PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN - UYSSolutions · 2014. 2. 16. · 10-06-18 - Meeting Summary_rev1.doc Page...

050278 (8) Vol 3 York Region No. 74270

Draft Environmental Assessment Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Appendix I

Written Correspondence to and from First Nations Regarding Joint Meetings and Meeting Summaries

Reference No. 28005May 5, 2010

VIA FACSIMILE AT (905) 352-3242 AND REGULAR MAILAlderville First NationP. O. Box 46, R.R. #4Roseneath, OntarioK0K 2X0Attention: Chief James R. Marsden

Re: First Nation Consultations - Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental AssessmentNotice of Commencement and Alternatives To the Undertaking Meeting June 18, 2010

We are pleased to inform you that The Regional Municipality of York has now initiated the Upper YorkSewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Environmental Assessment Act. This full/ individual EA will be carried out according to the Terms of Reference (ToR), which wasapproved, with an amendment, by the Minister of theEnvironment on March 11, 2010. The approved ToR isa v a i l a b l e o n t h e p r o j e c t w e b s i t e(http://www.uyssolutions.ca/en/onlineresources/LibDocuments.asp) and at the UYSS Project Office, 1195 Stellar Drive,Unit 1, Newmarket, ON, L3Y 7B8, Telephone: 905 830-5656.

The UYSS project will develop a sustainable sewage servicingsolution to accommodate the growth forecasted in the UYSSservice area. This forecasted growth is in accordance withboth the provincial growth management policies outlined inthe Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe developedunder the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and applicableenvironmental statutes including, but not limited to, the LakeSimcoe Protection Act, 2008, the Oak Ridges MoraineConservation Act, 2001, the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and theOntario Water Resources Act. The service area consists ofthe growth portions of the Towns of Aurora, Newmarket andEast Gwillimbury, including the communities of HollandLanding, Queensville and Sharon (please see map).

York Region acknowledges and supports the need to conduct

separate consultation sessions with First Nations in view of

the unique concerns that they may have in regard to the

environmental assessment. W ith this in mind, First Nations

Engineering Services Ltd. has been retained by AECOM to

facilitate and coordinate First Nation consultations as part of

this environmental assessment, on behalf of York Region.

First Nation Consultation Upper York Sewage Solutions

Individual Environmental Assessment

York Region is proposing to conduct another centralized meeting between interested First Nations and

York Region representatives on June 18, 2010. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss the

proposed Alternatives To the Undertaking and the screening criteria York Region will use to identify

a recommended Alternative To the Undertaking. The four alternatives being considered for

accommodating growth in the service area are:

1. Do Nothing;

2. Discharge to Lake Ontario;

3. Discharge to Lake Simcoe; and

4. Innovative Wastewater Treatment Technologies.

A Draft Agenda is enclosed for your review and consideration.

As with the previous meetings, the following First Nations are invited to attend:

Alderville First Nation

Beausoleil First Nation

Chippewas of Georgina Island

Chippewas of Mnjikaning

Curve Lake First Nation

Hiawatha First Nation

Huron Wendat Nation

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Moose Deer Point First Nation

Mohawks of the Bay Quinte

Six Nations of the Grand River

Iroquois Confederacy

York Region will cover travel, meal, and accommodation expenses for two (2) First Nation

representatives from each First Nation to attend the meeting. Expense rates are enclosed.

First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. will be coordinating the meeting on behalf of York Region.

Please call myself Warren Sault, Project Manager, at (519) 445-0040 or by email at [email protected],

to confirm your representative's attendance by May 28, 2010, or if you should have any questions.

Yours truly,

FIRST NATIONS ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.

Warren B. Sault, B.A., E.E.T.

Project Manager

Encl.

cc: Adrian Coombs, P.Eng., Senior Project Manager, York RegionCouncillor Pamela Crowe, Alderville First NationShelley Gray, Alderville First Nation

2

10-06-18 - Meeting Summary_rev1.doc Page 1 of 5

UYSS Project Office 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1 Newmarket, ON L3Y 7B8

Tel: (905) 830-5656 Fax: (905) 830-0176

www.uyssolutions.ca

MEETING SUMMARY

PROJECT: Upper York Sewage Solutions – Individual Environmental Assessment

CLIENT: Regional Municipality of York Project Ref. No.: 050278 Client Ref. No.: 74270

RE: Meeting with First Nations

LOCATION: Casino Rama, Rama, Ontario

DATE: June 23, 2010 TIME: 9:00am

PARTICIPANTS

Participant's Name (and initials) Representing

Adrian Coombs George Godin Ian Dobrindt Katrina Broughton Adam Chamberlain Warren Sault Andrew Big Canoe Rhonda Coppaway Sophie Sliwa Margaret Sault Diane Sheridan Lori Ritter Pamela Crowe

York Region (YR) Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA)

AECOM AECOM

BLG Canada First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. (FNESL)

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Mississaugas of Scuogog Island First Nation Mississaugas of Scuogog Island First Nation Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Hiawatha First Nation Hiawatha First Nation Alderville First Nation

DISTRIBUTION

Participants File

ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY

Ref. Item #

Brief Description

Action by

2.1 Revise future presentations to clarify the meaning of the Do Nothing Alternative by adding the phrase “maintain status quo”

AECOM/ CRA

SUMMARY OF TODAY'S MEETING

Item # Description Action by

1.0 Introductions and Project Overview

Meeting participants introduced themselves and where they were from. INFO

George Godin provided an overview of the project, and current status - that the Terms of Reference was approved in March, and we are now looking at the Alternatives To the Undertaking.

INFO



Sophie Sliwa asked how much water is currently being transferred between Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario.

George Godin responded that approximately 40 Million Litres/Day (MLD) of water supply is drawn from municipal wells in Newmarket and Aurora and the majority of this is discharged through the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in Pickering on Lake Ontario.

INFO

Sophie Sliwa asked when the YDSS was built.

Adrian Coombs responded that the YDSS was conceived and built by the Ministry of the Environment in the 1960s and 1970s. The YDSS system and the WPCP has undergone maintenance, upgrades and expansion over the years to accommodate both York and Durham Regions’ growth.

INFO

Margaret Sault asked if the wells in Newmarket and Aurora are private or municipal wells.

The wells are municipal wells owned and operated by the Region.

Margaret Sault asked if households have individual wells, do they have to apply for a Permit to Take Water.

George Godin responded that there may be some residential private wells in the East Gwillimbury area and typically residential private wells do not have to obtain a Permit to Take Water because they draw less than 50,000 litres/day.

INFO

Margaret Sault asked why 2031 is used on this and other projects.

George Godin responded that the York Region Official Plan and the Province’s Growth Plan forecasts growth to 2031, and that a 20 year horizon is a standard time frame for this type of long range planning with, typically, 5 year interim reviews.

INFO

2.0 Alternatives To the Undertaking

2.1 Do Nothing

Adrian Coombs explained the Do Nothing Alternative

Sophie Sliwa noted that she thought “Do Nothing” sounded like the Region will “pick up and leave,” when it actually means maintain the status quo.

Adrian Coombs agreed that the term is confusing and confirmed that the Do Nothing alternative means no additional sewage capacity would be built, but that existing sewage capacity would be maintained for the current population. Future presentations would be modified to clarify the meaning of the Do Nothing Alternative.

George Godin added that the existing sewage system has limited capacity to service growth. Under the Do Nothing alternative once the existing system is at capacity, growth would likely cease because it could not be serviced.

AECOM/ CRA



2.2 Lake Ontario Alternative

Adrian Coombs explained the concept of servicing by connecting to the existing YDSS and treating wastewater at the Duffin Creek WPCP on Lake Ontario.

Margaret Sault asked if the Region is monitoring groundwater and surface water levels and potential impacts to these water levels.

George Godin responded that York Region continually monitors groundwater levels to ensure that the draw from municipal wells is sustainable and does not negatively impact groundwater levels. The Provincial and Federal governments are responsible for monitoring water levels in Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario. Municipalities are not allowed to draw more groundwater or surface water than the water body can handle.

INFO

Sophie Sliwa asked if water from the Duffin Creek WPCP is potable.

Adrian Coombs responded that the effluent or discharge to Lake Ontario from the WPCP meets all the criteria and requirements of the Certificate of Approval for operation of the WPCP.

Andrew Big Canoe noted that all treated wastewater should be potable.

INFO

2.3 Lake Simcoe Alternative

Adrian Coombs explained how sewage from growth in the upper York service area would be treated to a high standard and discharged to Lake Simcoe. However, to achieve the levels of phosphorus removal required by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) water quality trading for phosphorus credits would have to be available.

Andrew Big Canoe noted that in some States and in B.C., all phosphorus is removed in the treatment process.

George Godin responded that under this alternative, phosphorus would be removed to levels of virtual non-detection using best current technologies.

INFO

Andrew Big Canoe and Sophie Sliwa noted that agriculture is the biggest problem in terms of phosphorus in Lake Simcoe.

Adam Chamberlain noted that while this may be true, it is important to remember that this project can only help address the phosphorus discharge that currently comes from Sewage Treatment Plants, which represents approximately 7% of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Sources. Phosphorous loading of Lake Simcoe is regulated by Ministry of the Environment through the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

INFO

Margaret Sault asked if Reverse Osmosis is the same treatment that they use at Bruce Nuclear Plant

George responded that the Bruce Nuclear Plant uses heavy water, which is not the same.

INFO

Sophie Sliwa asked what happens to the nutrients removed from the treatment process.

George Godin responded that there are multiple options. Currently most of it remains in the sludge (solid versus liquid treatment train) and is incinerated at the Duffin Creek WPCP. Where regulations permit, it can also be used as fertilizer and soil conditioner on agricultural land.

INFO



Rhonda Coppaway stated that the advanced treatment required for the Lake Simcoe Alternative sounds expensive.

George Godin responded that it is more expensive than typical wastewater treatment.

INFO

In relation to the graph showing Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Sources, Sophie Sliwa asked how much phosphorus comes from a single septic system.

George Godin responded that it depends on the site conditions for each septic system. A rough rule of thumb suggests up to 0.6 kg/year per person. Again, there are many variables that influence the amount released.

INFO

Sophie Sliwa asked if the Region has considered changing Places to Grow?

Adrian Coombs responded that the Province has directed the Region to accept the growth forecasts provided in Places to Grow.

INFO

Margaret Sault asked what the timeframe for the whole project was.

Adrian Coombs responded that the team anticipates meeting with the First Nations representatives in the fall (likely November 2010) to share the recommended Alternative To the Undertaking.

The Alternative Methods for Carrying out the Undertaking will be evaluated in 2011 and 2012 along with the impact assessment of the recommended alternative, and it is anticipated that the EA Report will be submitted to the MOE for approval in Fall 2012.

INFO

Sophie Sliwa asked if tunnelling is used, what is the surficial geology that the Region would be tunneling through? Is it bedrock?

George Godin responded that at the depths they would be tunneling, they would not reach bedrock.

INFO

Sophie Sliwa asked if the Region will provide funds to First Nations to undertake a traditional land use and occupancy study. She and Margaret Sault noted that water is a significant issue for First Nations and they have not ceded their rights to water.

Adam Chamberlain responded that the Region at this time is not willing to provide funding for these studies by First Nations, and has established a protocol for First Nations Consultation that involves meetings such as this to provide regular updates on the project and receive comments from First Nations, and involves providing EA Documentation to First Nations for their review and comment. York Region maintains the position that the ultimate duty to consult lies with the crown (provincial and federal).

Sophie Sliwa responded that she understood the Region’s position and would pass the information on to her council.

INFO

2.4 Innovative Wastewater Technologies Alternative

Adrian Coombs explained what the innovative wastewater treatment technology alternative would involve, including the possible applications for reuse. There were no comments on this Alternative.

INFO

2.5 Screening Criteria and Assessment Process



Ian Dobrindt reviewed the proposed screening criteria and the process that will be used to select a Recommended Alternative. There were no comments on the screening criteria or assessment process.

INFO

Andrew Big Canoe noted that notification of the First Nations when artifacts or remains are found are still of concern. Although the Region may abide by the First Nations Consultation Protocol developed for this project, it is uncertain that developers or contractors are committed to do the same.

INFO

Attachments:

Prepared By: Katrina Broughton Date Issued:

Revision Issued:

July 21, 2010

August 3, 2010

This confirms and records our interpretation of the discussions which occurred and our understanding reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within 7 days of the date issued, we will assume that this recorded interpretation or description is complete and accurate. Upper York Sewage Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment > Shared Documents > A-ADMIN (PROJ MGMT)-MEDIA-MEETINGS > A13-MEETINGS > FIRST NATION-METIS MEETINGS > 10-06-18-FN Mtg 3

1

McCullough, Katrina

From: Warren B. Sault [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:13 PMTo: 'Dave Simpson'; 'Pam Crowe'; 'Andy Big Canoe'; ' "Melissa Dokis'; ' '; ' "Diane Sheridan';

' "Lori Ritter'; ' "Margaret Sault'; ' "Rhonda Coppaway'; 'Todd Kring'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: UYSS Meeting July 6, 2011

AECOM and York Region have confirmed July 6, 2011 for a meeting on the Upper York Sewage Solutions Project. The meeting will be held at Casino Rama. York Region will cover travel, meal, and accommodation expenses for two (2) First Nation representatives from each First Nation to attend the meeting. First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. will be coordinating the meeting on behalf of York Region. Please call myself Warren Sault, Project Manager, at (519) 445‐0040 or by email at [email protected], to confirm your First Nation representative's attendance or if you should have any questions Warren Sault, B.A., E.E.T. First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. P.O. Box 280 1786 Chiefswood Rd. Ohsweken, On N0A 1M0 Tel: (519) 445‐0040 Fax: (519) 445‐4254

11-07-07-FN Mtg 4-Mtg Summary.doc Page 1 of 5

UYSSolutions Project Office 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1 Newmarket, ON L3Y 7B8

Tel: (905) 830-5656 Fax: (905) 830-0176

www.uyssolutions.ca

MEETING SUMMARY



RE: Alternatives to the Undertaking DATE: July 7, 2011

LOCATION: Casino Rama – Algonquin Room TIME: 8:15 am – 1:00 pm

PARTICIPANTS

Participant's Name (and initials) Representing

Dave Simpson Alderville First Nation

Pamela Crowe Alderville First Nation

Diane Sheridan Hiawatha First Nation

Lori Ritter Hiawatha First Nation

Murray Maracle Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation

Margaret Sault Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Adrian Coombs York Region

Adam Chamberlain Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

George Godin Conestoga-Rovers & Associates

Ian Dobrindt AECOM

Katrina Broughton AECOM

DISTRIBUTION

Participants File


Ref. Item #

Brief Description

Action by

E-mail a PDF copy of the presentation and display panels to all meeting attendees.

KB

Provide presentations on USB memory sticks for future meetings, as well as hard copies to facilitate note taking.

KB

Circulate the UYSS First Nations Consultation Protocol KB

Identify how archaeological monitoring will take place as the project progresses.

York Region




1.0 Introductions and Project Overview

Meeting participants introduced themselves and where they were from

Adrian Coombs welcomed everyone and thanked everyone for attending. She provided an overview of the project and current status.

Lori Ritter asked why Georgina is not included in the service area.

Adrian Coombs responded that Georgina is serviced through two small sewage treatment plants.

2.0 Assessing the Alternatives

Ian Dobrindt described the assessment process and 15 criteria that were used to assess the alternatives and each of the 4 alternatives to the undertaking

Margaret Sault asked if we were coordinating with other projects related to discharging to Lake Ontario.

Adrian Coombs responded that York Region coordinated their infrastructure projects through their Water and Wastewater Class EA Master Plan

Murray Maracle asked what’s driving the growth in East Gwillimbury?

Ian Dobrindt responded that as urban areas in the GTA have experienced growth, urban development has slowly moved north towards East Gwillimbury.

Margaret Sault added that under the provincial Growth Plan, these areas are designated for growth.

Margaret Sault asked about the water table in our area.

Adam Chamberlain responded that the wells that York Region draws its groundwater from are very deep, so they are not typically affected by shallow construction and do not typically have a direct impact on shallow wells in the Service Area.

Adrian Coombs responded that York Region has a sustainable pumping rate of approximately 40 MLD from the Yonge Street aquifer. Overall, the water supply in UYSS service area is a blend of groundwater well water and surface water from Lake Ontario.

3.0 Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre Alternative

Katrina Broughton indicated that she will e-mail a PDF copy of the presentation and display panels to all meeting attendees; if anyone would prefer a hard copy, she will mail a copy.

All of the meeting participants indicated that they prefer to receive electronic copies.

At the next meeting memory sticks will be supplied with the presentation. These should be brought to future meetings to upload new materials.

KB

George Godin provided additional information on the tentatively recommended alternative – the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre alternative.

Pamela Crowe asked who would regulate the phosphorus off-setting program.

George responded that the Ministry of the Environment and other regulatory agencies would regulate this

Dave Simpson asked about pharmaceuticals and waste in the wastewater. He



added that environmental protection is the primary concern for First Nations.

George Godin responded that research has shown that reverse osmosis is the most effective at removing pharmaceuticals if they exist in the wastewater. He added that research is still being conducted on pharmaceuticals:

if they exist in wastewater, are they removed by treatment

to what extent are they removed?. .

Regulations currently don’t exist anywhere in the world, and as research develops, regulations will come into place if it is determined that they are necessary.

Pamela Crowe asked if the reclaimed water for irrigation is kept separate.

George Godin responded that it was.

Diane Sheridan asked if there some kind of water quality control after the last Ultra-violet disinfection

George responded that the Certificate of Approval will specify what parameters have to be measured, how often, and what levels are permitted.

Dave Simpson asked what would happen if someone dropped a syringe in their toilet.

George Godin responded that mechanical screens remove materials such as rags, sticks and syringes while grit removal processes remove grit, sand and granular materials. Typically these screenings and grit are eventually sent to a landfill for disposal. Biological material (sludge) from the primary treatment can be handled in a few different ways. The Region currently sends sludge to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment.

Dave Simpson asked about any risks that we may not see that could derail the project.

George Godin responded that we will continue to study this through the approximately 2.5 years of the EA.

Dave Simpson noted that any water used for irrigation will end up in the rivers eventually.

George Godin responded that the nitrogen and phosphorus in the water will be taken up by plants and the application rate will be controlled to control and minimize any run off.

Adrian Coombs added that there are no regulations in Ontario currently for reclaimed water, so we will be developing water reuse guidelines with the Ministry of the Environment.

Margaret Sault asked how Permits to Take Water are regulated and monitored.

Pamela Crowe added that for anything less than 50 cubic metres/day, someone does not need a permit.

George Godin responded that all of the Conservation Authorities have a good monitoring program and can determine how much groundwater can be removed without doing damage to the groundwater aquifers.

Adam Chamberlain added that there can be substantial penalties if anyone is found to be taking more water than they are supposed to or taking water where they don’t have a permit



Adrian added that permits are issued annually, so the amount can be lessened if the regulatory agency deems necessary. She added that using reclaimed water can reduce the amount of water that golf courses, sod farms, etc, need to draw from groundwater aquifers.

Margaret Sault asked if there would be an opportunity for First Nations to be trained and operate this kind of facility.

George Godin responded that there could be.

Margaret Sault asked if this type of system could be used for the Great Lakes protection strategy.

George Godin responded that to date, there has not been a need to treat to this level elsewhere on the Great Lakes.

Margaret added that there is pressure for growth around all of Lake Ontario.

Adam Chamberlain responded that as growth pressures increase, there will be increased pressure to adopt more advanced treatment technologies.

4.0 Next Steps and Discussion

Ian Dobrindt outlined the next steps for the project.

He noted if everyone is in agreement, we would distribute the EA documents as electronic copies on CD on USB key, rather than as hard copies. All representatives in attendance preferred this approach.

Margaret Sault requested for future meetings copies of the presentation in hard copy with space for notes.

KB

Ian Dobrindt led a discussion and asked meeting participants what they thought about the tentatively recommended alternative.

Margaret Sault responded that she liked the recommended alternative because it is not wasting the water, instead making full use of it

Lori Ritter responded that she supported the alternative and thought it was important for water to stay within its own watershed

Ian Dobrindt asked First Nations representatives what they feel is the most important function of the Water Reclamation Centre.

Diane Sheridan responded that she will want to know where the Water Reclamation Centre will be.

Dave Simpson responded that he is concerned with any impact on treaty rights and traditional hunting, fishing and gathering lands. He added that an aboriginal relations policy is good because it outlines where consultation happens at the beginning of the project, half-way through, and towards the end the process, rather than informing First Nations after a decision has been made.

Ian Dobrindt asked if Dave Simpson could provide an example of an Aboriginal Relations Policy. Ian added that the UYSS First Nations Consultation Protocol was developed early on as part of the UYSS Terms of Reference process; and that it would be circulated again to those who were not involved in the beginning.

Dave Simpson responded they are still working on their Aboriginal Relations Policy.

Lori Ritter noted it would be good to get Simcoe County to implement this type

KB



of technology.

Adrian responded that the Region has been in contact with other municipalities around the lake and this technology will be widely shared.

Ian Dobrindt asked if the First Nations representatives had any final thoughts they would like the UYSS project team to take away.

Dave Simpson said he appreciates today’s consultation, and added that their primary concern is what we can do to best look after our environment.

Murray Maracle responded that he hoped the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre would be opportunity for training and knowledge transfer.

Ian Dobrindt suggested the Region is considering this as part of establishing the proposed demonstration facility – to be continued into the permanent water reclamation facility if the alternative moves forward.

Lori Ritter responded that she is primarily interested in the project through their treaty areas and Aboriginal rights, and requested that York Region continue to keep them informed as the project moves forward.

Diane Sheridan responded that because the project is taking place on their traditional lands, she was interested in what kind of opportunities are potentially available for First Nations employment.

Pamela Crowe responded that she felt the Region was doing well by using the most advanced treatment in Ontario, and their interest is in ongoing communication and to be kept informed.

Margaret Sault responded that she liked the Water Reclamation Centre idea. She added that she would want to incorporate traditional knowledge into the Environmental Assessment, because there may be knowledge that is not captured by the other studies in the EA. She added that they are also very interested in archaeological investigations.

Diane Sheridan added that the Hiawatha First Nation has trained monitors that can monitor Stage 1 through 4 archeological assessments.

Ian Dobrindt responded that ASI is part of the Consortium Project Team and is responsible for Stage I and II Archaeological Assessments. York Region will consider how First Nations trained archaeological monitors can be involved as the project progresses.

York Region

Attachments: UYSS First Nations Consultation Protocol

Meeting Presentation Display Panels

Prepared By: Katrina Broughton Date Issued: July 18, 2011

This confirms and records our interpretation of the discussions which occurred and our understanding reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within 7 days of the date issued, we will assume that this recorded interpretation or description is complete and accurate. Upper York Sewage Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment > Shared Documents > A-ADMIN (PROJ MGMT)-MEDIA-MEETINGS > A13-MEETINGS > FIRST NATION-METIS MEETINGS > 11-07-07-FN Mtg 4

July 7, 2011

1

Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment

Meeting with First NationsJuly 7, 2011

Why You’re Here!

Project Overview Project Overview Sewage Servicing

Alternatives The Tentatively

Recommended AlternativeN t St

2

Taking care of ourirreplaceable water resources…

Next Steps

July 7, 2011

2

EAST GWILLIMBURYP l i &

Servicing Tomorrow’sCommunities

Purpose /

NEWMARKETPopulation & Employment 27,000Sewage Flow 8 MLD

Population & Employment 91,500Sewage Flow 28 MLD

p /Opportunity Statement:

To develop a sustainable sewage servicing solution to

accommodate

AURORAPopulation & Employment 34,500Sewage Flow 11 MLD

47 million litres per day (MLD) additional capacity required to 2031

forecasted growth in the UYSS service

area to 2031

3

Sustainability What does it mean?

Making smarter decisions about our lifestyle, community design, infrastructure and finances

Thinking differently, being more innovative, proactive and collaborative

Leaving our communities and our water resources in a healthy state for our

4

children and grandchildren

4

“Sustainability means living within the Earth’s limits… “Sustainability means living within the Earth’s limits… doing things better doing things better –– not doing without.”not doing without.”

David Suzuki, Foreword to Sustainability within a Generation, 2004

July 7, 2011

3

Our ExistingEnvironment

55

Challenges &Opportunities

Legislation in place with the

Protect the Oak Ridges Moraine

Respect our Great Lakes

g pgoal to…

6

Revitalize the Lake Simcoe Watershed

6

July 7, 2011

4

EnvironmentalAssessment

Planning Process

2009 2010 2011 2012 20131 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Terms of Reference (ToR)

• Preparation of ToR

• ToR Review/Approval by MOE

Environmental Assessment (EA)

• Alternatives To the Undertaking

• Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking

We are here

• Impact Assessment of the Preferred Undertaking

EA Report

• EA Report Preparation

• EA Report Submission to MOE for Approval

7

Selecting theRecommended

Alternative

8

July 7, 2011

5

Assessing theAlternatives

9

4 Alternatives Tothe Undertaking

1. Do Nothingg

2. Discharge to Lake Ontario

3. Discharge to Lake Simcoe

4. Innovative Wastewater Treatment Technologies (Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre)

10

July 7, 2011

6

15 Criteria Usedto Assess theAlternatives

Each criterion was framed as a question to i t / ith tiarrive at a yes/no response with supporting

rationale Criteria were grouped under the following

topics: Problem / Opportunity Statement Provincial Growth, Environmental Policies &

Legislation Regional Official Plan, Master Plans, Strategies &

11

g , , gPrograms

Proven Technology / Feasibility Ability to Implement / Financial Viability

Public input was received on the four alternatives and the 15 criteria at a workshop held in June 2010.

Do Nothing

Do Nothing &Discharge to Lake

Simcoe

Benchmark alternative with no new infrastructure to be built

Discharge to Lake Simcoe A wastewater conveyance system and

treatment facility, located within the Lake Simcoe watershed Must comply with WPCP phosphorus limits

bli h d d h Ph h R d i York Durham

Advanced Water Pollution Control Plant

Groundwater WellsWater Supply

1212

established under the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy

Wastewater from growth in Newmarket and Aurora would continue to be conveyed to the existing York Durham Sewage System

York Durham Sewage System

Toronto / PeelWater Supply

July 7, 2011

7

Do Nothing

These AlternativesAre Not

Recommended

gDoes not satisfy the problem/opportunity statement; will not accommodate prescribed growth

Would not meet WPCP phosphorus Discharge to Lake Simcoe

13

limits established under the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy

Discharge toLake Ontario

A new wastewater

East Gwillimbury

28 MLD

Newmarket

5 MLD

3 MLD

New

A new wastewater conveyance system, connecting to an appropriate point in the existing York Durham Sewage System

Conveyance through some combination of tunnel, gravity sewer, pumping station(s) and

Aurora

11 MLD

ConveyanceSystem

1414

, p p g ( )forcemain(s)

Wastewater from growth conveyed to Duffin Creek WPCP for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario

July 7, 2011

8

Discharge toLake Ontario

C id d t Considered conveyance concepts with combination of: Forcemains and pumping stations Full gravity flow (deep tunnel)

Conceptual sewer alignments and associated profiles

20 km of new infrastructure; over 60 km total conveyance to Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant

15

Lake Simcoe WaterReclamation

Centre

East

Innovative SewageTreatment Plant

- Advanced technology- Phosphorus off-sets- Use of Reclaimed Water

Wastewater from growth in East Gwillimbury and a portion of Newmarket would be conveyed to an Innovative Sewage Treatment Plant (Water Reclamation Centre)

Wastewater from growth in A d ti f

Newmarket

5 MLD

3 MLD

East Gwillimbury

28 MLD

16

Aurora and a portion of Newmarket would be conveyed to the existing York Durham Sewage System for discharge to Lake Ontario

Aurora

11 MLD

July 7, 2011

9

Tentatively Recommended

Alternative

York Region is recommending theYork Region is recommending the

Lake SimcoeLake SimcoeWater Reclamation Centre Water Reclamation Centre

AlternativeAlternative

17

…a Water Reclamation Centre & …a Water Reclamation Centre & associated conveyance associated conveyance

infrastructureinfrastructure

2 Viable Alternatives

Both the Lake Ontario Discharge & Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre

alternatives are viable

So why is the Lake Simcoe Water So why is the Lake Simcoe Water

18

Reclamation Centre Alternative being Reclamation Centre Alternative being recommended?recommended?

July 7, 2011

10

Lake Simcoe WaterReclamation Centre

Recommended

Lake Simcoe WaterLake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre Discharge to Lake Ontario

Enhances Water Efficiency and Conservation Program by using reclaimed water to reduce the demand for water resources.

Consistent with the Region’s Water Efficiency and Conservation Program, but does not enhance water efficiency by including water reclamation technologies.Consistent with the intra basin

19

Maintains a water balance within the Lake Simcoe watershed.

Consistent with the intra-basin transfer provisions of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), but does not maintain a water balance within the Lake Simcoe watershed.

Lake Simcoe WaterReclamation Centre

Recommended

Lake Simcoe Water R l i C Discharge to Lake OntarioReclamation Centre Discharge to Lake Ontario

Improves both the quality and quantity of water flowing into Lake Simcoe.

Improves the quality, but will not positively affect the quantity of water in Lake Simcoe.

Financially viable and construction can be phased over time resulting in lower initial capital costs

Financially viable, but the majority of the infrastructure components must be built at the outset, resulting in higher initial

20

capital costs. g gcapital costs.No new wastewater infrastructure would be required within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Wastewater infrastructure would be required within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

July 7, 2011

11

Confirming Viability of Lake Simcoe Water

Reclamation Centre

Regular meetings with MOE staff facilitated a clear mutual understanding of the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre Alternative and associated approval requirements

Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre Alternative is aligned with and responsive to: Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Phosphorus Reduction Strategy Water Opportunities Act 2010 Minister’s direction to consider innovative local solution

December 2010 MOE confirmed support for Water Reclamation Centre Alternative through written commitments on provincial approval requirements that would allow a Lake Simcoe servicing solution

21

L k SiLake SimcoeWater Reclamation Centre

What it is and How it Works

P t ti l B fit t th L k SiPotential Benefits to the Lake Simcoe Watershed (East Holland River)

Use of Reclaimed Water

22

July 7, 2011

12

What is a WaterReclamation

Centre?

It is a s stainable se age treatment It is a sustainable sewage treatment facility that uses proven, leading-edge, advanced wastewater purification and water reclamation technologies to produce: High quality nutrient-rich water for potential

applications such as irrigation (e g golf courses sod

23

applications such as irrigation (e.g., golf courses, sod farms, tree farms, etc.) and industrial uses

High purity phosphorus-reduced water for discharge to Lake Simcoe watercourse(s) to benefit both water quality and quantity

PhosphorusOff-Setting

Approximately 100 kg/yr of new phosphorus would be discharged to the Lake Simcoe watershed by the Water Reclamation Centre

A project specific phosphorus off-setting program would address this increase through a minimum 2:1 reduction of other sources of phosphorus (minimum 200 kg/yr)of other sources of phosphorus (minimum 200 kg/yr)

Result would be a minimum net reduction of 100 kg/yr of total phosphorus in the Lake Simcoe watershed

24

July 7, 2011

13

Water ReclamationCentre Process

Concept

A picture is worth a 1,000 words…A picture is worth a 1,000 words…

Click here to run animation

25

Water ReclamationCentre Site

Concept

Water Reclamation Centre Site Concept

26

Site Considerations: Odour Protection Noise Attenuation Traffic & Site Access Visual Aesthetics & Architecture Natural Landscaping Education and Research

July 7, 2011

14

What Does ReclaimedWater Look Like?

Low Pressure Low Pressure Membrane Reverse Osmosis

MembraneUltra-violetDisinfection

Before and After Advanced Treatment…

27


ConceptRAW SEWAGE ADVANCED TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TREATMENT

PRIMARY TREATMENT

SECONDARY TREATMENT

ULTRA-VIOLET DISINFECTION

MICROFILTRATIONMEMBRANE

NUTRIENT RICH RECLAIMED WATER FOR

IRRIGATION

28

DISINFECTION


MEMBRANE

HIGH PURITY RECLAIMED WATER FOR DISCHARGE

TO LAKE SIMCOE WATERCOURSE(S)

REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE

Surface Water Discharge

NUTRIENT RICH RECLAIMED WATER FOR IRRIGATION

July 7, 2011

15

Potential Benefitsto the East Holland

River

Hydrodynamic and water quality Hydrodynamic and water quality modeling used to predict performance of Water Reclamation Centre (WRC): Reduced Total Phosphorus

concentration in East Holland River Base flow supplemented with high

quality WRC discharge Less algae growth, resulting in

increased water clarity and increased aquaticplant growth WRC discharge will increase water quantity and improvewater quality in one of the most degraded rivers n the watershed

29

Phosphorus in East Holland River

0.25

PWQO Limit

Total Phosphorus East Holland River

Phosphorus Concentration

0.25

0.1

0.15

0.2

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus [

mg/

L]

p(past 15 years)

0.20

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

0.10

0.15

Historical phosphorus concentration in East Holland River exceeds Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO)

W t R l ti

0

0.05

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

T

Months

PWQO: 0.03 mg/L

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

Tota

l P

0.05WRC Discharge:0.01 – 0.02 mg/L

30

Water Reclamation Centre (WRC) discharge would reduce phosphorus concentration in the East Holland River

July 7, 2011

16

450

500WRC DischargeEast Holland River WRC 2% of total flow

East Holland RiverFlow with WRC

Discharge

150

200

250

300

350

400Fl

ow [M

LD]

1,866 MLD

total flow

WRC 14% of total flow



Benefits are directly connected to quality of WRC discharge and to

the percent contribution of

WRC discharge to varying River flow

0

50

100

31



UsingPRELIMINARY TREATMENT

PRIMARY TREATMENT

SECONDARY TREATMENT


MICROFILTRATION MEMBRANE


IRRIGATION

Reclaimed Water

32

DISINFECTION


MEMBRANE

HIGH PURITY RECLAIMED WATER FOR DISCHARGE

TO LAKE SIMCOE WATERCOURSE(S)


NUTRIENT RICH RECLAIMED WATER FOR IRRIGATION

July 7, 2011

17

Reclaimed Water Usein York Region

Reclaimed water use conserves our water resources

Redirection of nutrients from receiving waters, such as East Holland River, to land irrigation resulting in beneficial reuse of nutrients

Prime beneficiaries for the use of reclaimed water:of reclaimed water: Sod farms Tree farms Golf courses

33

Reclaimed Water ExperienceElsewhere

Scottsdale Water Campus, Arizona In operation since 1999 the facility treats approximately 72 million In operation since 1999 the facility treats approximately 72 million

litres/day (nearly double the proposed UYSS Water Reclamation Centre)

Reclaimed water is distributed to local golf courses for turf irrigation, and pumped back into the groundwater aquifer

Water Campus blends in with the surrounding landscape, featuring native landscaping

Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County, California

Started recycling water in 1976, one of the first in the world Currently treats 265 million litres/day and is expanding to

treat an additional 110 million litres/day Located in an urban setting, well screened to surrounding

commercial and residential neighbourhoods

July 7, 2011

18

UnparalleledTreatment Levels

in Ontario

Lake Simcoe the beneficiary of Innovative

Will improve water quality and increase quantity in the East Holland River that flows into Lake SimcoeC li ith th i it

yWastewater Treatment Technologies

Compliance with the spirit and intent of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

35

Supports Phosphorus Reduction Strategy’sLong Term Actions for Sewage Treatment Plants

Sustainabilitythrough Reclaimed

Water

Reclaimed water use is a sustainable way to h R i ’

Meets or exceeds York Region’s 10 Water and Wastewater Sustainability Principles

Provides a reliable water source that protects against climate change impacts (changes in rainfall intensity and frequency)

conserve the Region’s water resources …

y q y)

Supports Ontario’s position to showcase innovative wastewater treatment technology and water conservation (Water Opportunities Act, 2010)

36

July 7, 2011

19

Next Steps &Questions

37

Next Steps…

York Region will confirm the preferred alternative to the undertaking (Fall 2011)

If Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre is confirmed as the preferred alternative, York Region will Identify alternative sites for the Water Reclamation Centre Identify collection and conveyance infrastructure Establish a demonstration facility at York Region’s Mount

Alb t W t P ll ti C t l Pl t itAlbert Water Pollution Control Plant site

Next Meeting with First Nations proposed for Fall 2011

Distribution of Draft EA expected in 2013 as PDF document on CD

38

July 7, 2011

20

What Are Your Thoughts?

What do you think about the tentatively What do you think about the tentatively recommended alternative?

What is the most important function the Water Reclamation Centre has to achieve?

What else do you want to know about the tentatively recommended alternative and/or reclaimed water?

Did you understand the treatment process for producing reclaimed water? What can we clarify?

What one thought do you need the project team to take away?

39

Thank You!

Questions/

Comments

www uyssolutions ca

4040

www.uyssolutions.ca

July 7, 2011

21

Environmental Assessment

Planning Process

41

Advancements inMembrane

Technology

1 4

1.6

st

21

24Salt passage Membrane Price/Flow Productivity (gpd/ft2)

0 2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

lt pa

ssag

e (%

) & M

embr

ane

Cos

($/g

allo

ns/d

ay)

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Elem

ent p

rodu

ctiv

ity (g

pd/ft

2)

Membrane technology being constructed at York Region’s Keswick Water Pollution Control Plant.

Today’s technology is 150 times less expensive than 30 years ago

0

0.2

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year

Sa

0

3

42

July 7, 2011

22

Cools high river temperatures, improving dissolved oxygen concentration and fish habitat quality

Lowers Temperature inEast Holland River

East Holland River at Holland Landing

15

20

25

30

Tem

pera

ture

, Water

[ºC

]

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Tem

pera

ture

(oC)

20

25

30

15

East Holland River AverageMaximumMinimum

dissolved oxygen concentration and fish habitat quality

Summer WRC Discharge: 20 Degrees

0

5

10

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

T

N/A

Wat

er T

0MonthsJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

10

5N/A

43



PRELIMINARY TREATMENT

PRIMARY TREATMENT

SECONDARY TREATMENT

MICROFILTRATIONMEMBRANE



IRRIGATION

44


MEMBRANE

ULTRA PURE RECLAIMED WATER FOR DISCHARGE

TO LAKE SIMCOE WATERCOURCES


DISINFECTION

NUTRIENT RICH RECLAIMED

WATER

July 7, 2011

23

Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility, El Segundo, California

Reclaimed Water Experience Elsewhere

In operation since 1995 Treats 150 million litres/day Produces five different qualities of custom recycled water

that meet the unique needs of the consumers Operates an award-winning Children’s Education Program

Johns Creek Environmental Campus,R ll G i

45

Treats approximately 67 million litres/day using a membrane biological reactor with biological phosphorus removal

An integrated educational campus in a park-like setting with architectural features that blend with the community

Roswell, Georgia

David R. Donnelly, MES LLB

[email protected]

June 11, 2010

Ms. Adrian Coombs, P. Eng.

Senior Project Manager

Water & Wastewater Branch

The Regional Municipality of York

17250 Yonge St.

Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1

Dear Ms. Coombs,

Re: First Nations Consultations – Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment

Notice of Commencement and Alternatives to the Undertaking Meeting June 18, 2010

I am writing in response to a letter, dated May 5, 2010, from Mr. Warren Sault of First Nations

Engineering Services Ltd. regarding the First Nations consultations to be carried out on behalf of

York Region in relation to the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment

(EA). I have attached a copy of this letter for your convenience. In this letter, he stated that

“York Region acknowledges and supports the need to conduct separate consultation sessions

with First Nations in view of the unique concerns that they may have in regard to the

environmental assessment.” He concluded by stating that “York Region will cover travel, meal,

and accommodation expenses for two (2) First Nation representatives from each First Nation to

attend the meeting.”

My client, the Huron-Wendat Nation, has instructed me to write you to object strenuously to

this concept of “consultation” as advanced by Mr. Sault and York Region. The Huron-Wendat

Nation has a constitutional right to be consulted and accommodated with respect to its cultural

heritage interests. These rights have been recognized in the successful prosecution of the

Ontario Realty Corporation in R. v. Ontario Realty Corporation (17 May 2004), Toronto (Ont. Ct.

Jus.) and in Hiawatha First Nation v. Ontario (Minister of Environment), [2007] 2 C.N.L.R. 186. As

the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of

Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 [Para. 54] “[c]onsultation that excludes from the outset

any form of accommodation would be meaningless.”

Adequate capacity funding is an integral component of meaningful consultation and

accommodation sessions. Without it, representatives of the Huron-Wendat Nation that attend

consultation sessions such as the one scheduled for June 18, 2010 will be forced to volunteer

their time and services to York Region, while losing their own sources of income. Nor will they

be recompensed by York Region for the costs associated with consulting experts or

professionals. And yet all these services are required in order for meaningful consultation and

accommodation to take place. Without adequate capacity funding that recompenses the Huron-

Wendat for their time and for the expenses entailed in expert and professional consultations,

York Region’s commitment to consultation is a sham. York Region may very well have

acknowledged the need for consultation, but they most certainly do not support it.

Please send us a list of all the professionals working on this project, and indicate which ones are

working for “meal money”. The public will be interested to learn how aboriginal versus non-

aboriginal people are treated.

Once again, we ask that York Region recognize and respect the Huron-Wendat Nation’s right to

meaningful consultation and accommodation by coming to the table to discuss appropriate

capacity funding for the UYSS EA consultation sessions to follow.

Yours Truly,

David R. Donnelly

Attachments.

cc. L. Lainé

H. Bastien

B. Fisch

W. Sault


[email protected]

June 28, 2010

Via E-mail

Ms. Adrian Coombs, P. Eng.


Water & Wastewater Branch

The Regional Municipality of York

17250 Yonge St.

Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1

Dear Ms. Coombs,

Re: First Nations Consultations – Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment

Notice of Commencement and Alternatives to the Undertaking Meeting June 18, 2010

Thank you for your June 16, 2010 response to my letter of June 11, 2010. You reiterated that

York Region is not in a position to provide participant funding to First Nations such as the Huron-

Wendat Nation “beyond the travel, meal and accommodation expenses set out in Mr. Sault’s

letter.”

It is surprising to me that York Region is capable of committing what one must assume to be

quite substantial funds to the Upper York Sewage Solutions project and yet it finds itself without

the financial wherewithal to engage in the much less costly process of meaningful consultation

with First Nations. My clients would be very interested in reviewing York Region’s budget for the

Upper York Sewage Solutions project with an eye to determining the cost of meaningful

consultation in comparison to the total cost of the project. Please send us a copy of York

Region’s budget for the Upper York Sewage Solutions project.

You also stated, in a later paragraph of your June 16, 2010 letter, that “[i]f the Huron-Wendat

First Nation does not wish to participate with this project at this time, the Region respects this

choice.” This statement suggests that you think the Huron-Wendat are choosing not to

participate, when in fact the Huron-Wendat would like nothing better than to do so. They simply

do not have the capacity.

It is my clients’ belief that this project should not go ahead without meaningful consultation and

that your refusal to accommodate the Huron-Wendat may force us to notify the Minister of the

Environment about our objections under s. 7.2 of the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O.

1990, c. E.18.

Yours Truly,

David R. Donnelly

cc. L. Lainé

H. Bastien

B. Fisch

W. Sault

The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel: (905) 895-1231, 1-877-464-YORK (1-877-464-9675), Fax: (905) 895-xxxx

Internet: www.york.ca

Environmental Services

Capital Planning and Delivery

June 16, 2010


Donnelly Law

215 Spadina Avenue

Suite 400

Toronto ON M5T 2C7

Dear Mr. Donnelly:

Re: Upper York Sewage Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment

Meeting June 18, 2010

Our File No.: E01, 74270

Thank you for your response dated June 11, 2010 to Mr. Sault’s letter dated May 5, 2010.

Mr. Sault’s letter was an invitation to participate at a session with other First Nations and receive

an update on this project.

The position of the Huron-Wendat First Nation is clearly expressed in your letter. In a previous

letter, the Region had outlined why the Huron-Wendat First Nation was contacted and invited to

attend sessions regarding this project. It was also indicated that the Region is not in a position to

provide funding of the nature and extent that was requested beyond the travel, meal and

accommodation expenses set out in Mr. Sault’s letter.

These sessions and the expenses that the Region has offered to reimburse are very similar to the

ones related to the former Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental

Assessment (SEC IEA). It is my understanding that representatives of the Huron-Wendat First

Nation did participate during the consultation sessions related to the SEC IEA.

If the Huron-Wendat First Nation does not wish to participate with this project at this time, the

Region respects this choice. However, the Region will continue to send information about this

project to First Nations, including the Huron-Wendat First Nation, and would be happy to have

your client attend future sessions with other First Nations if they wish to do so.

At this time, no field activities have been planned. The Region’s approach is that if any First

Nation remains should be encountered or significant First Nations artefacts are identified, contact

will be made with the Huron Wendat First Nation and other First Nations. This approach has

been in place for a number of years.

June 16, 2010

David R. Donnelly 2 Upper York Sewage Solutions Individual

Environmental Assessment Meeting June 18, 2010

In closing, thank you for your references to various legal cases. I am informed that the Region is

well aware of its legal responsibilities in such matters as well as the applicable legal

responsibilities of the federal government and the Province of Ontario.

Sincerely,

Adrian Coombs, P. Eng.


AC/rv

Copy to: Bill Fisch, Regional Chair and CEO, The Regional Municipality of York

Warren Sault, First Nations Engineering Services Ltd.

H. Bastien, Huron-Wendat First Nation

L. Laine, Huron-Wendat First Nation

YORK-#2151245-v1-Letter_to_David_Donnelly_re_Upper_York_Sewage_Solutions_IEA_Meeting_June_18_2010.DOC

1

McCullough, Katrina

From: Warren B. Sault [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:36 PMTo: 'Suzanne Howes'; [email protected]; ' '; 'Melissa Dokis'Subject: UYSS Meeting of July 7, 2011

Hi Everyone Please find the UYSS presentation presented at the meeting of July 7, 2011. As discussed, please let me know if you would like to arrange a follow‐up meeting with York Region representatives or if you should have any questions. Thank you Warren Sault, B.A., E.E.T. First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. P.O. Box 280 1786 Chiefswood Rd. Ohsweken, On N0A 1M0 Tel: (519) 445‐0040 Fax: (519) 445‐4254

Reference No. 28005August 5, 2011

VIA FACSIMILE AT (705) 247-2239 AND REGULAR MAILBeausoleil First Nation General DeliveryCedar Point, ONL0K 1R0 Attention: Chief Roland Monague

Re: First Nation Consultations - Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment Update

First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. has been retained by AECOM to facilitate and coordinate First Nationconsultations as part of this environmental assessment, on behalf of York Region. The Upper York SewageSolutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated in 2008 by the Regional Municipality of York(York Region) to provide a sustainable servicing solution that will accommodate the growth forecasted for theUYSS service area to 2031. The service area consists of the growth portions of the Towns of Aurora,Newmarket and East Gwillimbury, including the communities of Holland Landing, Queensville and Sharon(please see map attached).

Based on input received from interested participants, York Region is tentatively recommending the LakeSimcoe Water Reclamation Centre Alternative; a Water Reclamation Centre to treat wastewater fordischarge to the Lake Simcoe watershed using environmentally sustainable wastewater purification and waterrecycling technologies. The reclaimed water could be used for irrigation purposes (for example sod farms, treefarms and golf courses), and for discharge to a local watercourse within the Lake Simcoe watershed.

York Region acknowledges the need to conduct separate consultation sessions with First Nations in view ofthe unique concerns that they may have in regard to the environmental assessment. With this in mind, YorkRegion would like to offer your organization the opportunity to meet with the UYSS EA project team if youwish, to discuss the tentatively recommended alternative further.If you are interested in meeting, and/or have any questions or comments regarding the UYSS EA, pleasecontact myself, Warren Sault, Project Manager, at (519) 445-0040 or by email at [email protected]. If you arenot interested in meeting at this stage, or do not having any questions or comments, at this time, we willcontinue to keep you informed as the project progresses.

Yours truly,FIRST NATIONS ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.

Warren B. Sault, B.A., E.E.T.Project ManagerEncl.

cc: Adrian Coombs, P.Eng., Senior Project Manager, York Region



Map of Upper York Sewage Solutions

Service Area

2


VIA FACSIMILE AT (418) 842-1108 AND REGULAR MAILHuron Wendat Nation255 Place Chef Michel Laveau, Wendake, QCG0A 4V0Attention: Grand Chief Konrad Sioui







cc: Adrian Coombs, P.Eng., Senior Project Manager, York RegionLuc Laine, Huron Wendat NationHeather Bastien, Huron Wendat Nation




Service Area

2


VIA FACSIMILE AT AND REGULAR MAILIroquois ConfederacyR.R. # 2Ohsweken, OnN0A 1M0Attention: Leroy Hill, Secretary











Service Area

2


VIA FACSIMILE AT (705) 375-0532 AND REGULAR MAILMoose Deer Point First NationP. O. Box 119, 3719 Twelve Mile Bay RdMactier, OntarioP0C 1H0 Attention: Chief Barron King











Service Area

2

Reference No. 28005December 6, 2011

VIA FACSIMILE AT (905) 352-3242 AND REGULAR MAILAlderville First NationP. O. Box 46, R.R. #4Roseneath, OntarioK0K 2X0Attention: Chief James R. Marsden

Re: First Nations Consultations - Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental AssessmentMeeting - December 13, 2011

The Regional Municipality of York (York Region) is pleased to invite you to attend a meeting on theUpper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment (EA). The Lake Simcoe WaterReclamation Centre Alternative has been identified as thepreferred alternative to treat wastewater for discharge tothe Lake Simcoe watershed using environmentallysustainable wastewater purification and water recyclingtechnologies. As consultation on the preferred alternativecontinues, York Region is proposing to conduct anotherjoint meeting between interested First Nations and YorkRegion representatives on December 13, 2011. Thepurpose of this meeting is to discuss the preferredalternative and the proposed Water Reclamation Centresite selection process.

The preferred alternative will accommodate theprovincially approved growth forecasted to occur in theUYSS service area (please see map). This approvedgrowth is in accordance with both the provincial growthmanagement policies outlined in the Growth Plan for theGreater Golden Horseshoe developed under the Placesto Grow Act, 2005 and applicable environmental statutes.

York Region acknowledges the need to conduct separateconsultation sessions with First Nations in view of theunique concerns that they may have in regard to theenvironmental assessment. With this in mind, FirstNations Engineering Services Ltd. has been retained tofacilitate and coordinate First Nation consultations as partof this environmental assessment, on behalf of YorkRegion.

A Draft Agenda is enclosed for your review and consideration.



As with the previous meetings, the following First Nations are invited to attend:

Alderville First Nation Beausoleil First Nation Chippewas of Georgina IslandChippewas of Mnjikaning Curve Lake First Nation Hiawatha First NationHuron Wendat Nation

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First NationMississaugas of the New Credit First NationMoose Deer Point First NationMohawks of the Bay QuinteSix Nations of the Grand RiverIroquois Confederacy

York Region will cover travel, meal, and accommodation expenses for two (2) First Nationrepresentatives from each First Nation to attend the meeting. Expense rates are enclosed.

First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. will be coordinating the meeting on behalf of York Region.Please call myself Warren Sault, Project Manager, at (519) 445-0040 or by email at [email protected],to confirm your representative's attendance by December 8, 2011, or if you should have any questions.



cc: Adrian Coombs, P.Eng., Senior Project Manager, York RegionCouncillor Pamela Crowe, Alderville First NationDave Simpson, Alderville First Nation

2

11-12-13 - First Nations Mtg 5 Summary.doc Page 1 of 7

UYSSolutions Project Office 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1 Newmarket, ON L3Y 7B8

Tel: (905) 830-5656 Fax: (905) 830-0176

www.uyssolutions.ca

MEETING SUMMARY



RE: First Nations Meeting No. 5 DATE: December 13, 2011

LOCATION: Casino Rama – Algonquin Room TIME: 8:30am – 1:00pm PARTICIPANTS

Participant's Name Representing

Murray Maracle Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation Diane Sheridan Hiawatha First Nation Mel Arthur Alderville First Nation Lori Ritter Hiawatha First Nation Dave Simpson Alderville First Nation Krista Coppaway Curve Lake First Nation Suzanne Howes Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Dan Orr Ministry of the Environment Karry Sandy McKenzie Coordinator Williams Treaty First Nations Kerry-Ann Charles Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Warren Sault First Nations Engineering Services Ltd. Adrian Coombs York Region George Godin Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Adam Chamberlain Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ian Dobrindt AECOM Katrina Broughton AECOM DISTRIBUTION

Participants File


Ref. Item #

Brief Description

Action by

2.0 Provide information on sewage concentrations in small vs. large plants – Refer to response provided below

The project team is currently collecting sewage characteristic data from a number of plants in the watershed which are representative of both the demonstration facility and ultimately the proposed Water Reclamation Centre. A larger plant like the Duffin Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) would not be representative of the wastewater quality anticipated at the proposed Water Reclamation Centre. The minor differences in

CRA


Ref. Item #

Brief Description

Action by

wastewater characteristics between smaller and larger WPCPs should not have a major effect on operation of advanced treatment systems such as reverse osmosis. Such advanced reverse osmosis treatment systems are operating successfully at a number of WPCPs around the world and each of these facilities are a different size and have different influent wastewater characteristics.

2.0 Provide local Sewer Use Bylaws – Regional Municipality of York and Town of East Gwillimbury Sewer Use Bylaws attached

York Region

3.0 Provide existing land uses of long list of potential Water Reclamation Centre sites - Attached to Meeting Summary

AECOM



1.0 Introductions and Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking Meeting participants introduced themselves and where they were from. Adrian

Coombs provided a project update and information on the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre, which is the preferred alternative.

Katrina Broughton explained that the presentation from today is on the USB key provided, as well as the documents that were requested by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation.

Suzanne Howes noted that she wanted to let the Region know that Chief Big Canoe felt that she was misquoted in the article in the Georgina Advocate in the week prior and that the newspaper had placed its own slant on the story.

Suzanne Howes asked whether the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) was built for the growth in East Gwillimbury. Adrian Coombs responded that there is a Stage 3 expansion under construction at the Duffins Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) that would have accommodated the 2031 flow. If the flow is now sent to Lake Simcoe, the future Stage 4 expansion could be deferred. Because much of the YDSS is constructed in tunnel, the minimum diameter (about 3 metres) required for this method of construction is sufficient to accommodate existing and future service capacity needs including East Gwillimbury.

Suzanne Howes and Krista Coppaway wondered why the Ministry of the Environment does not currently have regulations for treatment of pharmaceuticals. George Godin responded that extensive research is ongoing right now to determine at what concentrations these substances are harmful. Study and research is being undertaken by the industry to study control at source, the fate through various treatment technologies and the fate of these substances in our receiving waters. He noted that as a community, we need to consider reducing these substances at the source, such as taking expired medications back to your pharmacy rather than disposal to the sewage collection system. Krista Coppaway noted there is still a concern about the impact of pharmaceuticals related to the medications that people take internally,



particularly on fish populations. She added that the East Holland River has significant fish spawning and aquatic habitat. She noted that water quality has degraded since sewage treatment plants started being built on Lake Simcoe. Kerry-Ann Charles noted that there are 15 wastewater treatment plants on Lake Simcoe. She expressed concerned about the impact the additional loading will have upon Lake Simcoe

Suzanne Howes asked how a preferred site has been selected if the EA is not completed yet. Ian Dobrindt responded that a preferred site has not been selected yet. The first stage of the EA was to select a preferred Alternative To the Undertaking, which is the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre alternative.

Suzanne Howes asked if this will cause a transfer of water from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe. George Godin responded that it will not, and it will correct an existing imbalance of water that is currently transferred from the Lake Simcoe watershed to Lake Ontario.

Suzanne Howes asked if the Water Reclamation Centre will set a precedent for other plants on Lake Simcoe. Dan Orr responded that this is being discussed at the Ministry of the Environment. The Growth Plan for Simcoe County is being developed and the servicing requirements for Simcoe County are being considered.

George Godin provided an example from recent publications of the large amount of water an individual would have to consume to ingest a single prescription dose (in the order of millions of glasses over hundreds of years). Krista Coppaway noted that the example does not address effects on wildlife.

2.0 Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking Ian Dobrindt presented the process used to select a long list of potential Water

Reclamation Centre sites and the potential proposed draft criteria to reach a short list of potential sites.

Kerry-Ann Charles asked how the Water Reclamation Centre could be built if there is no new sewage treatment plants allowed under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Ian Dobrindt responded that the Certificate of Approval from the Holland Landing Lagoons Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) is transferrable to a different site. The Ministry of the Environment has instructed the Region to find the best location and has agreed to transfer the Certificate of Approval to a better location if one is found. Karry Sandy McKenzie asked if the rationale behind that decision is to allow for a discharge to Cook’s Bay. George Godin responded that it would be preferable to locate the outfall within the East Holland River because the discharge would provide a benefit to that watercourse. He added that most of the sites on the long list would discharge to the East Holland River, with only a few sites closer to Cook’s Bay. Adrian Coombs added that almost all of the Upper York Sewage Solution service area is within the East Holland River watershed.



Dan Orr asked if the intent of the Region is to purchase property or long term lease. Adrian Coombs responded that purchase would be preferable.

Kerry-Ann Charles asked what the distance is between the existing discharge for the Holland Landing WPCP and Cook’s Bay. George Godin responded that it is approximately 10 km.

Suzanne Howes asked if the EA will be on the River or on the land. Ian Dobrindt responded that the EA includes land, water, social and natural environment, as set out in the Environmental Assessment Act.

Suzanne Howes asked if the discharge into the East Holland River would cause flooding. George Godin responded that preliminary studies show that the East Holland River can handle the quantity of water from the Water Reclamation Centre, as the channel is quite wide. He added that the water level in almost all of the East Holland River is governed by the Lake. In the spring, discharge from the Water Reclamation Centre would represent approximately 2% of the total flow.

Dan Orr asked if the Water Reclamation Centre will have any storage capacity. George Godin responded that the Water Reclamation Centre would have 1.5 to 2 days of storage capacity. Krista Coppaway noted that water levels in Lake Simcoe may also impact parts of the Trent Severn Systems. She added that if rain is anticipated, the water levels are lowered through parts of the Trent Canal system

Suzanne Howes asked what plans are in place in case of emergencies. George Godin responded that wastewater treatment plants are required to include standby power for critical treatment processes. Typically, this is provided for at least 4 hours. Karry Sandy McKenzie noted the recent challenges on her reserve with the alarm failing at the water treatment plant.

Dan Orr noted that during low flow conditions, the East Holland River has to maintain a minimum flow, and asked if there is an opportunity to augment the flow. George Godin responded that this is a key advantage of the Water Reclamation Centre - water quantity and quality in the East Holland River is very stressed in the summer during low flow periods, and this water would augment the low flow conditions.

Karry Sandy McKenzie asked what the regulations are around water reuse. George Godin responded that regulations do not exist in Ontario right now and the Ministry of the Environment has agreed to project specific water reuse guidelines for the UYSS EA. Dan Orr added that these types of guidelines would typically be required as part of conditions of approval of an EA. He added that the Province is currently developing regulations under the recent Water Opportunities Act.

Kerry-Ann Charles asked if the 21 sites on the long list are privately or publicly owned.



Ian Dobrindt responded that they are all are privately owned. Karry Sandy McKenzie asked if the intent is to purchase or expropriate the land where the Water Reclamation Centre would be located Ian Dobrindt responded that it is always preferable to have a willing seller rather than expropriate.

Suzanne Howes noted that there are a significant number of paleo and historic sites that are registered, and asked if the project team has identified those. Ian Dobrindt responded that the project team is currently looking at existing information sources, including registered sites, and will undertake field investigations as part of evaluating sites on the short list. Karry Sandy McKenzie noted that as part of York Region Archaeological Master Plan, York Region has agreed to have a Williams Treaty cultural monitor as part of Stage 2. Adrian Coombs responded that they will consider that for this project. Ian Dobrindt added that cultural monitors were used as part of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment

3.0 Next Steps Ian Dobrindt provided an overview of next steps in the project, including

modifications to the York Durham Sewage System, and a demonstration facility to be located at the Mount Albert WPCP.

Kerry-Ann Charles asked what the size of the Mount Albert WPCP is and wouldn’t there be a difference in the concentration of contaminants than what would be found in the smaller Mount Albert facility in East Gwillimbury. She asked if it would be more effective to locate the demonstration facility in high growth areas. George Godin responded that it would not make a difference because we would stress test the demonstration facility under different conditions, for example very concentrated sewage and very diluted sewage under both high and low flow conditions. Kerry-Ann Charles asked if the project team can provide information on the differences between sewage at large vs. small treatment plants. George Godin noted that the difference would only be significant if there is a large proportion of industry, such as 50% or more, which is not likely in East Gwillimbury. He added most municipalities have sewer use bylaws as well to ensure WPCPs are able to treat the wastewater. Any large

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN - UYSSolutions · 2014. 2. 16. · 10-06-18 - Meeting Summary_rev1.doc Page...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN - UYSSolutions · 2014. 2. 16. · 10-06-18 - Meeting Summary_rev1.doc Page...