, Buratto & Associates, December 1997.

8. Upgrading and Expansion of the Belle River / Maidstone Pollution Control Plant Environmental Assessment – Environmental Study Report; LaFontaine, Cowie, Buratto & Associates, May 1997.

9. Township of Tilbury North Sanitary Sewer System Needs Study; Dillon Consulting Ltd., December 1994.

10. Township of Tilbury North (Police Village of Stoney Point) Provincial Sewage Works System Study Report; LaFontaine, Cowie, Buratto & Associates, May 1, 1992.

1.4.3 Other Related Studies

1. Town of Lakeshore Population, Household and Employment Forecast Final Report; C.N. Watson and Associates Ltd. Economists, April 28, 2006.

2. Town of Lakeshore Official Plan – MMM Group, Adopted by Council May 26, 2008.


October 2008 2.1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

2.1 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

The Town of Lakeshore is fully serviced with municipal water by 5 separate water supply systems. A description of the existing systems is provided below and the boundaries of each service area are shown in Figure 2:

2.1.1 Belle River Water Supply System

Service Area The Belle River Water Supply System (WSS) services the north-western portion of the Town of Lakeshore. The service area extends generally from Lake St. Clair to the north, Highway 401 to the south, Manning Road to the west and Rochester Townline Road to the east as shown in Figure 2. The service area includes a mixture of urban residential, rural residential, industrial, commercial and institutional development. The residential, industrial, commercial and institutional water users are mainly located north of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the area between Pike Creek and Duck Creek with rural residential users predominating the remainder of the service area.

Treatment

The Belle River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is located at 497 Lakeview Drive in a residential area along Lake St. Clair. The site is approximately 0.26 hectares in size and almost completely occupied by the treatment plant and reservoir. The Belle River WTP was originally constructed in 1926, of which the intake and low-lift pump well remain. In 1945, the original plant underwent an extensive upgrade including gravity filters. In 1974, a major renovation was undertaken and further process improvements have been made since then. The Belle River WTP has a rated treatment capacity of 18,200 m3/d (4.0 MIGD).

In January 2002, a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed to evaluate long term potable water supply requirements for the area serviced by the Belle River WTP. The Class EA was initiated due to the fact that the plant was nearing its design capacity, there was an identified need for additional treatment capacity to service growth in the municipality and the existing treatment plant was aging and required upgrading. Various alternatives were evaluated including obtaining water from the Windsor WSS with the preferred solution being expanding and upgrading the Belle River WTP to satisfy the projected future water supply requirements of the service area.

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

October 2008 2.2

Construction on the Belle River WTP expansion commenced in May 2006 and is anticipated to be completed in the Fall of 2008. The proposed plant expansion will extend to the south side of Lakeview Avenue across from the existing plant. The following details of the plant expansion are noted below as described in the Design Brief:

• rated treatment capacity of 36,400 m3/d (8.0 MIGD).

• four (4) new low lift pumps installed in the existing low lift pump station each with a capacity of 156 L/s @ 15.9m TDH.

• one (1) automatically cleaned travelling water screen and one (1) manual by-pass screen.

• new alum and polymer chemical storage and feed systems.

• four (4) solids contact upflow clarifiers, each 16.67m x 16.67m, and equipped with PVC tube settlers based on an upflow treatment rate of 4.4 m/hr.

• four (4) dual media, sand and GAC gravity filters, 8m x 4m each, having a filtration rate of 12 m/hr.

• filter backwash and filter-to-waste facilities.

• UV (primary) and chlorine gas (secondary and emergency) disinfection system.

• high lift pump station equipped with 2 duty and 1 standby pumps each with a capacity of 211 L/s @ 41.5m TDH.

• 2 cell clearwater storage reservoir with a capacity of 9,922 m3 including concrete baffle walls.

• residuals management system including a new 567 m3 holding tank equipped with dissolved air flotation (DAF) equipment to thicken residuals prior to being pumped into the clarifiers. Clarifier sludge blowdown will be discharged directly to the municipal sanitary sewer system.

• New SCADA system based on GE-Fanuc PLC and Wonderware In-Touch software.

Once the new plant is operational, the existing facility will be decommissioned with the upgraded and refurbished low lift pump station remaining.

The existing intake works for the Belle River WTP are located approximately 565m into Lake St. Clair at a depth of 2.1m to 2.4m. Two intakes with mean lake level capacities of 9.8 ML/d (2.16 MIGD) and 57 ML/d (12.5 MIGD) respectively, convey raw water to the screen and low lift pumps inside the plant. Rapid increases in raw water turbidity and frazil ice formation have been on-going problems with the existing intakes.

Previous studies have documented that due to the low intake depth and intake location being in close proximity to the Belle River and Duck Creek, the treatment plant is occasionally affected from rapid increases in raw water turbidity which could potentially affect drinking water quality. In addition to turbidity concerns, frazil ice formation occurs in the winter during periods of low lake levels and can reduce intake capacity significantly. Inspections of the intake conducted in


October 2008 2.3

early 2007 identified significant structural problems with the intake pipe and heavy accumulation of sediment.

Attempts to clean the intake in March 2007 were unsuccessful due to the severity of sediment accumulation and misalignment of pipe joints. To address these problems, the Town of Lakeshore proceeded with an amendment the Belle River Water Supply Class EA to identify and evaluate alternative solutions. An ESR Amendment was issued in August 2007 recommending construction of a new 1,200 mm diameter raw water intake having a hydraulic capacity of 50 ML/d (11 MIGD) parallel to the existing intake and extending approximately 1.2 km into Lake St. Clair.

Construction of the new intake is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2008 and be completed by the end of 2008 where upon the existing intake will be eventually abandoned.

Storage

Storage for peak equalization, fire protection and emergencies in the Belle River WSS is currently provided at the Belle River WTP and at two elevated water tanks located in the distribution system. Storage at the existing water treatment plant consists of a 2 cell reservoir having a capacity of 3,400 m3 (750,000 Igal). This reservoir is being replaced with a new reservoir as part of the current plant expansion and the new reservoir will have a capacity of 9,922 m3 (2.2 MIG). The Belle River elevated tank was constructed in 1954 having a capacity of 1,137 m3 (250,000 Igal) and located at the intersection of Railway Avenue and Church Street in the Belle River community. The Maidstone elevated tank was constructed in 1984 having a capacity of 1,500 m3 (300,000 Igal) located on County Road 22 at Wallace Line Road. Approximately 12,600 m3 (2.8 MIG) of storage capacity will be available in the Belle River WSS upon completion of the treatment plant expansion. The following is a tabulation of the available storage capacity in the Belle River WSS:

Treated Water Storage

• Belle River WTP Reservoir (after expansion) 9,922 m3 (2.2 MIG)

• Belle River Elevated Tank 1,137 m3 (0.25 MIG)

• Maidstone Elevated Tank 1,500 m3 (0.33 MIG)

Total Treated Water Storage Capacity 12,560 m3 (2.8 MIG)

Distribution

In an effort to increase distribution system pressures in the western areas of the Belle River WSS, an altitude valve facility was constructed in 2003 at the Belle River elevated water tank. This would allow the high lift pumps at the treatment plant to continue to pump water to the distribution system and Maidstone elevated tank without overfilling the Belle River elevated


October 2008 2.4

tank. The facility was also equipped with a by-pass check valve to protect the distribution system from transient (surge) conditions in the event of high lift pump failure or watermain breaks.

The Belle River WSS consists of one pressure zone and the system pressures are generally governed by a combination of both the pressure head developed by the high lift pumps at the treatment plant and the elevation of the water in the Belle River and Maidstone elevated water tanks. Emergency points of interconnection with adjacent water supply systems exist at the following locations:

• Tecumseh Water Supply System

- Amy Croft Drive west of County Road 21 (300-mm dia. interconnection)

- County Road 21 (Elmstead Road) north of County Road 8 (200-mm dia. interconnection)

- Patillo Road north of County Road 8 (250-mm dia. interconnection)

- County Road 8 west of West Puce River Road (200-mm dia. interconnection)

• Union Water Supply System

- south side of Highway 401 on Belle River Road (200-mm dia. interconnection)

• Stoney Point Water Supply System

- Surf Club Drive north of County Road 2 (150-mm dia. interconnection)

The Belle River water distribution system (including areas presently serviced by the Tecumseh WSS) consist of approximately 256 km of watermains ranging in size from 100mm to 600mm in diameter. A detailed inventory and listing of the existing watermains in the Belle River Water Supply System (including areas presently serviced by Tecumseh) is included in Appendix “E”. Refer to Sheets W1 to W5, W9 and W10 in Appendix “E” for complete distribution plans of the existing watermains in the Belle River WSS.

2.1.2 Stoney Point Water Supply System

Service Area

The Stoney Point WSS services the communities of Stoney Point, the Surf Club area, Comber and the rural areas between Lake St. Clair and County Road 8 generally east of Rochester Townline Road and west of Tilbury Creek and Big Creek as show in Figure 2 found in Appendix “A”.


October 2008 2.5

Treatment

The Stoney Point WTP is located on St. Clair Avenue in the community of Stoney Point and was originally constructed in the early 1950’s. In 1991, the existing facility was converted from a pressure filter plant into a modern facility using gravity filters. The existing structures were completely remodeled to provide workshops and storage areas, washrooms, lunchroom, office as well as the provision of chlorine disinfection and fluoride facilities. An addition was constructed to house two new dual media gravity filters, high lift pumps and a diesel standby emergency generator. An addition to the low lift pumping station was also constructed to house chemical storage and feed systems for coagulation (alum) and taste and odour control (powdered activated carbon). The expansion also included a 1,350 m3 (280,000 Igal) underground storage reservoir, clarifier sludge and filter backwash treatment and disposal system, and a zebra mussel control system. The plant was also fitted with a state of the art computerized control and SCADA systems. The plant was further upgraded between 2004 and 2006 as part of Certificate of Approval upgrade requirements identified by the MOE which included clarifier bypass facilities, filter-to-waste capabilities, flow metering upgrades and associated monitoring systems for fluoride and Contact Time (CT) control.

The Stoney Point WTP has a rated capacity of 4,545 m3/d (1.0 MIGD). The intake works consist of a 600 mm corrugated steel pipe extending approximately 1,220 m into Lake St. Clair. The mouth of the intake is located in approximately 1.8m of water and has a design capacity of 18,200 m3/d (4.0 MIGD).

Two (2) low lift pumps (1 duty and 1 standby), each rated for 56.8 L/s at 9.1m TDH pump raw water to a solids up-flow type circular clarifier rated at 4,545 m3/d (1.0 MIGD). Three clarifier effluent pumps (2 duty and 1 standby) each deliver water at 26.5 L/s from an intermediate well to two gravity filters (sand and anthracite) rated at 2,273 m3/d (0.5 MIGD) each for a total filter capacity of 4,545 m3/d (1.0 MIGD).

Treated water is stored in an underground reservoir and pumped into the distribution system from two clearwells using three high lift pumps (2 duty and 1 standby), each rated at 32.3 L/s @ 68.3 m total dynamic head (TDH) producing a discharge water pressure of approximately 550 kPa (80 psi). Since there is no elevated water tower in the Stoney Point system, pressure is maintained in the distribution system by continually operating the high lift pumps.

Storage and Distribution

The Stoney Point water service area consists of four pressure zones as follows:

• Stoney Point Pressure Zone – Stoney Point urban area and adjacent lakefront areas

• Haycroft Pressure Zone - rural areas south of lakefront and generally north of Highway 401

• Comber Pressure Zone – Comber urban area

• South Pressure Zone - Staples and rural areas South of Highway 401


October 2008 2.6

The Stoney Point pressure zone is governed by pressures developed at the Stoney Point WTP. The Stoney Point WTP also conveys water to the Haycroft Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station.

The Haycroft Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station is located on County Road 35 at 3rd Concession Road. The station was designed to act as an intermediate reservoir and re-pumping station to supplement the supply to Comber and rural service area to the south without impacting consumers in the northern areas. The station consists of a 425 m3 reservoir and a battery of four high lift pumps which boost water pressure for delivery to the Comber Reservoir and Pumping Station. Each pump has a rated discharge capacity of 11 L/s at 73m TDH.

The Comber Reservoir and Pumping Station is located in the community of Comber and services both the Comber urban area and the rural areas south of Highway 401 including the Hamlet of Staples. The station consists of a 1,018 m3 reservoir and a battery of seven high lift pumps. Four pumps are dedicated to service the rural pressure zone area south of Comber and three separate pumps maintain pressure in the Comber urban area independent of the rural areas.

A total of approximately 2,800 m3 of in-ground storage capacity is available for peak equalization, fire protection and emergency conditions in the Stoney Point WSS. There are no elevated storage tanks in the Stoney Point water system. The following is a tabulation of the existing available storage capacity in the Stoney Point WSS:

Treated Water Storage

• Stoney Point WTP Reservoir 1,350 m3 (0.28 MIG)

• Haycroft Reservoir 425 m3 (0.09 MIG)

• Comber Reservoir 1,018 m3 (0.46 MIG)

Total Treated Water Storage Capacity 2,800 m3 (0.83 MIG)

In addition to the emergency point of interconnection with the Belle River WSS noted previously, an emergency interconnection (100-mm) with the Union WSS exists on County Road 8 west of the community of Staples.

The Stoney Point WSS consist of approximately 170 km of watermains ranging in size from 50mm to 300mm in diameter. A detailed inventory and listing of the existing watermains in the Stoney Point WSS is included in Appendix “E”. Refer to Sheets W6, W8, W11, W12 and W15 in Appendix “E” for complete distribution plans of the existing watermains in the Stoney Point WSS.


October 2008 2.7

2.1.3 Union Water Supply System

The Union WSS serves the southeast portion of the County of Essex including the entire Municipalities of Kingsville and Leamington and parts of the Municipalities of Essex and Lakeshore with an estimated service population of approximately 56,000 people. It also serves the H.J. Heinz Company of Canada plant in Leamington as a direct consumer.

All service areas south of Highway 401 in the Town of Lakeshore between Manning Road and Rochester Townline Road, including Ruscom Station, North Woodslee and South Woodslee are situated within the Northwest Service Area of the Union WSS. The pressure in this area is governed by the water level in the elevated tank located in the former Town of Essex which is filled from the Cottam Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) retained ownership of the Union WSS and its components until January 8, 2001 when ownership was transferred under the Municipal Water and Sewer Transfer Act, 1997 to the municipal partners of the Towns of Kingsville, Leamington, Essex and Lakeshore. The intake systems, low lift pumping station, treatment plant, Cottam Reservoir and Booster Station, the Leamington, Essex and Kingsville Elevated Water Storage Tanks and a network of trunk watermains are jointly owned by the municipal partners and administered by a Joint Management Board. Local distribution watermains are owned and serviced by the respective municipalities.

The Union WTP, originally constructed in 1957, is located in the community of Ruthven in the Town of Kingsville and is a chemically assisted conventional filtration treatment plant with a rated treatment capacity of 124,545 m3/d (27.4 MIGD). The water supply source for the Union WTP is Lake Erie. Treatment processes include chemically assisted up-flow clarification, filtration with dual media filters, primary disinfection using chlorine gas and secondary disinfection using chloramination. Seasonally, the Union WTP uses sodium hypochlorite at its intakes to control zebra mussel formation.

In 1996, the existing Cottam booster station was replaced with the Cottam Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station to improve service to the Northwest service area. The Cottam Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station consists of an underground reservoir with capacity of 9,890 m3, two (2) clearwells, four (4) booster pumps, surge protection facilities, re-chlorination facilities and a stand-by emergency generator. The station re-pumps water into the trunk watermains supplying the Northwest service area. Water from the Union WTP is used to fill the station’s reservoir.

There are no storage facilities located within the Town of Lakeshore in areas serviced by the Union WSS. Flows for peak equalization, emergencies and fire protection are provided from system storage and supply capacity in the Union WSS.


October 2008 2.8

A detailed inventory and listing including plans of the existing watermains within the Town of Lakeshore serviced by the Union WSS is included in Appendix “E”. Refer to Sheets W13 and W114 in Appendix “E” for complete distribution plans of the existing watermains within the Town of Lakeshore serviced by the Union WSS.

2.1.4 Tilbury-Wheatley Water Supply System

The Lighthouse Cove community and the rural areas of the former Township of Tilbury North east of Tilbury Creek and Big Creek are currently supplied water by the Public Utilities Commission (P.U.C.) for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent through the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS under a 5-year water service agreement which came into effect in 2006. A bulk water meter on the supply line from Tilbury to Lighthouse Cove records the total volume of water used by the Lighthouse Cove consumers. Rural consumers are billed directly by the Chatham-Kent P.U.C. An overview of the service area is shown on Figure 2 in Appendix “A”.

The Tilbury-Wheatley WSS consists of the Wheatley WTP, an elevated water storage tank in Wheatley and one in Tilbury, an in-line re-chlorination facility south of Tilbury and a below-ground storage reservoir and booster pumping station on the north side of Tilbury. The Wheatley WTP supplies water to the community of Tilbury and to consumers in Lakeshore through a 600-mm diameter trunk watermain which was constructed in 2004.

There are no storage facilities located within the Town of Lakeshore in areas serviced by the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS. Flows for peak equalization, emergencies and fire protection are provided from system storage and supply capacity in the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS. In 2007, a larger replacement elevated tank was constructed in the community of Tilbury adjacent to the old tank.

A detailed inventory and listing including plans of the existing watermains within the Town of Lakeshore supplied by the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS is included in Appendix “E”. Refer to Sheets W7, W8, W11 and W15 in Appendix “E” for complete distribution plans of the existing watermains within the Town of Lakeshore supplied by the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS.

2.1.5 Tecumseh Water Supply System

A portion of the Belle River WSS is currently being supplied water from the Town of Tecumseh’s water supply system due to a lack of treatment capacity at the Belle River WTP and low supply pressure in the rural area located in the south-west portion of the service area. Under an agreement between the Town of Lakeshore and the Town of Tecumseh, the Tecumseh WSS currently supplies water to the St. Clair Shores commercial and residential subdivision and to residents within Lakeshore along Manning Road north of Highway 401. The Tecumseh system also supplies water to the rural areas within Lakeshore south of County Road 42 and north of Highway 401 generally between Manning Road and 6th Concession Road.


October 2008 2.9

The water service agreement between the Town of Lakeshore and Town of Tecumseh expired at the end of 2007 but these areas continue to be serviced by the Tecumseh WSS. The Town of Lakeshore is currently evaluating short-term measures to ensure continuous servicing of the areas presently served by the Tecumseh WSS.

2.2 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS

There are five existing wastewater treatment and collection systems servicing the Town of Lakeshore. These include the Belle River / Maidstone, Stoney Point, Comber and South Woodslee and North Woodslee sewage systems. The wastewater treatment and collection systems are operated by the OCWA. A description of the existing systems is provided below and their respective service areas are illustrated in Figure 3 in Appendix “A”:

2.2.1 Belle River / Maidstone Sewage System

The former Belle River community and the Maidstone urban are serviced by a sanitary sewage works system consisting of sanitary sewers, pumping stations, a mechanical pollution control plant and an outfall discharging to Lake St. Clair.

2.2.1.1 Background

In 1965, the Town of Belle River authorized the preparation of a report on a sanitary sewage disposal system in response to concerns regarding pollution of Lake St. Clair. During the course of the work, the Ontario Water Resource Commission (OWRC) became involved and at its suggestion the Township of Maidstone was asked to consider participating in a joint scheme with the Town of Belle River.

In 1967, the OWRC was authorized to develop sanitary sewage collection and treatment systems as provincially owned projects. Work on the Belle River project proceeded on this basis with a Conceptual Report submitted in November 1967 followed by a Design Report in May, 1968.

In July 1968, the OWRC, at the request of the Township of Maidstone, initiated a Provincial Sewage Works Program to also service the Emeryville area of the Township. The project was eventually expanded to include the northern part of the Township from Belle River on the east to Pike Creek on the west.

Construction of the Belle River collection system, including the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP, was completed near the end of 1976 and connections to the system were permitted to commence in early 1977. Construction of the Maidstone collection system was carried out in six separate contracts between 1978 and 1981.


October 2008 2.10

In 1987, the plant was operating at capacity and the sludge disposal facilities were found to be inadequate. Also, pressures for development in the Belle River and Maidstone urban areas persisted. As a result, a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated to evaluate alternative options to address the problems and identify alternative solutions.

The EA process resulted in the preparation of two separate Environmental Study Reports (ESR’s). The first ESR, dated May 1997, entailed an upgrade and expansion of the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP. The recommended solution was to double the capacity of the original treatment facility to 13,650 m3/d (3.0 MIGD) and convert the plant to a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) treatment process. The ESR recommended aerobic digestion dewatering storage land application as the preferred sludge management alternative. The project proceeded to final design and construction under a design-build process and the works were completed in 1999.

The second ESR, dated December 1997, involved the planning associated with servicing alternatives for the expanded sewage service area throughout the northern urban areas of the former Township of Maidstone outside the original service area. The recommendations from that report included a new gravity trunk sanitary sewer from the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP extended westerly to service existing residences and growth in the western areas of the municipality generally north of the CPR tracks which were located outside the original Belle River / Maidstone collection system. To date, construction of the trunk sanitary sewer has been completed between the treatment plant and the Puce River only.

2.2.1.2 Treatment System

The Belle River / Maidstone WPCP is located on Rourke Line Road south of County Road 22 and provides secondary level biological treatment. The plant was commissioned in 1976 as an extended aeration plant and was later upgraded and expanded in 1999 to an SBR process. The treatment process consists of fine screening, grit removal, four (4) sequencing batch reactors, and UV disinfection. Treated effluent is discharged into Lake St. Clair though an outfall sewer. Waste activated sludge is aerobically digested for stabilization and the stabilized biosolids are gravity thickened and dewatered by centrifuges. The dewatered biosolids are hauled to an off-site storage facility and ultimately land applied.

The treatment plant is rated for an average daily sewage flow of 13,640 m3/day (3.0 MIGD) and a peak flow capacity of 35,069 m3/d (7.7 MIGD). However, various operational problems are limiting the treatment capacity of the facility. In response to these operational issues, the Town of Lakeshore retained Stantec Consulting Ltd., in association with XCG Consultants Ltd., to review the current operation of the plant and identify upgrade requirements to address these operational issues.

A report dated May 2006 entitled “Belle River Maidstone WPCP Capacity Assessment Study” was prepared and outlined recommended solutions to address the identified problems. In


October 2008 2.11

general, the recommended improvements included new inlet works, converting the SBR treatment process to an Extended Aeration process including blower facilities, new final clarifiers and a new effluent pumping station in addition to improvements to the biosolids handling process involving upgrades to existing centrifuge dewatering equipment as well as various improvements to ancillary systems.

Preliminary and final planning, design and tendering to implement improvements & upgrades to the Belle River-Maidstone WPCP have been completed and awaiting Council approval. Construction is scheduled to commence in the Fall of 2008 and be completed in the Fall of 2010.

The existing 900mm diameter plant outfall sewer currently has a peak design capacity of 50,000 m3/d (10.95 MIGD) and extends approximately 600 metres into Lake St. Clair. Following completion of the effluent pumping station as part of the proposed plant upgrades, the design capacity of the outfall sewer will increase to 67,855 m3/d (14.9 MIGD). Effluent discharges through nozzles at the end of the outfall to assist in dispersing the effluent.

2.2.1.3 Collection System

The Belle River and Maidstone urban areas of the Town are serviced by a gravity collection system with a series of lift stations. The Belle River collection system conveys sewage to Pumping Station No.2. The pumping station is equipped with 3 pumps (2 duty, 1 standby) with a rated capacity of 80 L/s each. Pumping Station No.2 pumps sewage to the inlet works of the BRMWPCP via two 300mm forcemains approximately 1,220 metres long. The forcemains alternate duty approximately every 6 hours to minimize the build up of H2S gas entering the treatment plant inlet.

The Maidstone collection system conveys sewage directly to Pumping Station No.8 which is located at the BRMWPCP site. Pumping Station No.8 is a 2-stage screw pump station with two screw pumps per stage each having a capacity of 23,560 m3/d (272 L/s). The pumping station lifts sewage to an elevated concrete channel where it is conveyed into the inlet works of the treatment plant.

A detailed inventory and listing including plans of the existing sanitary sewers and forcemains in the Belle River / Maidstone wastewater collection system is included in Appendix “F”. Refer to Sheets S2, S3, and S4 in Appendix “F” for complete inventory plans of the existing sewers and forcemains within the Belle River / Maidstone wastewater collection system.

2.2.2 Stoney Point Sewage System

The Stoney Point community and adjacent lakefront areas are serviced by a wastewater collection and treatment system. The first phase of the system was constructed in 1978 and included a gravity collection system, two pumping stations and two oxidation ponds located on


October 2008 2.12

Tecumseh Road west of Little Creek. The collection system was extended in the late 1980’s westerly along St. Clair Avenue towards Rochester Townline Road to service the lakefront properties.

Raw Sewage from Pumping Station No.1 is pumped into two 5.6 ha (14 acre) oxidation ponds. The Stoney Point Sewage Treatment Facility (STF) was designed based on an average daily sewage flow of 920 m3/d. The ponds are routinely drained in a controlled manner with discharge to Little Creek approximately 820 metres upstream of where the creek discharges into Lake St. Clair. Prior to being drained, the ponds are treated with aluminum sulphate for phosphorus removal. Sludge accumulation was removed from Cell 2 in August 2005 however Cell 1 has never been cleaned.

A detailed inventory listing of the existing sanitary sewers and forcemains in the Stoney Point wastewater collection system is included in Appendix “D”. Refer to Sheet S5 for complete inventory plans of the existing sanitary sewers and forcemains within the Stoney Point wastewater collection system.

2.2.3 Comber Sewage System

The Comber urban area is serviced by a wastewater collection and treatment system that was constructed in 1974. It includes a gravity collection system, pumping station and two 2.43 ha (6 acre) oxidation ponds located in the south-east corner of the community south of County Road 46 and accessible from Windsor Avenue.

Raw sewage from Pumping Station No.1 is pumped into the oxidation ponds. The Comber STF was designed based on an average daily sewage flow of 430 m3/d. The ponds are routinely drained in a controlled manner with discharge to an open drain which leads to No.1 Government Drain which outlets to Big Creek. Prior to being drained, the ponds are treated with aluminum sulphate for phosphorus removal. Sludge accumulation was removed from both cells in 2004.

A detailed inventory and listing including plans of the existing sanitary sewers and forcemains in the Comber wastewater collection system is included in Appendix “F”. Refer to Sheet S6 in Appendix “F” for complete inventory plans of the existing sanitary sewers and forcemains within the Comber Wastewater collection system.

2.2.4 South Woodslee Sewage System

The South Woodslee hamlet area is serviced by a wastewater collection and treatment system. The system was constructed in 2005 and consists of a low pressure sewer collection system and a mechanical sewage treatment plant located west of County Road 27 (Belle River Road) in the south-western corner of Woodslee Memorial Park adjacent to the Belle River. The site is accessible from King Street.


October 2008 2.13

The South Woodslee sewage collection system utilizes individual septic tank effluent pump (STEP) systems installed at every dwelling. The STEP systems includes two compartment septic tanks which are intended to provide settling and storage of wastewater prior to discharge to the pressure main by effluent grinder pumps. As a result, the pressure mains are smaller than conventional gravity sewers and installed at shallower depths. Solids accumulate in the septic tanks and must be cleaned out routinely. The Town is experiencing problems with the structural integrity of the septic tanks and clogging of the effluent pump check valves and is currently proceeding with a program to replace each tank and check valve in the STEP system.

Effluent from the individual STEP systems is conveyed to the South Woodslee Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). The plant was commissioned in 2003 and utilizes the Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) treatment process. The treatment facility consists of a primary settling tank, one (1) rotating biological contactor train, a secondary settling tank, effluent filtration and UV disinfection. Treated effluent from the South Woodslee STP is discharged into the Belle River. Sludge settles and accumulates in the settling tanks and requires routine removal for further processing off-site.

The South Woodslee STP is rated for an average daily sewage flow of 210 m3/d. Modifications were completed in 2007 to upgrade the treatment plant to address various operational issues that were limiting the treatment capacity of the facility.

A detailed inventory and listing including maps of the existing low pressure sewers in the South Woodslee wastewater collection system are included in Appendix “D”. Refer to Sheet S6 in Appendix “F” for complete inventory plans of the existing low pressure sewers in the South Woodslee Wastewater collection system.

2.2.5 North Woodslee Sewage System

The western portion of the hamlet area of North Woodslee is serviced by a municipal wastewater collection and treatment system which was constructed in 2007. The new mechanical sewage treatment facility is initially intended to service the area of North Woodslee west of the Belle River which includes a proposed 60 lot subdivision. The plant capacity has been established to also service lands in the North Woodslee area east of the Belle River in the future. The planning of the sewage works in North Woodslee has been documented in the “Town of Lakeshore North Woodslee Sewage System Class Environmental Assessment – Addendum to Environmental Study Report” dated November 30, 2004.

Based on the MOE Certificate of Approval issued for the proposed North Woodslee STP, the facility has a rated treatment capacity of 330 m3/d and utilizes the RBC treatment process. The treatment process consists of a primary settling tank, one (1) rotating biological contactor train, a secondary settling tank, effluent filtration and UV disinfection. Sludge will settle and accumulate in the settling tanks and will require routine removal for further processing off-site. The plant also includes an inlet pumping station, standby power and a 200-mm diameter outfall sewer to discharge treated effluent to the Belle River.


October 2008 2.14

2.2.6 Areas Presently Serviced by Private On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems

Table 2.1 summarizes an estimate of the number of existing residences and the corresponding population throughout the Town of Lakeshore which are not presently serviced by an existing municipal wastewater collection and treatment system. These residences are serviced by private on-site sewage disposal systems typically consisting of septic tanks and leaching beds.

Historically, on-site private sewage disposal systems provided a means to achieve a minimal level of wastewater treatment in remote, sparsely populated areas where municipal services did not exist. These types of systems are heavily dependant on ground conditions and adequate land availability to be effective. Prior to 1974, these systems were constructed with overflow pipes directed to local watercourses to prevent systems from overloading during wet weather conditions.

Table 2.1: Existing Residences Serviced by Private On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems

Area Number of Residences

Estimated Population

• Maidstone Urban Area - Pike Creek Area - West Puce River Road Area

170 22

491 64

• Belle River Corridor 308 890

• Woodslee Area (1) 287 829

• Lighthouse Cove (2) 439 1,269

• Rochester Place / St. Joachim / Deerbrook 855 2,471

• Essex Fringe 251 725

Sub-total Urban Areas 2,332 6,739

• Rural Areas 2,594 7,497

TOTAL 4,926 14,236 Notes: 1. Does not include residences in South Woodslee (approx. 90) presently serviced by South Woodslee sewage system. 2. Includes shoreline area west of Lighthouse Cove (i.e. Laforet Beach, Crystal Beach and Couture Beach Roads).


October 2008 3.1

3.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Projects identified through this Master Plan process must be evaluated on the basis of the potential impact on the existing environmental conditions of the study area. The following sections provide a general description of the existing natural, social and economic environmental conditions in the Town of Lakeshore.

3.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.2.1 Climate

The climate in Essex County is classified as modified humid continental which has hot and humid summers with mild winters and adequate precipitation. In comparison with the other areas in the Province, Essex County's southerly latitude and proximity to the lower Great Lakes provides for warmer summer and winter temperatures with a longer growing season. Because the area is also on one of the major continental storm tracks, it experiences wide variations in day to day weather including severe summer thunderstorms. The normal minimum and maximum temperatures are -9°C and +28°C respectively and the mean daily temperature is above 6°C which tends to increase temperatures in surface waters. The extremes in weather, especially the summer storms in conjunction with the shallow nature of Lake St. Clair cause wide variations in lake levels. Water levels have been known to rise significantly on the leeward shoreline during some extreme storm conditions.

3.2.2 Geology and Physiography

Most of the bedrock under the region is sedimentary limestone of the Devonian age which has a high calcium and magnesium content. The bedrock in the majority of Essex County is covered by glacial drift with a drift thickness ranging from 3 m to 45 m from west to east. In the Lakeshore area, the depth to bedrock ranges from 30m to 38m. The parent soil material is a heavy ground moraine and lacustrine deposition containing a considerable amount of limestone, appreciable amounts of shale and some igneous rock.

The topography of the area is a comparatively flat and smooth plain with scattered sandy and gravely knolls. The land rises very gently from Lake St. Clair at the rate of about 3 feet per mile. The area along Lakes St. Clair is generally quite low lying and has been subject to flooding from high water levels in Lakes St. Clair and its tributaries over the past few decades.

3.2.3 Soils

Soils within the study area were formed from heavy ground moraine which has been altered by glacial lake wave action and lacustrine deposition. The majority of the area is part of a smooth

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

October 2008 3.2

clay plain and the predominant soil types are Perth and Brookston clays and their associated clay loams. Developed from dolomitic limestone intermixed with shale, the imperfectly drained member is the Perth clays and the poorly drained member is the Brookston clays. Throughout the region, good quality topsoil tends to support an extensive market gardening, cash crops and other agricultural uses throughout the Town of Lakeshore. In order to preserve the agricultural areas, the Town’s Draft Official Plan provides the following general goals:

• To preserve prime agricultural land for agricultural purposes unless appropriate justification is provided for alternative uses.

• To preserve and strengthen the continued viability of the agricultural community.

• To protect agriculture from the intrusion of incompatible uses, such as non-farm related residential dwellings and other uses that are sensitive to contemporary agricultural practices.

3.2.4 Water Resources

Lake St. Clair is a significant natural resource for the area being a source of drinking water and site of fishing and recreational activities. Lake St. Clair has attracted development and residential settlement throughout the area. There are several natural water courses draining the area, namely Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, Duck Creek, Moisson Creek, Ruscom River, Big Creek and Little Creek.

Due to the low lying nature of the ground in the area, natural drainage is difficult to obtain and much of the land drainage is pumped to the lake. The Essex Region Conservation Authority has imposed development controls by way of establishing fill line levels which must be met by home owners and others developing the area. In addition, much of the land along Lake St. Clair has been diked through the efforts of various property owners to prevent lake water intrusion.

3.2.5 Natural Vegetation

The County of Essex lies completely within the Niagara section of the Deciduous Forest Region of Ontario. Favourable soil and climatic conditions have allowed for the extension of many species of Carolinian and prairie flora which makes the region unique in Canada. The remnant broadleaf forests in Essex County are a resource of national importance. A number of trees with sporadic occurrence on specialized sites reach their northern limits in the area. In addition to rare tree varieties, there are southern herbs and prairie vegetation found in specific areas.

Most of the study area was cleared many years ago to allow for agricultural land uses. There are, therefore, comparatively few stands of trees or wood lots. The trees and wood lots that do exist in the area serve as erosion protection along the natural water courses and as windscreens.


October 2008 3.3

3.2.6 Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Life

The agricultural land uses support generally small animals including rabbits, racoons, skunks, fox, muskrat, etc. As long as the existing land uses are maintained, these animals would be expected to remain as they can effectively adapt to man's activity.

3.2.7 Benthic Invertebrate Survey

As part of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, the Town of Lakeshore retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. to undertake a Benthic Invertebrate Survey on the watercourses within the Town of Lakeshore which receive effluent discharges from an existing wastewater treatment facility. The purpose of the survey was to document the condition of the respective watercourses and to serve as background information documenting existing environmental conditions under the Class EA process.

The impact of the effluent from the existing sewage treatment facilities within the Town of Lakeshore has been documented in a biological study of the respective watercourses. The study titled, “Town of Lakeshore 2006 Benthic Invertebrate Survey” was conducted in October 2006. A copy of the complete report can be found in Appendix “C”.

The BioMAP Water Quality Index was developed as a measure of overall zoobenthic community health for southern Ontario streams. A BioMAP score of less than 14 indicates impairment of typical southern Ontario streams. The BioMAP Water Quality Index from the six (6) samples collected was always below 6.0. The study concluded that there is no obvious impairment of the respective stream environments as a result of treated effluent discharged from any of the existing sewage treatment facilities in the Town of Lakeshore.

3.3 CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

3.3.1 Town of Lakeshore Study Area

As of January 1, 2000, the Town of Belle River and Townships of Maidstone, Rochester, Tilbury North and Tilbury West officially amalgamated to form the Town of Lakeshore. The Town of Lakeshore is the largest municipality in Essex County in terms of geographic land area at approximately 530 square kilometers and is located in the north eastern portion of the County as shown in Figure 1.

The municipality extends southward from the shores of Lake St. Clair generally between County Road 19 (Manning Road) on the west and Kent County Road 1 on the east and is bound to the south by County Road No. 8. The Town of Lakeshore abuts the Towns of Tecumseh to the west, Leamington, Kingsville and Essex to the south and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to the east.


October 2008 3.4

The Town of Lakeshore is comprised of a large geographic community with multiple urban centres and hamlets resulting from municipal restructuring, historic growth and settlement trends. There are many separate developed areas within the Town of Lakeshore which include the Maidstone, Belle River, Comber, Stoney Point, Lighthouse Cove and Essex Fringe urban areas and the Hamlet areas of Rochester Place / Deerbrook, St. Joachim, North and South Woodslee, Ruscom and Staples. The balance of the Town is predominantly rural agricultural.

Most residents in the study area find employment in the City of Windsor and commute daily to and from these urban centres. Other residents find employment in the local industrial / commercial centres in the Patillo / Advance and Belle River areas as well as in the local agricultural industry.

Air quality in the area is good with very few industrial discharges to cause any significant sources of pollution. Noise level is acceptable although there might be intrusion in the environment from the flight path of the Windsor Airport and the operation of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways which runs through the entire Town in an east-west direction.

The Town is well served with a good road system and a full range of utilities including hydro power, water, natural gas and telephone.

3.3.2 Official Plan

Restructuring of municipal boundaries has seen the amalgamation of the former Townships of Maidstone, Rochester, Tilbury North, Tilbury West and the Town of Belle River, into a single municipality – the Town of Lakeshore.

Recently, the Town of Lakeshore has consolidated the official plans from each of the five former municipalities into a single plan to ensure consistent and equitable planning decisions across the Town and address the unique planning issues facing the Town and its communities.

The Official Plan implements the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, and provides guidance to Council in consideration of their responsibilities, and provides direction and certainty to the Town’s residents and businesses.

The recently adopted Official Plan will regulate and control development and planning policies in the study area and will be updated from time to time as necessary to take into account physical and social changes affecting the community.


October 2008 4.1

4.0 GROWTH, WATER DEMANDS AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

Prior to the evaluation of the existing water and wastewater systems along with the alternative future servicing options, design parameters must be established. The following sections outline the community growth projections over the next 20 and 40 years and their corresponding projected water demands and wastewater flows.

4.1 COMMUNITY GROWTH PROJECTIONS

4.1.1 Introduction

The growth projections for the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan form the basis for establishing water demand and wastewater flow rate assumptions and ultimately the future servicing plans.

Residential and non-residential growth projections have been based on a report prepared for the Town of Lakeshore by Watson Associates Economists Ltd. (formerly C.N. Watson and Associates Ltd.) entitled “Town of Lakeshore Population, Household and Employment Forecast Final Report, April 28, 2006” (Growth Forecast).

The purpose of the Growth Forecast was to conduct a comprehensive review of growth and development trends in the Town relating to population, households and employment growth and establish forecasts in each of these sectors based on past performance and future prospects as well as a comparative review of population forecasts for surrounding municipalities within Essex County. The Growth Forecast was intended to help guide the Town with respect to long-term planning decision making specifically related to growth management and residential/non-residential lands needs analysis within the Town’s identified key growth areas.

It should be noted that the Water and Wastewater Master Plan is not intended to direct where growth should proceed but to evaluate the servicing requirements based on the reasonable growth projections established for planning purposes.

The Town of Lakeshore has recently adopted a new Official Plan which ultimately establishes the framework for managing growth and development within the Town. The Water and Wastewater Master Plan, the Official Plan as well as several other long-term planning initiatives have generally been conducted concurrently and an emphasis has been placed by the Town to ensure consistency throughout theses studies.

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY GROWTH, WATER DEMANDS AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

October 2008 4.2

4.1.2 Population Projections

Existing and projected populations for the Town of Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan were developed for the 20-year planning horizon based on the Growth Study as summarized in Table 4.1. The urban and rural areas generally coincide with the key growth areas established in the Growth Study.

The 40-year projections are needed to evaluate long-term capacity requirements of major water and wastewater infrastructure components such as treatment plants to ensure adequate provisions are made for future land requirements. The 40-year projections were generally established assuming that the same growth projected over the initial 20 year horizon would also be realized over the 20 to 40 year planning horizon.

In the Belle River Corridor, Rochester Place and Comber areas, supplemental 40 year growth projection information provided by Watson Associates indicate 40 year growth to be higher than what was assumed and accordingly the Watson figures were used for these areas.

Table 4.1: Population Projections (Persons)

Service Area Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Belle River / Maidstone 16,983 34,306 57,766

Belle River Corridor (1) 743 1,190 1,643

South Woodslee

North Woodslee

sub-total

268 648

916

270 704

974

321 838

1,159

Essex Fringe 584 650 650

Rochester Place 2,159 2,862 3,816

Stoney Point 2,002 4,220 6,438

Lighthouse Cove (2) 1,270 2,609 3,948

Comber 1,035 1,176 1,974

Rural 8,653 8,703 8,753

Total Population 34,500 56,700 86,000

Notes: 1. Includes East and West Belle River Roads south of CP tracks and north of Woodslee. 2. Includes Couture / Crystal / Laforet Beach shoreline area west of Lighthouse Cove.


October 2008 4.3

4.1.3 Non-Residential Growth Projections

In addition to residential projections, non-residential forecasts of industrial and commercial growth were also outlined in the Growth Study for the 20-year planning horizon and have been considered in the Water and Wastewater Master Plan.

A summary of the projected industrial and commercial growth for each area is provided in the following table.

Table 4.2: Non-Residential Growth Projections (Hectares)

Service Area Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Industrial

Patillo Road Industrial Park 105 205 205

Blanchard Industrial Park 13 13 13

Sylvestre Industrial Park 5 18 18

Highway 401 0 120 440

Patillo / Advance 0 0 88

Schwab Industrial Park 2 18 18

Sub-total Industrial 125 374 782

Commercial Centre

St. Clair Shores 20 33 43

Wallace Woods 0 5 80

Manning Road / County Road 22 0 5 50

Comber Potential Truck Stop 0 27 27

Sub-total Commercial 20 70 200

Other

Comber Multi-Purpose Potential Development

0 96 96

Sub-total Other 20 96 96


October 2008 4.4

4.2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS Prediction and planning for water demand is one of the most important elements of water supply master planning. The historical water supply and consumption records for the Belle River and Stoney Point water systems were evaluated to establish current water demands.

The following table summarizes historical annual flow data for the Belle River WTP for the years 2002 to 2006.

Table 4.3: Belle River WTP Historical Flows

Parameter 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Raw Water (m3) 3,422,460 2,905,958 2,670,200 3,027,000 3,186,100

Total Treated Effluent (m3) 2,818,040 2,650,674 2,714,000 3,124,200 2,766,400

Average Day Demand (m3/day) 7,721 7,262 7,415 8,560 7,579

Maximum Day Demand (m3/day) (MIGD) (date of occurrence)

13,970

3.1 July 13th

12,376

2.7 July 30th

12,670

2.8 July 11th

15,620

3.4 June 26th

14,182

3.1 June 17th

Based on a review of the historical data for the Belle River water service area, representative average day demands were established and broken down into three categories as follows:

• Residential – 0.380 m3/cap/day (approx. 85 Igal/cap/day)

• Light Industrial – 6.8 m3/Ha/day ( or 6 people / acre @ 100 Igal/cap/day)

• Commercial Centre – 11.4 m3/Ha/day (or 10 people/acre @ 100 Igal/cap/day)

The following table summarizes the historical annual flow data for the Stoney Point WTP for the years 2002 to 2006.

Table 4.4: Stoney Point WTP Historical Flows

Parameter 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Raw Water (m3) 677,514 626,070 640,020 770,515 722,270

Total Treated Effluent (m3) 658,970 691,970 763,070 781,810 715,813

Average Day Demand (m3/day) 1,805 1,896 2,085 2,142 1,961

Maximum Day Demand (m3/day) (MIGD) (date of occurrence)

3,076 0.68 Sept. 2nd

3,046 0.67 Sept. 13th

3,161 0.70 July 11th

3,571 0.79 Sept. 5th

2,966 0.65 May 29th


October 2008 4.5

Based on a review of the historical data for the Stoney Point water service area, representative average day demands were established and broken down into three categories as follows:

• Residential – 0.410 m3/cap/day (approx. 90 Igal/cap/day)

• Light Industrial – 6.8 m3/Ha/day ( or 6 people / acre @ 100 Igal/cap/day)

• Commercial Centre – 11.4 m3/Ha/day (or 10 people/acre @ 100 Igal/cap/day)

The following tables summarize the present, 20 year and 40 year water demand projections for the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems:

Table 4.5: Existing and Projected Water Demands – Belle River WSS

Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Component

Serviced Residential Population (1) 22,353 40,460 60,907

Industrial Area (Ha) (2) 123 356 764

Commercial Area (Ha) (3) 20 43 173

Water Demand

Residential (0.381 m3/cap/day) 8,516 15,415 23,206

Industrial (6.8 m3/Ha/day) 836 2,421 5,195

Commercial (11.4 m3/Ha/day) 228 490 1,972

Total Average Day (m3/day) 9,581 18,326 30,373

Max Day Factor (4) 1.77 1.80 1.65

Total Max Day Demand (m3/day)

(MIDG)

16,958

3.7

32,987

7.3

50,115

11.0

Notes: 1. Includes consumers presently serviced by the Tecumseh water supply system. 2. Includes the: Patillo, Blanchard, Sylvestre, Patillo / Advance and Highway 401 areas. 3. Includes the St. Clair Shores, Wallace Woods and Manning / County Road 22 areas. 4. Present max day factor based on historical data from the Belle River WTP records. Max day factors for 20

and 40 year conditions based on MOE Design Guidelines.


October 2008 4.6

Table 4.6: Existing and Projected Water Demands – Stoney Point WSS

Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Component

Serviced Residential Population 5,091 7,450 10,562

Industrial Area (Ha) (1) 0 18 18

Commercial Area (Ha) (2) 0 16 16

Water Demand

Residential (0.410 m3/cap/day) 2,087 3,055 4,330

Industrial (6.8 m3/Ha/day) 0 778 775

Commercial (11.4 m3/Ha/day) 0 182 182

Total Average Day (m3/day) 2,087 4,015 5,288

Max Day Factor (3) 1.7 2.0 1.9

Total Max Day Demand (m3/day)

(MIDG)

3,548

0.78

8,030

1.8

10,047

2.2

Notes: 1. Includes Schwab Industrial Park and Comber Multi-Use potential development area. 2. Includes proposed Comber Truck Stop development. 3. Present max day factor based on historical data from the Stoney Point WTP records. Max day factors for 20

and 40 year conditions based on MOE Design Guidelines.

4.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS

Sanitary sewage flows are made up of waste discharges from residential, commercial, industrial and institutional establishments plus extraneous non-waste flow components from sources such as groundwater and surface runoff.

The following table summarizes the historical annual sewage flows to the existing wastewater treatment facilities from the respective collection systems in the Town of Lakeshore for the years 2002 to 2006:


October 2008 4.7

Table 4.7: Historical Wastewater Flows

Average Daily Sewage Flow (m3/day) Existing Treatment Facility 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Belle River / Maidstone WPCP 6,067 6,802 7,830 7,636 8,243

Stoney Point STF 951 914 1,091 976 1,156

Comber STF 355 370 384 362 406

South Woodslee STP (1) - - 81 71 61

Notes: 1. South Woodslee STP was placed into operation in 2003.

In accordance with the MOE Guidelines for Design of Sanitary Sewage Works, the recommended design value for average daily domestic flow ranges from 315 Lpcpd to 540 Lpcpd including an average extraneous flow allowance of 90 Lpcpd. The MOE Design Guidelines also recommend an allowance of 227 Lpcpd for peak extraneous flow and recommend the domestic component of the peak sewage flow be calculated using peaking factors in accordance with the Harmon Formula.

The following tables summarize the present, 20 year and 40 year wastewater flow projections for the existing and potential wastewater service areas previously identified. The average per capita sewage flow including extraneous flow has been established for each respective service area based on a review of the historical flow records at the existing sewage treatment facilities.

For areas which are not presently serviced by a municipal sewage system, an average per capita sewage flow of 455 Lpcpd has been assumed.


October 2008 4.8

Table 4.8: Existing and Projected Average Daily Wastewater Flows (m3/d)

Service Areas Existing (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

1. BELLE RIVER / MAIDSTONE

Existing Service Area (455 Lpcpd) Wallace Woods Future (455 Lpcpd) Manning / County Road 22 Future (455 Lpcpd) Patillo / Advance Future Industrial (6.8 m3/Ha/day)

7,730 0 0 0

15,252 171 170

0

15,252 4,341 4,341 598

Total – Belle River / Maidstone 7,730 15,593 24,532

2. STONEY POINT

Existing Serviced Population (545 Lpcpd) Projected Future Growth (455 Lpcpd)

1,092 0

1,092 1,008

1,092 2,106

Total – Stoney Point 1,092 2,100 3,108

3. COMBER

Existing Service Area (381 Lpcpd) Potential Truck Stop (per prelim. Info) Schwab Industrial Park (6.8 m3/Ha/day) Future Multi-Use / Industrial Area (6.8 m3/Ha/day)

395 0 0 0

449 182 125 653

754 182 125 653

Total – Comber 395 1,409 1,714

4. SOUTH WOODSLEE (455 Lpcpd) 71 123 146

5. NORTH WOODSLEE (455 Lpcpd) 0 320 381

6. LIGHTHOUSE COVE (455 Lpcpd) 0 1,186 1,795

7. ROCHESTER PLACE (455 Lpcpd) 0 1,302 1,769

8. BELLE RIVER ROAD (455 Lpcpd) 0 541 808

9. ESSEX FRINGE (455 Lpcpd) 0 296 296

10. HIGHWAY 401 CORRIDOR (6.8 m3/Ha/day) 0 816 2,992


October 2008 5.1

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MUNCIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

5.1 GENERAL

The Town of Lakeshore directly owns and operates the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems. The primary focus of the Water component of this Master Plan is to evaluate the ability of the water treatment, storage and watermains within the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems to meet existing and projected water demands and identify constraints, improvements and or modifications.

5.1.1 Average Day, Maximum Day and Peak Hour Demands

Average day demand, maximum day demand and peak hour demand are key design parameters when determining water system infrastructure needs. The average day demand is the total volume of water consumed in the system over the entire year divided by 365 days. The Maximum Day demand is the highest single day water consumption in a given year and is the main design parameter for determining the size of water treatment facilities. The peak hour demand is the highest single hour water demand on the maximum day.

Typically, the maximum day demand and the peak hour demand are established by multiplying the average day demand by a corresponding factor. MOE Design Guidelines for water distribution systems provide a table setting out maximum day and peak hourly rate factors for systems using equivalent populations. An equivalent population takes into account not only the actual number of persons in the system but an equivalent number caused by non-residential demands such as industrial, commercial and institutional consumers.

5.1.2 Storage Requirements

Water supply systems should maintain sufficient clear water storage to provide for peak hourly demands (i.e. equalization storage to supplement supply to the system during periods when demand exceeds the available output from the treatment plant), fire flow requirements and other emergency conditions.

MOE guidelines establish parameters for the sizing and design of clear water storage facilities. In addition, storage at treatment plants should also account for in-plant water use attributed to various treatment processes (i.e. filter backwashing, chemical feed make-up, etc.).

Clear water storage may be contained in underground reservoirs, pump wells or in elevated storage tanks. The amount of storage is a function of the maximum day demand of the system and the equivalent population for the service area. Equivalent population is also used to establish the amount of overall community fire demand.

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MUNCIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

October 2008 5.2

MOE design guidelines for sizing community water storage requirements are based on the following:

Total Storage Required = A + B + C

where: A = Fire Storage (based on MOE design guidelines for Community Fire Flow)

B = Equalization Storage (25% of the maximum day demand)

C = Emergency Storage (25% of the sum of A and B)

This equation applies where the water treatment plant is capable of satisfying only the maximum day demand. For situations where the water treatment plant can supply more, the above storage requirements can be reduced accordingly.

5.1.3 Water Distribution Systems

5.1.3.1 System Pressure Requirements

MOE Design Guidelines recommend that water distribution systems be capable of supplying water under the following conditions:

1. Peak hour flow while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 275 kPa (40 psi) at all locations in the system.

2. Maximum day plus fire flow with a minimum residual pressure of 138 kPa (20 psi)

3. Under normal operating conditions, pressures in a distribution system should range between 350 to 550 kPa (50 to 80 psi).

4. The maximum pressure in the distribution system should not exceed 700 kPa (100 psi).

5.1.3.2 Fire Protection

The water distribution systems in the Town of Lakeshore are intended to provide fire protection to the urbanized areas only. The sizing of distribution mains located within the rural areas of the Town were not intended to provide a piped water supply throughout these areas for fire protection but rather were primarily concerned with providing an adequate potable water supply to existing and future consumers.

Although the rural systems were not specifically designed to supply fire flows, it is possible that some areas in the system may be capable of providing some level of fire protection. The actual fire flows that can be supplied during maximum day demand conditions can be confirmed in the field through hydrant flow testing.


October 2008 5.3

Provision of fire flow to portions of the Town’s distribution system would result in a much larger and more costly distribution system. Hydrants in the rural areas are generally provided at select road intersections and at the extremities of the systems for watermain flushing and cleaning purposes and can be used for filling of fire truck storage tanks.

Fire flow requirements for specific developments are typically determined using the Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS). The FUS fire flows are specific to criteria such as building type, construction material and population density. The latest FUS, dated 1999, requires each fire flow to be calculated using a formula that takes these criteria into consideration. Previous FUS guidelines published in 1991 provided typical fire flows for certain building types. For example, a modern residential subdivision of 1 and 2 storey single-family homes with a separation of 3 to 6 metres required 4,000 to 5,000 Lpm, whereas a typical industrial park with average combustible contents required 14,000 Lpm. Depending on the structures, FUS notes that fire flows for industrial applications could reach up to 35,000 Lpm.

In the absence of a detailed evaluation of specific building types throughout the Town and establishment of site specific fire flow requirements, typical fire flows were assumed for the purposes of evaluating the existing distribution systems and improvements to supply future conditions. For predominantly residentially developed areas, a fire flow target of 6,500 Lpm (1,430 Igpm) was used and for areas with significant industrial / commercial / institutional development, a fire flow target of 13,000 Lpm (2,860 Igpm) was used.

5.1.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis

Computer modeling is a useful tool for analyzing water distribution systems. While such analysis cannot simulate exact “real-life” conditions, they can be very useful in identifying “bottlenecks” in existing systems as well as assist in determining system improvements needed to satisfy both existing and future projected demands.

WaterCAD, a Windows based software program developed by Haested Methods was used to carry out the computer modeling. WaterCAD is used for its flexibility in modeling both steady state (static) and extended period (dynamic) simulations. This capability allows for modeling filling and draining of tanks, regulating opening and closing of control valves and pressures and flow rate changes throughout the system in response to varying demand conditions.

Computer models were developed for both the Belle River and Stoney Point WSS’s by inputting watermain characteristics including pipe diameter, pipe length, pipe friction factor, relative elevation and water demands. A maximum day demand diurnal of the Belle River system was developed using actual plant pumping records and the corresponding elevated tower level readings. This diurnal was used to simulate dynamic conditions in the Belle River and Stoney Point water systems over a period of several days.

The hydraulic models were used to analyze the Belle River and Stoney Point water distribution systems using water demands for existing residential and non-residential consumers. Output


October 2008 5.4

from the models was reviewed to determine if the existing systems are capable of maintaining adequate water pressure under existing peak flow rates and under maximum day plus fire flow conditions. “Adequate water pressure” as used herein is defined as being a minimum of 275 kPa (40 psi) under peak flow rate conditions and a minimum of 138 kPa (20 psi) under maximum day plus fire flow conditions in accordance with the MOE Design Guidelines.

5.2 BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

5.2.1 Water Treatment Capacity – Belle River WSS

The following table summarizes the water treatment capacity requirements for the Belle River water service area for the present, 20 year and 40 year servicing horizons based on the projected demands outlined in Section 4.2.

Table 5.1: Water Treatment Capacity Requirements – Belle River WSS

BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Present (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year(2045)

Maximum Day Demand (1) (m3/d)

Nominal Treatment Plant Capacity (2) (m3/d)

In-Plant Water Usage (3) (m3/d)

Net Available Treatment Capacity (m3/d)

16,958

18,200

546

17,654

32,987

36,400

1,100

35,300

50,115

36,400

1,100

35,300

Capacity Surplus (+) / Deficiency (-) (m3/d) (MIGD)

+ 696 + 0.2

+ 2,313 + 0.5

- 15,219- 3.4

Notes: 1. Includes demands from areas presently serviced by the Tecumseh water supply system. 2. The new Belle River Water Treatment Plant (currently under construction) will have a treatment capacity of

36,400 m3/d (8.0 MIGD) and is expected to be operational in 2008. 3. In-plant water usage assumed to be 3% of nominal plant capacity to account for treatment processes such

as filter backwashing, make-up water for chemical feeds, etc.

Comparing the required and available treatment capacity, the following observations are noted for the Belle River water service area:

• Water treatment capacity at the Belle River WTP will be adequate (once the current expansion is completed) to supply the projected demands of the service area for approximately the next 20 to 23 years.


October 2008 5.5

5.2.2 Storage Capacity – Belle River WSS

The following table provides a summary of the water storage capacity requirements for the Belle River service area based on MOE Guidelines and projected demands outlined in the Section 4.2 of this report for the present, 20 year and 40 year servicing horizons.

Table 5.2: Water Storage Capacity Requirements – Belle River WSS

BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Present (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Maximum Day Demand (1) (m3/d)

Equivalent Population

16,958

25,147

32,987

48,100

50,115

79,719

Fire Demand (m3/d) Duration (hours) Fire Storage (m3)

Equalization Storage (m3)

Emergency Storage (m3)

In-Plant Water Usage (2) (m3)

Total Required Storage Capacity (m3)

26,387 4.8

5,277

4,240

2,379

509

12,405

32,659 6

8,165

8,247

4,103

990

21,504

32,659 6

8,165

12,529

5,173

1,503

27,371

Currently Available Storage Capacity Belle River WTP (3) (m3) Belle River Elevated Tower (m3) Maidstone Elevated Tower (m3)

Total Available Storage Capacity (m3)

9,922 1,137 1,500

12,559

Surplus (+) / Deficiency (-) (m3) (MIG)

+ 154 + 0.03

- 8,945 - 2.0

- 14,812 - 3.3

Notes: 1. Includes demands from the areas presently serviced by the Tecumseh WSS. 2. In-plant water usage assumed to be 3% of maximum day demand to account for treatment processes such

as filter backwashing, make-up water for chemical feeds, etc. 3. The available storage capacity at the new Belle River Water Treatment currently being constructed will be

9,922 m3 and will be available in 2008.


October 2008 5.6

Comparing the required and available storage capacities, the following observations are noted for the Belle River WSS:

• The clear water storage capacity currently available in the system (once the current expansion at the Belle River WTP is completed in 2008) is slightly greater than the storage required to meet present day demands. Based on projected demands increasing uniformly with time, it is estimated that required storage capacity will exceed available capacity by approximately the year 2009.

It is noted that as part of the current expansion at the Belle River WTP, it was decided by the Town as part of final design to provide adequate storage capacity to generally achieve two objectives. That is to replace the aging existing in-ground storage reservoir and to provide additional storage to satisfy the short term needs of the system with the anticipation that additional storage required to satisfy future requirements would likely be better served by expanding the elevated storage capacity in the system and determining the optimum capacity and location as part of the Master Plan.

• The projected storage requirements to satisfy the 20 year and 40 year servicing horizons are greater than the storage presently available in the system (including the current expansion).

5.2.3 Water Distribution System – Belle River WSS

5.2.3.1 Existing Conditions

To asses the condition of the Belle River water distribution system under existing conditions, the supply source at the Belle River WTP was assumed based on the “initial” high lift pumping capacity proposed as part of the current treatment plant expansion (there did not appear to be a benefit in assessing the system based on using the pumping capacity at the old plant since it will be upgraded in 2008).

The model involved a dynamic simulation in which the high lift pumps at the Belle River WTP are operated to fill the existing elevated water towers which “float” on the distribution system. Also, to match real life conditions as closely as possible, the modeling of the Belle River elevated tower included the characteristics of an altitude valve which, at a pre-determined top water level, isolates the tower from the system while the Maidstone tower is continued to be filled. Thus, it is largely the pressure developed by water levels in the elevated tanks which dictate the driving force for the Belle River water supply system.

Since the water supply agreement with the Town of Tecumseh expired at the end of 2007, the hydraulic analysis on the existing system was conducted assuming the areas presently serviced by Tecumseh would be supplied by the Belle River WTP. To “tie-in” these areas into the Belle River system, watermain connections along Little Baseline Road (400 mm and 150 mm dia.) and along 13-14 Sideroad (150 mm dia.) were assumed for evaluation purposes.

The model predicted generally adequate system pressures throughout the urban areas of the Belle River water supply system as well as rural areas east of the Belle River under peak hour


October 2008 5.7

conditions. Water levels in the elevated towers were maintained within acceptable operating ranges. However, pressures in the south-western rural areas, generally south of County Road 42 and between the Belle River and 10th Concession Road, were observed to be less than adequate and predicted to be as low as approximately 200 kPa (30 psi). The main reason for the lower pressures in this area is due to rising ground elevations towards Highway 401. Low pressure problems in this area have been documented in the past and led to the current servicing arrangement from the Tecumseh WSS.

Under existing maximum day plus fire flow conditions, modeling results predict that adequate system pressure can be maintained while supplying the target residential fire flow (9,360 m3/d or 1,430 Igpm) in the Belle River / Maidstone urban areas generally east of the Puce River. However, in the urban areas west of the Puce River, neither industrial nor residential fire flow targets could be met while maintaining adequate system pressure throughout the system. Generally, results of the modeling analysis predict that a maximum attainable fire flow of approximately 5,200 m3/d (800 Igpm) could be supplied to the western urban areas while still maintaining minimum system pressure, particularly in the south-western rural areas of the system closer to Highway 401. While this fire flow level is less than the target, it fulfils the minimum level of fire flow protection typically recognized by the FUS is 2,600 m3/d (400 Igpm).

In summary, the existing Belle River water distribution system is generally capable of maintaining a satisfactory level of supply for the existing needs of the system in the urban areas including those currently serviced by the Town of Tecumseh. Less than adequate pressures in the south-western rural areas and fire flows less than the target values in the western urban areas should be given consideration in evaluation of future system improvements.

5.2.3.2 Future Conditions

The Belle River WSS was analyzed to determine whether it was capable of supplying projected future water demands. The analysis was based on the assumptions that the Belle River water treatment plant would have sufficient treatment and pumping capacity to satisfy the projected future water demands and the only constraints would be those imposed by the water supply mains.

The modeling results confirmed that the existing distribution pipeline network for the Belle River WSS is not capable of maintaining an adequate level of service to satisfy projected future water demands.


October 2008 5.8

5.3 STONEY POINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

5.3.1 Water Treatment Capacity – Stoney Point WSS

The following table summarizes the water treatment capacity requirements for the Stoney Point water service area for the present, 20 year and 40 year servicing horizons based on the projected demands outlined in Section 4.2.

Table 5.3: Water Treatment Capacity Requirements – Stoney Point WSS

STONEY POINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Present

(2005)

20-Year

(2025)

40-Year

(2045)

Maximum Day Demand (m3/d)

Nominal Treatment Plant Capacity (m3/d)

In-Plant Water Usage (1) (m3/d)

Net Available Treatment Capacity (m3/d)

3,233

4,545

136

4,409

8,030

4,545

97

4,448

10,047

4,545

97

4,448

Capacity Surplus (+) / Deficiency (-) (m3/d) (MIGD)

+ 1,176 + 0.26

- 3,582 - 0.8

- 5,600 - 1.2

Notes: 1. In-plant water usage assumed to be 3% of nominal plant capacity to account for treatment

processes such as filter backwashing, make-up water for chemical feeds, etc. Comparing the required and available treatment capacity, the following observations are noted for the Stoney Point water service area:

• Water treatment capacity at the Stoney Point WTP will not be adequate to supply the 20 year projected demands of the existing Stoney Point water service area. Assuming that projected demands will increase uniformly with time, it is estimated that the available treatment capacity will be exhausted by the years 2010 to 2012.

5.3.2 Storage Capacity – Stoney Point WSS

The following table provides a summary of the water storage capacity requirements for the Stoney Point service area based on MOE Guidelines and projected demands outlined in the Section 4.2 of this report for the present, 20 year and 40 year servicing horizons.


October 2008 5.9

Table 5.4: Water Storage Capacity Requirements – Stoney Point WSS

STONEY POINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Current (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Maximum Day Demand (m3/d)

Equivalent Population

3,233

5,091

8,030

9,792

10,047

12,898

Fire Demand (m3/d) Duration (hours) Fire Storage (m3)

Equalization Storage (m3)

Emergency Storage (m3)

In-Plant Water Usage (1) (m3)

Total Required Storage Capacity (m3)

12,442 2

1,037

808

461

97

2,403

16,330 3

2,041

2,007

1,012

241

5,302

19,008 3

2,376

2,512

1,222

301

6,411

Currently Available Storage Capacity Stoney Point WTP (m3) Haycroft Reservoir (m3) Comber Reservoir (m3)

Total Available Storage Capacity (m3)

1,350 425

1,018

2,793

Surplus (+) / Deficiency (-) (m3) (MIG)

+ 390 + 0.09

- 2,509 - 0.60

- 3,618 - 0.80

Notes: 1. In-plant water usage assumed to be 3% of maximum day demand to account for treatment

processes such as filter backwashing, make-up water for chemical feeds, etc. Comparing the required and available storage capacities, the following observations are noted for the Stoney Point WSS’s:

• The clear water storage capacity currently available in the system is adequate to meet the present day demands of the existing service area.

• The projected storage requirements to satisfy the 20 year and 40 year planning periods is greater than the storage presently available in the Stoney Point system. Based on projected demands increasing uniformly with time, it is estimated that the required storage capacity will exceed available storage capacity by the year 2010.


October 2008 5.10

5.3.3 Water Distribution System – Stoney Point WSS

5.3.3.1 Existing Conditions

The Stoney Point SWW was evaluated similarly to the Belle River system in terms of its capability to maintain adequate pressures under both existing peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow conditions. The modeling of the Stoney Point WSS was based on the Stoney Point WTP as the supply source with a constant discharge pressure of 75 psi. This represents the existing high lift pump discharge arrangement which continuously pressurizes the distribution system in the absence of an elevated tower. The model also included simulations of the Haycroft Reservoir and Pumping Station which supplies the rural areas between Stoney Point and Comber and which supplements the supply to the community of Comber.

The Comber Reservoir and Pumping Station supplies the community of Comber and the rural areas south of Comber. Thus, it is largely the pressure developed by the high lift pumping facilities at the Stoney Point WTP, and the Haycroft and Comber Booster Pumping Stations which dictate the driving force in the Stoney Point WSS.

The model identified generally adequate system pressures throughout the Stoney Point service area system under peak hour conditions except in two rural areas. Modeling results predicted pressures along Rochester Townline Road generally north-west of Comber and along County Road 37 north-east of Comber to be less than adequate and as low as approximately 200 kPa (30 psi). The main reason for the lower pressures in these areas is a result of long, small diameter watermains which are not looped.

The Town has not received reports of low pressure concerns in these areas in the past and it is expected that modeling simulations under “worst case” scenarios may be more demanding than actual conditions. None the less, the modeling does identify that these dead-ends do represent areas that could benefit from looping or interconnection.

As noted previously, the sizing of distribution mains located within rural areas of the Stoney Point service area are not intended to provide a piped water supply for fire protection. Accordingly, the distribution system was analyzed to evaluate its capabilities to supply fire flows to the urban areas in Stoney Point and Comber communities only. Results of the modeling predict that adequate system pressures can be maintained while supplying residential fire flow targets in both the Stoney Point and Comber urban areas.

In summary, the existing Stoney Point water distribution system is generally capable of maintaining a satisfactory level of supply for the existing needs of the system. Less than adequate pressures in a few rural locations as a result of dead-ends should be given consideration in evaluation of future system improvements.


October 2008 5.11

5.3.3.2 Future Conditions

The Stoney Point WSS was analyzed to determine whether it was capable of supplying projected future water demands. The analysis was based on the assumptions that the Stoney Point water treatment plant would have sufficient treatment and pumping capacity to satisfy the projected future water demands and the only constraints would be those imposed by the water supply mains.

The modeling results confirmed that the existing distribution pipeline network for Stoney Point WSS is not capable of maintaining an adequate level of service to satisfy projected future water demands.

5.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT - WATER

Based on the foregoing review, the following problems and needs have been identified for the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems to satisfy the needs of existing consumers and provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth based on the projected 20 year demands.


.1 Additional clear water storage capacity of approximately 9,000 m3 (2.0 MIG) is required in addition to existing available storage to meet MOE Guidelines (note: existing storage includes both the Belle River and Maidstone elevated water towers as well as the expanded Belle River WTP reservoir).

.2 Improvements to the existing water distribution system are required to augment the existing pipeline network to convey the increased flows to meet projected demand as well as improve the level of fire protection.


.1 Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 3,600 m3/d (0.8 MIG) is required.

.2 Additional clear water storage capacity of approximately 2,500 m3 (0.6 MIG) is required in addition to the existing available system storage to meet MOE Guidelines.

.3 Improvements to the existing water distribution system are required to augment the existing pipeline network to convey the increased flows to meet projected demands as well as improve the level of fire protection.


October 2008 6.1

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

The Wastewater Master Plan is comprised of two components; the first component involves the assessment of existing wastewater treatment and collection systems; and the second component involves identified settlement areas that are currently located outside an existing sewage service area and which are not serviced by municipal wastewater systems but rather by private on-site sewage system (i.e. septic systems).

6.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS The following sections focus on evaluating the capability of the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance systems to service the present needs and projected future growth within the existing service areas.

As discussed in Chapter 2, there are presently five (5) existing wastewater treatment and collection systems servicing the Town of Lakeshore. These include the Belle River / Maidstone, Stoney Point, Comber, South Woodslee and North Woodslee systems. These systems are owned by the Town of Lakeshore and operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA).

6.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Capacity

Table 6.1 summarizes the wastewater treatment capacity requirements for the Belle River / Maidstone, Stoney Point, Comber, South Woodslee and North Woodslee treatment facilities for the present, 20 year and 40 year servicing horizons based on the flows outlined in Chapter 4.

Table 6.1: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Requirements

Wastewater Flow (m3/d) EXISTING WASTEWATER

FACILITY Current Plant

Capacity (m3/d) Present (2005)

20-Year (2025)

40-Year (2045)

Belle River / Maidstone WPCP 13,640 7,230 15,600 24,500

Stoney Point STF 920 (1) 1,090 2,100 3,110

Comber STF 430 395 1,410 1,710

South Woodslee STP 210 71 123 146

North Woodslee STP 330 0 320 381

Notes: 1. The MOE Certificate of Approval for the Stoney Point STF does not identify rated treatment capacity for the

facility. The stated capacity in Table 6.1 is based on the apparent rated capacity assuming two discharge periods per year and full utilization of the theoretical storage capacity. Actual treatment capacity will vary generally based on meeting effluent criteria.

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

October 2008 6.2

Comparing the required and available wastewater treatment capacity, the following observations are noted for each of the existing wastewater treatment facilities:

6.1.1.1 Belle River/ Maidstone WPCP Treatment Capacity

The current treatment capacity at the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP is not adequate to accommodate the 20 year projected flows from the Belle River / Maidstone wastewater service area. Assuming that projected flows will increase uniformly with time, it is estimated that the required treatment capacity will exceed the available capacity of the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP by the year 2023.

6.1.1.2 Stoney Point STF Treatment Capacity

The current capacity at the Stoney Point STF is not adequate to accommodate the 20 year projected flows from the existing Stoney Point wastewater service area.

6.1.1.3 Comber STF Treatment Capacity

The current treatment capacity at the Comber STF is not adequate to accommodate the 20 year projected wastewater flows of the existing Comber service area.

6.1.1.4 South Woodslee STP Treatment Capacity

The treatment capacity at the South Woodslee STP is adequate to accommodate the present and future projected 20 year wastewater flows from the South Woodslee service area.

6.1.1.5 North Woodslee STP Treatment Capacity

The treatment capacity at the North Woodslee STP is adequate to accommodate the present and future projected 20 year wastewater flows from the North Woodslee service area.

6.1.2 Collection / Conveyance Systems

The focus of this section of the report is to review the overall needs of the existing wastewater collection and conveyance systems. The following observations are noted:

6.1.2.1 Belle River- Maidstone Wastewater Collection System

The Belle River-Maidstone wastewater collection system is comprised of three collection systems. These include the Belle River sewer system, the Maidstone sewer system and the Oakwood sewer system. The following items are noted with respect to each of these systems:

• The Belle River Sewer System collects and conveys sewage from the Belle River community to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP through a series of local gravity sewers, pumping stations and forcemains.


October 2008 6.3

• The Maidstone Sewer System collects wastewater from development generally along the northern portion of the urban Maidstone area between Pike Creek and Belle River and conveys it to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP through a series of local gravity sewers and pumping stations.

• The Oakwood Sewer System is intended to convey sewage from areas within the western portion of the Belle River / Maidstone wastewater service area are outside of the Maidstone sewer system. Presently, the Oakwood Trunk sewer has been constructed to the Puce River and services development between the treatment plant and east of the Puce River. Extension of the trunk sewer is needed to service existing development in the Pike Creek area (currently on septic systems and found to be contributing pollution to the environment), as well as to service projected growth in the Wallace Woods, Patillo / Advance and Manning / County Road 22 areas as planned in the 1997 Class EA for the Belle River / Maidstone Sewage Works System.

• New local collection sewers constructed within the overall service area to accommodate growth as subdivisions are created or expanded.

• With respect to the general condition of the existing overall collection system, it is noted that previous studies conducted in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s documented excessive inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the Belle River / Maidstone collection system. At that time, house-to-house inspections were conducted to detect illegal / improper connections to the system and work orders were issued requiring the offending conditions to be corrected. Corrective actions taken by the Town were reported to have some affect in reducing I&I, however, additional correction on private property and in the collection system itself was also recommended.

It is also noted that the current MOE Certificate of Approval for the Belle River-Maidstone WPCP includes a condition which requires the Town to submit a report to the MOE by December 2010 identifying the causes of wet weather overflows at the treatment plant, the required control and treatment and the recommended steps and measures for their elimination.

Historical daily influent flow records for the Belle River-Maidstone WPCP were reviewed for the years 2002 to 2006. The records indicate a wide variation in average daily flows and suggest that I&I is still an on-going problem in the Belle River-Maidstone wastewater collection system.

6.1.2.2 Stoney Point Wastewater Collection System

To determine the physical condition of the sanitary sewer network, the Stoney Point wastewater collection system was investigated and documented in a report entitled “Township of Tilbury North Sanitary Sewer Needs Study – December 1994” by Dillon Consulting Ltd. The investigation involved two components: an internal plumbing inspection of all buildings connected to the sewage system within the study area; and a camera inspection of the sanitary sewer collection system. As a result of the investigation, approximately 14 of the 21 identified improper sump pump connections were disconnected.


October 2008 6.4

The report recommended repair and sealing of manholes to minimize infiltration as well as a more detailed evaluation on the feasibility of replacing all the existing sanitary private drain connections in the system. Further monitoring of sanitary flows, precipitation and lake levels was also recommended to compare them against data previously collected. To date, the Town has made some repairs to the manholes and sealed the manhole covers as recommended and some remedial work is scheduled in 2007 to address several major sources of infiltration in the mainline sewer along St Clair Road

The historical daily influent flow records for the Stoney Point STF were also reviewed for the years 2002 to 2006. The records indicate a wide variation in average daily flows and suggest that I&I is still an on-going problem in the Stoney Point wastewater collection system.

6.1.2.3 Comber Wastewater Collection System

In 2001, the Town of Lakeshore initiated a Sanitary Sewer Needs study in the Comber service area to determine the condition of the existing sanitary sewer system. A camera inspection was conducted and observations indicated some minor repairs were needed to the manholes but the major source of infiltration was from private sanitary service connections.

The report indicated that no major deficiencies were observed in the mainline sewers. To date, the Town has rectified some deficiencies to manholes but based a review of the historical daily influent flow records for the Comber STF for the years 2002 to 2006, it appears that I&I is still an on-going problem in the Comber wastewater collection system.

6.1.2.4 South Woodslee Wastewater Collection System

The South Woodslee collection system utilizes individual septic tank effluent pump (STEP) systems installed at every dwelling. A STEP system involves two compartment septic tanks which are intended to provide primary treatment and storage of wastewater prior to discharge to the pressure main by submersible effluent grinder pumps.

The Town is experiencing problems with the septic tanks and effluent pump systems and is currently proceeding with a program to upgrade each individual connection. In 2006, 7 tank systems were completely replaced due to failing operation at a cost of $7,500 to $8,000 each and 10 systems were slated for replacement in 2007. Based on discussions with the system operators, it is anticipated that ultimately all of the original STEP systems (approximately 90) will need to be replaced.

Also, the Town is responsible for the cleaning of the holding tanks to ensure the systems function properly. It is recommended by the system designers that the tanks should be cleaned out every three years. The Town has established an annual program to clean 30 tanks every year on a rotating basis.

In 2007, the total cost budgeted by the Town to clean and repair the systems was $85,000.


October 2008 6.5

6.1.2.5 North Woodslee Wastewater Collection System

A sanitary collection system was recently constructed in 2007 in the western portion of the North Woodslee hamlet area to service existing dwellings as well as a proposed subdivision development. The sewers convey wastewater to a new treatment facility, which was also recently constructed in 2007, and which is sized to also treat sewage from the residences and future growth located in the hamlet area on the east side of Belle River. Planning and final design for local collection sewers to service the eastern portion of the hamlet area has not been initiated at this time.

6.2 UN-SERVICED SETTLEMENT AREAS

As documented in Chapter 3 of this report, malfunctioning septic systems have been found to be a source of pollution in watercourses throughout the identified un-serviced study areas of Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, Belle River Road corridor and Essex Fringe area.

6.2.1 Pollution Survey

6.2.1.1 Introduction

As part of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, the Town of Lakeshore retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. to undertake a pollution survey within the main settlement areas of the Town which are not currently serviced by a municipal sewage collection system. The purpose of the survey was to verify and document the presence and probable origin of reported and suspected pollution problems in local watercourses and to serve as background information documenting existing environmental conditions under the Class EA process.

The study areas identified in the following sections are currently serviced by individual, private septic tank systems, consisting typically of holding tanks and leaching beds. Many of the systems are more than 20 years old and potentially no longer functioning properly and therefore suspected of contributing to pollution of roadside ditches, municipal drainage systems, groundwater and beaches. A homeowner with a malfunctioning septic system may not necessarily be experiencing plumbing problems. It is important to note that the term “malfunctioning septic system” denotes a septic system that does not provide the necessary degree of sewage treatment prior to effluent discharge to the environment.

The pollution survey is comprised of three components. The first component involves a strategic surface water quality sampling program to quantify the level of fecal contamination in the local watercourses. The second component includes a review of the existing septic tank permit records available from the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit (Health Unit) to verify the typical age of the private systems and the presence of overflow connections. The third component is a lot-by-lot review using the Town’s assessment information system to document the physical dimensions of the existing properties for comparison to the current standards for on-site private septic systems.


October 2008 6.6

6.2.1.2 Study Areas

Five study areas were identified. The areas were included in the study primarily because they are known to have many old and malfunctioning septic tank systems that are suspected of contributing to pollution in roadside ditches and municipal drainage systems.

The five study areas are listed below and show in Figure 1 in Appendix “D”:

• Pike Creek Area

• Belle River Road Corridor

• Rochester Place/Ruscom Area

• Lighthouse Cove Area

• Essex Fringe Area

6.2.1.3 Water Quality Sampling

A sampling plan was developed through discussions and meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Environment, the Town of Lakeshore and Stantec Consulting. A sampling protocol was established that included procedures, data to be gathered and the extent of laboratory analyses required. Service area boundaries were also established and general sampling locations were identified for each study area.

Samples were typically collected from roadside ditches, municipal drains, canals, catch basins and storm drainage outlets. Over 250 samples from the five study areas were collected by Stantec between December 4, 2006 and May 23, 2007. These samples were analyzed by Caduceon Environmental Laboratories in Windsor. Sample locations and results of the bacteriological testing are summarized on Figures 1 to 9 in Appendix “D”.

All water samples collected were analyzed for both fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci. High fecal coliform counts are generally indicative of pollution from the feces of warm blooded mammals. For surface waters, the maximum acceptable level of fecal coliform is 1000 counts per 100ml sample. However, this in itself is not conclusive evidence that the source of pollution is from human origin. In order to speciate the pollution as human origin, a further measure of fecal streptococci (another bacterium found in the feces of warm blooded mammals) must be made.

The feces of humans and most animals contain significantly different quantities of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci. By comparing the ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci it can be determined whether the pollution is of human origin. Although the fecal coliform to fecal streptococci ratio should not be used as a definitive indicator of a contaminant source, a ratio of 2.0 or greater typically represents contamination from human origin, whereas a ratio of 1.0 or less typically represents contamination from animal origin. For ratios in the range of 1.0 to 2.0


October 2008 6.7

the contaminant source is inconclusive and could be from either human or animal origin. For reliable ratio data, the fecal coliform density should approach or exceed 100 per 100 ml.

The following results were observed for the five study areas:

Pike Creek Area In the Pike Creek area, 41 water samples were collected and analyzed. Approximately 29 of these samples (or 71%) had fecal coliform levels above the maximum acceptable level of 1000 in a 100 ml sample. Of the 29 samples, 22 (or approximately 76%) had a ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci definitively indicative of, or potentially indicative of, human origin.

Belle River Road Corridor Area Sixty-one (61) samples in total were collected in the Belle River corridor area and analyzed for fecal coliform and fecal streptococci. Approximately 39 (or 64%) of the samples collected showed fecal coliform levels above the maximum acceptable level and of those samples, 34 (or 88%) had a ratio definitively indicative of, or potentially indicative of, human origin.

Rochester Place/Ruscom Area In the Rochester Place study area, 93 water samples were collected and analyzed. Approximately 58 (or 63%) of these samples had fecal coliform levels above the maximum acceptable level and of those samples, 42 or (73%) had a ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci definitively indicative of, or potentially indicative of, human origin.

Lighthouse Cove Area Forty (40) samples in total were collected and analyzed in the Lighthouse Cove area. Approximately 12 (or 30%) of the samples collected showed fecal coliform levels above the maximum acceptable level and of those 12 samples, 7 (or approximately 58%) had a ratio definitively indicative of, or potentially indicative of, human origin.

Essex Fringe Area In the Essex fringe area, 18 water samples were collected and 14 (or 78%) of these samples had fecal coliform levels above the maximum acceptable level of 1000 in a 100 ml sample. Of the 14 samples, 11 (or 78%) had a ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci definitively indicative of human origin.


October 2008 6.8

6.2.1.4 Septic Tank Permit Records

To determine and evaluate the condition of existing sewage disposal systems for the residences in the identified study areas, records of septic tank permits from the Health Unit were reviewed to confirm the age of the sewage system, size of septic tank and presence of an overflow connection.

It is estimated there are approximately 2,150 homes in total within the five study areas which are presently serviced by private, on-site, sewage disposal systems (i.e. septic systems). Approximately 1,950 septic tank permit records were provided by the Health Unit and sorted. Of the 1,950 permits, approximately 42% (or roughly 900 permits) were able to be tabulated. The remainder were either: a) located outside the study areas in urban areas which have since been serviced by sewers, b) did not have adequate information to trace the permit to a specific property, or c) were old permits which have since been superseded by new permits.

In 1964, the Health Unit took the responsibility for the approval of septic tank permits and installation in the County of Essex. According to the Health Unit, prior to mid 1974, it was acceptable practice to provide an overflow pipe draining from the end of the tile bed to the adjacent drainage system (i.e. storm sewer, roadside ditch, municipal drain, etc.). The purpose of the overflow was to accommodate excessive loading of the tile bed during the wet season of spring and fall. Undoubtedly, as these tile beds age and experience some clogging, the overflows become utilized more frequently and in many cases discharge sewage effluent on a constant basis. Based on a review of the permit records, over 100 systems were found to have overflow pipes connected from the end of the leaching beds to the roadside drainage ditch. This is an unacceptable practice according to both the current MOE Guidelines and Health Unit requirements

A septic tank system typically has a life expectancy in the range of 20-25 years. It is noted that of the 900 permits which were able to be traced to properties in the study areas, over 70% are dated after 1985. This indicates that potentially many of the older septic tank permit records for homes in the study areas were not able to be located. None the less, of the roughly 900 permits summarized, approximately 34% were installed over 20 years ago.

The current Building Code guidelines for a typical three bedroom residential home require that the septic tank size meets a minimum capacity of 3,600 Litres. Approximately 150 or (17%) of the 900 permits reviewed indicate tank sizes smaller than the minimum recommended in the current MOE Guidelines.

6.2.1.5 Property Size Requirements

Owing to the heavy clay soils, high groundwater table and flood prone nature of the study areas, the MOE requires a minimum lot area for an individual septic system of 1,860 square metres (20,000 sq. ft.). Assessment plans were reviewed utilizing the Town of Lakeshore’s on-line mapping information system to tabulate the lot size of each residence within the identified un-


October 2008 6.9

serviced settlement areas. It was found that roughly 50% of the approximately 2,900 existing lots (including vacant lots) in the study areas are smaller than 1,860 m2.

6.2.1.6 Previous Findings

The pollution problems documented by this survey in the Belle River corridor area support similar conclusions found in previous reports. Environmental Study Reports prepared for sewage servicing of the South Woodslee hamlet (May 2001) and North Woodslee hamlet (November 2004) concluded that failed residential septic systems were the source of pollution concerns along the Belle River. Furthermore, the reports concluded that upgrading the current septic systems was not practical due to insufficient lot sizes and recommended that construction of new sewage collection systems be the preferred solution for those areas.

6.2.1.7 Pollution Survey Conclusions

Based on the results of the water sampling program and the bacteriological testing along with the information obtained from the lot-by-lot survey, it is evident that the pollution problems in the respective study areas are a result of malfunctioning septic systems. As noted previously, the term “malfunctioning septic system” denotes a septic system that does not provide the necessary degree of sewage treatment prior to effluent discharge to the environment. A homeowner with a malfunctioning septic system may not necessarily be experiencing plumbing problems. Also noted that based on the three regulated criteria for private septic systems (i.e. property size, septic tank size and existence of overflow connection) it was found that approximately 60% of the systems failed at least one of these criteria.

Accordingly, alternative means of sewage collection and treatment should be examined as part of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan taking into consideration the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

It is noted that as of January 1, 2008, local municipalities are now responsible for the issuance of septic tank permits. Also, as part of proposed amendments to the Ontario Building Code (February 2008), private sewage disposal systems would need to be inspected every 5 years to ensure systems are in substantial compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements outlined in the Building Code.

The impact of the proposed inspection requirements would likely result in additional resource requirements for the Town of Lakeshore. This factor should be considered in evaluating long-term wastewater infrastructure needs particularly in the more densely populated settlement areas throughout the Town which are presently not serviced by municipal wastewater systems. Also, local proponents have indicated immediate pressures for development in the Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place areas and since these areas are presently un-serviced by an existing sanitary sewage collection and treatment system, developments have not been able to proceed.


October 2008 6.10

6.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT - WASTEWATER

The following problems have been identified for the existing and potential wastewater service areas throughout the Town of Lakeshore to satisfy the needs of existing development and provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth based on projected 20 year demands.

6.3.1 Belle River / Maidstone Wastewater System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 2,000 m3/d (or 0.5 MIGD) is required to service the existing service area and anticipated growth areas.

2. Extension of the Oakwood trunk sanitary sewer westerly to service existing development and future growth within the existing service area and anticipated growth areas including provision of a new local collection system in the Pike Creek area to address pollution concerns

3. I&I into the existing collection system is an ongoing problem.

6.3.2 Stoney Point Wastewater System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 1,200 m3/d (or 0.25 MIGD) is required to service the existing service area.


6.3.3 Comber Wastewater System

1. Additional treatment plant capacity of approximately 1,000 m3/d (or 0.22 MIGD) is required to service the existing service area and anticipated growth areas.


6.3.4 South Woodslee Wastewater System

1. Upgrades to the existing collection system are required to address on-going problems with the existing septic tank effluent pumping (S.T.E.P) systems.

6.3.5 North Woodslee Wastewater System

1. Construction of a new wastewater collection system to service the areas in North Woodslee east of the Belle River.

6.3.6 Un-Serviced Settlement Areas

1. The Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, Belle River Road Corridor and Essex Fringe study areas require sanitary sewage servicing to address pollution problems related to existing malfunctioning septic systems and to address development pressures.

2. The proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands require sanitary sewage servicing to accommodate development.


October 2008 7.1

7.0 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapters described and demonstrated the water and wastewater problems and needs of the existing and future service areas under various servicing horizons under Phase 1 of the Class EA process.

This chapter of the Master Plan presents details of work undertaken under Phase 2 of the Class EA process. Phase 2 involves the identification and evaluation of various conceptual alternatives with the objective of determining alternative solutions which best address the identified problems and needs based on the potential impact to the natural, social and economic environments.

7.2 PLANNING LEVEL CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

Several conceptual alternative solutions may be proposed to address the identified problems and needs of the water and wastewater systems. The following broad planning level alternative solutions have been considered for providing adequate water and wastewater servicing in the Town of Lakeshore:

1. Do Nothing.

2. Restrict Community Growth.

3. Implement water use reduction and inflow / infiltration control measures.

4. Undertake projects to construct, expand or augment water and wastewater system capacity as needed to service existing and future development.

The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative together with their effects on the socio-economic and natural environment are discussed in the following sections.

7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES

7.3.1 Socio-Economic Environment

7.3.1.1 Do Nothing

The Do Nothing planning alternative involves retaining the existing water and wastewater systems and carrying out no improvements, expansions or new works to remedy the identified problems and needs. It eliminates the need for large capital expenditures; however, it does not address the problems and needs of the water and

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

October 2008 7.2

wastewater systems within the Town of Lakeshore. Under this alternative, only the remaining capacity in the existing systems would be available to service future growth.

For water supply systems, the Do Nothing alternative would eventually result in inadequate levels of water supply as population and demands increase. Similarly, as sewage flows increase with development, the Do Nothing alternative would ultimately result in treatment and conveyance capacities being exceeded in the existing wastewater systems.

With respect to areas not presently serviced by municipal wastewater systems, existing pollution problems associated with malfunctioning on-site septic system would persist and worsen and continue to pollute local watercourses while passing a public health threat to area residents.

Clearly the Do Nothing alternative will limit future growth in the community and does not provide an acceptable solution to the problems and needs while satisfying the study objectives of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan.

The Do Nothing alternative is not considered a viable option and will not be considered further in this study; however, it can serve as a benchmark to evaluate the implications if none of the other planning alternatives are implemented.

7.3.1.2 Restrict Community Growth

The planning alternative to Restrict Community Growth involves placing restrictions on the type, location and extent of development within the Town of Lakeshore. Although this alternative eliminates or delays the need for large capital expenditures, it would have an adverse economic impact on the Town due to stagnation of development and is not compatible with the objectives of the Town’s Official Plan.

Restricting Community Growth is not considered a viable option to address the identified water and wastewater problems and needs of the Town of Lakeshore and accordingly will not be considered further in this study.

7.3.1.3 Water Use Reduction and Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Measures

The alternative to implement water use reduction involves the development of water conservation programs or practices that place restrictions on water use. Possible programs could entail the education of the general public as well as industrial, commercial and institutional users about water conservation as well as the implementation of municipal bylaws aimed at reducing water usage during peak summer months when community water demands are at their highest.


October 2008 7.3

The implementation of water use reduction measures would involve costs associated with educating the public and bylaw enforcement, however, it could potentially help defer the construction of water system expansions and new works if lower water demands could be realized. It is noted that these measures are sometimes difficult to regulate and are highly dependant on the willingness of the respective users.

Inflow refers to rainfall runoff entering a sanitary sewer collection system through direct connections such as catch-basins, leaky manhole covers, and cross-connections with storm water systems such as downspouts or sump pump connections. Infiltration refers to water entering the collection system through cracked or broken pipes, manholes, service connections or through leaky joints. The degree of infiltration generally fluctuates seasonally and is typically worse during spring and winter seasons due to rainfall and snowmelt. Although complete elimination of inflow and infiltration is not practical, reductions are typically achievable and could potentially help defer the timing for future wastewater system expansions.

While it is recognized that water efficiency and reduction measures as well as reduction in inflow and infiltration have the potential to reduce water demands and wastewater flows associated with the existing systems, this alternative alone will not be sufficient to address the long-term needs of a growing municipality nor the needs of areas currently not serviced by a municipal wastewater system. However, these measures can be beneficial to reducing future capital and operating costs and accordingly it is recommended that these measures form an important component of the Town’s long-term, on-going initiative to curtail water use (and promote water use efficiency practices) and curtail I&I (by promoting I&I studies and remediation programs) as part of the preferred solution.

7.3.1.4 Water and Wastewater System Capacity Expansion

To meet the servicing needs of the Town of Lakeshore for the next 20 years and beyond, expansions and improvements to the Town’s water and wastewater systems will be needed. The planning alternative to implement water and wastewater capacity expansions involves:

• Additional water and sewage treatment capacity including the expansion of existing facilities, provision of new facilities or potentially conveying to existing treatment facilities in adjacent municipalities.

• Water distribution system improvements including new watermains, storage and pumping facilities.

• Wastewater collection and conveyance system improvements including new sewers, forcemains and pumping stations.

As a whole, the above planning alternative represents a viable solution to the identified problems and shall be considered further in this study.


October 2008 7.4

7.3.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures

As a group, the alternative planning solutions (except the “Do Nothing” and “Restrict Community Growth” alternatives) will have a limited effect on the environment and that effect will be mostly due to construction activities.

Table 7.1 provides a summary of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures.

Table 7.1: Environmental Effects and Mitigating Measures

OPERATION EFFECT MITIGATING MEASURES Reduced terrestrial wildlife habitat quality (i.e., diversity, area, function) and increased fragmentation of habitat.

This is not a concern as there is no significant existing

terrestrial wildlife habitat in the proposed area of construction

Cutting, digging, or trimming ground covers, shrubs and trees

Loss of unique or otherwise valued vegetation features

This are no known unique vegetation features in the area

that may be disturbed by construction activities. Where possible, existing vegetation features will be restored

to a preconstruction condition. Soil erosion and sediment transport to adjacent water bodies causing sedimentation and turbidity of adjacent water bodies and drainage ditches

Use of erosion control measures (i.e. sediment traps, silt

fences, etc.) Collect contaminated runoff Restore vegetation growth quickly Stage construction activities to minimize potential of adverse

impacts Reduced water quality and clarity due to increased erosion and sedimentation, and transport of debris.

Apply wet weather restrictions to construction activity. Comply with any local regulations, policies and guidelines

that stipulate a minimum acceptable buffer width (the allowable distance from a water body). Maximum buffer widths are desirable.

If possible, direct surface drainage away from working areas and areas of exposed soils. To the maximum extent possible, promote overland sheet flow to well vegetated areas.

Install and maintain silt curtains, sedimentation ponds, check dams, cofferdams or drainage swales, and silt fences around soil storage sites and elsewhere, as required.

Loss of vegetation and topsoil and mixing topsoil and subsoil

Restore site by replacing topsoil and reinstate vegetation to

prevent erosion

Removal and/or disturbance of trees and ground flora

Avoid treed areas where possible Employ tree protection measures Replace trees and provide site landscaping

Trenching / tunnelling for sewers, watermains and forcemains, excavation and construction for water and wastewater pumping and treatment structures

Temporary disruption of pedestrian and vehicle traffic

Provide and maintain detours Provide for safe alternate routes Select alternate routes to minimize inconvenience


October 2008 7.5

OPERATION EFFECT MITIGATING MEASURES Temporary disruption and inconvenience during construction to adjacent properties, buildings and inhabitants

Notify public agencies and neighbouring owners of

construction activities Prepare program for reporting and resolving problems Ensure access is provided for emergency vehicles and

personnel Apply noise and vibration control measures Apply dust control measures Control emissions from construction equipment and vehicles Use silencers to reduce noise Require compliance with municipal noise by-laws

Possible need to remove petroleum contaminated excavated material.

Sample material. Handle and dispose of contaminated material in an

acceptable manner Decreased ambient air quality due to dust and other particulate matter.

Avoid site preparation or construction during windy and

prolonged dry periods. Cover and contain fine particulate materials during

transportation to and from the site. Instruct workers and equipment operators on dust control

methods. Spray water to minimize dust off paved areas or exposed

soils. Stabilize high traffic areas with a clean gravel surface layer

or other suitable cover material. Cover or otherwise stabilize construction materials, debris

and excavated soils against wind erosion. Disturbance to microscopic organisms in the soil.

Limit the size of stockpiles to avoid anaerobic conditions. Protect stockpiled soils from exposure to and sterilization by

solar radiation (or stockpile in an uncovered shaded area). Reduced soil capability through compaction and rutting, and mixing of topsoil and layers below.

Avoid working during wet conditions and/or confine operation

to paved or gravel surfaces. Whenever possible, strip and store topsoil separately from

the layers below and return to excavation in sequence. Removal and/or disturbances of tress and flora.

Avoid treed areas Employ tree protection measures Avoid areas with significant vegetation

Loss of productive farm land.

Locate facilities to minimize land requirements Use existing rights-of-way as much as possible No loss within utility easements as they can still be

cultivated. Agricultural disruption of field access.

All driveways, roadways and field access will be restored to

pre-construction condition Staging of construction and advance notice to property

owners prior to disruption of construction to minimize inconvenience

Disruption of tile and surface drainage systems.

Provide for temporary drainage systems until final restoration

is accomplished. Avoid disturbing drainage systems during critical periods. All existing culverts, tiles and drainage systems to be

restored to pre-construction conditions following construction.

Reduced water quality of nearby surface waters having value as wildlife habitat.

Use sediment control techniques for stockpiled materials to

minimize degradation of water quality.


October 2008 7.6

OPERATION EFFECT MITIGATING MEASURES Modifications or removal of aquatic habitat.

Stage construction to minimize potential of adverse impacts.

Residential impacts.

Construction noise and dust impacts will be controlled

through noise by-laws and dust control measures in contract specification.

Inconvenience due to temporary loss of property access will be minimized through proper communication and advance notice of disruption.

Pedestrian safety will be maintained through excavation barricades and construction fencing

Traffic disruption.

Construction activities will attempt to maintain a minimum of

one lane of open traffic at all times with necessary detour signage and flag persons.

If complete closure is required, emergency services will be advised in advance and through access will be restored at the end of each working day.

Visual aesthetics.

Watermains and sewers will be buried and have no impact

on aesthetics. Incorporate landscaping and architectural features at

treatment plants. Recreation.

Maintain access to recreational sites during construction. Locate water and wastewater infrastructure components to

minimize impact.

Heritage resources.

Assess archaeological significance in areas undisturbed by

previous activities such as farmland. Complete Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment and follow mitigative measures outlined in cooperation with the Ministry of Culture.

Contamination of surface waters, drains and public roadways from spills, leaks or equipment refuelling.

Use containment facilities Inspect equipment regularly for fuel and oil leaks Clean equipment before it travels off site

Decreased air quality due to vehicular emissions causing increased concentrations of chemical pollutants.

Minimize operation and idling of vehicles and gas-powered

equipment, particularly during local smog advisories. Use well-maintained equipment and machinery within

operating specifications. Disruption to wildlife migration and movement patterns, breeding, nesting or hibernation.

There are no known areas containing sensitive vegetation

and wildlife. There are no known areas where migratory birds are

breeding. Introduction of non-native vegetation, including opportunistic species.

Clean heavy machinery and equipment prior to transporting

to new location.

Loss of unique or otherwise valued vegetation features

Avoid or minimize trampling vegetation with equipment. Minimize physical damage to vegetation by avoiding push-

outs and avoiding the placement of slash onto living vegetation.

Reduced water quality and clarity due to increased erosion and sedimentation, and transport of debris.

Operate heavy machinery on the shore above the normal

water level. Where possible, conduct activities in the dry, above the

actual water level and above any expected rises in water level that may occur during a rainfall or snowmelt event.

Use of construction equipment

Reduced water quality due to inputs of contaminants from surface runoff during construction and operation.

Refuel equipment off slopes and well away from water

bodies. Securely contain and store all oils, lubricants, fuels and

chemicals. If necessary, use impermeable pads or berms.


October 2008 7.7

7.3.3 Screening Summary and Preferred Alternative Solutions

A comparative summary of the four conceptual planning level alternative solutions and their ability to meet the overall long-term water and wastewater infrastructure needs of the Town of Lakeshore is presented in Table 7.2.

The results of the preliminary screening clearly indicate that the preferred alternative solutions which address the identified problems and study objectives are as follows:

• Expand the capacity of the existing water and wastewater system components (treatment, distribution, collection, etc.) including the provision of additional capacity at new or existing facilities to meet the existing and future servicing requirements,

• Implement water efficiency and inflow and infiltration control measures.

Other than the environmental effects listed in Table 7.1, it is anticipated that the recommended conceptual planning alternatives are not considered to have any significant effect on wildlife, vegetation or the habitat characteristics of any particular species.

In fact, it is anticipated that the provision of a greater degree of pollution control and treatment will enhance the quality of local watercourses and improve the natural environment to a great extent. The main impact on the socio-economic environment is related to the disruption that residents and businesses may experience during the course of construction. However, this potential inconvenience and disruption would be temporary and should not significantly affect the environment.

With respect to other socio-economic impacts, the preferred conceptual planning alternatives are also not considered to have any serious impacts on existing land uses, cultural activities, heritage resources or any other community program except to the extent that it will permit the ongoing implementation of development and other activities as envisaged in planning documents which have positive impacts on the socio-economic environments.

The following sections identify and evaluate the alternative water and wastewater servicing solutions that address the specific problems and needs of the various respective service areas.

These alternatives have been developed on the basis that the Town of Lakeshore will provide the servicing within its boundary or through the development of servicing agreements with adjacent municipalities.


October 2008 7.8

Table 7.2: Comparative Summary of Conceptual Planning Alternatives

Conceptual Planning Alternative Solutions Advantages Disadvantages R / NR *

Do Nothing • eliminates need for large capital expenditures • retain status quo

• only presently available capacity in existing systems available to service growth

• adverse economic impact due to stagnation of development

• objectives of Official Plan cannot be realized

• pollution problems associated with malfunctioning septic systems not addressed

NR

Restrict Community Growth • eliminates or defers the need for significant capital expenditures

• adverse economic impact due to stagnation of development objectives of Official Plan cannot be realized


NR

Water Use Reduction and Inflow and Infiltration Control Measures

• can potentially defer the timing for significant capital expenditures

• could help reduce future operating and capital infrastructure costs

• could form part of preferred solutions

• measures sometimes difficult to regulate and dependent on willingness of public


• measures alone will not meet long-term servicing needs

R

Construct, Expand or Augment Water and Wastewater System Capacity

• ensures adequate capacity available to service existing demands and provision for growth

• allows objectives of Official Plan to be realized and development to proceed as projected

• addresses existing pollution problems associated with malfunctioning septic systems and ensures treatment facilities have adequate capacity to prevent uncontrolled discharges into the environment.

• involves significant capital expenditures that can be staged as growth occurs

R

* (R = Recommended NR = Not Recommended)


October 2008 7.9

7.4 RECOMMENDED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

Hydraulic computer models of the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems were developed and used together with projected increases in water demand to simulate future conditions and test various system improvements that would adequately supply the respective projected 20 year water demands under i) peak hour conditions as well ii) maximum day plus fire flow conditions, while reinforcing the existing trunk watermain network and maintaining acceptable system pressures.

Proposed improvements projects are intended to achieve one or more of the following objectives:

• Capacity – increase delivery capacity and minimize pipeline headloss.

• Fire Flow – improve fire flows to target levels.

• Growth – provide for future service area development.

• Looping & Redundancy – maintain water quality by reducing the number of “dead-ends” and wherever possible provide an area with more than one point of delivery.

• Reliability – reduce frequency of watermain breaks and general improvement of overall system reliability by replacing aging and deteriorating infrastructure such as cast iron watermains.

As part of the evaluation of potential water treatment, storage and distribution system improvements, the age and condition of the existing system components was taken into consideration to coincide the recommended improvements with replacement of aging infrastructure. It is noted that some of the required improvements represent an extension of the distribution system that would likely be constructed through new developments in established growth areas. However, they have still been identified as part of the Master Plan as a guide for long term water supply planning.


The following items were taken into consideration in establishing alternate solutions to address the identified water supply problems of the Belle River water supply system:

• As discussed in Chapter 2, a Class EA was completed in January 2002 that established the preferred alternative solution to address the long term potable water supply requirements of the Belle River water service area as the upgrade and expansion of the Belle River WTP.

Construction of the new Belle River WTP commenced in May 2006 and is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2008. The treatment capacity of the new plant will be capable of satisfying the projected 20 year water demands of the existing Belle River water service area and beyond, including areas presently supplied water by the Town of Tecumseh. Accordingly, it has been established that the Belle River WTP will continue to be the sole source of supply for the Belle River water service area and no alternative sources of potable water supply were considered as part of this review.


October 2008 7.10

• For the purposes of evaluating water supply to the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands area, and in lieu of detailed development planning information available at this stage of the evaluation, a single point of demand was assumed to represent the projected water demand of the designated area. For evaluation purposes only, the single point demand was positioned at the intersection of 7th Concession Road and 16-17 Sideroad.

7.4.1.1 Recommended System Improvements – Belle River WSS

The recommended system improvements required to satisfy the 20 year projected water demands of the Belle River water supply system are illustrated in Figure 6. An overall summary of the recommended improvements including opinions of probable cost, anticipated timing and Class EA schedule are presented as part of the Implementation Plan in Chapter 9. The main components of the preferred system improvements include the following:

A. Clear Water Storage

The preferred solution to address the system deficiency in clear water storage is to:

i. Replace the existing Belle River elevated water tower with a new 5.8 ML (or 1.25 MIG) elevated water tower located in the Rourke Line / County Road 22 area with top water level (TWL) elevation of approximately 220m (or approximately 40m above ground) and connected off the trunk watermain along County Road 22.

ii. Replace the existing Maidstone elevated water tower with a new 5.8 ML (or 1.25 MIG) elevated water tower located in the Patillo Road / Little Baseline Road area with a top water level (TWL) at a geodetic elevation of approximately 220m (or approximately 40m above ground).

B. Distribution System Improvements

The preferred solution to address the deficiency in distribution system conveyance capacity is to:

i. Construct a new 600-mm dia. trunk watermain from the Belle River WTP to the proposed new Rourke Line elevated water tower.

ii. Construct a new 400-mm dia. Trunk watermain along County Road 22 from Rourke Line to Patillo Road including a 600-mm diameter watermain crossing of the Puce River.

iii. Construct a new 600-mm dia. trunk watermain through the Wallace Woods area.

iv. Construct a new 600-mm dia. trunk watermain to supply the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands area.

v. Construct various other watermain network improvements as shown in Figure 6.


October 2008 7.11

7.4.1.2 Further Issues for Consideration

Results of the hydraulic analyses predict that low water pressure problems identified in the rural areas of the distribution system south of County Road 42 generally between Manning Road and 6th Concession Road will improve to an acceptable level once the proposed new elevated water tower in the Patillo Road / Little Baseline Road area is constructed. Supplying water to the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands area is predicated on extending the recommended 600-mm diameter trunk watermain through Wallace Woods and southerly to the Highway 401 area in addition to construction of the new elevated water tower in the Patillo Road / Little Baseline Road area.

The preferred system improvements to service the Belle River water supply system have been established based on the assumption that all properties within the Town of Lakeshore which directly front onto Manning Road, north of Highway 401, will continue to be serviced off the existing Tecumseh watermain along Manning Road.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Town of Lakeshore enter into discussions with the Town of Tecumseh as soon as possible to establish the appropriate agreements and ensure uninterrupted water supply to these properties.


The following items were taken into consideration in establishing alternative solutions to address the identified water supply problems of the Stoney Point water supply system:

• As discussed in Chapter 2, the Lighthouse Cove community is presently supplied water by the Chatham-Kent P.U.C. through the Tilbury-Wheatley water supply system under a 5 year water service agreement that expires in 2011. At such time, servicing options for Lighthouse Cove would be to re-negotiate an extended agreement with Chatham-Kent or commence supplying the area with water from the Stoney Point water supply system.

• In a separate report prepared by Stantec Consulting for the Town of Lakeshore dated September 13, 2007, the short-term implications of servicing the Lighthouse Cove community from the Stoney Point WSS were reviewed. The report identified that the addition of Lighthouse Cove to the existing Stoner Point service area would fully utilize available system storage capacity and therefore necessitate the need for additional storage capacity in the immediate time period. In addition to increased storage capacity requirements, system water demands would increase to approximately 85% of the Stoney Point WTP’s rated capacity.

Taking into consideration the long lead times required to complete planning, design and construction of a treatment plant expansion and the projected increases in water demand during that same time period; the addition of the Lighthouse Cove community to the Stoney Point water service area would necessitate the completion of the Environmental Assessment planning process in the immediate time frame followed by detailed design and construction. It was further noted in the report that the existing Stoney Point water service area is currently under water use restrictions during the summer season.


October 2008 7.12

Accordingly, the analysis for the Stoney Point water supply system has been based on the assumption that the Stoney Point water service area will not be expanded until such time as the water demands in the service area dictate a need for additional treatment capacity, projected to be in approximately the year 2011. Coincidently, this is approximately the same time period as the duration of the current water service agreement with the Chatham-Kent P.U.C.

Therefore, for the purposes of long-term planning, it has been established that the analysis of future system improvements for the Stoney Point water supply system will assume provisions to accommodate servicing of the Lighthouse Cove community from the Stoney Point WSS.

7.4.2.1 Recommended System Improvements – Stoney Point WSS

The recommended system improvements required to satisfy the 20 year projected water demands of the Stoney Point water supply system are illustrated in Figure 7. An overall summary of the recommended improvements including opinions of probable cost, anticipated timing and Class EA schedule are presented as part of the Implementation Plan in Chapter 9. The main components of the recommended system improvements include the following:

A. Water Treatment Capacity

The preferred solution to address the deficiency in water treatment capacity is to:

i. Expand the Stoney Point WTP on the present plant site to 9,090 m3/d (2.0 MIGD) to meet the 20 year projected demands.

B. Clear Water Storage

The preferred solution to address the system deficiency in clear water storage is to:

i. Construct a new 3.3 ML (0.7 MIG) elevated water tower located generally in the south end of the Stoney Point community with a TWL at a geodetic elevation of approximately 222m (or approximately 45 m above ground).

C. Distribution System Improvements

The preferred solution to address the deficiency in distribution system conveyance capacity is to:

i. Construct a new 300-mm dia. trunk watermain along Comber Sideroad / County Road 35 from St. Clair Road to Highway 401.

ii. Completion of the 300-mm dia. trunk watermain along St. Clair Road and extension from Couture Beach Road to Martin Drive in Lighthouse Cove.

iii. Construct a new 200-mm dia. watermain along Gracie Sideroad from Couture Beach Road to Tecumseh Road and a new 100-mm dia. watermain along Tecumseh Road from Gracie Sideroad westerly and tie into existing 50-mm dia. watermain.

iv. Construct various new 100-mm dia. watermain looping connections along Rochester Townline Road and County Road 37 as shown in Figure 7.


October 2008 7.13

7.4.2.2 Further Issues for Consideration

Although it is recommended that the Lighthouse Cove community continue to be serviced from the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS until the Stoney Point WTP is expanded; it is also recommended that construction of the proposed 300-mm diameter watermain extension connecting Lighthouse Cove to the Stoney Point WSS be completed regardless to serve as an emergency point of interconnection and to provide an alternate source of supply in the event of a loss of supply from the Tilbury-Wheatley WSS.

7.4.3 Cast Iron Watermain Replacement Program

In addition to the system improvements identified through the analysis of both the Belle River and Stoney Point water supply systems, the Town of Lakeshore has also developed a strategic cast iron watermain replacement program to help guide the Town’s planning process in preparation of annual capital budgets.

Cast iron watermains represent the oldest pipelines in the Town’s water distribution system and experience the greatest number of watermain problems from the standpoint of structural integrity and rusty water complaints. The intent of the program was to develop a proactive, rather than reactive, plan that would see all existing cast iron watermains, approximately 59 km, throughout the Town of Lakeshore systematically replaced with new watermains on an annual basis over a 10 year implementation period.

The program was developed taking into consideration the recommended system improvements identified as part of the hydraulic modeling work to coincide with replacement of aging infrastructure. The cast iron watermain replacement strategy has been factored into the Water and Sewer Rate Review process.

7.5 WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVES

As previously noted, the Wastewater portion of the Master Plan is comprised of two components; i) existing wastewater treatment and collection systems and ii) settlement areas currently located outside existing sewage service areas and not serviced by municipal wastewater systems.

Based on a review of the identified problems in Chapter 7, the following sections describe various potential wastewater servicing alternatives to address the problems identified in the various study areas.


October 2008 7.14

7.5.1 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Belle River/Maidstone Sewage System

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified in the Belle River / Maidstone sewage service area:

1. Expand the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP to service the existing sewage service area and the adjacent anticipated growth areas of Wallace Woods, Patillo / Advance and Manning / County Road 22 including extension of the Oakwood Trunk sewer westerly to service existing residences in the Pike Creek area as well as future flows from the identified growth areas generally in accordance with the preferred solution identified in the 1997 Expanded Pike Creek Area Class EA.

2. Expand the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP to not only service the needs of the existing service area and growth areas outlined in Alternative 1, but also to include adjacent unserviced areas such as the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands, the Belle River Road corridor and the Rochester Place area.

7.5.2 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Comber Sewage System

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified in the Comber sewage service area:

1. Upgrade and expand the existing Comber STF to accommodate projected growth within the existing service area and anticipated growth in the adjacent areas outside of the existing service area.

2. Decommission the existing Comber STF and convey sewage from the expanded Comber sewage service area identified in Alternative 1 to a new “common area” sewage treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain.

7.5.3 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Stoney Point Sewage System

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified in the Stoney Point sewage service area:

1. Upgrade and expand the existing Stoney Point STF to accommodate projected growth within the existing service area only.

2. Decommission the existing Stoney Point STF and convey sewage from the Stoney Point sewage service area to a new “common area” sewage treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain.


October 2008 7.15

7.5.4 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Belle River Corridor Sewage Area: (South Woodslee, North Woodslee, Belle River Road)

The Belle River corridor area presents unique considerations in the development and evaluation of alternative wastewater servicing options. The following issues were taken into consideration during this process:

• As discussed in Chapter 6, the existing collection system in South Woodslee requires on-going upgrades to address problems with the tankage and pumping systems. Further, upgrades have recently been implemented at the sewage treatment plant to address problems with achieving required treatment objectives. In addition to the required repairs and improvements, the existing STEP collection system requires an increased level of operating and maintenance effort (and associated costs) than typical gravity collection systems.

In light of the reported on-going operational problems, it is recommended that the Town undertake a detailed feasibility analysis of maintaining the existing STEP system or implementing a new gravity collection system instead. In either case, the long-term overall servicing options for the area can still be evaluated without implementing a decision at this stage as to whether the STEP collection system should be replaced.

For the purposes of evaluating alternative servicing schemes for the Belle River corridor area, it has been assumed that the South Woodslee treatment plant and STEP collection system would not be expanded to service adjacent study areas. Further, it has also been assumed that the STEP collection system would be maintained with needed improvements implemented, and that only the point of sewage discharge would vary depending on the alternative servicing scheme selected.

• To evaluate alternatives which consider combining sewage from one or two of the identified sewage service areas and treat them at one local “common area” facility, it was assumed that the existing North Woodslee treatment facility could be expanded as needed. The North Woodslee STP is centrally located in the study area and therefore considered to be a reasonable choice. Expandability of the plant and its potential constraints were not evaluated in detail, however, it appears that the existing site can accommodate an expansion.

Based on the foregoing, six (6) wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified for the Belle River corridor area based on the most practical combinations of the three identified sewage service areas and three existing wastewater treatment facilities.


October 2008 7.16

These alternatives are summarized in Table 7.3:

Table 7.3: Belle River Corridor Area Wastewater Servicing Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AREAS TREATMENT PLANT

1

1. Belle River Road

2. North Woodslee

3. South Woodslee

Belle River / Maidstone WPCP

North Woodslee STP

South Woodslee STP

2

1. Belle River Road &

North Woodslee

2. South Woodslee


South Woodslee STP

3


North Woodslee &

South Woodslee


4


North Woodslee

2. South Woodslee

North Woodslee STP

South Woodslee STP

5


North Woodslee &

South Woodslee &

North Woodslee STP

6

1. Belle River Road

2. North Woodslee &

South Woodslee


North Woodslee STP

The following assumptions were noted with respect to these alternatives:

• Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 assume that sewage from the South Woodslee sewage service area would continue to be treated at the South Woodslee STP.

• Alternative 1 assumes that sewage from the North Woodslee sewage service area would be treated at the North Woodslee STP.

• Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 assume that the North Woodslee STP would be expanded to accommodate the addition of the adjacent service areas.

• For all Alternatives (1-6), it was assumed that a gravity collection system will be constructed along Belle River Road that would convey sewage either northerly to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP (Alternatives 1, 2, 3 & 6) or southerly to an expanded facility in North Woodslee (Alternatives 4 & 5).

• For Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6, where the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP has been identified as the treatment plant site, it was assumed that sewage would be conveyed by gravity to a pumping station


October 2008 7.17

located at the intersection of West Belle River Road and County Road 42 and then pumped and conveyed by forcemain along County Road 42 and Rourke Line Road directly to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP.

• In all cases, it has been assumed that servicing of properties along West Belle River Road is a local servicing issue and therefore, does not directly impact the evaluation of the overall servicing scheme of the area. As a result, it is recommended that the Town evaluate the feasibility of servicing West Belle River Road as part of separate study.

7.5.5 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Rochester Place Sewage Area

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified in the Rochester Place sewage service area:

1. Construct a new wastewater collection system discharging sewage to a new wastewater treatment facility dedicated to servicing the Rochester Place service area only.

2. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Rochester Place to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain.

3. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Rochester Place to a new “common area” treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain.

7.5.6 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Lighthouse Cove Sewage Area

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address problems identified in the Lighthouse Cove sewage service area:

1. Construct a new wastewater collection system discharging sewage to a new wastewater treatment facility dedicated to servicing the Lighthouse Cove service area only.

2. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Lighthouse Cove to the existing Tilbury Sewage Treatment Plant via a new pumping station and forcemain and obtain treatment capacity from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

3. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Lighthouse Cove to a new “common area” treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain.


October 2008 7.18

7.5.7 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Essex Fringe Sewage Area

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified in the Essex Fringe sewage service area:

1. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the Essex Fringe area to one of two nearby existing sewage treatment facilities owned by the Town of Essex via a new pumping station and forcemain and obtain treatment capacity from the Town of Essex as follows:

a. To the Town of Essex North East Lagoons Sewage Treatment Facility (located within Town of Lakeshore boundary).

b. To the Town of Essex Pollution Control Plant (PCP).

2. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the Essex Fringe area to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain. Two alternative conceptual routes were considered:

a. via the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands,

b. via the Belle River corridor.

7.5.8 Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions - Highway 401 Employment Lands Sewage Area

The following wastewater servicing alternatives were established to address the problems identified to service the potential Highway 401 Employment Lands:

1. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands to the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain.

2. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands into the existing Tecumseh sewage works system via a new pumping and forcemain and enter into a servicing agreement with the Town of Tecumseh.

7.5.9 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems

Prior to evaluation of servicing alternatives for the unserviced areas of Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, Belle River Road, Essex Fringe and the potential Highway 401 Employment Lands, various collection system alternatives have been reviewed and evaluated with respect to the impact of each alternative on the environment.

The following sections provide information regarding available collection system alternatives including their advantages and disadvantages. Alternative collection systems include conventional gravity sewers, low pressure sewers, and vacuum sewers. Each type has advantages and disadvantages specific to the constraints of the area being serviced.


October 2008 7.19

7.5.9.1 Conventional Gravity Sewers

Conventional gravity sewers consist of pipes of suitable material and diameter installed at appropriate gradients or slopes and at practical depths in the ground to permit sanitary wastewater to flow to the treatment facility by gravity. Once the sewer becomes too deep to be economically constructed, a pumping or lift station is installed to allow downstream sewers to be constructed at more shallow depths.

Advantages

Gravity sewer systems are very reliable and can be designed to operate without flooding basements even during power outages and pumping station failures. Most people understand how they operate, contractors are familiar with construction of gravity sewers, they require minimal maintenance and consume little power.

Disadvantages

In areas where homes are set back a considerable distance from the roadway, servicing the home by a gravity connection requires that the sewer be installed very deep to provide sufficient gradient from the home to the sewer. Accordingly, construction of gravity sewers in this situation is expensive. In areas where soil conditions are poor and it is desirable to minimize the depth of sewer trench excavation, alternative collection systems should be evaluated. A final disadvantage of gravity sewers is their susceptibility to infiltration and inflow in areas subject to high ground water and/or flooding. In these areas, special attention to construction practices and installation and maintenance of connections, water tight clean-outs and manhole covers becomes critical.

7.5.9.2 Vacuum Sewers

Vacuum sewer systems consist of pipe networks placed under negative pressure by a vacuum pumping station. Sewage from individual dwellings flows by gravity to a vacuum interface valve chamber where there is a sewage collection sump. Once the amount of sewage collected in the sump exceeds a certain volume, the vacuum valve opens and the total volume of sewage along with a volume of atmospheric air behind the sewage is drawn into the sewer. While the vacuum valve is open, the "plug" of sewage is propelled through the vacuum sewers by the differential pressure across the plug of sewage (high negative pressure in front of the plug and atmospheric pressure behind it). Once the valve closes, the plug slows and the liquid falls to the bottom of the vacuum main as the pressure differential dissipates.

The vacuum mains are constructed in a saw-tooth profile so the sewage that settles to the bottom of the sewer flows by gravity to the low point in the sewer. As soon as a vacuum valve upstream of the low point opens, the sewage which has ponded at the low point is lifted over the saw-tooth and it works its way toward the pumping station.

At the pumping station, vacuum pumps evacuate air from a large receiving tank which is connected to the sewers. Incoming sewage is collected in the bottom of the receiving tank until


October 2008 7.20

the level in the tank reaches a pre-set level. Once the level is reached, sewage pumps remove the sewage from the receiving tank.

Advantages

Vacuum sewers can be installed at relatively shallow depths, thus reducing sewer installation costs particularly in areas with poor soil conditions. In areas where installation space is limited, vacuum sewers are beneficial since mainline sewers are typically constructed of small diameter, light weight plastic pipe (less than 250 mm) requiring lighter machinery for installation. Vacuum sewer service connection valve chambers are completely separated from the sewage collection sump eliminating flood water from entering the sewer system. The valve chamber does not require any electrical power for its operation making it reliable during power outages and eliminating costly household electrical modifications at the time of installation.

Disadvantages

Vacuum sewer pumping stations are more complex and expensive than gravity systems. There is little experience with vacuum sewers in this area and most people are not familiar with their operation. Contractors are not familiar with special construction requirements and there are increased maintenance requirements for each connection compared to gravity systems.

7.5.9.3 Low Pressure Sewers

Low pressure sewers are an alternative to gravity sewers that permit the use of smaller diameter pipes installed at more shallow depths. Each connection requires a grinder pump installed in a collection sump to pump the sewage up to the low pressure sewer and to overcome the pressure within the sewer. The sewer diameters are smaller than gravity sewers as a result of the sewage flowing under pressure. Best suited for small confined communities with no expansion plans.

Advantages

Low pressure sewers can be installed at more shallow depths than gravity sewers because sewage is pumped up to the sewer and fall is not required between the dwelling and the sewer. Low pressure sewers are typically smaller than gravity sewers. Fewer pumping stations are required reducing overall collection system costs. Pressure sewer systems do not experience infiltration since the sewers operate under pressure.

Disadvantages

Every dwelling requires a grinder pump or a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) in order to connect to the sewage collection system. Every pump requires an electrical control panel and some homes may require upgrading of their electrical service to accommodate the pumping system. Although the sewer system is not subject to infiltration, individual grinder pumps and/or STEP's are subject to inundation with storm or flood waters. During individual power outages, sewage cannot be discharged and may result in flooding. There are increased maintenance and operating costs associated with grinder and STEP pumping


October 2008 7.21

systems due to the number of mechanical pumps in the system to be serviced. Further, two people are required to remove and service a grinder or STEP pump as each pump is installed below grade and weighs approximately 48 kg (115 lbs.).

7.5.9.4 Recommended Wastewater Collection System

The wastewater collection systems within the main urban areas of the Town (i.e. Belle River / Maidstone, Stoney Point and Comber) presently serviced with a municipal sewage works system utilize gravity sewers. This method of collection is the most commonly used system in Essex County. The flat topography and good clayey soils result in gravity sewers being the most cost effective wastewater collection system in this area.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the preferred wastewater servicing alternatives utilize conventional gravity sewers to service the identified unserviced study areas.

7.5.9.5 Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures - Sewers

As a group, the alternative wastewater collection systems will have a limited effect on the environment and that effect will be mostly due to construction activities. A summary of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures for sewer construction are identified in Table 7.1.

Other than the environmental effects listed in Table 7.1, it is anticipated that construction of any one of the alternative wastewater collection systems will not have a significant effect on the natural environment such as wildlife, vegetation or the habitat characteristics of any particular species. The main impact that the alternative wastewater collection systems will have on the socio-economic environment is the disruption that residents may experience during the construction of the wastewater collection systems. However, this inconvenience and disruption will only be temporary and should not significantly impact the environment.

With respect to other socio-economic impacts, it is anticipated that the preferred servicing alternative will not have any serious impact on existing land uses, cultural activities, heritage resources or any other community program except to the extent that it will permit the ongoing implementation of development and other activities as envisioned in planning documents which have positive impacts on the socio-economic environment.

7.5.10 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Processes

It has been established in the preceding sections that upgrading and/or expansion of the existing sewage treatment facilities or construction of new sewage treatment facilities will be required to address some of the identified problems.

The evaluation of specific treatment alternatives and selection of a recommended design for treatment facilities is normally undertaken in Phase 3 of the Class EA process and documented


October 2008 7.22

in an Environmental Study Report (ESR). However, for the purposes of evaluating various servicing alternatives for the existing and future service areas, the following assumptions were made regarding the type of treatment facility:

• As discussed in Chapter 2, the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP is a mechanical treatment facility that currently provides treatment by means of the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process. Final planning and detailed design is currently underway to implement process improvements at the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP that includes converting the existing SBR process to an extended aeration activated sludge (EAAS) treatment process. Accordingly, cost estimates for future expansions to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP have been based on utilizing and expanding the EAAS process.

• For comparison purposes and in evaluating servicing alternatives that which involve construction of a new treatment plant in Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place or a “common area” facility to service more than one of the eastern communities, cost estimates have been based on a mechanical treatment plant utilizing the SBR process. While this is somewhat of an arbitrary process selection (which will be the subject to a detailed evaluation under Phase 3 of the Class EA), it is a process well suited to the undertaking. Further, several SBR treatment plants have been constructed in Essex County in recent years, which provides the opportunity to use actual construction costs to establish typical treatment plant costs for comparison purposes.

• In evaluating servicing alternatives which involve upgrading and expansion of the existing Stoney Point STF and/or Comber STF to accommodate growth within their respective service areas only, only two treatment processes were considered. The first option involved utilizing the intermittent sand filtration (ISF) process and the second option involved constructing a new mechanical treatment plant using the SBR process. Both the ISF and SBR process have been successfully utilized in Essex County under conditions.

• For comparison purposes and in evaluating servicing alternatives in the Belle River Corridor area which considers the combining of sewage from multiple sewage service areas to be treated at one local “common area” facility, cost estimates were based on assuming that the North Woodslee facility would be expanded as needed utilizing the existing rotating biological contactor (RBC) treatment process.

7.5.11 Evaluation of Alternative Wastewater Servicing Solutions

The previous sections identified a number of alternative wastewater servicing solutions to address the identified problems as well as outlined various assumptions related to collection and treatment systems.

This section provides an evaluation of the servicing alternatives and selection of the recommended servicing alternatives. To assist in the evaluation of the servicing alternatives, a net present value (NPV) analysis was performed to take into consideration both the initial capital


October 2008 7.23

costs as well anticipated annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with each alternative.

In simplest form, the NPV is the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to make the annual payments and recover both the capital and operating costs of the proposed works. Factors such as inflation (2.5% assumed) and a potential rate of return (6% assumed) are taken into consideration over the life of the analysis, which has been assumed to be 20 years.

The opinions of probable cost contained in this report are based on preliminary information and design assumptions and accordingly are to be treated as “Order of Magnitude Costs” and are intended for comparison purposes and long range planning. Appendix “G” contains further discussion on the level of accuracy of the costs.

A methodology was developed in order to evaluate the various servicing alternatives by considering them as a group as part of a broader servicing scheme to address the needs of a larger area rather than just an individual service area. For example, the existing Comber and Stoney Point sewage systems as well as the unserviced area of Lighthouse Cove could be evaluated separately to determine the preferred option in each service area or alternatively, combined options could be considered that involve grouping of the various alternatives to determine the preferred overall solution to address the needs of the broader area. The following sections outline the evaluation process including the rationale for establishing the combination of alternatives

7.5.11.1 Comber, Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove Area

The geography of the eastern area of the Town of Lakeshore provided an opportunity to consider the overall needs of several service areas through a combination of the various individual servicing alternatives established for each area. The existing service areas of Comber and Stoney Point as well the unserviced Lighthouse Cove area was considered first.

The first step in the evaluation process was to examine the established alternatives for the Lighthouse Cove area in an attempt to eliminate the least likely option. It was found that the cost to construct a new local treatment plant to service the Lighthouse Cove area was considerably higher than the other alternatives and accordingly this servicing option was not considered further.

Based on the remaining servicing alternatives for the Lighthouse Cove area and the servicing alternatives identified for the Comber and Stoney Point areas, four (4) wastewater servicing schemes were established based on the most likely combinations.

The servicing alternatives are summarized in Table 7.4:


October 2008 7.24

Table 7.4: Comber, Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove Wastewater Servicing Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AREAS TREATMENT PLANT

1 1. Comber 2. Stoney Point 3. Lighthouse Cove

Upgraded & Expanded Comber STF Upgraded & Expanded Stoney Point STF Existing Tilbury STP

2 1. Comber & Stoney Point 2. Lighthouse Cove

New “Common Area” STP Existing Tilbury STP

3 1. Comber 2. Stoney Point Lighthouse Cove

Upgraded & Expanded Comber STF New “Common Area” STP

4 1. Comber & Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove

New “Common Area” STP

The following items are noted with respect to these servicing alternatives:

• Costs associated with upgrading and expanding the Comber and Stoney Point STF’s to service the existing respective service areas only have been based on the ISF treatment process which was found to have a lower NPV than the SBR process.

• Costs associated with obtaining treatment capacity at the Tilbury STP to service the Lighthouse Cove community were based on preliminary information provided by the Public Utilities Commission for the Municipality of Chatham Kent (C.K.-P.U.C.). It is noted that only preliminary discussions have been held with the C.K.-P.U.C. with respect to accepting sewage or establishing sewage treatment costs. Actual costs would be subject to a formal agreement between the Town of Lakeshore and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The Tilbury STP costs included a variable component related to the projected daily volume of sewage conveyed to the plant, a fixed monthly meter charge and a one time development charge component applicable to each existing home and future development in the Lighthouse Cove area.

The unit costs used in the 20 year analysis are summarized in Table 7.5 as follows:


October 2008 7.25

Table 7.5: Unit Costs to Provide Sewage Treatment at Tilbury STP

Year Variable Cost per m3 (1)

Monthly Flat Rate (2)

Development Charge per Lot (3)

1 $ 0.61 $ 97.50 $ 1,004 2 $ 0.66 $ 98.50 $ 1,052 3 $ 0.75 $ 99.50 $ 1,103 4 $ 0.81 $ 100.50 $ 1,156 5 $ 0.86 $ 101.00 $ 1,211 6 $ 0.93 $ 101.50 $ 1,269 7 $ 1.00 $ 101.50 $ 1,330 8 $ 1.01 $ 102.50 $ 1,394 9 $ 1.09 $ 102.50 $ 1,461 10 $ 1.15 $ 103.00 $ 1,531 11 $ 1.19 $ 103.50 $ 1,605 12 $ 1.23 $ 104.00 $ 1,682 13 $ 1.24 $ 104.50 $ 1,762 14 $ 1.26 $ 104.75 $ 1,847 15 $ 1.29 $ 105.00 $ 1,935 16 $ 1.31 $ 105.50 $ 2,028 17 $ 1.34 $ 106.00 $ 2,126 18 $ 1.36 $ 106.50 $ 2,228 19 $ 1.39 $ 107.00 $ 2,335 20 $ 1.41 $ 107.50 $ 2,447

Notes: 1. Variable cost for Non-CK users is 1.25 times the Chatham-Kent “Step 1” rate. 2. Monthly Flat Rate or “meter charge” is applied to the Lighthouse service area as a whole and not to each

individual connection. 3. Sewage Development Charge assumed to increase 4.8% annually (Based on actual increase in the

Statistics Canada Building Construction Price Index between 2002 and 2006). • The evaluation of alternatives and selection of a recommended design for treatment facilities

including site selection is normally undertaken in Phase 3 of the Class EA process and documented in ESR. However, for the purposes of evaluating the various alternatives to service both the existing and future study areas, a cursory review of alternative treatment plant sites was conducted to establish a location for a new “common area” treatment plant considered as part of servicing Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 above.

A site was selected adjacent to the existing Stoney Point STF between the easterly lagoon cell and Little Creek. In fact, this site was historically reserved to accommodate an expansion of the Stoney Point STF through the addition of third lagoon cell.


October 2008 7.26

The following items are noted with respect to this site:

→ The site is more than adequate in size to accommodate the projected footprint of a mechanical treatment plant while also taking into consideration long term expandability.

→ The site is centrally located with respect to the potential service areas.

→ The property is already owned by the Town of Lakeshore.

→ The site is adequately separated from existing developments and sensitive land uses in accordance with MOE buffer zone requirements.

→ The site is surrounded by agricultural land to the south, east and west and abuts a conservation area to the north.

→ The site provides a direct access to a potential effluent discharge location into Little Creek.

→ The site utilizes an existing sewage treatment plant location in lieu of establishing a new site.

Based on the foregoing and for the purposes of this evaluation, the site adjacent to the existing Stoney Point STF was assumed as the conceptual location of a new “common area” mechanical treatment facility considered as part of Servicing Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 above.

Table 7.6 below summarizes the results of the present value analysis showing both the total capital costs (i.e. costs associated with construction of the pumping, forcemain and treatment plant components for each alternative) as well as the net present value (which factors in the estimated annual operating and maintenance costs associated with each alternative):

Table 7.6: Comber, Stoney Point & Lighthouse Cove Present Value Analysis

Alternative Capital Cost Net Present Value

1 $21.7 million $29.3 million




A detailed breakdown of the present value analysis is included in Appendix “H”. Results from the net present value analysis indicate that Alternative 4 – provide a new “common area” wastewater treatment plant to service the Comber, Stoney Point and Lighthouse Cove areas is the most economical servicing option.

Accordingly, the preferred alternative to service the Comber, Stoney Point and Lighthouse Cove communities is Alternative 4 as follows:

Construct a new wastewater collection system in the Lighthouse Cove area and convey sewage from the Lighthouse Cove, Comber and Stoney Point areas to a new “common area” treatment facility in the Stoney Point area. (Refer to Figure 9)


October 2008 7.27

7.5.11.2 Rochester Place Area

The Rochester Place service area is generally located between the proposed new “common area” sewage treatment plant in Stoney Point and the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP. As previously indicated in Section 7.4.5, the following wastewater servicing alternatives were established for the Rochester Place service area:

Alternative 1 - Construct a new wastewater collection system discharging sewage to a new wastewater treatment facility dedicated to servicing the Rochester Place service area only.

Alternative 2 - Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Rochester Place to the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via forcemain.

Alternative 3 - Construct a new collection system and convey sewage from Rochester Place to a new “common area” treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain.

The following items are noted with respect to these alternatives:

• The capital and O&M costs associated with Alternative 1 have been based on estimates to construct a new treatment facility to service the projected 20 year population of the Rochester Place service area corresponding to an average daily sewage flow of 1,300 m3/d. This represents the capacity required to service both the existing homes plus projected growth over the next 20 years.

• The capital treatment cost for Alternative 2 has been based on a equal cost share using the estimated unit cost to expand the Belle River-Maidstone WPCP by 4,500 m3/d (or 1.0 MIGD) estimated at $2800 per m3/d.

• Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for Alternative 2 associated with treating sewage from Rochester Place at the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP have been based on an average unit cost of $150 per m3/d. This cost is based on a review of actual historical O&M costs at the Belle River- Maidstone WPCP and projected future costs.

• Servicing costs associated with Alternative 3 have been based on equal cost share to the estimated capital and O&M cost for a “common area” mechanical treatment facility in the Stoney Point area sized to service the Comber, Stoney Point, Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place service areas with a total treatment capacity of approximately 6,040 m3/d.


October 2008 7.28

Table 7.6 summarizes the results from the present value analysis of the servicing alternatives for the Rochester Place service area:

Table 7.7: Present Value Analysis – Rochester Place Area Servicing Alternatives

Alternative Plant Site Capital Cost Net Present Value

1 New Rochester Place STP $8.1 million $13.0 million

2 Belle River / Maidstone WPCP $6.6 million $9.0 million

3 New “Common Area” STP $7.0 million $9.1 million

A detailed breakdown of the present value analysis is included in Appendix “H”.

The results of the present value analysis indicate that both Alternatives 2 and 3 are relatively equal in cost. Accordingly, either of these two alternatives would be economical servicing options for the Rochester Place area. Since Alternative 1 was significantly more costly, it will not be considered further.

Considering that the majority of future growth in the Town of Lakeshore is anticipated to occur in the western urban area of the Town, it would be preferable to convey wastewater from the Rochester Place area easterly to a new “common area” treatment facility in the Stoney Point area thus maintaining the existing and future capacity of the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP to accommodate growth in the western portion of the Town.

Accordingly, the preferred servicing alternative for the Rochester Place area is Alternative 3 as follows:

Construct a new wastewater collection system to service the Rochester Place area and convey sewage to a new “common area” treatment facility in the Stoney Point area. (Refer to Figure 8)

7.5.11.3 Essex Fringe Area

As noted in Section 7.5.7, the following wastewater servicing alternatives have been established for the Essex Fringe service area:

Alternative 1 - Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the Essex Fringe area to an existing sewage treatment facility in the Town of Essex via a new pumping station and forcemain and obtain treatment capacity from the Town of Essex. Two adjacent existing treatment facilities include:

Alternative 1A - Town of Essex North-East Lagoons Sewage Treatment Facility (located within Town of Lakeshore boundary).

Alternative 1B - Town of Essex Pollution Control Plant


October 2008 7.29

Alternative 2 - Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the Essex Fringe study area to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain. Two alternative conceptual routes were considered:

Alternative 2A - via the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands,

Alternative 2B - via the Belle River corridor.

The following items are noted with respect to these servicing alternatives:

• Capital treatment costs for Alternatives 1A and 1B have been based on purchasing sufficient capacity from the Town of Essex to treat the projected average daily sewage flow of 295 m3/d from the Essex Fringe area. The available capacity of the Essex NE Lagoons appears to be sufficient to accommodate the projected flows from the existing Essex north-east service area for the next 40 years as well as the projected flows from the proposed Essex Fringe area.

Similarly, the Essex STP facility also appears to have adequate uncommitted capacity to accommodate growth in the existing service area as well as the projected flows from the Essex Fringe area for the next 20 years. Accordingly, both the Essex NE lagoons or the Essex STP have sufficient capacity and would not need to be expanded to accommodate projected 20 year flows from the Essex Fringe area.

The capital cost associated with the Town of Lakeshore purchasing capacity at one of the existing Essex treatment facilities has been assumed based on the Town of Essex’s 2007 development charge for sewage which is typically charged to each new lot serviced by the sewage works system. The 2007 development charge for sewage in the Town of Essex was approximately $6,220.

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with treating sewage from the Essex Fringe area at one of the nearby Essex treatment facilities has been based on an average unit cost of approximately $170 per m3/d which was established using cost curves that were based on estimates of O&M costs at typical SBR treatment facilities (similar to the Essex PCP) and includes allowances for biosolids management.

It is noted that only very preliminary discussions have been held with the Town of Essex with respect to accepting sewage or establishing sewage treatment costs. The acceptance of sewage by the Town of Essex and actual costs would be subject to a formal agreement between the Town of Lakeshore and the Town of Essex. The actual costs could potentially be higher than the costs assumed as part of this analysis depending on the terms of the agreement.

• Capital treatment costs for Alternatives 2A and 2B have been based on a unit cost of approximately $2800 per m3/d which was established based on an assumed 4,500 m3/d (or 1.0 MIGD) expansion of the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP and proportionally applying the unit cost to the projected 20 year design flow of 295 m3/d from the Essex Fringe area.


October 2008 7.30

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with treating sewage from the Essex Fringe area at the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP have been based on an average unit cost of $150 per m3/d based on a review of historical O&M costs at the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP and projected future costs.

Table 7.8 summarizes the results from the present value analysis of the servicing alternatives for the Essex Fringe area:

Table 7.8: Present Value Analysis- Essex Fringe Area Servicing Alternatives

Alternative Plant Site Capital Cost Net Present Value

1 A Existing Essex NE Lagoons STF $4.0 million $4.7 million

1 B Existing Essex STP $4.6 million $5.3 million

2 A Belle River / Maidstone WPCP (via Belle River Road)

$5.9 million $6.5 million

2 B Belle River / Maidstone WPCP (via Highway 401 Employment Lands)


A detailed breakdown of the present value analysis for the Essex Fringe area is included in Appendix “H”.

The results of the present value analysis indicate that Alternatives No. 1A, 1B and 2B are relatively equal in cost. Accordingly, either of these alternatives would be economical servicing options for the Essex Fringe area. However, Alternative 2A was significantly more costly and will not be considered further.

Considering the relative proximity of the Essex Fringe potential service area to the two existing nearby wastewater treatment facilities owned by the Town of Essex and the uncertainty associated with the timing to develop the Highway 401 Employment Lands, the preferred servicing alternative to service for the Essex Fringe area is Alternative 1A or 1B as follows:

Construct a new wastewater collection system to service the Essex Fringe area and enter into an agreement with the Town of Essex to convey sewage via a new pumping station and forcemain to either the Essex NE Lagoons STF or the Essex STP. (Refer to Figure 9).

Note that providing future sanitary servicing needs of a portion of the Town of Lakeshore by the Town of Essex Sewage Treatment Works may trigger provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act requiring a Municipal Class EA to be undertaken in order to expand the Town of Essex sanitary sewage service area. Also, Section 54(1) of the Ontario water resources Act


October 2008 7.31

indicates that sewage works extended by a municipality into another municipality requires the Environmental Review Tribunal to hold a hearing.

Since the outcome of such a hearing is unknown until such time as the hearing is held, this Master Plan acknowledges the existence, content and potential ramifications of Section 54(1) of the OWRA on any proposal to service a portion of the Town of Lakeshore from the Town of Essex Sewage Treatment Works.

7.5.11.4 Belle River Corridor Area

As noted in Section 7.5.4, six wastewater servicing alternatives have been established for the Belle River Corridor service area based on the most practical combinations of the three identified sewage service areas and three existing wastewater treatment facilities. Table 7.8 summarizes the results from the present value analysis of the servicing alternatives for the Belle River Corridor area:

Table 7.9: Present Value Analysis - Belle River Corridor Servicing Alternatives

Alternative Service Area Plant Site Capital Cost

Net Present Value

1

1. Belle River Road

2. North Woodslee

3. South Woodslee


North Woodslee STP

South Woodslee STP


2

1. Belle River Road & North Woodslee

2. South Woodslee


South Woodslee STP


3 1. Belle River Road &. North Woodslee &. South Woodslee

Belle River / Maidstone WPCP $17.3 million $19.8 million

4 1. Belle River Road &. North Woodslee

2. South Woodslee

North Woodslee STP

South Woodslee STP $16.9 million $21.9 million

5 1. Belle River Road & North Woodslee & South Woodslee

North Woodslee STP $18.6 million $23.6 million

6 1. Belle River Road

2. North Woodslee &. South Woodslee


North Woodslee STP $17.0 million $20.8 million

A detailed breakdown of the present value analysis is included in Appendix “H”.


October 2008 7.32

The results of the present value analysis indicate that Alternative’s 4 and 5 are significantly more costly and accordingly will not be considered further. The remaining Alternatives (No. 1, 2, 3 and 6) are relatively equal in cost with Alternative 3 being the lowest cost alternative.

Accordingly, any one of these four servicing alternatives would be an economical servicing option for the Belle River Corridor area.

Considering the relatively close proximity to the Town’s main wastewater treatment plant and the advantages of consolidating smaller treatment facilities, it would be preferable to convey wastewater from the Belle River Corridor area to the Belle River-Maidstone WPCP.

The following items are also to be considered with respect to the preferred servicing alternative:

• Prior to and throughout the Master Plan Process, proposed development of a residential subdivision (67 lots) has been identified to the Municipality on lands described as Part of Lot 4 and 5, Concession 1 East of Belle River (former Township of Rochester). These lands are located immediately south of the Belle River urban Area and are designated ‘residential’ in the Town of Lakeshore Official Plan and Zoning by-Law.

Subject to further engineering assessment of the affected segment of the Town of Belle River sanitary collection system, there is potential for sewage flows generated by this development and surrounding lands, to be conveyed into the Belle River/Maidstone Service Area. This limited area situated along Belle River Road between County Road 42 and the Belle River Urban Area, has been identified as part of the future Belle River Road Wastewater service Area in the Master Plan. Subject to confirmation of available servicing capacity (i.e. hydraulic capacity within the existing Belle River Sanitary Collection System, conveyance of sewage flows from this localized area north to the Belle River/Maidstone Service Area may become an acceptable alternative solution under the Master Plan, particularly where these lands are designated Residential in the Town of Lakeshore Official Plan.

Accordingly, the preferred alternative to servicing the Belle River Corridor area is Alternative 3 as follows:

Construct a new wastewater collection system to service the Belle River Road Corridor area and convey the combined sewage from the Belle River Road, North Woodslee and South Woodslee areas to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain. (Refer to Figure 10).


October 2008 7.33

7.5.11.5 Highway 401 Employment Lands Area

As established in Section 7.5.8, wastewater servicing alternatives for the future Highway 401 Employment Lands include:

Alternative 1 - Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands to the Belle River-Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain.

Alternative 2 - Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from the proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands to the Tecumseh sewage works system via a new pumping station and forcemain and enter into a servicing agreement with the Town of Tecumseh.

The following items are noted with respect to these alternatives:

• As previously discussed, the economic potential and financial viability of the Highway 401 corridor as well as the specific locations, types of developments and land uses are being evaluated by the Town as part of other concurrent studies.

For the purposes of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, broad assumptions have been made with respect to servicing requirements of the potential Highway 401 employment lands corridor. The evaluation of alternative servicing options have been based on an assumed 20 year development of 120 Hectares and an ultimate development of 440 Hectares corresponding to average daily wastewater flows of approximately 820 m3/d and 3,000 m3/d respectively.

• Alternative No.1 involves conveying sewage from the Highway 401 Employment Lands area to be treated at the BRMWPCP. A conceptual scheme was assumed which involved conveying sewage from the Highway 401 Employment Lands area to the existing Oakwood trunk sanitary sewer to take advantage of unused conveyance capacity in the trunk sewer. As flows increase in the future and capacity is needed in the Oakwood trunk sewer to accommodate growth in the existing service area, sewage flows from the Highway 401 Employment Lands will need to be diverted and conveyed directly to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP likely via forcemain or through a future east-west trunk sewer.

• For Alternative 2, it has been assumed that wastewater from the future Highway 401 Lands would be discharged to the Town of Tecumseh sewage works system. The Town of Tecumseh treats its wastewater at the Little River Pollution Control Plant (LRPCP) located in the City of Windsor.

The Town of Tecumseh was contacted and requested to comment on the possibility of accepting wastewater from the future Highway 401 Employment Lands. The Town of Tecumseh responded that based on their current wastewater servicing agreement with the City of Windsor, it cannot transfer capacity to a third party without first offering to transfer the capacity back to the City of Windsor under similar terms and conditions. If Windsor decided to not accept the transfer option, and Tecumseh was able to provide a suitable outlet to accept sewage from the future Highway


October 2008 7.34

401 Employment Lands, then a three-way agreement would be needed with the Town of Lakeshore, Town of Tecumseh and City of Windsor to make this option feasible.

It is noted that the Town of Tecumseh has recently completed an amendment to its 2002 Water and Wastewater Master Plan establishing the long term water and wastewater infrastructure needs of the Town based on projected growth. Future wastewater flows generated by the Highway 401 Employment Lands proposed within the Town of Lakeshore were not factored into Tecumseh’s long term plans and accordingly it would be reasonable to assume that unreserved capacity would not be available to accept projected sewage flows from Lakeshore. Further, the recently constructed Banwell Road trunk sanitary sewer in the City of Windsor, which is intended to service the annexed lands area in the City of Windsor and accept flows from the Town of Tecumseh, was not designed taking into consideration additional future flows from a potential Employment Lands development in the Town of Lakeshore.

Therefore, for the purposes of evaluating the long term wastewater servicing needs of the Town of Lakeshore, it has been assumed that discharging sewage from the future Highway 401 Employment Lands to the Town of Tecumseh sewage works is not a viable long-term servicing option and therefore will not be considered further.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing discussion, the preferred alternative to provide wastewater service to the future Highway 401 Employment Lands is Alternative 1 as follows:

Construct a new wastewater collection system to service the future Highway 401 Employment Lands area and convey sewage to the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain. (Refer to Figure 10)

7.5.11.6 Belle River / Maidstone Area

Based on the foregoing discussions and recommendations, the preferred wastewater servicing alternative for the Belle River-Maidstone wastewater system is to:

• Expand the existing Belle River / Maidstone WPCP to service the existing sewage service area including the adjacent anticipated growth areas of Wallace Woods, Patillo / Advance and Manning / County Road 22 including extension of the Oakwood Trunk sewer westerly to service existing residences in the Pike Creek area and future flows from the identified growth areas generally in accordance with the preferred solution identified in the 1997 Class EA.

• Expand the Belle River / Maidstone WPCP and sewage service area to accommodate the

proposed Highway 401 Employment Lands, the Belle River Road corridor and the Rochester Place area. (Refer to Figure 10)


October 2008 7.35

7.6 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATING MEASURES

Other than the environmental effects listed in Table 7.1, it is anticipated that the preferred servicing solutions as a group will not have any significant effect on wildlife, vegetation or the habitat characteristics of any particular species.

The main impact on the socio-economic environment is related to the disruption that residents may experience during the course of construction. However, this inconvenience and disruption will only be temporary and should not significantly impact the environment. Table 7.1 provides a summary of potential environmental impacts related to construction of water and wastewater infrastructure and proposed mitigating measures.

With respect to other socio-economic impacts, it is anticipated that the preferred solutions will not have any serious impact on existing land uses, cultural activities, heritage resources or any other community program. In fact, it is anticipated that the preferred solutions will permit ongoing implementation of development and other activities as envisaged in planning documents that have positive impacts on the socio-economic environment.


October 2008 8.1

8.0 PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION

8.1 GENERAL

Consultation early in, and during the planning process is a key feature of a successful environmental assessment. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process identifies mandatory consultation requirements. These are a minimum only and the consultation program should be tailored to address the needs of a specific project and its stakeholders.

The Master Plan Study addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process and provides for a minimum of two points of contact where members of the public have the opportunity to review the project status and submit relevant comments for consideration in the study. These include a discretionary consultation at the beginning of Phase 1 and a mandatory consultation towards the end of Phase 2.

The Class EA / Master Plan process also provides for the involvement in the study by the Ministry of Environment’s various branches as well as other provincial and federal ministries and outside agencies. The list of review agencies varies depending upon the scope of the study and the potential environmental impacts. The list of review agencies and mandatory contacts to be consulted during the Class EA / Master Plan process for this undertaking are listed in Appendix “B”.

8.2 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES

The Town of Lakeshore has made a concerted effort to coordinate the work associated with the Water and Wastewater Master Plan with other concurrent planning initiatives to ensure consistency in the approaches and results.

These initiatives include:

• Population, Household and Employment Forecast Study – A study to update municipal information on projected population and employment growth to help the municipality identify potential growth areas and growth strategies.

• Town Official Plan (including 8 separate Secondary Planning Study Areas) – A consolidation and update of the Town of Lakeshore’s existing 5 separate Official Plans remaining from pre-amalgamation.

• Community Strategic Plan – A study to provide the Town of Lakeshore with a framework defining a community vision and establish goals for the future.

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION

October 2008 8.2

• Community Services Master Plan – A series of studies to include Recreation & Leisure Services, Multi-Use Facility Requirements / Development, Heritage, Arts & Culture, Tourism and Development.

• Economic Development Master Plan – A study to provide the Town of Lakeshore with a framework to carry out the development activities and develop an economic strategy for the community

• Transportation Master Plan – A study following the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process to evaluate the types of transportation services and improvements required to service the Town’s present and future needs.

8.3 PHASE 1 - DISCRETIONARY CONSULTATION

8.3.1 Notice of Study Commencement & Public Information Session 1

To advise the public of the study, a Notice of Study Commencement was prepared and mailed to all residents in the Town of Lakeshore in April 2006. The notice provided background information advising that the study had been initiated and invited interested parties to attend Public Information Session #1. A copy of the Notice is included in Appendix “B”.

Public Information Session 1 was held on April 24, 2006 to present the study scope and provide an opportunity for the public to provide input and submit written comments for consideration in development of the study. Copies of all written comments received and responses sent are included in Appendix “B”.

This information session was held in conjunction with the Official Plan, the Community Strategic Plan, the Economic Development Plan and the Transportation Master Plan.

8.3.2 Public Information Session 2 – Study Update

Public Information Session 2 was held on September 18, 2006 to update the public on the status of the study including development of the various servicing alternatives and to provide an opportunity for further input and submission of comments for consideration.

A copy of the session notice as well as copies of all written comments received is included in Appendix “B”. This information session was also held in conjunction with the Official Plan, the Community Strategic Plan, the Community Services Master Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan.

8.3.3 Town Council Information Session 1 – Study Update

An information session was held with Town Council on March 19, 2007 to update Council on the progress of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan and to provide an opportunity for members


October 2008 8.3

of Council to ask questions and provide feedback on the study. This information session was also held in conjunction with the Transportation Master Plan.

8.3.4 Public Information Session 3 – Study Update

Public Information Session 3 was held on March 29, 2007 to provide an update on the preliminary evaluation of the various servicing alternatives and to provide an opportunity for input and submission of comments for consideration. A copy of the session notice as well as copies of all written comments received is included in Appendix “B”.

This information session was held in conjunction with the Official Plan, the Community Strategic Plan, the Community Services Master Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan.

8.3.5 Town Council Information Session 2 – Presentation of Preliminary Recommendations

This Information Session was conducted on April 8, 2008.

8.3.6 Consultation with Local Municipalities

Town of Tecumseh - January 4, 2007

Letter sent to the Town of Tecumseh to inquire if Tecumseh would be interested in discussing acceptance of sanitary sewage from a potential industrial / business park in the Highway 401 corridor area.

Town of Essex - December 12, 2006

Letter sent to the Town of Essex to inquire if Essex would be agreeable or interested in accepting sanitary sewage from the Essex Fringe study area at one of the two existing sewage treatment facilities in the Essex area.

Public Utilities Commission for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent - July 25, 2007

Meeting with Chatham-Kent P.U.C. to review and discuss sewage servicing alternatives for Lighthouse Cove community.

8.3.7 Consultation with Interested Stakeholders

September 26, 2006 – Meeting with Lighthouse Cove local development group to update Town and Stantec on previous initiatives undertaken by development group regarding sewage servicing options for Lighthouse Cove community.

October 12, 2006 – Meeting with representatives from the Lighthouse Cove local development group and Sco-Tera Consulting to discuss the findings of a preliminary feasibility report commissioned by the developed group outlining potential sewage servicing alternatives for the Lighthouse Cove community.


October 2008 8.4

January 12, 2007 – Meeting with contingency from Stoney Point area regarding sewage treatment capacity at the Stoney Point STF.

April 5, 2007 – Meeting with contingency from Stoney Point area regarding sewage treatment capacity at the Stoney Point STF.

April 24, 2007 – Meeting with Lighthouse Cove local development group to present preliminary sewage servicing alternatives for Lighthouse Cove community.

May 24, 2007 – Meeting with contingency from Stoney Point area regarding sewage treatment capacity at the Stoney Point STF.

July 12, 2007 – Meeting with contingency from Stoney Point area regarding sewage treatment capacity at the Stoney Point STF.

August 1, 2007 – Meeting with Lighthouse Cove local development group to provide an update on the status of sewage servicing for the Lighthouse Cove community and funding initiatives which the Town is pursuing.

October 15, 2007 – Meeting with contingency from Stoney Point area regarding sewage treatment capacity at the Stoney Point STF and to provide an update on the Master Plan, funding initiatives being undertaken and potential interim measures being explored.

8.3.8 Consultation with Review Agencies & Mandatory Contacts

Various review agencies were directly contacted by letter dated April 1, 2006 advising of the commencement of the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study and inviting comment. A copy of the letter and list of review agencies contacted are included in Appendix “B”.

Responses were received from the following review agencies and mandatory contacts:

→ Canadian National Railway

→ Transport Canada – Marine

→ Ministry of National Resources

Copies of all written comments received and their responses where required to mitigate concerns are also contained in Appendix “B”.


October 2008 8.5

8.4 PHASE 2 - MANDATORY CONSULTATION

8.4.1 Public Consultation

In accordance with the requirements of the Class EA process, a Notice was published in 3 Lakeshore area weekly newspapers including the May 7th & 14th, 2008 editions of the Lakeshore News, May 8th & 15th, 2008 editions of the Shoreline and May 7th & 14th, 2008 editions of the Tilbury Times as well as the Town’s website; to advise the public and interested stakeholders of the Master Plan Study and inviting comments with respect to the problem statements and recommended alternative solutions contained in the Draft Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study Report. A copy of the notice and advertisements are included in Appendix “B”.

Notice of a Public Information Center (PIC) was also published in the above newspapers to present the results of the Draft Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study and receive input as well as advise on further steps to be taken in the planning process.

The PIC was held at the Puce Community Centre in Lakeshore on May 22nd, 2008 from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Approximately thirty people, including two elected Lakeshore Officials, four (4) Lakeshore Administrative Staff and three (3) representatives from Stantec Consulting, attended the session. Documentation of the PIC including information handouts, display boards, registry and comment forms are contained in Appendix “B”.

Approximately 10 comment forms were received following the Phase 2 Public Information Centre. In addition, written comments where received by letter from the following:

→ Coco Group of Companies

→ 1614850 Ontario Limited

→ Sco-Terra Consulting Group Ltd.

Copies of all comment forms, letters and inquiries received and their responses where required to mitigate concerns are also contained in Appendix “B”.

In summary, there was general consensus with the problem statements and recommended servicing alternatives outlined in the Master Plan Study.

8.4.2 Consultation with Review Agencies & Mandatory Contacts

In accordance with the requirements of the Class EA, review agencies and mandatory contacts including those representing First Nations were directly contacted by letter date June 25, 2008 and August 18, 2008 (First Nations) inviting comment on the Draft Water & Wastewater Master Plan Study with regards to problem identification and recommended alternative solutions. A copy of this letter and list of review agencies contacted are included in Appendix “B”.


October 2008 8.6

Responses were received from the following review agencies and mandatory contacts:

→ City of Windsor;

→ Canadian Pacific Railway

→ Ministry of Environment EA Branch SW Region

→ Canadian National Railway

→ Town of Tecumseh

→ Transport Canada – Marine

→ Hydro One Networks

Other than the usual request to be kept informed on the progress of the Master Plan, the greatest concerns were from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH).

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the opinion that the population forecasts used in the Lakeshore Master Plan are "overly optimistic" and that the Town will be proceeding at their own risk if they adopt those forecasts. However, since the preferred alternative solutions established in the Master Plan will need to have population projections reevaluated prior to implementation; we are of the opinion that there will be little risk to the Town with proceeding to finalize the Master plan using the current population projections. On that basis, the Master Plan can proceed to the Notice of Completion stage.

Copies of all written comments received and their responses where required to mitigate concerns are also contained in Appendix “B”.

8.5 NOTICE OF COMPLETION

8.5.1 Consultation with Public, Review Agency & Mandatory Contacts

In accordance with the requirements of the Class EA, a Notice of Completion advising of the Water-Wastewater Master Plan Study, implementation strategy, opportunity to review the Master Plan document, public comment and appeal process for changing project status under Part II Order is to be published in local newspapers for the mandatory 30 day review period.

Contact letters advising of the Notice of Completion will also be sent to all review agencies and mandatory contacts who have expressed interest in the study. A copy of the Notice, contact letter and contact list will also be included in Appendix “B”. Copies of all written comments received and their responses (where appropriate to mitigate concerns) will be contained in Appendix “B”.

Subject to any comments received during the review period, and assuming that no Part II order requests are submitted to the Minister of the Environment; the filing of the Master Plan document in the public record marks the conclusion of Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process for the preferred servicing strategies and alternative solutions.


October 2008 9.1

9.0 PREFERRED SERVICING PLAN

9.1 PROJECT SUMMARY

This section outlines the preferred municipal water and wastewater infrastructure works required within the Town of Lakeshore to service the needs of the community over the next 20 years including extending wastewater servicing to several unserviced areas throughout the Town while minimizing the environmental impacts.

Tables 9.1 and 9.2 summarize the identified water and wastewater projects with respect to capital budget estimates (in 2007 dollars), anticipated timing and Class EA Schedule. The budget costs include allowances for contingencies and engineering.

In some cases, the Class EA schedule for a project could potentially vary depending on site specific requirements. For example, typically less complex projects such as new watermains or new sewers constructed within existing road allowances or municipally owned property would be classified as Schedule “A” or “A+” activities.

Otherwise, if the works, or a portion of the works, require the purchase of private property, the same project would be considered a Schedule “B” activity. Therefore, certain proposed projects identified in the following summary are identified with multiple schedules. Accordingly, the Class EA schedule should be reviewed and confirmed at the time when detailed consideration is given to these projects.

It is noted that some projects identified will be dependant on Municipal decisions, further studies and/or financing constraints. Accordingly, the timing identified in the project summary to extend sanitary servicing to currently un-serviced areas has been assumed for the purposes of long-term planning and to gauge the impact on economic implications. The actual timing of such potential projects may change depending on the above factors.

TOWN OF LAKESHORE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY PREFERRED SERVICING PLAN

October 2008 9.2

Table 9.1: Summary of Identified 20-Year Water Supply Projects


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Watermains

300 mm along West Pike Creek Road from County Road 42 to Whisper Creek Cir. $565,000 Completed in 2007 A+

600 mm along West River St. from Caille Ave. to County Road 22. $420,000 Completed in 2007 A+

600 mm along County Road 22 from West River St. to Rourke Line $1,520,000 Completed in 2007 A+

400 mm along County Road 22 from Rourke Line to East Puce River Road $2,720,000 Completed in 2007 A+

250 mm along South St. from Saint Charles St. to Desjardins St. $200,000 Completed in 2007 A+

400 mm along First St. from Broadway St. to Notre Dame St. $290,000 Completed in 2007 A+

600 mm along Lakeview Ave. from Belle River WTP to West River St. (new crossing of Belle River)

$750,000 2008 A+

400 mm along Little Baseline Road from existing 500-mm to Stonebrook St. $500,000 2010 A+

400 mm crossing of Pike Creek along Little Baseline Road $350,000 2010 A+

600 mm from West Puce River Road to Patillo Road (through Wallace Woods growth area) $1,470,000 2010 A+

600 mm along Rourke Line from County Road 22 to future Tower site $680,000 2011 A+

600 mm feedermain to 401 Employment Lands $3,100,000 2012 A+

600 mm crossing of Puce River along County Road 22 $460,000 2013 A+


October 2008 9.3


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

BELLE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM (Watermains cont’d)

600 mm along West Puce River Road from County Road 22 southerly to existing 600-mm river crossing.

$500,000 2014 A+

400 mm along Renaud Line from County Road 22 to St. Clair Ave. $350,000 2015 A+

300 mm along Little Baseline Road from West Pike Creek Road westerly to existing 150-mm watermain.

$550,000 2016 A+

150 mm along 13-14 Sideroad from 9th Conc. Road to 10th Conc. Road $190,000 2016 A+

400 mm along County Road 22 from West Puce River Road to Patillo Road $1,780,000 2016 A+

400 mm along County Rd. 22 (Belle River crossing) from First St. to West River St. $260,000 2017 A+

250 mm along Notre Dame St. from Ducharme St. to Saint Peter St. $250,000 2017 A+

400 mm along Rourke Line from County Road 22 to Caille Ave. $400,000 2017 A+

Storage Facilities

New 1.25 MIG elevated water storage tank to replace existing Belle River Tower $4,500,000 2011 B

New 1.25 MIG elevated water storage tank to replace existing Maidstone tower $4,500,000 2013 B


October 2008 9.4


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

STONEY POINT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Watermains

300 mm along St. Clair Ave. from Comber Sideroad approx. 700m easterly $313,000 Completed in 2007 A+

300 mm along Saint Clair Ave. from Saint Peter St. westerly approx. 700m $319,000 2008 A+

200 mm along Gracie Sideroad from Couture Beach Road to 2nd Conc. Road $350,000 2009 A+

150 mm along County Road 2 (Tecumseh Road) from Gracie Sideroad to existing 50-mm watermain

$115,000 2009 A+

300 mm from Couture Beach Road to Martin Drive (connection to Lighthouse Cove) $625,000 2009 A+ / B

300 mm along Comber Sideroad from St. Clair Ave. to Tecumseh Road $320,000 2010 A+

100 mm connections along 3rd Concession Road, County Road 37 and 5th Concession Road (includes two crossings of Highway 401).

$770,000 2013 A+

100 mm connections along Rochester Townline Road generally between County Road 2 and 5th Concession Road

$450,000 2013 A+

300 mm along County Road 35 from Tecumseh Road to Highway 401 $2,600,000 2017 A+

Storage Facilities

New 0.7 MIG elevated water storage tank $2,500,000 2010 B

Treatment

1.0 MIGD expansion of Stoney Point WTP $3,500,000 2011 C


October 2008 9.5

Table 9.2: Summary of Identified 20-Year Wastewater Projects


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

BELLE RIVER / MAIDSTONE WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Treatment

Expand Belle River / Maidstone WPCP to 4.0 MIGD $12,800,000 2022 C

Conveyance

Oakwood trunk sewer extension from Puce River to Pike Creek area. $8,500,000 2010 A+

Belle River Road corridor - sewer system including trunk sewer, pumping station and forcemain to BRMWPCP.

$9,000,000* 2015 A+

401 Employment Lands – pumping station and forcemain to Belle River / Maidstone collection system

$3,900,000 2010 A+

Local Collection

New gravity sewer collection system to service Belle River Road Corridor * Included in conveyance

2015 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service North Woodslee area $4,700,000 2015 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service South Woodslee area $1,200,000 2015 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service Pike Creek Area $3,900,000 2010 A+

New gravity sewer collection system to service 401 Employment Lands $2,800,000 2010 A+


October 2008 9.6


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

STONEY POINT WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Treatment

Upgrade and expand Stoney Point Wastewater Treatment Facility to 5,990 m3/d $12,530,000 2010 C

Conveyance

Pumping station and forcemain from Stoney Point service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$200,000 2010 A+ / C

Pumping station and forcemain from Comber service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$3,500,000 2010 A+ / C

Pumping station and forcemain from Lighthouse Cove service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$1,800,000 2010 A+ / C

Pumping station and forcemain from Rochester Place service area to expanded treatment facility in Stoney Point

$2,500,000 2010 A+ / C

Local Collection

New gravity sewer collection system to service Lighthouse Cove area $24,000,000 2010 A+ / C

New gravity sewer collection system to service Rochester Place area $16,000,000 2010 A+ / C


October 2008 9.7


YEAR REQUIRED

CLASS EA SCHEDULE

ESSEX FRINGE SERVICE AREA

Treatment

Acquire treatment capacity at existing Town of Essex wastewater treatment facility. $1,400,000 2017 N/A

Conveyance

Pumping station and forcemain from Essex Fringe service area to Town of Essex treatment facility.

$2,600,000 2017 A+ / C

Local Collection

New gravity sewer collection system to service Essex Fringe area $2,600,000 2017 A+ / C


October 2008 9.8

9.2 WATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDY

Based on the recommendations established in this Water and Wastewater Master Plan, a separate report entitled “Town of Lakeshore – Financial Impact of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan on Consumer Rates (March 24, 2008)” was prepared for the Town of Lakeshore by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the financial aspects of the recommended servicing alternatives and identify the impact on water and sewer rates in the Town of Lakeshore. A copy of the report is included in Appendix “J”. The following tables summarize the calculated water and wastewater rates identified in the Rate Study based on the current rate structures over a 10 year period:

Table 9.3: Water Rate Summary

Description 2007

Passed 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50


12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.83 0.92 1.40 1.41 1.46 1.63 1.67 1.77 1.78 1.78 1.82


501.50 524.25 500.27 502.94 514.55 557.29 580.70 604.84 606.66 606.88 616.20

*Average annual residential bill based on 250m3

Table 9.4: Wastewater Rate Summary

Description 2007

Passed 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38


375.00 401.03 425.03 449.99 475.93 495.01 507.02 507.01 507.01 507.00 506.96



October 2008 9.9

Possible alternative rate structures were evaluated and identified in the Rate Review. The alternatives involved maintaining the current special capital levy for water and establishing a new levy for wastewater.

9.3 NEXT STEPS

To complete the Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study process, the following activities will need to be undertaken:

• Advertise a “Notice of Completion” and place the Master Plan report on the public record for the required 30-day review period.

• Upon completion of the 30-day review period and assuming no Part II Order requests are submitted to the Minister of Environment, the Master Plan report can be adopted by Lakeshore Council in the form of a Council Resolution.

Projects which have been identified in the Master Plan as Schedule “A” or “A+” projects will not require further planning under the Class EA process and may proceed to the Phase 5 with final design and construction.

Projects which have been identified in the Master Plan as Schedule B projects may also be considered to be approved under the Class EA process and the Town of Lakeshore may proceed to Phase 5 with final design and construction. However, some of the identified Schedule B projects may require further planning or detailed investigations at the time of implementation to minimize environmental impacts and/or any changes to socio-economic conditions.

For projects identified which involve the purchase of land, additional studies may be required. The nature and extent of these studies will vary with each project and may be required to establish the suitability of the site, to assist with the preparation of detailed estimates or for final design information purposes.

Projects which have been identified in the Master Plan as Schedule C projects (which typically include more complex projects such as expansions to existing treatment plants or construction of new treatment plants) will require the Town to complete Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA planning and design process including further public and review agency consultation; and preparation of an Environmental Study Report before proceeding to Phase 5 with final design and construction.


October 2008 9.10

9.4 MONITORING

The scheduling of planned projects is related to the anticipated growth in demand for water and sewer services.

Accordingly, the Town should closely monitor actual growth, water demand and wastewater flows and adjust the scheduling and implementation of associated infrastructure projects as needed.

Specifically, the following actions are recommended:

1. Monitor actual water plant production records, wastewater treatment plant flows, and development growth annually and compare to Master Plan projections.

2. Establish and annually track the uncommitted reserve capacity of the Town’s existing water and

wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with MOE Guideline D-5-1 - Calculating and Reporting Uncommitted Reserve Capacity at Sewage and Water Treatment Plants, March 1995.

3. Collect water distribution system and wastewater collection system component attribute data on new

installations as they are constructed and update the Town’s G.I.S. database accordingly. 4. Implement a watermain and sewer rehabilitation / replacement program including water use and

inflow & infiltration reduction measures and review priorities based on data collected and results of studies.

5. The Town of Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan should be reviewed annually and

updated every five (5) years to ensure changing local conditions, new problems and system improvements which have been implemented are considered in the long-term planning for water and wastewater infrastructure.

Documents

Town of Lakeshore Water & Wastewater Master Planlakeshore.ca/media/files/Lakeshore Water and Wastewater Master Plan... · town of lakeshore water and wastewater master plan study