February 27, 2013 - City of Guelph · rationale for the project and also ... Brock Public School on...

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL

Schedule B Project File

February 27, 2013

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL

rmc w:\active\161111111_guelph_burke_stn\preliminary\report\rpt_class_ea_project_file_final_130128.docx E.1

Executive Summary

The City of Guelph is undertaking a Schedule B - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the purposes of evaluating alternatives to 1) resolve aesthetic water quality issues associated with manganese and iron; 2) increase booster pumping capacity to meet future water supply needs; and 3) provide additional storage.

The Burke well is a groundwater source. Water from the Burke well is near the Ontario Drinking Water Standard (ODWS) non-health related aesthetic objectives (AO) for manganese. Levels of iron have consistently been below the ODWS AO. Iron and manganese found in the Burke well are naturally occurring but their presence can cause staining and discolouration of water. The Burke well has an existing permit to take water of 6,546 m3/day (PTTW #6776-6QJQCX), and this Class EA will not result in increasing the water taking above the existing permit.

Evaluation criteria was created in accordance with the Class EA guidelines and included the Quality Objective, Quantity Objective, Natural Environment, Social Environment, Cultural Environment, Technical Performance, Cost and Schedule.

Three different types of alternatives were evaluated under the categories of Water Quality, Treatment Location and Water Quantity. The highest ranked alternatives were as follows:

Water Quality Alternative Option C: Treatment for Removal of Iron and Manganese Treatment Location Alternative Option C: Onsite Treatment Water Quantity Alternative Option B: Increased Reservoir Size and Booster Pumping

The main comments received during the Class EA project originated from a resident of a neighbouring property concerned about noise, vibration, drainage, appearance and chemical use during construction and long term use of the new facility. Mitigation measures and design considerations for these items were discussed with the resident and details of the correspondence can be found in the appendix.

The proposed implementation plan is as follows:

2013 Completion of Class EA 2013 Complete preliminary design and pre-selection of major treatment equipment 2013/2014 Complete final design and submit applications for approvals and permits 2014/2015 Tendering and Construction

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Introduction February 27, 2013

rmc w:\active\161111111_guelph_burke_stn\preliminary\report\rpt_class_ea_project_file_final_130128.docx i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 PROJECT RATIONALE AND PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................... 1.1 1.2 CLASS EA PROCESS ...................................................................................................... 1.1 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT................................................................................................... 1.4

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2.1 2.1 WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 WATER QUANTITY .......................................................................................................... 2.4 2.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 2.7

2.3.1 Background Data and Designated Environmental Features ............................... 2.7 2.3.2 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................... 2.7

2.4 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 2.9 2.4.1 Archaeological .................................................................................................... 2.9 2.4.2 Heritage ........................................................................................................... 2.10

2.5 GEOTECHNICAL ............................................................................................................ 2.10

3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................................ 3.1 3.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ......................................................................... 3.1

3.1.1 Quality Objective ................................................................................................ 3.1 3.1.2 Quantity Objective .............................................................................................. 3.1 3.1.3 Natural Environment ........................................................................................... 3.1 3.1.4 Social Environment ............................................................................................ 3.2 3.1.5 Cultural Environment .......................................................................................... 3.2 3.1.6 Technical Performance....................................................................................... 3.2 3.1.7 Cost .................................................................................................................... 3.2 3.1.8 Schedule ............................................................................................................ 3.2

4.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND EVALUATION SUMMARY ........................................ 4.1 4.1 WATER QUALITY ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 4.1

4.1.1 Option A - Do Nothing ........................................................................................ 4.1 4.1.2 Option B - Stabilization of Iron and Manganese Metals ...................................... 4.1 4.1.3 Option C - Treatment for Removal of Iron and Manganese ................................ 4.4 4.1.4 Evaluation of Water Quality Alternatives ............................................................. 4.4

4.2 TREATMENT LOCATION ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 4.6 4.2.1 Option A - Treatment at Carter ........................................................................... 4.6 4.2.2 Option B - Treatment at Clair Tower ................................................................... 4.6 4.2.3 Option C - Onsite Treatment .............................................................................. 4.6 4.2.4 Evaluation of Treatment Location Alternatives .................................................... 4.8

4.3 WATER QUANTITY ALTERNATIVES............................................................................... 4.8 4.3.1 Option A - Do Nothing ........................................................................................ 4.8 4.3.2 Option B - Increased Reservoir Size and Booster Pumping ................................ 4.8 4.3.3 Evaluation of Water Quantity Alternatives ........................................................ 4.11


rmc w:\active\161111111_guelph_burke_stn\preliminary\report\rpt_class_ea_project_file_final_130128.docx ii

5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 5.1 5.1 NATURAL HERITAGE ...................................................................................................... 5.1

5.1.1 Tree Compensation ............................................................................................ 5.3 5.1.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 5.3 5.1.3 Agency Approvals .............................................................................................. 5.5

5.2 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 5.5 5.3 VIBRATION....................................................................................................................... 5.5 5.4 DRAINAGE ....................................................................................................................... 5.5

6.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................ 6.1 6.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................ 6.1 6.2 NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................... 6.1

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 7.1

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Public Information Center Appendix B: Correspondence Appendix C: Burke Well Test Appendix D: Ecological Land Classification Appendix E: Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Appendix F: Geotechnical Study

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Project Location.................................................................................................. 1.2 Figure 1-2: Class EA Process ............................................................................................... 1.3 Figure 2-1: Water Quality Iron ........................................................................................... 2.2 Figure 2-2: Water Quality Manganese ............................................................................... 2.3 Figure 2-3: Fall 2012 Watermain Cleaning Program near Burke Water Station .................... 2.5 Figure 2-4: Historical Pumping and Water Level Data .......................................................... 2.6 Figure 2-5: Natural Environment ........................................................................................... 2.8 Figure 2-6: Archaeological Investigation ............................................................................. 2.11 Figure 4-1: Water Quality Alternatives .................................................................................. 4.3 Figure 4-2: Evaluation of Treatment Location Alternatives .................................................... 4.7 Figure 4-3: Water Quantity Alternatives .............................................................................. 4.10 Figure 5-1: Preliminary Conceptual Image of a Future Treatment Building ........................... 5.2


rmc w:\active\161111111_guelph_burke_stn\preliminary\report\rpt_class_ea_project_file_final_130128.docx iii

List of Tables

Table 4-1: Raw and Filtration Treated Water Characteristics ............................................... 4.4 Table 4-2: Evaluation of Water Quality Alternatives ............................................................. 4.5 Table 4-3: Evaluation of Treatment Location Alternatives .................................................... 4.9 Table 4-4: Evaluation of Water Quantity Alternatives ........................................................ 4.12 Table 5-1: Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.4 Table 6-1: Proposed Implementation Plan ........................................................................... 6.1


rmc w:\active\161111111_guelph_burke_stn\preliminary\report\rpt_class_ea_project_file_final_130128.docx 1.1

1.0 Introduction

The City of Guelph (City) is responsible for supplying and distributing drinking water within its boundaries. The City owns and operates a number of groundwater supply wells, reservoirs and pumping stations, including the Burke Well and Pumping Station (herein referred to as the Burke Water Station) located at 164 Arkell Road. The location of the Burke Water Station and neighbouring property which is owned by the City is shown in Figure 1-1.

The Burke Water Station currently consists of one production well, onsite chlorination for disinfection, a storage reservoir and a pumping station.

1.1 PROJECT RATIONALE AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

The objective of this project is to:

Resolve aesthetic water quality issues associated with manganese and iron; Increase booster pumping capacity to meet future water supply needs; and Provide additional storage.

Each year the City has received discoloured water complaints which they are able to mitigate through a regular watermain cleaning program. The use of the existing reservoir and booster pump are also limited and the City would like to improve the overall operational flexibility, system redundancy and increase capacity. Significant growth has also occurred in the south side of Guelph and it is desirable to have the flexibility to potentially accommodate water from other municipal wells in the area at the Burke Station, in the future.

1.2 CLASS EA PROCESS

This project is being completed in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process. The Class EA process, which is presented in Figure 1-2, has the following phases:

Phase 1: Problem identification and justification for the undertaking

Phase 2: Identification of alternative solutions and methods to resolve the problem

Phase 3: Identification of alternative methods to implement the preferred solution, with consideration given to environmental effects and methods of mitigation

Phase 4: Preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) which documents the rationale for the project and also the study process



Phase 5: Monitor during the construction phase to ensure adherence to environmental provisions and provide specifications with regard to the concerns raised during the planning and design process

The Class EA process provides for four levels of evaluation: Schedule A, Schedule A+, Schedule B, and Schedule C. Schedule A projects are considered exempt from the Class EA process, while Schedule A+ projects are pre-approved but the public must be advised prior to project implementation. Schedule B projects are approved subject to agency screening after completion of Phases 1 and 2, and making the public file available for at least 30 days. Schedule C projects require the completion of all five phases of the Class EA, including the filing of an ESR documenting the findings. This project is being completed as a Schedule B.

1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

One Public Information Center (PIC) was held, as required for a Schedule B project, under the Class EA process. The PIC was held at Sir Isaak Brock Public School on November 7, 2012. Advertisement of the PIC was placed in the Guelph Tribune (October 18th and 25th) and on the Citys website. Notifications were mailed directly to the agency and resident contact lists provided in Appendix A. The meeting was an informal session with fourteen (14) display boards provided to present the background information, evaluation of alternatives and present the preferred alternative. A summary handout was provided together with a comment sheet. A total of four (4) people signed the register and comments were returned. Copies of the Notice Commencement and PIC 1 are provided in Appendix A. Copies of the PIC boards and comments received at the PIC are provided in Appendix B.

The main comments received during the Class EA project originated from a resident of a neighbouring property concerned about noise, vibration, drainage, appearance and chemical use during construction and long term use of the new facility. Mitigation measures and design considerations for these items were discussed with the resident and details of the correspondence can be found in the appendix. Descriptions of these mitigation measures are also discussed under Section 5 of this report.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Background February 27, 2013


2.0 Background

The Burke Water Station is located in South East Guelph. The property at 164 Arkell Road has been used as a water supply station since the 1970s. The property directly to the east of 164 Arkell Road is a former residential property with the address of 176 Arkell Road. The City of Guelph purchased 176 Arkell Road in 2012 and the residential structure was removed in the spring of 2012.

2.1 WATER QUALITY

The Burke Well is a groundwater source which produces high quality water. The well is operated under full compliance with the Ontario Ministry of Environment regulations and standards. The Burke Water Station is able to meet all Ontario Drinking Water Standard (ODWS) health based standards.

Under the ODWS there are aesthetic objectives (AO) which do not directly affect the safety of a water supply but may cause aesthetically objectionable effects such as taste, colour and odour (Ministry of Environment, 2006). Pleasing aesthetic qualities are important as they help promote consumer confidence in the drinking water.

Historically, raw and potable water from the Burke Water Station has shown iron levels well below the ODWS AO. The ODWS AO for Iron is 0.3 mg/L and Figure 2-1 shows the iron concentration over the past eight years. The majority of samples showed raw water iron concentrations below the most recent lower laboratory detection limit of 0.1 mg/L. The highest iron concentration detected in the past eight years was 0.26 mg/L in the raw water.

Manganese levels near or above the ODWS AO of 0.05 mg/L have been detected as shown in Figure 2-2. The average raw water manganese concentration was 0.044 mg/L and the average treated water manganese concentration was 0.048 mg/L. The highest manganese concentration detected in the past eight years was 0.054 mg/L in the treated water.

Iron and manganese found in the Burke Well are naturally occurring. Both of these metallic elements are commonly found in water and are essential elements required in small amounts for all living organisms. Water with concentrations of iron or manganese above the ODWS AO may cause staining of plumbing fixtures or laundry. Manganese solids may form deposits within pipes and break off as black particles that give water an unpleasant appearance and taste (BC MOE, 2007). Iron produces rust flakes and taste in water. Iron may also collect and block pipes or fixtures. Both of these metallic elements can also increase the growth of unwanted bacteria that form a slimy coating in water pipes.



Even though iron is normally found at concentrations lower than the aesthetic objective, potential treatment to remove or stabilize manganese will also lower iron concentrations. For this reason, both of these metallic elements have been considered throughout the Class EA process. Currently the city uses a watermain cleaning program to reduce the likelihood of discoloured water events. The cleaning program consists of a combination of watermain swabbing and flushing to remove accumulated sediment from the watermain piping. Watermain cleaning is usually accomplished in the spring and fall. Figure 2-3 shows the Citys 2012 fall watermain cleaning schedule for areas that may be impacted by the Burke Water Station.

2.2 WATER QUANTITY

The maximum permitted pumping rate from the Burke Well is 76 litres per second (lps) as defined by the Permit to Take Water (PTTW). Analysis of the water level and observed pumping rate at Burke over time is shown in Figure 2-4. In 2012, Lotowater was hired to perform a video inspection, complete a performance test, and estimate the well production. Lotowater found that the well specific capacity has declined 15% compared to the test data in 1998. It was recommended to schedule the well for rehabilitation to recover the lost capacity before it experiences additional declines. It has been Lotowaters experience that if the specific capacity declines more than 20% before rehabilitation the probability of recovering the lost performance decreases. Additional information from Lotowaters investigation can be found in appendix C.

A PTTW rate increase is not being considered under this project. This project will rely on the existing permitted capacity. It is within the scope of this project to evaluate the potential for reservoir and booster pumping upgrades to supply the distribution system.

The Guelph distribution system consists of two pressure zones; Zone 1 which services the majority of Guelph including the downtown core and areas to the south, and Zone 2 services the northeast and northwest sides of Guelph.

Zone 1 is primarily supplied through F.M. Woods Pumping Station (PS) (70% of supply) with supplemental supply from Membro, Downey, Park, Emma, Water Street, Burke, Dean, Queensdale and University wells. In 2012 Stantec provided a report titled City of Guelph Zone 1 Facility Upgrades which was based on hydraulic model analysis of the Citys water supply and distribution infrastructure (herein referred to as Zone 1 Report). The report found that Clair Tower in south Guelph was currently unable to maintain its optimum hydraulic grade line (HGL) in periods of high demand due to the far proximity to F.M Woods PS, and inability of the distribution system to transfer adequate water supply to the south. Optimum operation of Clair Tower is critical to the optimal performance of the Citys water distribution system.

The Burke Water Station is located closer to the south end of Guelph. Hydraulic model analysis demonstrates that Clair tower is better able to maintain its HGL and recover faster when the Burke Water station is available.



2.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.3.1 Background Data and Designated Environmental Features

A variety of background documents and sources of information were consulted to evaluate the natural environment for this study area. While site specific field studies are required to accurately delineate the extent of natural heritage features and natural hazards, the Schedules associated with the City of Guelph Official Plan (OPA 42, July 2010), background data search of the National Heritage Information Center (NHIC) (MNR, 2012) and GRCAs regulation mapping provide an overview of the environmental features that are within the study area.

Schedule 10 of the City of Guelph, Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 42 identifies Significant Natural Areas within the study area including:

Provincially Significant Wetland (Schedule 10A);

Significant Woodland (Schedule 10C);

Potential for Significant Wildlife Habitat (Schedule 10E);

Deer Wintering Area (Schedule 10E);

City of Guelph Recommended Natural Heritage System.

According to GRCA mapping, the Provincially Significant Wetland is identified within the study area as being within the Regulation Limit of the GRCAs Regulation (Ontario Regulation 150/06).

An NHIC Search was conducted for the study area and outlying habitat. No flora or fauna species of conservation concern were listed as potentially occurring within the study area (Element Occurrence A-D). A summary of the natural environment information found during the investigation is shown in Figure 2-5.

2.3.2 Vegetation Communities

On August 10, 2012, Stantec completed an Ecological Land Classification (ELC) of vegetation communities and floristic survey of lands in and around the project development boundary of 164 and 176 Arkell Road. Details of this ELC are provided in Appendix D and results are shown in Figure 2-5.

At the onset of the project, the project team decided that in accordance with City policies development on the woodlot was not required or a desirable alternative. Therefore, the project development boundary was reduced to the area shown on Figure 1-1.



The project development boundary encompassed two small urban lots one with the Burke Station and the other a vacant, recently cleared lot. A large woodland community abuts the property to the west, and a residential lot to the east. No natural vegetation communities were present within the project development boundary as one lot consisted primarily of exposed topsoil, and the other consisted of mowed lawn.

The large woodland community was assessed from the project development boundary, and classified as a Fresh-Moist Ash Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7-2). This community is not considered rare in the province.

No wetland communities were observed within the project development boundary. The adjacent woodland (FOD7-2) was assessed remotely for its potential to be included as wetland habitat based on the protocols of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES). Based on the species observed, this is a transitional community that separates the upland study area from the wetland as mapped by GRCA. All species observed in this community are facultative species, indicating that they can occur in both upland and wetland conditions; no obligate wetland species were observed. In the absence of soil moisture data, not obtainable due to property access issues, it was determined that the assessed edge of this community was not a wetland under OWES guidelines but instead a lowland forest.

A total of 57 species of vascular plants were recorded from the study area. Of these species, 65% are considered exotic, most of which commonly occur in anthropogenic habitat. All of the native species are ranked S4 or S5 (Secure in Ontario). None of the species observed had a CC of 9 or 10. No nationally or provincially rare, threatened or endangered species were observed during the site investigation.

2.4 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

The Municipal Class EA act defines the cultural environment as cultural heritage and archaeological resources in the environment. Components of this category include archeological resources, areas of archaeological potential, built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscape, and cultural heritage resources.

2.4.1 Archaeological

Stage 1 and 2 archeological assessments were completed for the project area in the summer of 2012. Results of this assessment can be found in Appendix E and a summary of the assessment is provided below.



The Stage 1 assessment of the study area was conducted in July 2012. The results of this assessment, which included a property inspection, indicated that the study area comprised a mixture of areas of archeological potential and areas of no archeological potential (Figure 2-6). Although several features of archeological potential were identified in this locality, including one secondary water source (the Torrence Creek Swamp) and one historically-surveyed roadway (Arkell Road), large parts of the project lands were clearly disturbed as a result of past construction activities. Based on these findings, it was recommended that all areas of archaeological potential within the study area be subject to a Stage 2 property assessment.

In accordance with this recommendation, the Stage 2 property assessment was conducted on all areas of archaeological potential within the study area. The assessment was carried out in August 2012. This assessment, completed under optimal conditions, did not result in the discovery of any archaeological material.

Based on the findings, it is recommended that no further archaeological assessments are required within the project lands for the Burke Water Station.

2.4.2 Heritage

Heritage Guelph and the City Planning and Building Services maintain an Inventory of Heritage Structures containing over 2,000 structures of heritage interest (City of Guelph, 2012). The well station at 164 Arkell Road does not appear on the list of designated buildings or list of designations currently underway on the City website.

The landscape of the project study area does not have any significant features that would be considered as part of the cultural heritage landscape or a cultural heritage resource. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Watershed Viewer mapping was accessed and no heritage features or historic plaques were found in the study area.

2.5 GEOTECHNICAL

A geotechnical investigation was completed by LVM at 164 and 176 Arkell Road in Guelph in the Summer and Fall of 2012. The field program consisted of drilling four boreholes advanced to depths ranging between 8.1 and 8.2m. It was found that the predominant soils at site will be classified as Type 3 soils, and temporary side slopes must be cut at an inclination of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or less from the base of excavation. Where saturated deposits are exposed in the trench sides, the sidewalls will have to be sloped back to 3 horizontal to 1 vertical to ensure stability. Dewatering will be required during construction and a Permit to Take Water will be obtained from the Ministry of Environment.

The new clearwell structure is also anticipated to be extended below the stabilized groundwater table and the lowest slab level must be designed to resist uplift due to hydrostatic pressures. Details of the geotechnical investigation can be found in Appendix F.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Evaluation Process February 27, 2013


3.0 Evaluation Process

Through discussions with the project team it was determined that the Class EA should evaluate alternative solutions for addressing water quality and if new treatment equipment was required the Class EA should also evaluate the location of this equipment.

As required under the Class EA process, a comprehensive evaluation was undertaken for potential alternatives. Initially, all potential alternatives were identified and the ability of these alternatives to address the quality criteria established under the ODWS AO was evaluated. Alternatives were then evaluated based on potential impacts on the natural, social, cultural, technical, cost, and schedule requirements.

The purpose of the evaluation was to provide a relative comparison to each alternative by assigning quarter circles and then summing the number of quarter circles with the highest total being the preferred alternative. Each criterion is weighted equally based on the legend with a poor rating having zero quarters and a good rating having four quarters.

3.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1.1 Quality Objective

The ability of the alternative to meet the aesthetic water quality for iron and manganese identified under the ODWS AO.

3.1.2 Quantity Objective

The quantity objective is the ability of the alternative to maintain a consistent hydraulic grade line (HGL) in pressure zone 1. Under this objective it is evaluated if the target HGL can be obtained under all likely operational conditions including diurnal water usage, maximum day, peak hour, and minimum day. Features that make an alternative be able to maintain a consistent HGL include the presence of redundant water distribution pumps, increased water storage capacity, increased distribution pump capacity, and ability to modulate the flow rate to the distribution system.

3.1.3 Natural Environment

These criteria evaluate the potential on natural resources including the terrestrial and aquatic habitat surrounding the proposed construction. Distinction is made between permanent impacts due to loss of habitat by ongoing operations or temporary impacts during the construction period.

Potential direct impacts of the proposed expansion on woodland and wetland features could include removal of a portion of the woodland and vegetation and loss of habitat.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Evaluation Process February 27, 2013


Potential indirect impacts resulting from construction activities, such as dust generation, sedimentation and erosion are expected to be short term, temporary in duration and may be mitigated for through the use of standard site control measures. During operation there is some potential for spills and contamination to the natural features which should also be mitigated through the design process.

3.1.4 Social Environment

This criterion looks at the impact of the proposed construction and operation of the facility on the surrounding residents and the public at large. Property acquisition is identified as a social impact together with aesthetic issues of facility appearance, noise, or odours. Traffic impacts either during construction or operation are considered as social issues.

3.1.5 Cultural Environment

This criterion looks at the impact on cultural heritage and archeological resources in the environment.

3.1.6 Technical Performance

Under these criteria, the evaluation considers how well the facility will meet the project objectives of water quality. This includes ease of operations, reliability of equipment and processes, and flexibility to meet variation in demand or future water quality. It also includes the ability to minimize water loss through regeneration of processes (backwashing) or flushing of watermains. This item also evaluates the ability to potentially accommodate water from other municipal wells in the future.

3.1.7 Cost

Under these criteria, the evaluation considers the capital and operational costs of the alternative. It should be emphasized that this is conceptual only and meant as a relative measure to judge the various options.

3.1.8 Schedule

Under these criteria, the timing for implementation, timeline for approval requirements, and staging opportunities are considered.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Alternative Solutions and Evaluation Summary February 27, 2013


4.0 Alternative Solutions and Evaluation Summary

Alternative solutions were first generated for water quality alternatives. The project team decided that if additional equipment was required to meet the water quality objective; the location of this equipment should be evaluated. The water quantity objective was also evaluated.

4.1 WATER QUALITY ALTERNATIVES

The water quality alternatives are shown in Figure 4-1.

4.1.1 Option A - Do Nothing

Under this option no additional upgrades will be implemented. The City will continue using a watermain cleaning program to mitigate water complaints from residence and prevent buildup of iron and manganese on the pipe walls, reservoirs and storage tanks. The cleaning program requires City Operational staff to work night shifts to perform flushing and swabbing during non-peak water use hours. The water cleaning program also requires large quantities of water to be wasted.

Under this alternative, it is expected that the City would continue to receive complaints from the public regarding water colour in South Guelph. Iron and manganese originating from the Burke Water Station is anticipated to be the main cause of these complaints. Consumer confidence in the drinking water supply decreases when consumers find the water to have unpleasant aesthetic qualities.

A 2012 inspection of Clair Tower has found significant buildup from manganese on the walls of the tower since it was previously cleaned in 2009. The inspection recommends taking the tower offline for cleaning. If the do nothing alternative is selected, it is anticipated that cleaning of Clair Tower will need to occur every 3 years. Maintaining a consistent pressure zone in South Guelph is more challenging for Operations when Clair Tower is offline, and it is desirable to minimize its downtime.

4.1.2 Option B - Stabilization of Iron and Manganese Metals

Stabilizing (sequestration) chemicals can be added to the raw water to form colourless compounds with the metals of iron and manganese and decrease the development of insoluble precipitates. Stabilizing agents require some contact time with the raw water before sodium hypochlorite can be added for disinfection.

Under this option the exiting Burke Water Station would need to be upgraded to include chemical storage and pumping facilities for the sequestering agent and additional water storage



to ensure sufficient time is provided between dosing the stabilizing chemical and adding sodium hypochlorite.

This option is anticipated to reduce taste, and colour associated with the drinking water. It may also reduce the watermain cleaning requirements and possibly the cleaning frequency of Clair Tower.



4.1.3 Option C - Treatment for Removal of Iron and Manganese

The typical types of treatment equipment used for removal of iron and manganese include biofilters, ion exchange, and filtration. If this alternative was selected it would be determined during the design phase of the project which specific type of treatment to use.

A preliminary study conducted in 2008 evaluated the use of filtration using sodium hypochlorite for oxidation at the Burke Water Station. Results of this study are summarized in the table below:

Table 4-1: Raw and Filtration Treated Water Characteristics

Parameter Raw Water Treated Water Total Iron (mg/L) Not Detected - 0.053 Not Detected

Total Manganese (mg/L) 0.044 0.051 Not Detected 0.004

Colour 0-5 Not Detected

This option is anticipated to greatly reduce taste and colour associated with the drinking water and is the only option that removes iron and manganese from the drinking water. It will also provide the greatest reduction in watermain cleaning requirements and cleaning frequency of Clair Tower.

However, this option is likely to generate some water loss due to the requirement for backwashing. A backwash water recycling system could be evaluated during the design phase to reduce the water loss associated with this option.

4.1.4 Evaluation of Water Quality Alternatives

An evaluation summary of the water quality alternatives is provided in Table 4-2. All of the water quality alternatives do not impact the cultural environment. Instead, it is more appropriate to evaluate the cultural environment when considering the treatment location alternatives.

Table 4-2: Water Quality Alternatives

Option A Option B Option C Evaluation

Do Nothing Stabilization Treatment

Quality Objective

Option A the do nothing alternative would not be able to meet the ODWS AO for Manganese at all times. Option C treatment for removal of iron and manganese is anticipated to provide a reduction in the concentration of these metals well below the ODWS AO 99.99% of the time. Option B is anticipated to stabilize manganese and iron into colourless compounds, but there is always potential as the water ages in the distribution system for these metals to become unstabilized. Option B is less reliable/consistent than option C.

Natural Environment

All alternatives were viewed as having the same impact on the natural environment. Option A requires regular watermain cleaning and discharge of water to the natural environment. Option B and C will require expansion of the treatment building but will reduce cleaning requirements. Option B will require the storage and use of a sequestering agent and Option C will generate backwash water which will need to be treated.

Social Environment

Currently, the City of Guelph regularly receives complaints from the public regarding water colour in South Guelph and the Burke Well is expected to be the main cause of these complaints. Both Option B and Option C are anticipated to greatly reduce the number of colour complaints received from residences. However, it is anticipated that the public may object to Option B which adds an additional chemical to the water and does not remove the iron and manganese metals from the water. Option C will provide the most aesthetically pleasing water therefore Option B is more difficult to keep working effectively than Option C. Construction activities associated with Options B and C may have some negative social impacts which should be mitigated (i.e. limit construction hours, dust control).

Technical Environment

Option A is the simplest treatment method; however, the inability to control the manganese and iron concentrations sent to the distribution system is a technical limitation. Option B is more complex than Option A but provides the ability to control the colour compounds produced from iron and manganese. Option C is the most complex but it provides the most reliable method of controlling water quality. In Option B as the water ages or properties of the water change in an area of the distribution system (i.e. pH) the colourless iron and manganese compounds may precipitate and oxidize.

Cost

Option A has no capital costs but has operational and maintenance costs associated with flushing activities and water loss. In addition Option A equipment is nearing end of useful life and requires either a capital replacement or it will result in additional operation and maintenance costs. Option B has capital costs for the installation of a new chemical facility and water storage. Option B will also have Operational costs for chemical usage but will reduce the amount of flushing. Option C will have the highest capital cost. Option C will have operational costs associated with maintaining the filters and powering the new equipment.

ScheduleOption A does not have any schedule requirements. Option B and C will be subject to similar approval processes and it is anticipated that the design for equipment selection would take the same amount of time.



4.2 TREATMENT LOCATION ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of this section is to discuss potential locations for new treatment equipment to be installed if under the water quality alternatives the preferred option is to install new treatment equipment. Treatment location alternatives are shown in Figure 4-2.

4.2.1 Option A - Treatment at Carter

Under this alternative, a new 3.2 km raw watermain would be installed that transports water from the Burke Water Station to the Carter Water Supply Field located south of Stone Road along Victoria Road. The existing Burke Well pump would need to be upgraded to transport water to Carter and through the new treatment equipment.

The new treatment building at Carter would be setback from the road and out of public view from Victoria Road. Treated water would be piped to the Scout Camp Reservoir and transported in the existing or upgraded aqueduct to F.M. Woods. F.M. Woods would be used for disinfection, reservoir storage and booster pumping. Some upgrades at F.M. Woods may be required to treat and distribute this additional water source.

The existing water distribution system is limited in the amount of water that can be supplied from F.M Woods to the South of Guelph. Taking a current water supply in the South and distributing it from F.M Woods will exacerbate this problem and may make the need to supply a new feedermain from F.M Woods to the South more critical in the short term.

4.2.2 Option B - Treatment at Clair Tower

Under this alternative a new 3.5 km watermain would be installed from the Burke Well to Clair Tower located at Clair Road and Laird Road. The existing Burke Well pump would need to be upgraded to transport water to Clair Tower and through the new treatment equipment.

There is not enough room on the existing City property near Clair Tower to house the treatment equipment and expropriation of land south of Clair Road is required. Chemical feed equipment and a new reservoir would also need to be installed to meet disinfection requirements. A new booster pumping system would be installed to increase the water pressure after treatment for distribution.

4.2.3 Option C - Onsite Treatment

Under this alternative new treatment equipment would be located on the City owned property to the east of the existing Burke Station. Upgrades to the Burke raw water pump would be required to transport water through the new treatment equipment.



A building expansion would be required to house the new treatment equipment. In March 2012, a structural inspection was completed at the Burke Water Station. This inspection determined that any new process equipment and building expansion should be independent of structural support from the existing clearwell. Therefore, assuming that the woodlot located on the property at 164 Arkell Road could not be used for expansion; additional land is required for expansion of the well house. Under this option, the use of the adjacent City of Guelph property at 176 Arkell Road will be evaluated.

4.2.4 Evaluation of Treatment Location Alternatives

An evaluation summary of treatment location alternatives is provided in the Table 4-3.

4.3 WATER QUANTITY ALTERNATIVES

The Burke Water Station is an important water supply source used to meet water demands in Guelph. Through discussions with the project team it was decided that water quantity objectives could be met using the current PTTW. In the future the City may wish to conduct additional hydrogeological investigations to determine if increased pumping of the well above its current PTTW was feasible and if so undertake the appropriate studies, approvals and permits at that time.

Water quantity alternatives to increase the reservoir size and booster pumping capabilities will be evaluated under this Class EA. The ability of each alternative to maintain the hydraulic grade line in the south of Guelph under a variety of operational conditions will be evaluated. Water quantity alternatives are shown in Figure 4-3.

4.3.1 Option A - Do Nothing

Under this alternative, the existing reservoir and booster pump will be used. Under the PTTW 6,546 m3/day of water can be withdrawn and the existing reservoir has a usable volume of 270m3. A single booster pump is used to send potable water to the distribution system.

4.3.2 Option B - Increased Reservoir Size and Booster Pumping

Under this alternative, the reservoir size and booster pumping capabilities would be increased to allow for the Burke Water Station to provide additional support in meeting peak water demands. The exact reservoir size would be determined through detailed design and is dependent on the selection of the preferred Treatment Location Alterative.

The existing booster pump would be replaced with new booster pumps. The number of booster pumps would be determined during design but it is anticipated that two (2) or three (3) booster pumps would be used. This would provide additional operational flexibility, system reliability and robustness.

Table 4-3: Treatment Location Alternatives

Option A Option B Option C Evaluation

Treatment at Carter

Treatment at Clair Tower

Onsite Treatment

Natural Environment

A detailed ecological land classification (ELC) and botanical inventory has been completed for Option C. Results of this study did not identify any natural environment features that need to be preserved. Option C is marked as neutral because this alternative is not anticipated to improve the natural environment. A detailed ELC was not completed for Option B but based on a preliminary desktop review this area is anticipated to have low risk of impact on the natural environment. Similarly, a detailed ELC was not completed for Option A but based on a preliminary desktop review this area has a moderate risk of impact on the natural environment.

Social Enviornment

Traffic lane closures will be required to implement the new raw watermains in Options A and B. Work within existing roadways will also cause short term visual and noise impacts. Construction of a new building to house treatment equipment at Carter (Option A) is anticipated to be setback from the road resulting in minimal social impacts. Construction of a new building to house treatment equipment onsite (option C) will be visable to the public and generate some noise but ongoing residential home construction will also be occuring in close proximity. Construction of a new building to house treatment equipment at Clair Tower (Option B) will be visible to the public and generate some noise which in particularly may negatively impact Bishop Macdonell Catholic Secondary School which is located directly to the north east.

Technical PerformanceThe installation of a new treatment building is anticipated to have approximately the same difficulty for all of the alternatives. The installation of a new raw water main in Option A and B will make these alternatives more difficult than Option C.

Cultural Environment

The Cultural Enviornment for the existing Burke property and adjacent property to the East which is owned by the City of Guelph has been evaluated and there does not appear to be any cultural significance in this area. An archeological assessment has not been completed for Options A or B. All options did not have any historical structures listed under the lists provided by Heritage Guelph and the City of Guelph Planning and Building Services. All options also did not have any areas of cultural heritage landscape or cultural heritage resources based on a review of the GRCA records.

Cost

A new building is required at each site for storage of treatment equipment. Even though the final cost at each site with be dependant on the geotechnical conditions; it is assumed that the cost for the treatment building will be the same for each option. Options A and B will have additional costs for installation of the new raw watermain. Expropriation of land will be also be required for Option B which will make it the most expensive option.

Schedule

Option B is anticipated to take the most time to complete since it includes the expropriation of land, and additional time than Option C for the design, permitting and construction of the raw watermain. Option A also includes the installation of a new raw watermain but it does not require the expropriation of land. Option C will take the least amount of time to complete.



This option would also allow the potential for other well sources to be treated at the Burke Water Station in the future and would enhance the water supply to the south end of the City.

4.3.3 Evaluation of Water Quantity Alternatives

An evaluation summary of water quantity alternatives is provided in the Table 4-4.

Table 4-4: Water Quantity Alternatives

Option A Option B Evaluation

Do NothingIncrease Reservoir Size and Booster

Pumping

Quantity Objective

Option A relies on meeting the quantity objective using the existing system. Only one existing booster pump is used to supply water to distribution, if this pump is taken out of service for maintenance or repair, water from the Burke Water Station can not be sent to the distribution system. In addition, the existing reservoir cannot be taken offline for maintenance with out taking the entire system offline. Depending on the water demands in the system, this may cause operational difficulties in South Guelph. In Option B the reservoir capacity and booster pumping capacity are increased resulting in additional operational flexibility and ability to meet water demands in south Guelph. The use of multiple and redundant pumps will also allow the Burke Water Station to contribute to the distribution system needs when a pump fails or has to be taken out of service for maintenance. The expanded reservoir will also be designed with multiple compartments which can be taken offline as required for maintenance while the remainder of the system remains in service. For these reasons, Option B ranks higher in the Water Quanity objective than Option A.

Natural Enviornment Option A will not impact the natural environment. Option B will result in infrastructure being constructed on existing lands with minimal impact on the natural environment.

Social EnviornmentSince Option B ranks higher in the Water Quantity objective it is more likely to be able to meet the water demands of the system than Option A, resulting in less potential for significant restrictions in water use.

Technical Performance

For the reasons described under the quantity objective, Option B provides a more robust, reliable, and simpler system to operate than Option A. It also allows the Burke Water Station to continue to operate while maintenance activities are taking place. Under Option B, Operators have additional flexibility in scheduling routine maintenance, longer time periods to order/deliver necessary parts (reduce expedition fees, can use regular working hours) and complete repairs.

Cost

Option B will have a higher capital cost than Option A. However, it may also offset future costs to develop other water supply sources to service South Guelph. Option B will also have more equipment (i.e. pumps, valves) and reservoir space for Operators to maintain. With the additional operational flexibility provided in Option B it is anticipated that the majority of repairs could be completed during regular work hours and a maintenance schedule would be easier to follow than in Option A.

ScheduleOption B will take longer to implement than Option A.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Preferred Alternative Summary February 27, 2013


5.0 Preferred Alternative Summary

A preliminary conceptual image of the future treatment building is shown in Figure 5-1 and will be constructed on City owned property to the east of the existing Burke Water Station. The intention is for the building to blend into the surrounding area and existing pump house. The future treatment building will house equipment for iron and manganese treatment equipment, booster pumps, backwash equipment and all related axillary systems including electrical and HVAC equipment.

A large underground reservoir will be installed behind the treatment building. The increased booster pumping rate and expanded water storage capacity will enhance the water supply to the south end of the City. It will provide Operators with additional flexibility to meet peak daytime demands in the water distribution system. It is important to note that the preferred alternative will not change the amount of water that is taken from the ground and will operate within the requirements of the existing Permit to Take Water. The preferred alternative will also allow the potential for other well sources to be treated and stored at the Burke Water Station in the future.

5.1 NATURAL HERITAGE

The preferred alternative was selected based upon a natural environment net benefit approach. No direct impacts to the adjacent woodland and wetland features are anticipated as with the development of the preferred alternative. The footprint of the project is limited to the former residential portion of the property with no development proposed in the wetland or woodland area. Vegetation removal is limited to the hedgerow present on the property and individual trees.

Potential indirect impacts resulting from construction activities, such as dust generation, sedimentation and erosion are expected to be short term, temporary in duration and may be mitigated for through the use of standard site control measures. During operation there is some potential for spills and contamination to the natural features which should also be mitigated through the design process. This approach has considered the objectives and policies of the City of Guelph Official Plan Amendment 42 (2010) and the Environmental Assessment procedures. The existing building is already located within the Natural Heritage System within the recommended buffer of the natural heritage features. The preferred alternative proposes the addition to extend on the east side of the existing building, furthest from the natural heritage features. The proposed location of the preferred alternative will have the least impact on the woodland and wetland features, and will be a minimum buffer from the edge of the woodland will be established during the design phase.



Through the site investigation, it was determined that no rare vegetation communities were present. Field investigations found no evidence of area sensitive species, however, OPA 42 of the City of Guelph OP has identified this area as a significant wildlife habitat for deer winter congregation area. For the purposes of this project, it has been assumed this this feature is significant and no development is proposed.

Although the preferred alternative may indirectly impact the woodland and wetland, this alternative provides the opportunity to improve these features through re-vegetation efforts, post-construction. The potential disturbance of wildlife would be temporary, and it is likely that wildlife would return to the area, once construction and re-vegetation is complete. Wildlife habitat may be improved through the re-vegetation efforts, therefore supporting the net benefit of the preferred alternative.

5.1.1 Tree Compensation

Tree removal will be limited to the developable area and will include the hedgerow present on the property and individual trees. A Tree Inventory, Preservation and Compensation Plan will be prepared and submitted to City of Guelph Environmental Planner for review during the detailed design stage. The Compensation Plan will include potential options for retaining or relocating individual trees and will provide a compensation for removal at a 3:1 ratio.

5.1.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures

Impacts could be mitigated through the implementation of best management practices, such as erosion and sediment controls, construction timing, and site restoration.

Timing of various construction activities should occur outside of the critical breeding periods of bird species (between May 1st and July 31st) in accordance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act. Construction activities which would be restricted during this time include major site excavation, major civil works, and major building construction which would result in significant noise production. Re-vegetation mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate disturbance and enhance wildlife habitat. Best management practices for erosion and sediment control should be installed prior to construction and maintained during all phases. In addition, any vegetation removal will be re-vegetated upon completion of construction. To prevent potential impacts a silt fence should be installed prior to any on-site work and maintained during all phases of construction to control potential sediment transport from erosion and to function as a visual boundary to mark the limits of the work site and assist in controlling encroachment or incidental damage to edge species during construction and grading activities. The placement of fill will occur outside of the regulated area, minimizing the risk of sedimentation into the wetland feature. Once naturalized, the buffer area should be fenced to ensure encroachment and disturbance does not occur during future construction activities.



Table 5-1 summarizes the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures, and suggested application, to minimize and mitigate the potentially adverse environmental impacts associated with the planning, design and construction of the proposed improvements. This information should be used in preparing the final detailed design plans, construction timing, agency approvals and on-going monitoring to ensure that the natural environment features identified within this report are protected, maintained, restored and enhanced (where applicable) through the implementation of the preferred alternative.

Table 5-1: Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Potential Impact Recommended Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Terrestrial Habitat and Species

Removal or disturbance of trees or ground flora

Stabilize all disturbed areas upon completion of any grading works through re-vegetation of the disturbed areas utilizing native plant species (i.e. seed and mulch, compost mix, tree and shrub planting). City of Guelph Environmental Planner to assist in the development and implementation of the re-vegetation plan.

Stress on biological communities

The stress on wildlife is not anticipated to increase significantly due to the existing high traffic volumes already occurring in the area; Any wildlife displaced during construction will likely return upon completion of the work; Avoid construction impacts during sensitive wildlife periods, such as breeding seasons for various fish and bird species.

Impaired hydrological function of the unevaluated wetland

Ensure boundary of wetland feature is protected with silt fencing to minimize deposition of sediment due to run-off, during construction phase; Store all fill outside of the floodplain Regulated Area; Ensure refuelling stations are located outside of the floodplain; Establish and maintain erosion and control measures throughout all phases of construction.

Introduction of exotic species through disturbance

Use only native species for all re-vegetation work and stabilize with native vegetation as soon as possible following grading activities.

The above-referenced mitigation measures are standard procedures. Detailed mitigation and compensation measures should be further developed as the detailed design of the preferred alternative is finalized in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies.



While localized impacts may result during construction, the preferred alternative should not result in a net environmental impact to the woodland, wetland and natural systems. Any potential impacts should be mitigated through the implementation of appropriate measures, specifically designed and tailored to address the impacts and design of the preferred alternative, while any residual impacts should be offset through the implementation of site restoration and enhancement measures.

5.1.3 Agency Approvals

Prior to commencement of construction, the following permit may be required from the GRCA:

A development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse permit, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 160/06 will be required for all work within Regulated Areas including, but not limited to, any wetland interference or any development (grading, construction) within the floodplain

5.2 NOISE

To mitigate noise the preliminary plan is to locate a new external emergency generator with noise enclosure on the southwest side of the 164 Arkell Road Property, in a similar location to the existing generator. This will allow for separation from neighbouring property adjacent to the east side of the project boundary. In addition to locating the generator on the southwest side for noise reduction, it will also beneficial to locate the genset here for separation from the new underground reservoir. During the engineering design phase noise mitigation measures and orientation for other sources within the building envelope will be evaluated.

5.3 VIBRATION

An important part of the facility design will be vibration mitigation measures. This will include an examination of all potential sources and mitigation impacts during the design and construction phases of the project.

5.4 DRAINAGE

During the Class EA process the resident at the property adjacent to the east side of the project boundary expressed concerns about changes in drainage caused by the new reservoir and treatment building. Addressing drainage concerns will be an important site consideration to be addressed during the design phase and it is not anticipated that any significant grade changes will occur based on the preliminary site plan concept. If the design concept changes, options to ensure grading is directed away from the neighbouring property to the east will be explored.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL Summary and Next Steps February 27, 2013


6.0 Summary and Next Steps

Based on a comprehensive background review, public consultation, and thorough evaluation process, the preferred alternatives are as follows:

1) Water Quality Option C: Treatment for Removal of Iron and Manganese

2) Treatment Location Option C: Onsite Treatment

3) Water Quantity Objectives Option B: Increased Reservoir and Booster Pumping

Figure 5-1 illustrates the preferred solution. Through the design process the project team intends to evaluate energy conservation measures to incorporate into the preferred solution. This may include applying to the Ontario Power Authority for a Feed In Tariff (FIT) program which would be used to provide a reasonable return on the investment for installing and operating solar panels on the new treatment building.

6.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The proposed implementation plan is shown in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1: Proposed Implementation Plan

Schedule Item

2012/2013 Completion of Burke Water Station Class EA.

2013 Prepare and complete preliminary design including: process and instrumentation, architectural, structural and general layout drawings.

2013 Pre-selection of major equipment.

2013/2014 Preparation of final design drawings and specifications

2014/2015 Tendering and implementation of final design.

6.2 NEXT STEPS

This Project File summarizes the rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative and will be placed on public record for 30 days. If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with the City, a person may request that the Ministry of Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act, which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests for a Part II Order must be received by the Minister within 30 days of filling this Project File, and a copy forwarded to the City, Attention: Karl Cober. Should no order requests be received, the City may proceed to the implementation phase including the detailed design and construction of the facilities.

BURKE WATER STATION CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL References February 27, 2013


7.0 References

1) Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). (2006). Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines.

2) British Columbia. (2007). Water Stewardship information Series. Iron and Manganese in Groundwater. Retrieved Sept 2012 from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/groundwater/library/ground_fact_sheets/pdfs/fe_mg(020715)_fin2.pdf.

3) City of Guelph. (2012). Heritage Guelph. Retrieved Sept 2012 from: http://guelph.ca/living.cfm?subCatID=1482&smocid=2065

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/groundwater/library/ground_fact_sheets/pdfs/fe_mg(020715)_fin2.pdfhttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/groundwater/library/ground_fact_sheets/pdfs/fe_mg(020715)_fin2.pdf

Appendix A: Public Information Center

Appendix A1: Notice of Commencement and PIC

STUDY COMMENCEMENT NOTICE

Burke Station Treatment, Pumping and Storage Class Environmental Assessment The Study

The City of Guelph is initiating a Class Environmental Assessment study for improvements to the Burke Well Station including: (1) providing treatment to improve the aesthetic quality of water (i.e. manganese, iron) from the Burke Well, and (2) providing additional booster pumping and storage capacity. Also, the upgrades to Burke Well Station may incorporate infrastructure to accommodate water from other municipal wells in the vicinity.

Water from the Burke well is near the Ontario Drinking Water Aesthetic Objective (non-health related) for manganese. Manganese is a mineral which is commonly present in groundwater due to underground deposits. The presence of manganese can cause staining and discoloration of the water. The Burke Well Station is located at 164 Arkell Road.

The Process

The planning for this project is proceeding in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Municipal Engineers Association, October 2000 as amended in 2007 and 2011). The Class Environmental Assessment process includes public and agency consultation, an evaluation of alternatives, an assessment of potential environmental effects of the proposed alternatives and identification of reasonable measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may result.

How to participate

The City of Guelph is interested in receiving public input and comments during this project. An Open House event will be held on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Sir Isaac Brock Public School (111 Colonial Drive, Guelph). Notice of the meeting dates will also be posted on the Citys website, guelph.ca.

For more information

Please contact either of the following project team members if you have any questions or comments, wish to obtain more information regarding the project or would like to be added to the project mailing list.

Karl Cober, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Leigh McDermott, M.E.Sc., P.Eng. Project Manager Project Manager City of Guelph Stantec Consulting Ltd. 1 Carden Street 49 Frederick Street Guelph ON N1H 3A1 Kitchener ON N2H 6M7 T 519-822-1260 x 2187 T 519-585-7121 E [email protected] E [email protected]

October 17, 2012 File: 1611 11111/37

Attention: Reference: Study Commencement Notice of the Burke Station Treatment, Pumping and Storage

Class Environmental Assessment

Dear ,

The City of Guelph is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA Schedule C) study for improvements to the Burke Well Station. This project will be used to evaluate alternatives and select a preferred solution.

A Public Information Centre (PIC) is being held on November 7, 2012 at Sir Isaak Brock Public School from 6:30 to 8:30 PM. For further information, please see the attached Notice of Commencement and PIC.

Should you have any questions or comments about this project, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Regards,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Karl Cober, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Leigh McDermott, M.E.Sc., P.Eng. Project Manager Practice Leader, Water City of Guelph Stantec Consulting Ltd. Tel: 519-822-1260, Ext. 2187 Tel: (519) 585-7121 [email protected] [email protected]

Attachment: Notice of Commencement and PIC 1

rmc w:\active\161111111_guelph_burke_stn\preliminary\correspondence\class_ea\notice_commencement and pic 1\let_noc_agencies_121017.docx

Ms. Cindy Latendresse, Referral Coordinator Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3027 Harvester Road, Suite 304, P.O. Box 85060 Burlington Ontario L7R 4K3

Ms. Barb Slattery, Environmental Resource Planner/EA Coordinator Ministry of the Environment Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning 119 King Street West, 12th Floor Hamilton Ontario L8P 4Y7

Ms. Jane Glassco, District Manager Ministry of the Environment, Guelph District Office 1 Stone Road West Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y2

Mr. Ross Lashbrook, Supervisor Environmental Assessment Program Coordiation Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Ave. West, Floor 12A Toronto Ontario M4V 1L5

Ms. Carol Neumann, Rural Planner Ministry of Agriculture Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10 Elora Ontario N0B 1S0

Ms. Anna Dowdall, Manager Aboriginal Policy and Coordination Unit Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services 25 Grosvenor Street, 9th Floor Toronto Ontario M7A 1Y6

Ms. Abbey Flower, Archaeology Review Coordinator Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Culture Programs Unit, Programs and Services Branch 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto Ontario M7A 0A7

Mr. Dwayne Evans, Planner Community Planning and Development Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Services Office 659 Exeter Road, 2nd Floor London Ontario N6E 1L3

Ms. Audrey Bennett Director, Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay St., 14th Floor Toronto Ontario M5G 2E5

Mr. Mike Stone District Planner Ministry of Natural Resources Guelph District Office 1 Stone Road West Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y2

Ms. Linda Johnson Aboriginal Issues Coordinator Ministry of the Attorney General Aboriginal Issues Unit 720 Bay Street, 7th Floor Toronto Ontario M2G 2K1

Mr. Martin Favell Planning and Design Ministry of Transportation Southwestern Region 659 Exeter Road, 3rd Floor London Ontario N6E 1L3

Ms. Janice Sheppard, CAO Township of Guelph-Eramosa 8348 Wellington Road 124 Rockwood Ontario N0B 2K0

Ms. Meaghen Reid, Planning Assistant Township of Guelph-Eramosa 8348 Wellington Road 124 P.O. Box 700 Rockwood Ontario N0B 2K0

Mr. Stan Denhoed, P.Geo. Hydrogeologist Township of Puslinch c/o Harden Environmental RR #1 Moffatt Ontario L0P 1J0

Ms. Brenda Law, Clerk/Treasurer Township of Puslinch 7404 Wellington Road 34, RR #3 Guelph Ontario N1H 6H9

Mr. Gary Cousins Director of Planning County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph Ontario N1H 3T9

Mr. Gord Ough P.Eng. County Engineer County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph Ontario N1H 3T9

Ms. Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planning 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Mr. Fred Natolochny Supervisor of Resource Planning - North and South Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planning 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Ms. Liz Yerex Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Mr. Jamie Ferguson Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Ms. Josee Beauregard Litigation Team Leader, Ontario/Nunavut Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Litigation Management and Resolution Branch 10 Wellington Street Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4

Ms. Janet Townson A/ Claims Analyst, Ontario Team Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Specific Claims Branch 1310-10 Wellington Street Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4

Mr. Don Boswell Senior Claims Analyst Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 10 Wellington Street Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4

Mr. Sean Darcy, Manager Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Assessment and Historical Research Directorate 10 Wellington Street Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4

Ms. Louise Trepanier Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Director Comprehensive Claims Branch 10 Wellington Street Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4

Mr. Franklin Roy Director Litigation Management and Resolution Branch Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 10 Wellington Street Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Environmental Unit 25 St. Clair Avenue East, 8th Floor Toronto Ontario M4T 1M2

Ms. Linda MacWilliams Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Lands and ART Lands and Trust Services 25 St. Clair Avenue East, 8th Floor Toronto Ontario M4T 1M2

Mr. Jefferey Betker, Senior Policy Analyst Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Office of the Federal Interocular for Metis and Non-status Indians 66 Slater Street, Room 1218 Ottawa Ontario K1A 0H4

Grand Chief Randall Phillips Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians 387 Princess Avenue London Ontario N6B 2A7

Grand Chef Konrad Sioui Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat 255 Place Chef Michel Laveau Wendake Quebec G0A 4V0

Ms. Laura Murr Kortright Hills Community Association 123 Downey Road Guelph Ontario N1C 1A3

Ms. Myra Klassen, Chair Safe Communities on the Grand Victoria Park Pavilion P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener Ontario N2G 4G7

Mr. Lonnie Bomberry, Director Six Nations (Elected) Band Council (and Staff) Six Nations of the Grand River Land & Resources Department 2498 Chiefswood Road, P.O. Box 5000 Ohsweken Ontario N0A 1M0

Mr. Paul General, Wildlife Officer Six Nations (Elected) Band Council (and Staff) Six Nations of the Grand River 2499 Chiefswood Road, P.O. Box 5001 Ohsweken Ontario N0A 1M1

Mr. Leroy Hill, Secretary Six Nations (Traditional) Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council Haudenosaunee Resource Centre 2634 6th Line, RR #2 Ohsweken Ontario N0A 1M2

Chief William Montour Six Nations of the Grand River P.O. Box 5000, 1695 Chiefswood Road Oshweken Ontario N0A 1M0

Ms. Heather Levecque, Manager, Consultation Unit Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Consultation Unit 160 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor Toronto Ontario M7A 2E6

Mr. David Pickles Team Lead Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Consultation Unit 160 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor Toronto Ontario M7A 2E6

Ms. Susan Picarello Director, Strategic Policy and Planning Branch Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto Ontario M2G 2K1

Chief Bryan LaForme Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation 2789 Mississauga Road, RR #6 Hagersville Ontario N0A 1H0

Ms. Margaret Sault Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations RR#6 Hagersville Ontario N0A 1HO

Mr. Richard Saunders Director Negotiations - Negotiations Branch Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto Ontario M5G 2K1

Mr. Shawn Art Utility Services Manager Union Gas 10 Surrey Street East Guelph Ontario N1H 3P5

Mr. Brian Hancocks Rogers Cable 85 Grand Crest Place, PO Box 488 Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A8

Mr. Walter Kloostra P.Eng Manager, Transmission Lines Sustainment Hydro One Networks Lines Information Systems and Programs 483 Bay Street, TCT15-A11 Toronto Ontario M5G 2P5

Mr. Bradley Boulton Design Manager - Access Network Bell Canada 575 Riverbend Drive, Floor 1 Kitchener Ontario N2K 3S3

Mr. Dean Kingswell Engineering Technician Guelph Hydro 395 Southgate Drive Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y1

Ms. Ally Morrison Speed River Project Coordinator Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) One Trent Lane, University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1

Dr. Stewart Hilts, Director Centre for Land and Water Stewardship University of Guelph, Richards Building 50 Stone Road West Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1

Ms. Andrea Olson Executive Director Guelph Community Foundation 147 Wyndham Street North, Suite 405 Guelph Ontario N1H 6N6

Mr. Peter Kelly President Guelph Field Naturalists P.O. Box 1401 Guelph Ontario N1H 6N8

Ms. Betty Lou Clark Co-President Guelph Historical Society 100 Crimea Street Guelph Ontario N1H 2Y6

Mr. Ken Hammill Friends of Guelph 18 Elmridge Drive Guelph Ontario N1H 4X7

Mr. Anton Pojasok, General Manager Infrastructure Ontario (formerly Ontario Realty Corporation) Environment and Cultural Heritage 77 Wellesley Street West. 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Toronto Ontario M7A 2G3

Mr. Alan Sawyer, Environmental Specialist Infrastructure Ontario (formerly Ontario Realty Corporation) Southwest Region 1 Stone Road West, 4th Floor Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y2

Ms. Jennifer Passy BES, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Upper Grand District School Board 500 Victoria Road North Guelph Ontario N1E 6K2

Mr. Dan Duszczyszyn Superintendent of Corporate Services and Treasurer Wellington Catholic School Board Transportation Department 75 Woolwich Street, P.O. Box 1298 Guelph Ontario N1R 5W6

Mr. Scott Hutchison, Program Manager Wellington Dufferin Guelph Public Health Health Protection Division 600 Southgate Drive Guelph Ontario N1G 4P6

Mr. Rob Thompson Director, Health Protection Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health 600 Southgate Drive Guelph Ontario N1G 4P6

Mr. John Sloot Guelph and District Home Builders Association 423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201 Guelph Ontario N1H 3X3

Ms. Andrea Deganis Guelph and District Real Estate Board 400 Woolwich Street Guelph Ontario N1H 3X1

Mr. Dan Lawson Chair and CEO Guelph Chamber of Commerce 111 Farqhar Street, 2nd Floor Guelph Ontario N1H 2N4

Mr. Alfred Artinger, President Guelph Development Association c/o Reids Heritage Homes 6783 Wellington Road 34, R.R. #22 Cambridge Ontario N3C 2V4

J Chomyc 182 Arkell Road Guelph Ontario N1L 1E6

R Perez 190 Arkell Road Guelph Ontario N1L 1E6

M Bard 202 Arkell Road Guelph Ontario N1L 1E6

A Elgie 210 Arkell Road Guelph Ontario N1L 1E6

R Simons 6 Summerfield Dr Guelph Ontario N1L 1T6

Terra View Homes 45 Speedvale Avenue East, Unit #5 Guelph Ontario N1H 1J2

Ms. Andrea Williams, Archaeology Review Officer Culture Programs Unit Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto, Ontario M7A 0A7

Ms. Cindy Latendresse, Referral Coordinator Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3027 Harvester Road, Suite 304, P.O. Box 85060 Burlington Ontario L7R 4K3

Ms. Barb Slattery, Environmental Resource Planner/EA Coordinator Ministry of the Environment Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning 119 King Street West, 12th Floor Hamilton Ontario L8P 4Y7

Ms. Jane Glassco, District Manager Ministry of the Environment, Guelph District Office 1 Stone Road West Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y2

Mr. Ross Lashbrook, Supervisor Environmental Assessment Program Coordiation Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Ave. West, Floor 12A Toronto Ontario M4V 1L5

Ms. Carol Neumann, Rural Planner Ministry of Agriculture Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10 Elora Ontario N0B 1S0

Ms. Anna Dowdall, Manager Aboriginal Policy and Coordination Unit Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services 25 Grosvenor Street, 9th Floor Toronto Ontario M7A 1Y6

Ms. Abbey Flower, Archaeology Review Coordinator Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Culture Programs Unit, Programs and Services Branch 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto Ontario M7A 0A7

Mr. Dwayne Evans, Planner Community Planning and Development Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Services Office 659 Exeter Road, 2nd Floor London Ontario N6E 1L3

Ms. Audrey Bennett Director, Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay St., 14th Floor Toronto Ontario M5G 2E5

Mr. Mike Stone District Planner Ministry of Natural Resources Guelph District Office 1 Stone Road West Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y2

Ms. Linda Johnson Aboriginal Issues Coordinator Ministry of the Attorney General Aboriginal Issues Unit 720 Bay Street, 7th Floor Toronto Ontario M2G 2K1

Mr. Martin Favell Planning and Design Ministry of Transportation Southwestern Region 659 Exeter Road, 3rd Floor London Ontario N6E 1L3

Ms. Janice Sheppard, CAO Township of Guelph-Eramosa 8348 Wellington Road 124 Rockwood Ontario N0B 2K0

Ms. Meaghen Reid, Planning Assistant Township of Guelph-Eramosa 8348 Wellington Road 124 P.O. Box 700 Rockwood Ontario N0B 2K0

Mr. Stan Denhoed, P.Geo. Hydrogeologist Township of Puslinch c/o Harden Environmental RR #1 Moffatt Ontario L0P 1J0

Ms. Brenda Law, Clerk/Treasurer Township of Puslinch 7404 Wellington Road 34, RR #3 Guelph Ontario N1H 6H9

Mr. Gary Cousins Director of Planning County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph Ontario N1H 3T9

Mr. Gord Ough P.Eng. County Engineer County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph Ontario N1H 3T9

Ms. Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planning 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Mr. Fred Natolochny Supervisor of Resource Planning - North and South Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planning 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Ms. Liz Yerex Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge Ontario N1R 5W6

Mr. Jamie Ferguson

February 27, 2013 - City of Guelph · rationale for the project and also ... Brock Public School on...

Documents

Transcript of February 27, 2013 - City of Guelph · rationale for the project and also ... Brock Public School on...