supporting documentation for queensville sideroad wrc outfall · 050278 (115) page 15 york region...

Map Document: 050278-070(INT053)GIS-WA002 Sunday, January 19, 2014

Town ofEast Gwillimbury

HollandLanding

Sharon

Queensville

Lesli

e Stre

et

Yong

e Stre

et

Queensville Sideroad

Doane Road

2nd C

once

ssion

Roa

d

Bradford Street

Doane Road

Yong

e Stre

et

Holborn Road

2nd C

once

ssion

Roa

d

Boag Road

Oriole Drive

Olive Street

River

Drive

May AvenueHillcrest Drive

Milne Lane

North Street

Walnu

t Ave

nue

Pleas

ant A

venu

e

Balm

oral H

eights

Maski

nong

e Rive

r

Holland River

Holbo

rn dra

inage

ditch

Holland Landing Creek Sharo

n Cree

k

William Neeley Creek

Mask

inong

e Rive

r

Sharon Creek

30

WH2

WH1

24

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 1:40,000

Potential WaterReclamation Centre

Outfall Locations

©2013 Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected by copyright law and may not be used, reproduced or modified in any manner or for any purpose exceptwith the written permission of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. ("CRA") or a party to which itscopyright has been assigned. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that uses, reproduces, modifies, or relies on thisdocument without Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. express written consent.

Basemapping: Produced by CRA under license from RegionalMunicipality of York, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,Land Information Ontario (LIO), 2011. © Queens Printer 2013

0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4Kilometres

² LegendExisting Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant OutfallHydro CorridorShort List Site Boundary

January 2014

Figure 2.9

050278 (115) Page 13 York Region No. 74270

Supporting Documentation for the Queensville Sideroad WRC Outfall Location

Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Each of the six potential locations is described as follows: Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River) The conveyance infrastructure from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2 would run south on 2nd Concession and west on Queensville Sideroad to the East Holland River. From Site 30, the conveyance infrastructure would run north on Leslie Street, west on Holborn Road, south on 2nd Concession before following the same alignment (see Figure 2.6). The treated clean water would discharge (through a headwall to an open channel) into a drainage ditch on the south side of Queensville Sideroad, which flows into the East Holland River. The length of the conveyance infrastructure is between approximately 2,500 and 3,500 metres (m) from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 7,500 m from Site 30. Queensville Sideroad (Soldiers’ Bay) The conveyance infrastructure would follow the same route as the Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River) option (see Figure 2.6). However, the treated clean water would discharge north into Soldiers’ Bay. The length of the conveyance infrastructure is the same as with the Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River) outfall location - between approximately 2,500 and 3,500 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 7,500 m from Site 30. Queensville Sideroad (Split between East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay) The conveyance infrastructure would follow the same route as the Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River) option (see Figure 2.6). However, the treated clean water would be split between Soldiers’ Bay to the north and the Queensville drainage ditch to the south using a flow splitter. The split could be on a percentage flow basis or a seasonal basis. The length of the conveyance infrastructure is the same as with the Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River) outfall location - between approximately 2,500 and 3,500 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 7,500 m from Site 30. Holborn Drainage Ditch (Piped or Piped/Open Channel Combination) The conveyance infrastructure from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2 would run north on 2nd Concession then east on Holborn Road. For Site 30, the conveyance infrastructure would run north on Leslie Street then west on Holborn Road. For the piped option, the conveyance infrastructure would run all the way to the East Holland River, where the treated clean water would be discharged. For the piped/open channel combination, the treated clean water would be discharged into an open channel approximately 1 km west of 2nd Concession (see Figure 2.7). The length of the conveyance infrastructure for the piped option is between approximately 4,300 and 5,300 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 6,400 m from Site 30. The length of the conveyance infrastructure for the piped/open channel option is between approximately 1,800 and 2,800 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 3,900 m from Site 30.




Future Bradford Bypass The conveyance infrastructure from Sites 24, WH2 and WH2 would run north on 2nd Concession, then follow the Bradford Bypass alignment west of 2nd Concession. From Site 30, the conveyance infrastructure would run north on Leslie Street, west on Holborn Road and south on 2nd Concession before following the Bradford Bypass alignment west of 2nd Concession. The length of the conveyance infrastructure is between approximately 3,200 and 4,200 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and approximately 6,200 m from Site 30 (see Figure 2.8). Hydro corridor (south of Queensville Sideroad) or Existing Holland Landing Lagoon Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall The conveyance infrastructure from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2 would run south within existing road right of way on 2nd Concession, west on Queensville Sideroad, and south on Old Yonge Street. The conveyance infrastructure from Site 30 would run north on Leslie Street, west on Holborn Road, and south on 2nd Concession before following the same alignment as Sites 24, WH1 and WH2 (see Figure 2.9). From Yonge Street, the conveyance infrastructure would either follow the hydro corridor west to the East Holland River or would enter the East Holland River at the existing Holland Landing Lagoon Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) outfall. The length of the conveyance infrastructure via the Hydro Corridor is between approximately 3,400 and 4,400 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and approximately 8,400 m from Site 30. The length of the conveyance infrastructure via the Holland Landing Lagoon WPCP outfall is between approximately 3,000 and 4,000 m from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and approximately 8,000 m from Site 30. Assessment of the Potential Outfall Locations Next, as part of sub-task 3.4.2, the six potential outfall locations were assessed through a set of criteria reflecting the guiding principles in sub-task 3.4.1. Specifically, the following criteria were utilized:

Use of existing road/utility rights-of-way and/or Regional easements

Potential effects on the social environment

Potential effects on the natural environment

Length and depth of conveyance infrastructure (capital and O&M costs and energy usage)

Type of conveyance system (forcemain vs. gravity sewer) (capital and O&M costs and energy usage)

Potential effects on water quality and quantity

Table 2.1 provides the results of applying the preceding assessment criteria, which is summarized by outfall location as follows in terms of their advantages/disadvantages. Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River)




The outfall location on the south side of Queensville Sideroad into the East Holland River had the following advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- Allows for all conveyance infrastructure to be built within road rights of way and a modifiable easement avoiding acquisition and disruption of private property.

- Improved water quantity, quality, aesthetics and clarity in the East Holland River in a longer stretch of river water compared to the other outfall locations up to the confluence of the West Holland River, benefiting the social environment (i.e., improved boating and fishing) and natural environment (i.e., improved aquatic habitat).

- The length of the conveyance infrastructure is shorter compared to the other outfall locations, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

- Permits full gravity conveyance infrastructure with no pumping, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Disadvantages

- Winter recreational activities such as ice skating, snowmobiling, etc. would be potentially affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions, which may extend from approximately 1 km to up to 4 km downstream of the Queensville Sideroad depending on ambient conditions in the year 2031. Ice melting may span across a length of the East Holland River where 35 to 44 residential properties on River Drive have direct backyard access to the East Holland River.

- Access to the East Holland River as a snowmobile route would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.




Table 2.1: Assessment of the Potential Water Reclamation Centre Outfall Locations to the East Holland River

Potential Water Reclamation Centre Outfall

Description of the Conveyance Infrastructure and Outfall Location

Assessment Criteria





Length and depth below ground surface of conveyance infrastructure

Use of existing grades in selection of the type of main (forcemain vs. gravity sewer)

1 Queensville Sideroad (East Holland River)

Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession and Queensville Sideroad.

Discharge (through headwall to open channel) into a drainage ditch on south side of Queensville Sideroad at the River, flowing into the East Holland River.

Yes Improved water quality in the summer would provide a benefit for summer recreation use, such as swimming and fishing.

Winter recreational activities such as ice skating, snowmobiling, etc. would potentially be affected during periods when the treated clean water would contribute to ice melt conditions, which would extend from approximately 1 km to up to 4 km downstream of Queensville Sideroad depending on conditions at 2031.

Ice melting may span across a length of the East Holland River where approximately 35 to 44 residential properties on River Drive have direct backyard access to the East Holland River.

Access to the East Holland River as a snowmobile route would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions. This location provides snowmobile access to the river for non-Holland Landing residents since they may park their vehicles and launch their snowmobiles at Soldiers’ Bay.

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the longer stretch of river water compared to the other outfall locations.

Thermal effects of the treated clean water on the East Holland River would not affect aquatic life.

The treated clean water would improve water quantity and quality in the East Holland River.

Discharge at this location would provide a longer stretch of river water improvement compared to the other outfall locations since the Water Reclamation Centre outfall occurs at the third furthest upstream point.

The length of the conveyance infrastructure is between approximately 2,500 and 3,500 metres from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 7,500 metres from Site 30, having a depth of less than 2.5 metres Below Ground Surface (BGS).

The route minimizes the conveyance infrastructure length compared to the other outfall locations.

The alignment and elevation provide for a gravity discharge and requires minimal hydraulic grade to permit peak flows under 2031 conditions.






Assessment Criteria







2a Queensville Sideroad (Soldiers’ Bay)


Discharge into Soldiers’ Bay on the north side of Queensville Sideroad.


The area of potential ice melt at 2031 would include Soldiers’ Bay and would extend into the East Holland River for approximately 500 m downstream of the mouth of Soldiers’ Bay depending on conditions, and would potentially affect approximately 15 residential properties on Old Yonge Street and 20 residential properties on River Drive.

Access to the East Holland River as a snowmobile route would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

An Ontario Heritage Trust plaque commemorating Holland’s Landing Depot is located on the north side of Queensville Sideroad adjacent to Soldiers’ Bay. While the exact location of Holland’s Landing Depot is unknown, it stood on the east bank of Soldiers’ Bay.

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in a longer stretch of river water compared to the other outfall locations.


The treated clean water would improve water quantity and quality in the East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay.


The length of the conveyance infrastructure is between approximately 2,500 and 3,500 metres from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 7,500 metres from Site 30, having a depth of less than 2.5 metres BGS.

Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River) the route minimizes the conveyance infrastructure length compared to the other locations.







Assessment Criteria







2b Queensville Sideroad (Split between East Holland River/Soldiers’ Bay)


Discharge is split to Soldiers’ Bay on the north side of Queensville Sideroad and to the wetlands on the south side of Queensville Sideroad that discharges to the East Holland River.

Treated clean water split could be on a percentage flow basis or a seasonal basis.


The area of potential ice melt at 2031 would include Soldiers’ Bay and a portion of the East Holland River dependent on the amount of flow and on conditions, and would potentially affect approximately 15 residential properties on Old Yonge Street and a portion of the 44 residential properties on River Drive.

Access to the East Holland River as a snowmobile route would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

An Ontario Heritage Trust plaque commemorating Holland’s Landing Depot is located on the north side of Queensville Sideroad adjacent to Soldiers’ Bay. While the exact location of Holland’s Landing Depot is unknown, it stood on the east bank of Soldiers’ Bay.

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in a longer stretch of river water compared to the other outfall locations.


The treated clean water would improve water quantity and quality in the East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay.



The additional outfall would require more pipe and a submerged outlet into Soldiers’ Bay.

Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River) the route minimizes the conveyance infrastructure length compared to the other locations.


The additional outlet would require a flow splitter to regulate the distribution. The distribution device would require motorized devices to regular flows under varying water elevations (seasonal).






Assessment Criteria







3a Holborn Drainage Ditch (Piped)

Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession and the un-opened road allowance on Holborn Road.

Discharge into the East Holland River.

Yes. However, the unopened Town of East Gwillimbury road right-of-way has limited access and road access may be required to the service pipeline.

The area of potential ice melt would extend approximately 400 m to 2 km downstream of the Holborn drainage ditch depending on conditions. However, no residential properties have direct backyard access to the East Holland River in the area of potential ice melt.

Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route to Cook’s Bay would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

Construction of the outfall in Holborn drainage ditch would permanently affect approximately 25,000 m

2 of

historically undisturbed Provincially Significant Wetland, and would require temporary dewatering of the wetland during construction

Approval from LSRCA for construction of the outfall in the Holborn drainage ditch would require:

Justification that no other viable alternative exists (LSRCA Watershed Development Policy, Sections 11.4.1.1 and 11.4.2.2)

Wetland and ecosystem compensation

No negative impacts to natural features or their ecological function in accordance with Provincial Policy Statement (Section 2.1.4), reflected in local and regional official plans

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the shortest stretch of river water compared to the other outfall locations.

Thermal effects of the WRC discharge on the East Holland River would not affect aquatic life.


Discharge at this location would provide the shortest stretch of river water improvement compared to the other outfall locations since the Water Reclamation Centre outfall occurs at the furthest downstream point.


This is a longer route than other alternatives and does not minimize the conveyance infrastructure length compared to other locations.

This route would be very challenging to construct due to the soil conditions and high water table in the Holborn drainage ditch.

Fill would have to be placed within established wetlands to develop suitable cover and maintenance roads (sunk cost) would need to be constructed for future maintenance.

The alignment and elevation provide for a gravity discharge and requires improved hydraulic grade to permit peak flows under 2031.

Less backwater events than option 1 and 3b.






Assessment Criteria







3b Holborn Drainage Ditch (Piped/Open Channel Combination)

Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession and the un-opened road allowance on Holborn Road.

Discharge into an open channel approximately 1 km east of 2nd Concession.

Yes. However, the unopened Town of East Gwillimbury road right-of-way has limited access and road access may be required to the service pipeline.

The area of potential ice melt would extend approximately 400m to 2 km downstream of the Holborn drainage ditch depending on conditions. However, no residential properties have direct backyard access to the East Holland River in the area of potential ice melt.

Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route to Cook’s Bay would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions. The ice melt condition will be approximately 25 percent less than Location 3a.

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the shortest stretch of river water compared to the other outfall locations.


The treated clean water may capture and discharge additional phosphorus to the East Holland River, resulting in a potential net increase in phosphorus and reducing the benefit of high water quality from the Water Reclamation Centre.

The length of the conveyance infrastructure for the piped/open channel option is between approximately 1,800 and 2,800 metres from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and 3,900 metres from Site 30, having a depth of less than 2.5 metres BGS.

This is the shortest length of conveyance infrastructure compared to other locations.

Due to the open cut ditch, less fill than option 3a would have to be placed within established wetlands to develop suitable cover and maintenance roads (sunk cost) would need to be constructed for future maintenance.

Significant dredging of the Holborn drainage ditch would be required to develop the shape of the outlet channel.

Future maintenance of the channel would be restricted to operations by barge.

The alignment and elevation provide for a gravity discharge and requires improved hydraulic grade to permit peak flows under 2031.

Least amount of backwater events.






Assessment Criteria







4 Future Bradford Bypass

Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession, and within the proposed Bradford Bypass alignment to the East Holland River.

No. While the Ministry of Transportation has completed an Environmental Assessment for the Bradford Bypass, it is not their current expansion plans (including post 2016 long-term planning). This outfall location would require easements from private landowners, and approval from the Ministry of Transportation. The Ministry of Transportation has told York Region that it would not allow conveyance infrastructure within provincial Highway right of ways, as it creates future risks to both the highway and the conveyance infrastructure, specifically in regards to repair, maintenance, and replacement of both the highway and the conveyance infrastructure.

The area of potential ice melt would extend approximately 1 km to 2 km downstream of the Bradford Bypass depending on conditions. However, no residential properties have direct backyard access to the East Holland River in the area of potential ice melt.

Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route to Cook’s Bay would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the third longest stretch of river water, compared to the other outfall locations.


The treated clean water would improve water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River.

Discharge at this location would provide the third longest stretch of river water improvement since the Water Reclamation Centre outfall occurs at the fourth furthest upstream point.

The length of the piped outfall is between approximately 3,200 and 4,200 metres from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and approximately 6,200 metres from Site 30 having a depth of less than 2.5 metres BGS.

This is a longer route and does not minimize the conveyance infrastructure length compared to other locations.

Detailed design for the Bypass Bypass has not developed by the Ministry of Infrastructure and conflicts with other infrastructure could not be resolved.

The alignment and elevation may provide for a gravity discharge and requires improved hydraulic grade to permit peak flows under 2031.

Least amount of backwater events.

5 Hydro Corridor (south of Queensville Sideroad)

Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession, Queensville Sideroad, south on Old Yonge Street to the Hydro Corridor.

No. Use of the Hydro Corridor would require additional permitting and an easement from Hydro-One with the potential risk of non-approval.

The area of potential ice melt at 2031 would extend from the Hydro Corridor to between Willow Street and from approximately 1 km to up to 4 km downstream of Queensville Sideroad depending on conditions, and would potentially span a distance where approximately 25 to 71 residential properties on Sand Road, Bowers Road, River Drive and Old Yonge Street are located.

Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route between Queensville Sideroad and Cook’s Bay

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the second longest stretch of river water, compared to the other outfall locations.



Discharge at this location would provide the second longest stretch of river water improvement compared to the other outfall locations since the Water Reclamation Centre outfall occurs at the second furthest upstream point.

The length of the conveyance infrastructure is between approximately 3,400 and 4,400 metres from Sites 24, WH1 and WH2, and approximately 8,400 metres from Site 30 having a depth of less than 2.5 metres.

This is one of the longest routes and does not minimize the conveyance infrastructure length compared to other locations.

Access would need to be coordinated with Hydro-One.

The alignment and elevation will not provide for a gravity discharge.

The outfall location would be in direct contact with the East Holland River ice.






Assessment Criteria







would be affected during worst case conditions when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

6 Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Outfall

Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession, Queensville Sideroad, south on Old Yonge Street to the existing Holland Landing WPCP outfall at Cedar Street.

Yes Since the volume of discharge cannot be accommodated within the East Holland River watercourse potential ice melt conditions would span a distance where approximately 71 residential properties on Sand Road, Bowers Road, River Drive and Old Yonge Street would be potentially affected depending upon the re-engineered watercourse (i.e., width, depth, etc).

Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route between Queensville Sideroad and Cook’s Bay would potentially be affected during worst case conditions when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

The existing channel at the Holland Landing WPCP outfall could not accommodate 40 MLD of flow and a new channel would have to be constructed.

The East Holland River could not accommodate 40 MLD of flow at this location and would require extensive stream bank erosion protection

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River would provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the second longest stretch of river water, compared to the other outfall locations.



Discharge at this location would provide the second longest stretch of river water improvement compared to the other outfall locations since the Water Reclamation Centre outfall occurs at the second furthest upstream point.


This is a longer route and does not minimize the conveyance infrastructure length compared to other locations.



The alignment would require a forcemain to accommodate for the difference in elevation.




Queensville Sideroad (Soldiers’ Bay) Discharging the treated clean water into Soldiers’ Bay via the Queensville Sideroad had the following advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River), allows for all conveyance infrastructure to be built within roads rights of way and a modifiable easement avoiding acquisition and disruption of private property.

- Benefit to water quantity and quality, aquatic habitat and summer recreational use for a longer stretch of the East Holland River compared to other outfall locations as well as to Soldiers’ Bay.

- Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River) the length of the conveyance infrastructure is shorter compared to the other outfall locations, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

- Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River), permits full gravity conveyance infrastructure with no pumping, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Disadvantages

- Effects to winter ice formation would occur would extend across the entire area of Soldiers’ Bay, as well as a shorter section of East Holland River downstream of the mouth of Soldiers’ Bay, potentially affecting approximately 15 residential properties on Old Yonge Street and approximately 20 residential properties on River Drive.


- An Ontario Heritage Trust plaque commemorating Holland’s Landing Depot is located on the north side of Queensville Sideroad adjacent to Soldiers’ Bay. While the exact location of Holland’s Landing Depot is unknown, it stood on the east bank of Soldiers’ Bay.

Queensville Sideroad (Split between East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay) Splitting the treated clean water flow between the East Holland River and Soldier’s Bay has the following advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River), allows for all conveyance infrastructure to be built within roads rights of way and a modifiable easement avoiding acquisition and disruption of private property.




- Benefit to water quantity and quality, aquatic habitat and summer recreational use for a longer stretch of the East Holland River compared to other outfall locations as well as to Soldiers’ Bay.

- Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River) the length of the conveyance infrastructure is shorter compared to the other outfall locations, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

- Similar to Queensville Road (East Holland River), permits full gravity conveyance infrastructure with no pumping, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Disadvantages

- Effects on winter ice formation would occur, downstream of both outfalls within East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay, potentially affecting approximately 15 residential properties on Old Yonge Street and a portion of the 44 residential properties on River Drive.


- An Ontario Heritage Trust plaque commemorating Holland’s Landing Depot is located on the north side of Queensville Sideroad adjacent to Soldiers’ Bay. While the exact location of Holland’s Landing Depot is unknown, it stood on the east bank of Soldiers’ Bay.

- The additional outfall would require more pipe and a submerged outlet into Soldiers’ Bay.

- The additional outlet would require a flow splitter to regulate the distribution and motorized devices to regular flows.

Holborn Drainage Ditch (Piped or Piped/Open Channel Combination) Discharging the treated clean water into the East Holland River via Holburn Drain had the following advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- No residential properties have direct backyard access to the East Holland River in the area of potential ice melt (approximately 400 m to 2 km downstream of the Holborn drainage ditch).

- The length of the conveyance infrastructure is the shortest compared to the other outfall locations, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Disadvantages

- Uses existing Town of East Gwillimbury road right-of-way. However, the unopened road allowance has limited access and road access may be required to the service pipeline.





- Construction of piped outfall will affect approximately 25,000 square metres of historically undisturbed Provincially Significant Wetland. Potentially not approvable by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority as they requires justification that no other viable alternative exists.

- Use of existing open-channel drain will result in additional phosphorus load into the East Holland River since the treated clean water is discharged through a nutrient-rich wetland.

- Shortest section of the East Holland River will benefit from the high-quality treated water from an aquatic habitat and summer recreational use perspective.

- More challenging conveyance infrastructure to construct due to geotechnical conditions and need to dewater during construction, resulting in higher capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Future Bradford Bypass Discharging the treated clean water into the East Holland River via the future Bradford bypass alignment had the following advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- No residential properties have direct backyard access to the East Holland River in the area of potential ice melt (approximately 1 to 2 km downstream of the Bradford Bypass).

- The length of the conveyance infrastructure is shorter compared to the other outfall locations, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

- Permits full gravity conveyance infrastructure with no pumping, resulting in lower capital, operating and maintenance cost.

- Longer section of the East Holland River will benefit from the high-quality treated water from an aquatic habitat and summer recreational use perspective compared to other outfall locations.

Disadvantages

- Bradford Bypass Environmental Assessment has been approved, however, not in current Ministry of Transportation expansion plans (including post 2016 long-term planning).

- Notwithstanding the above, the Ministry of Transportation has confirmed that it would not allow conveyance infrastructure within provincial Highway right of ways, as it creates future risks to both the highway and the conveyance infrastructure, specifically in regards to repair, maintenance, and replacement of both the highway and the conveyance infrastructure. Therefore, this outfall location is not feasible.




- Detailed design for the Bypass Bypass has not developed by the Ministry of Infrastructure and conflicts with other infrastructure could not be resolved.

- Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route to Cook’s Bay would be affected during periods when the treated clean water will create ice melt conditions.

Hydro corridor (south of Queensville Sideroad) or Existing Holland Landing Lagoon Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall Discharging the treated clean water into the East Holland River via either the existing hydro corridor or at the existing Holland Landing Lagoon outfall had the following advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- A relatively longer section of the East Holland River will benefit from the high-quality treated water from an aquatic habitat and summer recreational use perspective, compared to other outfall locations.

Disadvantages

- Use of the Hydro Corridor would require additional permitting and an easement from HydroOne with the potential risk of non-approval

- The area of potential ice melt would span a distance adjacent to more residential properties compared to other outfall locations (up to 71 residential properties on Sand Road, Bowers Road, River Drive and Old Yonge Street).

- Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route between Queensville Sideroad and Cook’s Bay would potentially be affected during worst case conditions when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

- The existing channel at the Holland Landing WPCP outfall and the East Holland River at this location could not accommodate 40 MLD of flow and a new channel would have to be constructed, as well as extensive stream bank erosion protection, resulting in higher capital, operating and maintenance cost.

- Longer and more complex conveyance infrastructure requiring pumping, resulting in higher capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Selection of the Identified Outfall Location The option of discharging the treated clean water into the East Holland River via a drainage ditch on the south side of Queensville Sideroad was the identified as the best location among the six options assessed as part of sub-task 3.4.3. Although winter recreational activities such as ice skating, snowmobiling, etc., would potentially be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions (would potentially extend from approximately 1 km to up to 4 km downstream of the Queensville Sideroad depending on ambient conditions in the




year 2031), this location provided a series of advantages or benefits beyond those offered by the other potential location options assessed. Most importantly, this location would improve water quantity, quality, aesthetics and clarity in the East Holland River in a longer stretch of the river water compared to the other outfall locations up to the confluence of the West Holland River. As a result, recreation use (i.e. boating and fishing) and the aquatic habitat would be benefited year around. While the Hydro Corridor, Holland Landing WPCP, and Doane Road outfall locations would improve water quantity and quality in a longer stretch of the East Holland River, the East Holland River could not accommodate 40 MLD of flow at the Holland Landing WPCP, and Doane Road outfall locations and would require extensive stream bank erosion protection. In addition, all conveyance infrastructure would be able to be built within road rights of way and a modifiable easement. Thus, avoiding acquisition and disruption of private property. Also, conveyance infrastructure to this outfall location is shorter compared to the other outfall locations considered and permits a full gravity system; hence, no pumping would be required. Therefore, capital, operation, and maintenance costs would be lower. In terms of the disadvantages associated with contributing to ice melt conditions, melthing may span across a length of the East Holland River where approximately 35 to 44 residential properties on River Drive have direct backyard access to the East Holland River. Also, access to the East Holland River as a snowmobile route would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions. These potential adverse impacts could be minimized through mitigation application or compensated for. As a result, the discharge location for all four alternative Water Reclamation Centre sites was identified as the south side of Queensville Sideroad.

2.1.3 Comparative Evaluation of the Short-list of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites

Following the identification of the short list of alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites (including the conveyance infrastructure to/from the sites and outfall discharge location), Task 4 was initiated to establish baseline environmental conditions. This was accomplished through field investigations supplementing and enhancing the available existing information sources collected and reviewed in Task 1. The data generated was used to carry out the net effects assessment as part of Task 5. Following completion of the net effects assessment, a detailed comparative evaluation was carried out as part of Task 6 to identify a recommended Water Reclamation Centre Site (Task 7). The comparative evaluation of the short-list of alternative Water Reclamation Centre sites is documented in the Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of the Short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and the York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes (CRA et al, 2013a).




The net effects assessment included the outfall discharge location at Queensville Sideroad. However, since all of the short list of alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites proposed the same outfall discharge location at Queensville Sideroad, the identified net effects for the outfall discharge were the same for all four sites. Consequently, the outfall discharge location at Queensville Sideroad did not affect the decision as to which of the four sites was identified as recommended. The identified net effects for the outfall discharge location at Queensville Sideroad including those related to both the construction and operation of the proposed outfall and the treated clean water being discharged into the East Holland River are summarized as follows: Natural Environment Groundwater Quality and Quantity

A temporary decrease in groundwater quality and quantity at Queensville Sideroad due to dewatering during construction would be minimized by utilizing standard construction methods. There would be no long-term change in groundwater quality or quantity from the treated clean water during operation of the Outfall.

Surface Water Quality and Quantity

The surface water quality in the East Holland River downstream of the proposed outfall would be improved over the long-term due to high quality treated water being discharged that meets, or exceeds, the Provincial Water Quality Objectives. In addition, the surface water quantity would be improved over the long-term as a result of additional baseflow in the East Holland River during low flow periods with no changes to the regulated floodplain.

A temporary decrease in surface water quality entering the East Holland River due to increased siltation from in-water construction works during construction would be minimized by developing and implementing siltation control measures. There would be no temporary change in surface water quantity during construction of the proposed outfall.

Aquatic Environment (aquatic habitat and function, aquatic species and groundwater recharge and discharge areas in relation to aquatic/wetland habitat)

A long-term improvement to aquatic habitat and function in the East Holland River and the Holland Marsh Wetland Provincially Significant Wetland and aquatic species would occur because of improved water quality and quantity due to high quality treated water discharge.

A temporary loss of aquatic habitat and function in the Queensville drainage ditch and temporary disturbance to aquatic species in the East Holland River would be minimized




by undertaking construction outside of the relevant fish spawning timing window, maintaining connectivity between the East Holland River and the Queensville Drain, reducing disturbance to the area outside of the municipal right-of-way south of Queensville Sideroad, stabilizing the banks, and implementing a restoration plan based on consultation with review agencies.

The permanent loss of 0.95 ha of Holland Marsh Provincially Significant Wetland vegetation would be reduced by minimizing disturbance to the area outside of the municipal right-of-way south of Queensville Sideroad and would be compensated for by implementing a restoration plan based on consultation with review agencies.

There would be no loss or change to aquatic habitat and function and aquatic species or aquatic Species at Risk. There would be no temporary or permanent loss of groundwater recharge and discharge areas in relation to aquatic/wetland habitat.

Stream Geomorphology

Temporary and long-term changes to the geomorphic form and function of the Queensville drainage ditch and the East Holland River (i.e. sediment mobilization and downstream erosion) would be minimized by implementing energy dissipation measures as part of the proposed Outfall design, reducing the velocity of the treated clean water prior to entering the East Holland River, and implementing post construction restoration based on consultation with review agencies.

Terrestrial Environment (terrestrial habitat and functions, terrestrial species and groundwater recharge and discharge areas in relation to terrestrial habitat)

An improvement of amphibian habitat in the East Holland River would occur in the long-term as a result of the additional high quality baseflow from the treated water discharged into the East Holland River.

A permanent loss of 0.32 ha of meadow marsh communities and 0.63 ha of thicket swamp communities within the Holland Marsh Provincially Significant Wetland would be compensated for by implementing a habitat restoration plan based on consultation with review agencies. As well, temporary disturbance to terrestrial species from construction activities adjacent to these communities would be minimized by utilizing standard construction methods, providing tree protection and delineating work adjacent to natural areas and relocating amphibian species.

There would be no temporary or permanent disturbance to Species at Risk during construction or operation of the Outfall. There would be no temporary or permanent loss of groundwater recharge and discharge areas in relation to terrestrial habitat.




Built, Social, Economic and Cultural Environments (Noise; Vibration; Property; Residences, Businesses and Community Institutional and Recreational Facilities; Traffic; Groundwater Wells; Agricultural Operations; Roadway and Utility Infrastructure; Approved/Planned Land Uses; Archaeological, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Resources)

A temporary increase in vibration levels during construction would be minimized by implementing Best Management Practices for vibration reduction (i.e., staged construction, limiting construction hours, use of specialized drilling equipment etc.).

A temporary increase in noise levels during construction would be minimized by adhering to Ministry of Natural Environment noise limits and the Town of East Gwillimbury’s Noise By-law (2004-80), implementing construction Best Management Practices for noise reduction, and developing a complaint resolution procedure.

The acquisition of a permanent easement on private property required for the proposed Outfall would be compensated for in accordance with standard Regional procedures and policies.

A temporary disruption to traffic operations due to construction vehicles and lane closures/reductions during construction of the proposed Outfall would be minimized by implementing a traffic management plan and providing temporary access, as required. There would be no disruption to traffic operations during operation of the proposed outfall.

Winter recreational activities such as ice skating, snowmobiling, etc. would be affected during periods when the treated clean water will create ice melt conditions, which would extend from approximately 1 km to up to 4 km downstream of Queensville Sideroad depending on conditions at 2031.

A temporary decrease to groundwater quantity and quality during construction would be minimized by utilizing standard construction methods, implementing a well mitigation protocol, and providing affected residents with a temporary potable water source (if required). There would be no long-term decrease to the groundwater quantity and quality in groundwater wells during operation.

The potential disruption to portions of the former Holland River Diversion of the Trent Canal as a cultural heritage resource during construction would be minimized through a site-specific heritage evaluation to develop appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., landscape alteration and rehabilitation, avoidance of features that express the significance of the Holland River Diversion of the Trent Canal, and/or documentation prior to disruption to resource).

There are no known archaeological sites and no archaeological potential at the proposed outfall location.

There would be no temporary or permanent disruption to agricultural operations, roadway and utility infrastructure, or approved/planned land uses during construction or operation of the outfall.




2.2 Historical Open Water and Flooding Conditions in the East Holland River in the Vicinity of the Queensville Sideroad Water Reclamation Centre Outfall Discharge

In response to Queensville Sideroad being identified as the outfall location for discharging the treated clean water from the Water Reclamation Centre into the East Holland River, the public, especially those residing in the River Drive Park Community, raised concerns that the treated clean water would result in the loss of the use of the East Holland River for winter recreation and exacerbate flooding in the East Holland River. As a result, the historical open water and flooding conditions in the East Holland River in the vicinity of the Queensville Sideroad Water Reclamation Centre Outfall discharge location were investigated as part of the UYSS EA to better understand those concerns within the context of actual data. Environment Canada monitors flow in the East Holland River at Mount Albert Road in Holland Landing (Latitude 44°5'41" N Longitude 79°29'22" W) on a daily basis through the Water Survey of Canada (WSC Station 02EC009). The daily monitoring includes the presence of ice conditions (partial freeze-up, complete freeze-up and/or ice flowing in the river). Environment Canada’s data indicates that in the past 10 years, the East Holland River at this location has open water approximately 50 percent of the time between November 20 and March 27 (see Figure 2.10).



Upper York Sewage Solutions EA Figure 2.10: River Ice Condition in the East Holland River at Holland Landing (WSC Station 02EC009) From 2000 to 2010




The area immediately surrounding the outfall location, including Yonge Street north of Queensville Sideroad and most of the River Drive Park community is in the LSRCA Regulated Floodplain (see Figure 2.11). The regulated floodplain for the LSRCA is generally based on the Hurricane Hazel based Regional Storm. The regulated floodplain represent land adjoining a river, lake or other watercourse that has been or may be covered by floodwaters, and are managed by local conservation authorities to reduce damage and loss. As a result, without the addition of the flow from the proposed Water Reclamation Centre, there is currently an increased likelihood of flooding and damage from floodwaters, including erosion and loss of property, to the properties within the regulated floodplain. This risk to property and potentially human life is supported by information provided to York Region from residents in the vicinity of the outfall, including photographs of flooding during a large rain event in June 2013 (see Figures 2.12 to 2.13) and photographs of flooding due to ice blockages in the River in 2009 (see Figures 2.14 to 2.15).

_̂

East Holland River

Future Approved Bradford Bypass

Queensville drainage ditch

Yonge Street


UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation

Authority (LSRCA) Regulated Floodplain

Figure 2-2Basemapping: Produced by CRA under license from RegionalMunicipality of York, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,Land Information Ontario (LIO), 2011. © Queens Printer 2012

²100 0 10050 Meters

1:10,000

This drawing has been prepared for the use of CRA's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by CRA and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. CRA accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat modifies this drawing without CRA's express written consent.

050278(REP115)GIS-WA001 July 29,2013

East

Holla

nd R

iver

Soldier'sBay

LegendWater Reclamation CentreSite and Conveyance Infrastructure

Conveyance Infrastructure From the Site_̂ Outfall LocationOther Features

WatercourseWaterbody

RoadHydro LineLSRCA Regulated Floodplain

Figure 2.11

January 2014

sstover

Rectangle




Figures 2.12 and 2.13: Photographs of Flooding in the East Holland River at Queensville Sideroad Provided by Local Business Owner (June 2013)

Figures 2.14 and 2.15: Photographs of Flooding in the East Holland River at Queensville

Sideroad Provided by Resident (2009)

2.3 No Additional Flooding Anticipated Because of the Queensville Sideroad Discharge

The proposed Water Reclamation Centre discharge would not result in increased flooding in the East Holland River. As mentioned, the area in the immediate vicinity of the Outfall location is within the LSRCA regulated floodplain and currently experiences flooding events. In order to confirm that the treated clean water from the Water Reclamation Centre would not increase flooding potential in the East Holland River, York Region undertook two separate studies as part of the UYSS EA: Study of Potential Impacts of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on Flooding Potential in the East Holland River (CRA et al., 2012c) and Hydrodynamic Analysis of the Water Reclamation Centre Outfall (CRA et al., 2013b).




Both studies demonstrated that the Water Reclamation Centre discharge would have no significant impacts on flooding potential in the East Holland River due to the fact that the discharge represents only a small fraction of the flows in the river during flood conditions. The results showed under flooding conditions, the Water Reclamation Centre discharge would only increase water levels by approximately 1 mm. The LSRCA reviewed the Study of Potential Impacts of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on Flooding Potential in the East Holland River (CRA et al., 2012c), agreed with its conclusions and stated in a staff report to the LSRCA Board in June 2012 that the “… minor increase in water level during the regional flood event will have no impact or contribute in exasperating flood flows or water elevations.”. This staff report is included in Appendix A. The Hydrodynamic Analysis of the Water Reclamation Centre Outfall (CRA et al., 2013b) was also reviewed by LSRCA as well as by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of the Environment, who were satisfied with the report and did not provide any specific comments.

2.4 Other Potential Locations for the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge to the East Holland River

As previously stated, a number of potential locations for the Water Reclamation Centre outfall to the East Holland River were proposed by the Town of East Gwillimbury and public during and following Consultation Round No. 6 including the October 2012 Public Information Forums and at a meeting with the River Drive Park community in March 2013. The only location suggested that was not previously considered by York Region was utilizing Doane Road where it crosses the East Holland River (see Figure 2.16). As a result, Doane Road was assessed through the same set of criteria applied to the other outfall locations. The results of the assessment are included in Table 2.2. The following is a summary of its advantages and disadvantages relative to the other potential outfall locations:

Advantages

- A relatively longer section of the East Holland River will benefit from the high-quality treated water from an aquatic habitat and summer recreational use perspective, compared to other outfall locations.

Disadvantages

- The area of potential ice melt would span a length of the East Holland River potentially affecting more residential properties compared to other outfall locations (up to 71 residential properties on Sand Road, Bowers Road, River Drive and Old Yonge Street).

- Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route between Queensville Sideroad and Cook’s Bay would potentially be affected during worst case conditions when the treated clean water will contributes to ice melt conditions.

- The existing channel at the East Holland River at this location could not accommodate 40 MLD and would require extensive stream bank erosion protection, resulting in higher capital, operating and maintenance cost




- Longer and more complex conveyance infrastructure requiring pumping, resulting in higher capital, operating and maintenance cost.

Map Document: 050278-070(INT053)GIS-WA002 Sunday, January 19, 2014

Town ofEast Gwillimbury

HollandLanding

Sharon

Queensville

Lesli

e Stre

et

Yong

e Stre

et


Doane Road

2nd C

once

ssion

Roa

d

Bradford Street

Doane Road

Yong

e Stre

etHolborn Road

2nd C

once

ssion

Roa

d

Boag Road

Oriole Drive

Olive Street

River

Drive

May AvenueHillcrest Drive

Milne Lane

North Street

Walnu

t Ave

nue

Pleas

ant A

venu

e

Balm

oral H

eights

East Holland River

Maski

nong

e Rive

r

Hollan

d Rive

r

Holbo

rn dra

inage

ditch

Holland Landing Creek

Sharon Creek

William Ne

eley C

reek

30

WH2

WH1

24

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 1:40,000

Potential WaterReclamation Centre

Outfall Locations

©2013 Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected by copyright law and may not be used, reproduced or modified in any manner or for any purpose exceptwith the written permission of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. ("CRA") or a party to which itscopyright has been assigned. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that uses, reproduces, modifies, or relies on thisdocument without Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. express written consent.

Basemapping: Produced by CRA under license from RegionalMunicipality of York, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,Land Information Ontario (LIO), 2011. © Queens Printer 2013

0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4Kilometres

² LegendDoane RoadShort List Site Boundary

January 2014

Figure 2.16




Table 2.2: Assessment of the Doane Road Potential Water Reclamation Centre Outfall Location



Assessment Criteria







Doane Road Linear infrastructure within existing road right-of-way along 2nd Concession, Queensville Sideroad, south on Old Yonge Street to Doane Road.

Yes Use of the existing snowmobile route crossing at Doane Road (operated by the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club) would be affected during periods when the treated clean water contributes to ice melt conditions.

Since the volume of discharge cannot be accommodated within the East Holland River watercourse ice melting may span across a length of the East Holland River where approximately 71 residential properties on Sand Road, Bowers Road, River Drive and Old Yonge Street would be potentially affected depending upon the re-engineered watercourse (i.e., width, depth, etc)

Use of the East Holland River as a snowmobile route between Queensville Sideroad and Cook’s Bay would potentially be affected during worst case conditions when the treated clean water will contribute to ice melt conditions.

The East Holland River could not accommodate 40 MLD of flow at this location and would require extensive stream bank erosion protection

Improved water quantity, quality, and clarity in the East Holland River provide a benefit to aquatic habitat in the longest stretch of river water.


The Water Reclamation Centre discharge would improve water quantity and quality in the East Holland River.

Discharge at this location would provide the longest stretch of river water improvement compared to the other outfall locations since the Water Reclamation Centre outfall occurs at the furthest upstream point.


This is the longest route and does not minimize the conveyance infrastructure length compared to other locations.



The alignment would require a forcemain to accommodate for the difference in elevation.




Section 3.0 Proposed Compensation Measures and Monitoring

In light of the potential adverse effect of reduced ice coverage on the East Holland River contributed to by the discharge of treated water from the proposed outfall located on the south side of the Queensville Sideroad in the years leading up to 2031, York Region investigated potential compensation measures to off-set the potential loss of winter recreational activities on the river in this area of the Town of East Gwillimbury. In particular, this included snowmobile use and ice skating.

3.1 Support for Alternate Snowmobile Trail

While the East Holland River is not a designated snowmobile trail, it is used by snowmobilers and provides access to a designated snowmobile trail on Lake Simcoe. Queensville Sideroad also provides snowmobile access to the East Holland River and provides parking for non-Holland Landing residents launching their snowmobiles at Soldiers’ Bay. With increasing frequency there are substantial patches of open water creating unsafe conditions. In 2013 one death occurred because of unsafe ice conditions.1 In Ontario, designated snowmobile trails are managed by local clubs under the umbrella of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC). The Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Provincial Police and OFSC strongly discourage snowmobiling on frozen lakes, rivers and ponds. Recreational snowmobilers are encouraged to use trails maintained and operated by OFSC clubs. In keeping with this spirit of safety and given the potential to increase open water conditions on the East Holland River due to treated clean water being discharged from the proposed outfall located on the south side of the Queensville Sideroad, York Region investigated other snowmobile routes that would avoid the East Holland River while providing snowmobilers with a reasonable substitute as compensation. As an alternative to lakes, rivers, and ponds, snowmobiling is permitted on 1) private property without OFSC designated trails, 2) roadways, except where prohibited by local municipal bylaws, and 3) designated trails. Each of these options is described in more detail below:

1. With regard to establishing a snowmobile trail on private properties without the use of OFSC designated trails, York Region would need to undertake consultation and enter into agreements with individual property owners and provide ongoing maintenance. This option was not pursued because it was determined that OFSC has greater experience establishing and managing snowmobile trails.

1 2013, February 25. Sledder thrown from snowmobile after striking pressure crack on Holland River: police. The Barrie

Examiner. http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2013/02/25/sledder-thrown-from-snowmobiler-after-striking-pressure-crack-on-holland-river-police




2. With regard to snowmobiling on roadways, the Town of East Gwillimbury does not prohibit snowmobiling on public roads. However, from a safety perspective (i.e., snowmobile/pedestrian accidents, snowmobile/vehicle collisions at driveway entrances) this option was not pursued.

3. With regard to designated trails, Ontario has the world's largest inter-connected snowmobile trail system maintained by the OFSC and their local clubs. Access to OFSC trails is via a user-pay permit system and is protected by law under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, which is the primary piece of legislation governing snowmobiling in Ontario. Since a designated trail offers increased safety, easier implementation, and maintenance by others, this option was pursued further.

In the Town of East Gwillimbury, the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club (HLSC) maintains a network of trails which connects to the Georgina Trail Riders Snowmobile Club trail network that provides access to designated trails on Lake Simcoe (see Figure 3.1). In light of this situation, York Region consulted with the HLSC to determine the potential of utilizing designated trails as a means of providing snowmobilers with a reasonable substitute to the East Holland River. With this in mind, the HLSC have identified a proposed trail between Holborn Road and Boag Road for connecting to an existing trail that provides access to Lake Simcoe (see Figure 3.1). This proposed trail connection would require the following elements in order to provide a continuous designated trail from Queensville Sideroad (at the East Holland River) to Lake Simcoe:

Improve the shoulder along Queensville Sideroad between Queens Court and 2nd Concession to allow for a trail grooming machine.

Relocate the existing designated trail through properties on the east side of 2nd Concession between Queensville Sideroad and north of Holborn Road up to the unopened road allowance. The HLSC has already obtained permission from landowners for this relocation.

Establish a new trail on the 2nd Concession unopened road allowance north of Holborn Road.

Construct a new bridge (approximately 10 m or 30 feet in length) from the south side of the Boag Road drainage ditch to the north side of Boag Road drainage ditch to connect to existing trail on the north side of Boag Road drainage ditch. The construction of the new bridge would require an engineering study and permission from the LSRCA.

Through on-going discussions, the HLSC indicated that York Region’s support for utilizing designated trails would be most beneficial in the form of improving the shoulder on Queensville Sideroad and constructing the new bridge over the Boag Road drainage ditch. As a result, as part of compensating for the potential loss of the East Holland River as an unofficial and potentially unsafe snowmobile trail, York Region would support the proposed trail connection. Specifically York Region would provide funding to the HLSC for developing and constructing the bridge required over the Boag Road drainage ditch. The conceptual cost estimate for this




bridge is approximately $120,000 to $200,000. However, York Region determined that there is insufficient right of way on the Queensville Sideroad between Queens Court and 2nd Concession to extend the shoulder. Should the available right of way increase in the future York Region would reconsider the possibility of extending the shoulder to allow for a trail grooming machine.

*##

")

")

")

")

_̂

Cook's Bay

East Holland River

West

H ol la

nd Ri

ver

Maski

nong

e Riv e

r

Holla

nd Ri

ver

_̂Town of

East Gwil lim bury

Town ofGeorgina

WH1

./11

Leslie Street

Concession Road 2


Woodbine Avenue

Mount Albert Road

Yonge Street

Holland Landing Road

Holborn Road

Doane Road

Yonge Street


Ontario Federation ofSnowmobile ClubsSnowmobile Trails

July 2013

Basemapping: Produced by AECOM under license from RegionalMunicipality of York, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,Land Information Ontario (LIO), 2011. © Queens Printer 2011

²500 0 500250 Meters

1:70,000

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent.

LegendUYSS Service AreaProposed Route to OutfallProposed Route from QueensvilleWest Pumping Station

_̂ Proposed Outfall

")Queensville HollandLanding Sharon WastewaterServicing System - Pumping StationWater Reclamation Centre SiteExisting Approved Holland LandingLagoon Water Pollution Control Plant

Municipal DivisionOak Ridges Moraine BoundaryWatercourseWaterbodyProposed RoadGeorgina Trail Riders Snowmobile Club TrailHolland Landing Snowmobile Club TrailHolland Landing Snowmobile ClubProposed Trail (Conceptual Alignment)

*## Holland Landing Snowmobile ClubClubhouseNote: Site WH2 includes site 42, formerly included in the

Generation of the Long List of Potential Alternative Water Centre Reclamation Centre Sites

Date Saved: 7/17/2013 3:24:27 PMPath: E:\112138\2013\SnowmobileTrails\112138_ShortListAndConveyanceRoutesAndSnowmobiles.mxd

Figure 3.1

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

West

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Typewritten Text

bruttod

Rectangle




3.2 New Outdoor Community Ice Rink

Forty-five residential properties located on River Drive north of Queensville Sideroad have direct backyard access to the East Holland River. An additional 165 residential properties within the River Drive Park community on Oak Avenue, Pleasant Avenue, Pine Street, Poplar Street and Martin Avenue have access to the East Holland River via public accesses (see Figure 3.2). York Region undertook a survey in 2012 to gain a better understanding of how residents along the East Holland River use the river. More than half of respondents indicated that the additional treated warm water in the winter would affect their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River. Many of these residents reportedly groom private ice rinks on the river during winter months and appreciate being able to access the East Holland River conveniently from their backyards. In response to this established recreational activity, York Region identified potential locations within the River Drive Park community for a new skating rink to compensate for the loss of the East Holland River for skating. The property search was restricted to this neighbourhood so that residents would have a relatively short and safe walk to it without the need to cross Queensville Sideroad (Regional arterial road). In terms of rink size, York Region proposed a size of approximately 60 m long by 20 m wide. This size was selected because ice rink suppliers recommended it for community rinks based on discussions with them and is similar to other community rinks in York Region (e.g. Newmarket Riverwalk Commons). Three potential locations were identified for the new community ice rink (see Figure 3.2). The potential locations were assessed from a number of perspectives including land use compatibility, property requirements, potential site constraints, etc. Table 3.1 lists the advantages and disadvantages for each location following an assessment of them. Table 3.1: Advantages and Disadvantages Associated with the Potential Locations for

New Outdoor Community Ice Rink

Location and Property Size Advantages/Disadvantages

Parkway Parkette (84 Oak Avenue) Approximately 80 m x 60 m; 0.6 ha

Proposed skating rink would be a compatible use because the property is already a parkette

May require purchase of additional property to the west from private landowner to expand existing parkette

Although illegal under the Town of East Gwillimbury Bylaw 2001-102, the parkette is currently used by snowmobilers to gain access to the rural areas west and north of it




Location and Property Size Advantages/Disadvantages

Portion of 20801 Bathurst Street (end of River Drive and Oak Avenue) Property size would be determined by ice rink layout, but 80 m x 60 m could be accommodated based on land parcel size subject to an acceptable agreement to purchase

Requires purchase of property from private landowner

Requires the crossing of small drainage ditch for access from the River Drive Park community

Potential conflict with informal snowmobile trail on property depending on the ice rink location

21 River Drive Approximately 20 m x 50 m; 0.12 ha

The available property size is too small to accommodate the proposed skating rink

The conceptual cost estimate for a permanent outdoor ice rink without refrigeration was determined to be approximately $500,000 for the capital costs and approximately $4,000 to $5,000 per year for operations.

_̂

!(

!(

!(

East Holland River

Future Approved Bradford Bypass

Queensville drainage ditch

River DriveSand Road

Park Avenue

Oak Avenue

Tall Pines Trail

Pine Street

Pleasant Avenue

Queens Court

Martin Avenue

Amberglen Court

French Crescent

Artesian Avenue

Bowers Road

Willow Street

Maple Street

Yonge Street



Potential Locationsfor New Outdoor

Community Ice Rink

Figure 3.2Basemapping: Produced by CRA under license from RegionalMunicipality of York, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,Land Information Ontario (LIO), 2011. © Queens Printer 2012

²100 0 10050 Meters

1:10,000

This drawing has been prepared for the use of CRA's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by CRA and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. CRA accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat modifies this drawing without CRA's express written consent.

050278(REP115)GIS-WA002 December 16,2013

East

Holla

nd R

iver

Soldier'sBay

Water Reclamation CentreSite and Conveyance Infrastructure

Conveyance Infrastructure From the Site_̂ Outfall LocationOther Features

WatercourseWaterbody

RoadHydro Line

Legend

!( Potential Ice Rink Locations




The Parkway Parkette was identified as the most appropriate location for the new outdoor community ice rink based on the preceding assessment results. Once identified, York Region consulted with Town of East Gwillimbury staff and the River Drive Park community members through the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee. The River Drive Park community members indicated at the May 6, 2013 meeting with York Region that they did not feel a new outdoor community ice rink would be adequate compensation. As a result, they suggested that it should be removed from further consideration. Consequently, at their request, York Region is not proposing to include the community ice rink as a compensation measure.

3.3 Monitoring of Ice Formation in the East Holland River

At the June 27, 2013 York Regional Council meeting, Council adopted the following recommendations made by the Environmental Services Committee at their June 19, 2013 meeting:

Inclusion of a commitment in the Environmental Assessment report to continually monitor ice formation at the treated clean water discharge in consultation with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Inclusion of sufficient funds in the Upper York Sewage Solutions project to implement water cooling technologies as warranted

Report No. 5 of the Environmental Services Committee Regional Council Meeting of June 27, 2013 is included in Appendix B. Initial studies completed on the proposed Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre indicated that during the winter months the treated clean water discharge would be, on average, four to five degrees Celsius higher than the East Holland River temperature. This average temperature difference would assimilate, but initially would result in potential ice melt in the river, the extent of which would vary depending on a number of factors including climate conditions. In recognition of this potential adverse effect, preliminary investigations on recovering heat from the discharge water to a level that would reduce or possibly eliminate potential river ice melt beyond the initial melt local to the area around the point where the discharge enters the river were conducted. These investigations concluded the following:

Energy that could be recovered from the discharge to sustainably heat the buildings onsite would have an insignificant (less than one degree Celsius) reduction on the treated clean water temperature.

Substantial additional capital and energy costs are required to further cool the effluent with no potential to reuse the recovered heat. This approach would increase the energy management/carbon footprint of the Water Reclamation Centre.




A capital investment of $4 to 6 million plus annual operating costs of between $400,000 and $750,000 per year would be required for chilling technologies to reliably reduce the effluent temperature by four to five degrees Celsius.

The performance of less expensive technologies such as cooling towers is unreliable because they are dependent on outside air temperature.

Since steadily flowing water does not freeze, energy generated by the discharge flow of this volume of water would cause localized ice melt even if the water was cooled at the proposed Water Reclamation Centre.

The concept of heat recovery would be most successful with a District Energy Heating System; that is, a community holistically designed to accept and use this resource as an example of sustainable living. Such a community concept exists for much of the area north of Queensville Sideroad; however, the timing for this has not been established. Until that time, the resources required to recover heat by cooling the treated clean water from the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre would be wasted because the facility itself could only use a fraction of the heat. Additionally, lowering the temperature of treated water by an average of four to five degrees Celsius would not mitigate against open water at the point where the discharge enters the river. Heat recovery offers no benefit in terms of cost or eliminating open water in the winter and could serve to defeat the purpose of the proposed Water Reclamation Centre to provide phosphorus-reduced clean treated water to improve the quality of the highly degraded East Holland River. Notwithstanding the above, York Region would continually monitor ice formation at the treated clean water discharge in consultation with the LSRCA. In addition, the Upper York Sewage Solutions project would include sufficient budget to implement heat recovery technologies as warranted.

Section 4.0 Summary of the Consultation Activities Carried Out

A number of consultation activities relating to the Water Reclamation Centre Outfall location and in particular the proposed compensation measures to off-set the potential loss of winter recreational activities on the East Holland River were held. Specifically, the following consultation activities were undertaken:

A neighbourhood telephone survey

One meeting with the Town of East Gwillimbury

Two meetings with Mr. Sam Reid, River Drive Park resident

Two meetings with the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee

Two meetings with the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club




In addition, the Water Reclamation Centre outfall location was discussed at other consultation events held during preparation of the UYSS EA including

October 2012 Public Information Forum held as part of Consultation Round 6

June 2013 Public Open House held as part of Consultation Round 7

Tuesday Talks sessions held on the first Tuesday of every month

Individual meetings held and correspondence with residents

4.1 Neighbourhood Telephone Survey

York Region undertook a survey in November 2012 to gain a better understanding of how residents and businesses along the East Holland River use the river. A total of 74 properties adjacent to the East Holland River, between Queensville Sideroad and the unopened Holborn Road allowance were telephoned to participate in the survey. Twenty surveys were completed from the 74 households and businesses called. By speaking directly to residents and business owners, it was possible to gain insight regarding community use of the East Holland River. With a greater understanding of how people use and enjoy the East Holland River throughout the year, York Region was in a more informed position to consider the need for and types of avoidance/mitigation measures to address potential adverse effects. The majority of the respondents said that they thought additional treated water in the spring, summer and fall would not affect their use of the East Holland River. More than half of respondents indicated that the additional treated warm water in the winter would affect their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River. During the winter months, the majority of respondents indicated that they use the East Holland River once a week or more to snowmobile, skate or walk on. Appendix C provides a summary of the survey.

4.2 Meetings with the Town of East Gwillimbury

York Region met with the Town of East Gwillimbury staff on May 3, 2013 to discuss the proposed outdoor community ice rink and snowmobile trail. Staff supported the proposed mitigation measures and indicated they would discuss them further with other Town of East Gwillimbury staff. Appendix D provides the meeting summary.

4.3 Meetings with Mr. Sam Reid and the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee

In response to Mr. Sam Reid’s request, York Region met with him on January 30, 2013 and February 20, 2013 to discuss the potential loss of ice cover and its potential adverse effects on the River Drive Park Community. River Drive Park is a community of approximately 200 homes




on the west side of the East Holland River, including approximately 70 homes on River Drive that have direct waterfront access. Mr. Reid is a resident on River Drive and member of the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee. Mr. Reid recommended that York Region meet with the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee. The committee is an advisory committee for the Town of East Gwillimbury. The committee’s purpose is to stage events that encourage the community to be a friendly and sociable place to live and who raise money for items needed in the community or to be used for long term goals to enhance the park. The committee is comprised of volunteer residents from the River Drive Park community and a Town of East Gwillimbury Council liaison. Following Mr. Reid’s suggestion, York Region met with the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee on March 20, 2013 and again on May 6, 2013 for a follow up meeting. Invitations to both meetings were coordinated by Mr. Reid. March 20, 2013 Meeting The March 20, 2013 meeting was attended by 18 local residents, including 5 members of the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee, and Town of East Gwillimbury Councilor John Eaton, who is also the Committee’s Council Liaison. At this meeting, York Region provided background on the UYSS EA including how the site for the proposed Water Reclamation Centre and the outfall location at Queensville Sideroad was identified. Following this, York Region responded to questions and concerns from the residents. In terms of concerns, the following were raised in relation to the identified outfall location: potential increased flooding of area properties, loss of winter recreational activities, difficulty in maintaining in-water structures such as docks and boat houses since maintenance is usually only done when the river is frozen, and decrease in property values. Some residents suggested that York Region should chill or cool the treated clean water from the Water Reclamation Centre prior to its discharge into the East Holland River. In response to these concerns, York Region prepared a supplementary memorandum for Regional Council addressing them. Report No. 5 of the Environmental Services Committee Regional Council Meeting of June 27, 2013 is included in Appendix B. In addition to these concerns, the residents provided the following suggestions for alternate locations for the outfall:

East Holland River at Bradford Bypass

East Holland River at Holborn Road

Soldiers’ Bay

East Holland River at the Holland Landing lagoons

East Holland River at Doane Road




The Doane Road location was the only location not previously assessed by York Region (see Section 2.1.2.1). In response, this location was assessed through the same methodology as described in Section 2.4. The assessment results for all of the potential outfall locations were presented to the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee on May 6, 2013. May 6, 2013 Meeting The May 6, 2013 meeting was attended by five local residents, Mayor Virginia Hackson, and Councilor John Eaton. At the meeting, the proposed compensation measures of an outdoor community ice rink and support for an alternate snowmobile trail were presented. Some residents indicated that the proposed compensation measures did not address their concerns because their primary objective was to eliminate the potential ice melt from occurring in the first place by moving the outfall discharge to a different location altogether. Summaries of the March 20, 2013 and May 6, 2013 meetings are included in Appendix D.

4.4 Meetings with the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club

As mentioned, York Region also met with the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club (HLSC) on a couple of occasions. In particular, the meetings were held with Mr. Paul Lynn (president) and Mr. Joe Murillo (vice-president) on August 7, 2012 and February 6, 2013. The purpose of the initial August 7, 2012 meeting was to introduce the UYSS EA, obtain information on the HLSC's trail system, and discuss how the East Holland River is used by snowmobilers. The purpose of the February 6, 2013 meeting was to obtain feedback on potential alternate trails for snowmobilers. At this meeting, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Murillo provided information on a new trail in development. Following this meeting, York Region agreed to provide support to the HLSC for developing this proposed designated trail, which is described further in Section 3.1. Summaries of the August 7, 2012 and February 6, 2013 meetings are included in Appendix D.

Section 5.0 Summary

There is the potential for a loss of winter ice cover due to treated clean water from the proposed Water Reclamation Center outfall into the East Holland River at Queensville Sideroad. Depending on atmospheric conditions, the thermal effects from the treated clean water discharge may affect the ice regime in the East Holland River for a length ranging from approximately one up to four kilometers downstream of Queensville Sideroad. The identified location for the Water Reclamation Centre outfall was presented during Consultation Round No. 6 in October 2012. During and following this round of consultation, the




Town of East Gwillimbury (Town) and local residents raised concerns regarding the location of the outfall and potential effects on winter recreation activity such as skating and snowmobiling. Specifically, York Region received requests to move the outfall from Queensville Sideroad to another location. As a result of these requests, York Region undertook an assessment of the other potential outfall locations suggested by the Town and residents and subsequently confirmed the original location at Queensville Sideroad. In response to concerns regarding the potential loss of winter recreation activity, York Region identified a number of proposed compensation measures including support for an alternate snowmobile trail and an outdoor community skating rink. During follow up consultation activities with the River Drive Park community (situated on the west side of the East Holland River just north and adjacent to the Queensville Sideroad) and the Town it became increasingly apparent that the outdoor community skating rink was not well supported. As a result, York Region decided that the outdoor community skating rink would not be implemented as a compensation measure. However, York Region would continue to support an alternate snowmobile trail by constructing a new bridge (approximately 10 metres or 30 feet) across the Boag Road drainage ditch to connect to the existing trail on the north side of Boag Road drainage ditch. The conceptual cost estimate for this bridge is approximately $120,000 to $200,000. In addition, at the June 27, 2013 York Regional Council meeting, Council adopted the following recommendations made by the Environmental Services Committee at their June 19, 2013 meeting:

Inclusion of a commitment in the Environmental Assessment report to continually monitor ice formation at the treated clean water discharge in consultation with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; and

Inclusion of sufficient funds in the Upper York Sewage Solutions project to implement water cooling technologies as warranted.

Therefore, York Region would monitor ice formation in the East Holland River and implement water cooling technologies as warranted in response to Town and resident concerns.




Section 6.0 References

CRA, AECOM, and Black & Veatch. April 2012 (2012a). Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, Generation of the Long List of Potential Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites.

CRA, AECOM, and Black & Veatch. May 2012 (2012b). Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, Screening of the Long List of Potential Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and Development of the York Durham Sewage System Modifications.

CRA, AECOM, and Black & Veatch. October 2012 (2012c). Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, Study of Potential Impacts of the Water Reclamation Centre Discharge on Flooding Potential in the East Holland River.

CRA, AECOM, and Black & Veatch. June 2013 (2013a). Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, Assessment and Comparative Evaluation of the Short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and the York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes.

CRA, AECOM, and Black & Veatch. December 2013 (2013b). Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, Hydrodynamic Analysis of the Water Reclamation Centre Outfall.

050278 (115) York Region No. 74270



APPENDICES

Appendix A Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Staff Report 43-12-BOD (June 1, 2012)

Appendix B

Environmental Services Committee Regional Council Meeting Report No. 5 (June 27, 2013)

Appendix C

Summary of Results of Neighbourhood Survey of Residents and Business Operators Adjacent to the East Holland River

Appendix D

Summaries of Meetings with the Town of East Gwillimbury, the River Drive Park Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee

and the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club

050278 (115) York Region No. 74270



Appendix A

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Staff Report 43-12-BOD (June 1, 2012)

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Michael Walters General Manager, Watershed Management DATE: June 1, 2012 SUBJECT: Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report 43-12-BOD regarding the Upper York Sewage

Solutions Environmental Assessment be received for information; and

FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the Environmental Assessment Study and report back to the Board of Directors regarding the final Authority comments.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report is to update and inform LSRCA’s Board of Directors regarding the status of LSRCA’s involvement in the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment currently being conducted by The Regional Municipality of York. Background and Consideration: LSRCA has been involved in commenting on the Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment since 2010. The proposed undertaking involves providing sewage servicing to accommodate forecasted population growth in the Towns of East Gwillimbury, Aurora and Newmarket. Approximately 47 million litres per day (MLD) of sewage capacity is required by 2031. To date, two viable alternatives have been evaluated including the creation of a new pipeline over the Oak Ridges Moraine to take sewage to Lake Ontario and a Lake Simcoe Innovative Solution to discharge treated effluent into Lake Simcoe. Based on a review of the alternatives provided to date, staff from the Authority can provide preliminary comments that the Lake Simcoe Innovative Solution is the preferred alternative resulting in the least disruptive disturbance to the natural heritage and watershed ecosystem and is the most sustainable in regards to water management. The innovative approach is also less costly than the Lake Ontario alternative as the plant expansion can be phased in over time. More significantly, this solution does not require the significant environmental disturbance to the Oak Ridges Moraine that would be associated with the construction of a tunnel to transport

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 the raw sewage to the Duffin Creek wastewater facility. Further, the Lake Simcoe option would not require an inter-basin transfer. The Lake Simcoe option also maintains more of a natural water balance and also involves innovative solutions which would set a high standard for wastewater servicing within the Lake Simcoe watershed. In addition, the willingness of The Regional Municipality of York to implement a new and innovative approach to sewage treatment has received a favourable response from the Province of Ontario. As part of our Planning and Development Services responsibilities, a Watershed Management staff team incorporating a variety of professional disciplines was created to review the technical reports provided by The Regional Municipality of York outlining the potential impacts associated with the Lake Simcoe Innovative Solution. The team includes:

• General Manager, Watershed Management, • Director, Planning and Development Services, • Manager, Environmental Science and Monitoring, • Manager, Engineering and Technical Services, • Limnologist, • Water Quality Specialist, • Hydrologist, • Natural Heritage Ecologist, and • Senior Fisheries Biologist.

The technology proposed by UYSS to treat the sewage involves enhanced biological secondary and tertiary membrane treatments which are relatively common technologies currently being utilized within the watershed. The innovative technology proposed to improve pollutant removal is the addition of reverse osmosis (RO) which would significantly improve the removal of a wide range of contaminants especially phosphorus. This technology is currently being used in other countries including the United States, Israel and Australia to treat sewage effluent wastewater to drinking water quality standards. It is commonly used in Canada to provide potable drinking water from surface water intakes (City of Barrie). Another innovative approach proposed by the The Regional Municipality of York is to reuse the reclaimed water for irrigation of golf courses, sod farms and other industrial uses. Reuse would not only reduce phosphorous loading to Lake Simcoe but also reduce the stress on ground/surface water resources and represents a much more sustainable approach to water management within the basin. Based on this rationale, the Region of York is referring to the new facility as a Water Reclamation Centre which reflects the innovative approach associated with this project and the objective to recycle the wastewater. A detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts to the Holland River could not be fully completed until a point of discharge was determined that would ultimately receive the 40 MLD that the Water Reclamation Centre would produce. Recently the Region of York staff indicated

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 3 of 3 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 that the preferred point of impact will likely be located where Queensville Sideroad crosses the East Holland River in Holland Landing. Given this information more detailed studies examining specific environmental impacts will be reviewed by staff. This report contains the results and conclusions of staff’s review of the technical reports provided in relation to our current scientific understanding of the environmental health and quality of the East Holland River and Lake Simcoe. Issues: The UYSS Environmental Assessment and the preferred alternative to provide future servicing and the implications for the current Holland Landing water pollution control facility has become a cause for concern for many residents within the watershed community. As a scientific organization, LSRCA is committed to maintaining a balanced approach to resource management focused on protecting and enhancing the health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. Our primary role is in relation to the impact that the facility might have on hazard lands within LSRCA’s jurisdiction and ensuring that it is physically located outside of a hazard area. This is a mandated responsibility under Section 28 of the Conservation Authority’s Act and, through the specific provincial Ontario Regulation 179/06. In relation to this mandate, LSRCA staff has also been involved in commenting on other aspects of the UYSS environmental assessment regarding potential impacts to water quality, water quantity, and natural heritage. A number of concerns have been raised by LSRCA Board Members and the public as part of the environmental assessment process. It is the intent of this Staff Report to address these concerns where possible and provide information that promotes a clear understanding of the proposed solution and ultimate impacts to the environment. The concerns raised to date include the following:

• Impacts on water quality to the East Holland River and Lake Simcoe due to the discharge of treated wastewater from the Water Reclamation Centre. Water quality concerns include increases to phosphorus loadings, Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP), and water temperature,

• Water quantity concerns resulting from the 40 MLD discharge to the East

Holland River and ultimately Lake Simcoe. Specific concerns include impacts to the stream hydrology and potential increase in flooding or streambank erosion,

• Effect of the discharge of treated wastewater from the Water Reclamation Centre on the aquatic ecosystem both in the East Holland River and Lake Simcoe.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 4 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 These are the current issues staff have identified however, given that the environmental assessment process is not complete other issues could emerge as the Environmental Impact Study Report is being produced by the Region of York. Staff will continue to participate in the process and report back to the Board of Directors regarding the results. Water Quality Phosphorus: The proposed UYSS plan to replace the current wastewater treatment lagoon at Holland Landing with a combined activated sludge, membrane filtration and reverse osmosis system represents a whole new standard in wastewater management in Canada. The combination of these treatment technologies would result in the wastewater being treated to drinking water quality standards. This level of treatment is a hundred times more effective at removing phosphorus than most other wastewater treatment facilities within the watershed which are already some of the most technologically advanced in Canada. This new level of phosphorus treatment is required to meet the phosphorus water quality target set under the LSPP by the MOE for the Holland Landing waste water facility while accommodating the provincially approved population expansion for the final build out of the communities within East Gwillimbury and Towns of Newmarket and Aurora. East Holland River Currently the East Holland River is the most degraded river system within the Lake Simcoe watershed which has made it a priority watershed of the Authority and the focus of many watershed management and stewardship programs. The phosphorus concentration within the river always exceeds the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) of 0.03 mg/L with an average concentration of 0.14 mg\L. Sources of phosphorus inputs include; urban stormwater runoff, agricultural inputs, the existing Holland Landing Sewage Lagoon, and septic systems. An evaluation of the potential impact that the Water Reclamation Centre will have on the phosphorus concentration in the East Holland River was completed by Conestoga-Rovers and Associates and Hutchinson Environmental Services for the Region of York. A number of modelling scenarios were completed using computer models to compare results along with empirical calculations using monitored data collected by the Authority. An important assumption of the model is the phosphorus concentration used to represent the treated effluent to be discharged. An effluent total phosphorus concentration of 0.015 mg/L was selected for modelling the Water Reclamation Centre discharge based on the use of advanced treatment technology. This effluent concentration is well below (half) the PWQO and is

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 5 of 5 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 reasonable given that results from the advanced treatment technology are well below this concentration. Members of the Authority staff team have reviewed the modelling output and concur with the results. An empirical assessment of flow versus concentration is also in close agreement with the model results. In conclusion, the results demonstrate there is no negative impact on the East Holland River associated with the WRC discharge in relation to increasing the phosphorus concentration. In fact quite the opposite impact will occur. Results clearly demonstrate that the Water Reclamation Centre discharge is predicted to improve water quality conditions in the East Holland River for phosphorus, especially during summer months under low flow conditions. This occurs because the addition of the cleaner treated water from the Water Reclamation Centre acts to dilute and lower existing phosphorus concentrations within the East Holland River. This predicted reduction in phosphorus concentration will have other positive benefits to the East Holland River and will result in reduced algae and aquatic plant growth and improved fish habitat. Lake Simcoe Another concern raised was the increase to phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe associated with the Water Reclamation Centre and population growth. Phosphorus loading can be defined as the amount of total phosphorus entering Lake Simcoe measured in metric tons per year. Phosphorus loading is a function of flow volume times the measured concentration of phosphorus present in the water as displayed in the equation below: Phosphorus Load (t/yr) = Total flow volume x Total phosphorus Concentration Under the planned population expansion as described by the Region of York the volume of sewage generated is going to increase as the population grows. If phosphorus concentrations were kept the same then the overall phosphorus load would also increase. Since the amount of sewage (volume) generated cannot be reduced then the only other option available is to reduce the concentration of phosphorus in the discharged wastewater. This has necessitated the need for enhanced treatment of the wastewater to significantly reduce phosphorus concentrations to maintain the total phosphorus load. The allowable limit for the annual phosphorus loading from the Holland Landing Treatment Lagoon is 149 kg/yr which is about 3% of the current total phosphorus load entering Lake Simcoe from wastewater treatment facilities. The MOE through the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (completed under The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan) have proposed a new annual limit (124 kg/yr) which is actually lower than the current allowable limit. It is important to note than even with the implementation of the advanced wastewater treatment technology a small increase to the phosphorus load of Lake Simcoe is associated with the new treatment facility.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 6 of 6 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 Approximately 100 kg of additional phosphorus would be discharged into the East Holland River simply because of the large volume of waste water being discharged. To address this issue, the Region of York has agreed to implement a phosphorus reduction off-setting program. This program would involve a minimum 2:1 to 4:1 reduction of other sources of phosphorus currently contributing to the East Holland River. The result will be a reduction of 200 to 400 kg/yr from other sources of phosphorus (storm water runoff, septic systems, and agricultural runoff) which would result in a 100 to 300 kg net reduction in the overall total phosphorus load entering Lake Simcoe. Based on the results it is the conclusion of staff that the Water Reclamation Centre will not negatively impact water quality within the East Holland River or Lake Simcoe. In fact the discharge will result in localized improvements to the East Holland River downstream of the point of discharge and a net reduction in phosphorus loading to Lake Simcoe associated with the necessary phosphorus off-set would improve the health of the lake. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products: East Holland River and Lake Simcoe Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) are defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as “any product used by individuals for personal health or cosmetic reasons or used by agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock. PPCPs comprise a diverse collection of thousands of chemical substances, including prescription and over-the-counter therapeutic drugs, veterinary drugs, fragrances, and cosmetics”. The term "PPCPs" has only existed for a few years; however these bioactive chemicals (substances that have an effect on living tissue) have been around for decades. Their effect on the environment is largely unknown and LSRCA has recognized this as a data gap and important area of research. PPCPs have probably been present in water and the environment for as long as people have been using them. Some sources of PPCPs include human activity, waste residual from pharmaceutical manufacturing (regulated and controlled), residues from hospitals, illicit drugs, and veterinary drug use (especially antibiotics and steroids) and agribusiness . Most of the drugs that are dispensed are not entirely absorbed by our bodies, and subsequently excreted finding their way into wastewater and surface waters. In actual fact, it has only been recently, due to advances in technology that chemical laboratory analysis methods have improved to identify PPCPs in surface waters. A concern has been raised regarding the discharge of PPCPs from the newly proposed UYSS waste water facility. Currently, the Canadian Federal and Ontario Provincial governments do not consider PPCPs to be a water quality or human health threat due to the minute concentrations found in surface and ground waters. As a result, there are currently no water quality objectives for any PPCPs that would require any municipality engaged in operating a

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 7 of 7 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 wastewater facility to treat and remove these chemicals. Despite this, most municipal wastewater treatment facilities do remove some PPCPs as do drinking water treatment plants that provide potable water to residences throughout the watershed. A review of current scientific literature to determine the ability of wastewater treatment facilities to remove PPCPs did yield a large number of peer reviewed and proofed journal papers and reports on the subject. The results of these studies1 concluded that there is removal of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products occurring in wastewater facilities with the most effective removal rates corresponding to improved wastewater treatment methods. Activated Sludge (AS) plants were found to remove moderate amounts of the PPCPs, Membrane Filtration (MF) was found to remove higher levels and reverse osmosis technology was cited to be the most effective with 97% of the PPCPs present in the wastewater effluent being removed. Based on the literature it can be concluded that reverse osmosis technology demonstrated the best performance for removing Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products. As previously discussed reverse osmosis technology is routinely used to treat drinking water and represents the most efficient wastewater treatment process to reduce the risk of releasing PPCPs into the natural environment and better ensure the health of humans and wildlife. As the first wastewater treatment facility in Ontario to propose using reverse osmosis technology the UYSS Holland Landing Water Reclamation Project would be more effective at removing PPCPs than any other wastewater management facility in the Lake Simcoe watershed if not in all of Canada. In conclusion this treatment facility would in all likelihood reduce the current loading of PPCPs to both the East Holland River and Lake Simcoe as a result of the improved treatment technology.

1Polar, J.A. 2007. The Fate of Pharmaceuticals after Wastewater Treatment. Florida Water Resource Journal. P26-31. Lee, C., Dr. K. Howe, and Dr. B. Thomson. 2009. State of Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products, and Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal during Municipal Wastewater Treatment. University of New Mexico. Report to New Mexico Environment Department. Lubliner, B., M. Redding, and D. Ragsdale. 2010. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Municipal wastewater and their Removal by Nutrient Treatment Technologies. US EPA Publication Number: 10-03-004. Al-Rifal, J., Khabbaz, H., and Schafer, A.I. 2011. Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compound in a Water Recyclyng Process using Reverse Osmosis Systems. Journal of Separation and Purification Technology, Number 77 P60-67.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 8 of 8 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 Water Temperature: East Holland River A review of long-term temperature records by Conestoga-Rovers and Associates showed that temperatures vary seasonally in the East and West Holland River from a low of 0 °C in the winter months to approximately 20 to 25 °C during the summer months. The proposed temperature of the Water Reclamation Centre discharge will, like other typical wastewater effluent temperatures, also follow a seasonal trend. It is predicted that the temperature of the wastewater discharge will be similar to the monthly average East Holland River temperature in August of about 20.5 °C. Therefore, given the seasonal norms it is expected that the WRC discharge will have a moderating impact on temperature during the low flow, high temperature conditions in the summer (June, July, August) period. This change is not significant and would not negatively impact the aquatic ecosystem. There is however an increase in water temperature of the East Holland predicted in the winter months which could be approximately 5 to 10 °C warmer. This will not negatively impact aquatic health within the East Holland River but could pose problems with ice formation\safety in the winter months. A more detailed analysis of winter water temperature conditions and the potential impacts of the Water Reclamation Centre discharge on the East Holland River have been requested but are not available at this time. Lake Simcoe There is no predicted or anticipated impact of the Water Reclamation Centre discharge on the water temperature in Lake Simcoe. The effects of the Water Reclamation Centre discharge on water temperature will be localized to the mixing zone or point of discharge. The limited volume of discharge mixing with the large flow volume of the East Holland River will negate any temperature impacts well before this discharge reaches Cooks Bay and Lake Simcoe. Water Levels\Flood Potential Increased risk or potential of flooding in the Holland River system is a key Authority concern in respect to the proposed project. To this end, Authority staff requested, as part of the ongoing Environmental Assessment, that the Region of York and the UYSS consultant team assess whether the discharge of the Water Reclamation Centre (40 MLD) would have any negative impact on flooding potential of the Holland River as well as water level elevations on Lake Simcoe. Authority staff requested that the UYSS team complete detailed modelling and analysis of the potential impact the addition of 40 MLD to the East Holland / Holland River system.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 9 of 9 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 East Holland River The UYSS consulting team utilized existing information and an existing hydraulic model for the East Holland River and expanded the model significantly to better assess the potential impacts. The model expansion included the addition of multiple river/valley cross sections, expanded several existing cross sections, and improved bathymetric survey data for the East Holland River, surveys of the dykes along the Holland River and other related parameters. The East Holland River at Queensville Side Road was used as the discharge point for the modelling analysis. Authority staff met with the UYSS team on several occasions during the modelling and analysis process to discuss the various technical aspects and ensure all key variables were being considered. Results of the hydraulic modelling clearly indicate that there would be minimal increases to water levels in the East Holland River at Queensville Side Road. The maximum increase in water level in the East Holland River is ~2.3cm which would only potentially occur during low lake level periods. Water level fluctuations in the East Holland River are controlled predominantly by lake levels and the operation of the Trent-Severn Waterway (TSW). The TSW controls Lake Simcoe water levels similar to how any large reservoir is controlled with water levels being controlled by a dam or control structure which for Lake Simcoe is the dam at Washago. Under Regional Storm flow conditions and high Lake Simcoe water levels in the East Holland River the change in water elevation of the East Holland River at Queensville Side Road would be ~0.2cm. This minor increase in water level during the regional flood event will have no impact or contribute in exasperating flood flows or water elevations. Lake Simcoe Concern has been raised that the discharge would significantly impact water levels in Lake Simcoe. It is important to review the potential discharge of 40 MLD in context of natural water balance in Lake Simcoe as well as existing water treatment facilities. In 2007 the discharge from the Barrie WPCP was approximately 53 MLD and this is projected to more than double to 138 MLD as Barrie grows over the next 30 years. The average volume of water leaving Lake Simcoe at the lakes outflow in Atherly is an average (2007-2010) of 3 billion MLD. Authority staff, using the data provided by the UYSS team, was able to calculate the potential change in lake water level. The maximum daily discharge of 40 MLD to Lake Simcoe would only potentially raise water levels in Lake Simcoe by approximately 0.055 mm/day. Average daily evaporation (2007-2010) during the summer months is approximately 2.4 mm/day or 18 times more than the maximum daily discharge from the Water Reclamation Centre. Another key component in respect to lake level is that it is controlled by the Trent Severn Waterway (TSW) in accordance with their operating curve. Based on these results staff have concluded that the addition of the discharge will not have any measurable impact on Lake Simcoe water levels.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 10 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 The Aquatic Ecosystem East Holland River A preliminary impact analysis of the Water Reclamation Centre on the aquatic ecosystem was completed by Hutchinson Environmental Ltd. for the Region of York. The consultant concluded and Authority staff is in agreement that the aquatic habitat of the East Holland River can be currently characterized as degraded. Based on monitoring data and the results of investigations to complete the East Holland River Subwatershed Plan the river is under stress from nutrient, sediment and contaminant inputs from surrounding urban and agricultural land uses, alteration and removal of riparian vegetation along the river, as well as alteration of the river channel (i.e., bank hardening and channelization). An analysis of the potential change associated with the discharge from the Water Reclamation Centre on the aquatic ecosystem resulted in no identified negative impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. In fact quite the opposite will occur. The improved water quality resulting from the discharge from the Water Reclamation Centre will result in improved conditions for fish and other aquatic life in relation to current conditions. Another unforeseen benefit is the potential improvement in baseflow conditions within the East Holland River during summer months due to the daily discharge from the Water Reclamation Centre. During most summers the East Holland River experiences low flow conditions from July to September, with the lowest annual flows occurring in August. This period is the most stressful time of year for any aquatic community, as water temperatures are high, dissolved oxygen concentrations are low and the amount of physical habitat available for aquatic organisms is reduced by low water levels. The increased flow provided by the Water Reclamation Centre would increase the river’s water levels and help to mitigate the issues associated with water temperature and dissolved oxygen. It would also increase the available aquatic habitat allowing aquatic organisms to access areas that would be dry in the summer low-flow period. This would include areas such as higher reaches of river banks and backwaters, features that provide valuable habitat for amphibians, reptiles, young fish, minnows, and benthic invertebrates. There is one outstanding study which staff has requested associated with the protection of aquatic habitat. Authority staff has requested a geomorphology study and streambank erosion analysis of future conditions associated with the discharge from the Water Reclamation Centre be completed to ensure that the streambanks and riparian wetlands will not be negatively impacted. The work is currently being completed but not available for comment at this time. Authority staff will comment on the reports when they are made available and provide our analysis to the Board of Directors in the next Staff Report.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 11 of 11 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 Lake Simcoe There is no predicted or anticipated impact of the Water Reclamation Centre discharge on the aquatic ecosystem in Lake Simcoe. The effects of the Water Reclamation Centre discharge will be more localized to the East Holland River. The limited volume of discharge will not significantly affect water quality or water levels within Cooks Bay or the main basin of Lake Simcoe. Relevance to Authority Policy: The Authority’s mission is to protect and restore the environment health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. Authority policies will be applied in the same manner and thoroughness as exists within the current practice to the UYSS. The Authority Board will be circulated the final response to the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the project for information prior to its submission to the Region of York. Impact on Authority Finances: There are no costs associated with undertaking the Environmental Assessment review other than staff time which has been significant due to the technical nature of the project. The review of Environmental Assessment Study Reports in relation to environmental impacts to Lake Simcoe and its watershed is part of the Watershed Management Division’s role and responsibilities. Summary and Recommendations: Based on the review of the information provided for the preferred alternative staff has concluded that there are no negative environmental impacts associated with the creation of a Water Reclamation Centre and discharge of 40 MLD into the East Holland River at Queensville Sideroad in the Village of Holland Landing. It is recommended that Staff Report 43-12-BOD regarding the Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment be received for information; and THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the Environmental Assessment study and report back to the Board of Directors regarding the final Authority comments for information.

Staff Report No. 43-12-BOD Page No. 12 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8 BOD-06-12 Pre-submission Review: This Staff Report was reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer. Prepared by: Michael Walters, General Manager, Watershed Management. Original signed by: Original signed by: ________________________________ ________________________________ Michael Walters D. Gayle Wood General Manager, Chief Administrative Officer Watershed Management

050278 (115) York Region No. 74270



Appendix B

Environmental Services Committee Regional Council Meeting Report No. 5 (June 27, 2013)

Report No. 5 of the Environmental Services Committee

Regional Council Meeting of June 27, 2013 4

UPPER YORK SEWAGE SOLUTIONS PROJECT UPDATE – PROJECT 74270, PROPOSED MITIGATION RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF PREFERRED

SOLUTION – SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The Environmental Services Committee recommends the following:

1. Referral of the communication from Erin Mahoney, Commissioner, Environmental Services, dated June 19, 2013 to a Fall 2013 Committee meeting;

2. Inclusion of a commitment in the Environmental Assessment report to continually monitor ice formation at the treated water discharge in consultation with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; and

3. Inclusion of sufficient funds in the Upper York Sewage Solutions project

to implement water cooling technologies as warranted.

(The communication referred to in this clause is attached to this report.)

Environmental Services

MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Environmental Service Committee FROM: Erin Mahoney

Commissioner, Environmental Services DATE: June 19, 2013 RE: Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update – Project 74270 Proposed Mitigation Related to Implementation of Preferred Solution - Supplemental Information The purpose of this memo is to provide supplemental information to Environmental Services Committee regarding the Upper York Sewage Solutions project. At its meeting of May 8, 2013, Environmental Services Committee recommended the adoption of the Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update report from the Commissioner of Environmental Services. In relation to this report, Committee further recommended that staff provide details on mitigation options regarding impacts to the East Holland River ice formation at the treated water discharge outfall. At its meeting on May 16, 2013, Council amended this clause (Clause No. 4 of Report No. 4 of the Environmental Services Committee) as follows:

1. The amendment of the following recommendation: Staff are requested to provide details on mitigation options and possible solutions

regarding impacts to the East Holland River ice formation at the treated water discharge outfall.

2. The addition of the following recommendation: Staff are directed to hold an additional open house and public meeting in the Town of

Georgina. As outlined in the May 8 Environmental Services Committee report, key concerns were expressed during public consultation on the recommended outfall location regarding impacts to winter activities on the East Holland River caused by potential future ice melt from treated water discharge. Accordingly, the study team developed specific mitigation measures to address these concerns by way of providing an outdoor community ice pad for public skating, as well as collaborating with the local Holland Landing Snowmobile Club to facilitate implementation of a new north/south connection between two existing snowmobile trail systems. Since preparation of the report, however, additional concerns have been expressed by a group of residents in East Gwillimbury whose individual properties back directly onto the East Holland River just downstream of the recommended outfall location. Through dedicated meetings with the group of residents, the Region’s project team understands their primary issues to be:

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 2 1. All potential outfall locations have not been adequately assessed 2. Negative perception the outfall will create about the community as a whole 3. Lack of ice cover may make maintenance activities on private docks, boathouses and

shoreline protective structures more difficult or expensive 4. Potential mitigation option to recover heat from the treated water discharge has not been fully

explored In addition, Council at its meeting of May 16, 2013 requested further information regarding the rationale for the recommended locations of the phosphorus offsets within the study area. This is addressed below under Issue 5. Further details and responses to all of these issues are as follows: Issue 1: All potential outfall locations have not been adequately assessed Response: The recommended outfall location at Queensville Sideroad on the east side of the East Holland River immediately south of the Queensville Sideroad bridge was established based on a comprehensive scientific study and extensive public consultation, including an assessment of seven locations (see Attachment 1) in accordance with a broad range of environmental, social and technical evaluation criteria. A detailed assessment of all seven potential treated water discharge outfall locations has been completed and a summary has been presented to the public. Discussion points from this assessment, which focus on the purpose of this memorandum, are provided below (full assessment details will be documented in the final Environmental Assessment report). East Holland River at Queensville Sideroad (Recommended Location) • Conveyance infrastructure from the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre to the outfall

can be contained within existing Regional road rights of way and be accomplished by a full-gravity system, which is the most environmentally sustainable solution with the lowest carbon footprint resulting in reduced capital, operation, maintenance and energy costs.

• Aquatic habitat and summer recreational uses in East Holland River, extending to its confluence with West Holland River, will realize significant environmental benefit from the discharge of high-quality treated water along the entire six to seven kilometres downstream portion of the river.

• Potential impacts to winter ice formation in East Holland River caused by discharge will be minimal and localized to the discharge area east of the river upon plant start-up, anticipated in 2018/2019, and would gradually increase towards the river as the plant services planned growth and treated water discharge increases to the river. Complete ice melt (i.e., open water) could occur up to approximately a kilometre downstream of the outfall by 2031.

• Throughout the course of the Environmental Assessment study, the project team has observed that reliable formation of winter ice on the East Holland River has not been realized in two of the last four years due to mild winters. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and other science experts anticipate this trend will continue and worsen in coming

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 3

decades regardless of the location of the treated water discharge outfall. This will be further exacerbated by increased urbanization approved for this area.

• Localized impacts to winter recreational activities on East Holland River can be mitigated by creating an outdoor ice pad for community skating at the local Parkway Parkette (ice pad to be owned/operated by the Town of East Gwillimbury) as well as collaborating with the local Holland Landing Snowmobile Club to facilitate implementation of a new north/south connection between two existing snowmobile trail systems.

Soldiers’ Bay at Queensville Sideroad • Conveyance infrastructure from the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre to the outfall

can be contained within existing rights of way and be accomplished by a full-gravity system, which is the most environmentally sustainable solution with the lowest carbon footprint resulting in reduced capital, operation, maintenance and energy costs.

• While the East Holland River would realize similar aquatic habitat and summer recreational use benefits as above, the sensitive natural, cultural and/or heritage aspects of Soldiers’ Bay could be negatively impacted as follows: o Soldiers’ Bay has known cultural heritage/archaeological resources around the bay, such

as Fort Gwillimbury/Holland’s Landing Depot. o Soldiers’ Bay has a high level of sedimentation, is extremely shallow (two to three feet

deep) and is densely vegetated to water surface. o Soldiers’ Bay has potential as a fish spawning/nursery area.

• Impacts to winter ice formation would occur within similar timeframes as above, however, would extend across the entire area of Soldiers’ Bay, as well as a shorter section of East Holland River downstream of the mouth of Soldiers’ Bay.

Split discharge at Queensville Sideroad between East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay • Conveyance infrastructure from the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre to the outfall

can be contained within existing rights of way and be accomplished by a full-gravity system which is the most environmentally sustainable solution with lowest carbon footprint and results in reduced capital, operation, maintenance and energy costs.

• East Holland River would realize aquatic habitat and summer recreational use benefits, however, the sensitive natural, cultural and/or heritage aspects of Soldiers’ Bay could be negatively impacted, even by this reduced amount of flow as follows: o Soldiers’ Bay has known cultural heritage/archaeological resources around the bay such

as Fort Gwillimbury/Holland’s Landing Depot. o Soldiers’ Bay has a high level of sedimentation, is extremely shallow (two to three feet

deep), and is densely vegetated to water surface. o Soldiers’ Bay has potential as a fish spawning/nursery area.

• Impacts to winter ice formation would occur, downstream of both outfalls within East Holland River and Soldiers’ Bay.

East Holland River at Holborn Road • More challenging conveyance infrastructure to construct due to geotechnical conditions and

need to dewater during construction.

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 4 • Relatively shorter section of the East Holland River will benefit from the high-quality treated

water from an aquatic habitat and summer recreational use perspective. • Construction of piped outfall will impact approximately 25,000 square metres of historically

undisturbed Provincially Significant Wetland. • Approval from Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority requires:

o Justification that no other viable alternative exists. o Wetland and ecosystem compensation. o No negative impacts to natural features or their ecological function in accordance with

Provincial Policy Statement as reflected in local and Regional official plans. • Use of existing open-channel drain will result in additional phosphorus load into the East

Holland River since the clean water is discharged through a nutrient-rich wetland. • Impacts to winter ice formation would occur downstream of outfall within East Holland

River and require mitigation by way of additional snowmobile trail connections. East Holland River at Future Bradford Bypass • Bradford Bypass Environmental Assessment has been approved, however, not in current

Ministry of Transportation expansion plans (including post 2016 long-term planning). • Requires easement from private landowners. • Requires approval from Ministry of Transportation (high risk of non-approval). • Shorter section of the East Holland River will benefit from the high-quality treated water

from an aquatic habitat and summer recreational use perspective. • Impacts to winter ice formation would occur downstream of outfall within East Holland

River and require mitigation by way of additional snowmobile trail connections. East Holland River south of Queensville Sideroad at Hydro Corridor, Holland Landing Lagoon outfall or Doane Road • Longer (over four kilometers) and more complex conveyance infrastructure requiring

pumping resulting in greater capital, operating, maintenance and energy costs. • Hydro Corridor location requires additional permitting and easement from Hydro One (high

risk of non-approval). • Holland Landing Lagoon and Doane Road locations require riverbank erosion protection. • Impacts to winter ice formation with East Holland River would occur affecting as many as 71

residences downstream of the outfall and require mitigation by way of additional snowmobile trail connections.

Table 1 provides a high-level summary of the benefits outlined in the above discussion points to provide a comparison of the treated water discharge outfall location options.


Table 1 Treated Water Discharge Outfall Locations

Summary Benefits

Treated water discharge location

Minimize lifecycle cost

of linear infrastructure

Minimize natural,

cultural and heritage

environmental impacts

Eliminates impacts to

winter recreational

uses

Maximizes aquatic

habitat in East Holland

River

Minimizes risk of

required easements and permits

East Holland River at


Soldiers’ Bay at Queensville

Sideroad

East Holland River at Holborn

Road

East Holland River at Future

Bradford Bypass

East Holland River at Hydro

Corridor

East Holland River at Holland Landing Lagoon

Outfall

East Holland River at Doane

Road

Preferred Outfall Location In summary, the preferred outfall location is East Holland River at Queensville Sideroad discharge because this option provides for sustainable energy management (full-gravity system that requires no pumping), conveyance infrastructure is within Regional road rights of way, and high-quality treated water provides significant year-round environmental benefits to aquatic habitat and summertime recreational water benefits to the confluence with the West Holland River.

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 6 Issue 2: Negative perception the outfall will create about community as a whole Response: The treated discharge will be highly pure water of far better quality than currently exists in the East Holland River today. All technical and environmental studies have confirmed that water clarity and aquatic habitat will be improved in the six to seven kilometre portion of the river downstream of the outfall which will result in significantly enhanced environmental and recreational benefits year round, especially in spring, summer and fall. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff has reviewed these studies and concurs with the environmental benefits to the East Holland River. Issue 3: Lack of ice cover may make maintenance activities on private docks, boathouses and shoreline protective structures more difficult or expensive Response: Many of the 35 to 45 residential waterfront properties north of the Queensville Sideroad bridge have privately owned structures in the East Holland River such as docks (approximately 18 to 20), boathouses (some five to seven visible) and shoreline erosion protection. According to the residents, maintenance on these structures is sometimes conducted when the river is frozen and capable of supporting equipment required to undertake maintenance activities. In addition, the ice cover provides bearing for any temporary shoring of any docks and boat houses. The project team has conducted some preliminary investigations on this issue and notes the following: • Construction of these types of in-water structures are prohibited by today’s regulations,

however, existing structures can be maintained under “grandfathering” provisions. • As impacts to ice formation caused by the treated water discharge are not likely to occur until

2020, sufficient time exists to implement prior preventative maintenance measures. • As noted above, studies indicate that recent changes in weather trends, as well as impacts

from local urbanization, will prevent winter ice formation on the East Holland River even in the absence of the treated water discharge outfall. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority confirms these trends and agrees that ice cover on the river may not safely support recreational activities moving forward.

• While it is recognized that carrying out some maintenance activities during frozen conditions may be more cost effective, working from the shore to avoid impact to the river and other such maintenance options during non-frozen conditions do exist. For either scenario, regulatory permits would likely be required when equipment is used for such near-water/in-water/on-ice works.

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 7 Issue 4: Potential mitigation option to recover heat from the treated water discharge has not been fully explored Response: Initial studies completed on the proposed Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre indicated that during the winter months the treated water discharge will be, on average, four to five degrees Celsius higher than East Holland River temperature. This average temperature difference will assimilate, but initially will result in potential ice melt in the river, the extent of which will vary depending on climate conditions. In recognition of this impact, the study team conducted preliminary investigations on recovering heat from the discharge water to a level that would reduce or possibly eliminate river ice melt beyond the initial melt local to the area around the point where the discharge enters the river. These investigations concluded the following: • Energy that could be recovered from the discharge to sustainably heat the buildings onsite

would have an insignificant (less than one degree Celsius) reduction on the treated water temperature.

• Substantial additional capital and energy costs are required to further cool the effluent with no potential to reuse the recovered heat. This approach will increase the energy management/carbon footprint of the facility.

• A capital investment of $4 to 6 million plus annual operating costs between $400,000 and $750,000 per year is required for chilling technologies to reliably reduce the effluent temperature by four to five degrees Celsius. Capital investment for the community ice pad would be in the order of $500,000 with minimal annual operating costs.

• The performance of less expensive technologies such as cooling towers is unreliable because they are dependent on outside air temperature.

• Since steadily flowing water will not freeze, energy generated by the discharge flow of this volume of water would cause localized ice melt even if the water were cooled at the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre.

Many plants across the country discharge treated effluent to local rivers without incident. However, other mitigation measures were explored in greater detail resulting in the identification of those presented in the May 8 Environmental Services Committee report (i.e., provision of community ice pad and snowmobile trail connections). The concept of heat recovery would be most successful with a District Energy Heating System; that is, a community holistically designed to accept and use this resource as an example of sustainable living. Such a community concept exists for much of the area north of Queensville Sideroad, however, the timing for this has not been established. Until that time, the resources required to recover heat by cooling the treated water from the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre would be wasted since the facility itself could only use a fraction of the heat. Additionally, lowering the temperature of treated water by an average of four to five degrees Celsius will not mitigate against open water at the point where the discharge enters the river. Heat recovery for the purposes of this individual environmental assessment offers no benefit in terms of cost or eliminating open water in the winter and could serve to defeat the purpose of the

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 8 Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre to provide phosphorus-reduced clean treated water to improve the quality of the highly degraded East Holland River. The Environmental Assessment report will include a commitment to continually monitor ice formation at the treated water discharge in consultation with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Moving forward, the Upper York Sewage Solutions project will include sufficient budget to implement heat recovery technologies as warranted. Reclaiming water for irrigation of sod farms and golf courses or for industrial processes by high water users is a cornerstone of innovation inherent in the Upper York Sewage Solutions project. A reliable supply of high-quality treated water would reduce or remove dependency on ground or surface water supplies currently governed by Permits To Take Water; a significant and sustainable step in protecting valuable water resources. The Region will continue to work with the Ministry of the Environment to advance water reuse and anticipates that water reuse will help divert water from the outfall for reuse opportunities and potentially further mitigate perceived impacts. Issue 5 (raised by Council May 16, 2013): Rationale for the recommended locations of the phosphorus off-sets in the Study Area. Response: Discussions with the Ministry of the Environment to date have determined that most proposed phosphorus off-sets should be achieved within the East Holland River sub-watershed upstream of the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre treated water discharge outfall. The rationale is that the further upstream the remediated ponds are, the greater the benefit will be. Specifically: • Retrofitting older stormwater management ponds within the East Holland River sub-

watershed to provide quality and quantity control of stormwater removes phosphorus from entering the river at the minimum ratio of two units of phosphorus removed for each single unit of phosphorus added.

• From the point of discharge, the combination of less phosphorus and the high quality of the treated water will serve to improve the clarity and quality of the East Holland River for six to seven kilometers to the point of confluence with the West Holland River.

The Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy is designed to achieve a reduction in the annual load of phosphorus to Lake Simcoe from all sources, as depicted in Figure 1 below, from 72 tonnes per year to 44 tonnes per year (i.e., reduction goal of 28 tonnes per year). The Upper York Sewage Solution’s phosphorus off-setting strategy will provide a net reduction of as much as 300 kilograms per year of phosphorus. As such, when considering the net effect on Lake Simcoe as a whole, 300 kilograms per year equates to 1 per cent of the reduction goal as required by the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. In contrast, 300 kilograms per year of phosphorus reduction will provide a significantly greater benefit to the East Holland River, which is the most degraded watercourse in the watershed.


Figure 1 Lake Simcoe Phosphorous Sources

Since the May 8 Environmental Services Committee report, further investigation has been undertaken on candidate stormwater sites. Further investigation has determined that several sites were not ideally suitable for retrofit and that other retrofit options may be less impactful and/or more cost effective. Ponds removed from the candidate list and the rationale for removal are described below: • Aurora – South of Henderson Drive between McClellan Way and Ardill Crescent

o Retrofit would negatively impact existing park uses • Aurora – North of Stone Road between October Lane and Bayview Avenue

o Retrofit would negatively impact adjacent significant forest • East Gwillimbury – West side of Leslie Street at Jennifer Crescent

o Pond within proposed development • Newmarket – Southeast of Renzuis Court

o Further investigations revealed more cost-effective options • Newmarket – Northwest corner of College Manor Drive and Devanjan Circle

o Further investigations revealed more cost-effective options • Newmarket – South of Stellar Drive between Pony Drive and Harry Walker Parkway

o Further investigations revealed more cost-effective options Table 2 below and Attachment 2 provide the updated candidate stormwater management remediation sites. Columns have been added to reflect their locations with respect to the Ministry of the Environment’s requirement to achieve phosphorus removal upstream of the Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre treated water discharge outfall into the East Holland River as well as the respective targeted phosphorus reduction. It should be noted that the candidate sites to

June 19, 2013 Upper York Sewage Solutions Project Update Supplemental Information 10 determine the appropriate credits remain tentative and are subject to ongoing discussion with Ministry of the Environment.

Table 2 Updated Candidate Stormwater Management Remediation Sites

Municipality Pond/Low Impact Development

Location

East Holland River Subwatershed

Location Upstream of Proposed Outfall

Targeted Phosphorus Reduction (Kilograms Per Year)

Aurora North of Wellington Street West between

Marksbury Court and Harmon Avenue (A-NW33)

Yes 2

Aurora South of Wellington Street East and East of Mary Street (A-C8) Yes 5

East Gwillimbury

North of Farr Avenue and East of George Street (SH-S9) No 22

East Gwillimbury

Northeast corner of Oakridge Crescent (HL-SE2/SE6) Yes 8

Georgina North of Walter Street between Lake Drive and Georgette Street (K-S8) No 8

Newmarket Northeast of Eagle Street West at McCaffrey Road (N-CW2/3/5/7/11) Yes 66

Newmarket Northeast corner of Dorchester Court (N-NW5) Yes 33

Newmarket

Low Impact Development: Perforated pipes in existing swales in roadside

stormwater ditches along Stellar Drive, Pony Drive, and on the existing

stormwater easement located between Harry Walker Parkway and Pony Drive

(N-NE1/NE2)

Yes 25


This supplemental information, along with the May 8 Environmental Services Committee report, outlines some of the detailed assessment work that staff has undertaken as part of the Upper York Sewage Solution project. A public meeting in the Town of East Gwillimbury is scheduled for June 19 with an additional open house and public meeting, as requested by Council, scheduled for July 3 in the Town of Georgina. Erin Mahoney BW/mm Attachments (2) YORK-#4814592

ATTACHMENT 1

LOCATION PLAN Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation CentreProposed Treated Water Discharge Outfall

#4833294

Holland Landing Lagoons

Potential Treated Water Discharge Outfall

Route of Linear Infrastructure

Holland LandingLagoons

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

ATTACHMENT 2

LOCATION PLANUpdated Candidate StormwaterManagement Remediation Sites

#4864892

Updated Candidate StormwaterManagement Remediation Sites

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

050278 (115) York Region No. 74270



Appendix C


Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment


Prepared for: The Regional Municipality of York

Prepared by:

NOVEMBER, 2012 REF. NO. 050278

YORK REGION NO. 74270

Conestoga-Rovers & Associates 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7B8



050278 York Region No. 74270

Table of Contents

Page

Section 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................... 1

Section 2.0 Methodology and Approach ............................................ 1

Section 3.0 Summary of Survey Results ........................................... 4

1.1 Changes in the East Holland River ..................................................... 6

Section 4.0 Summary ......................................................................... 11

Section 5.0 Recommendations ......................................................... 12

List of Figures Page Figure 2.1: Properties Adjacent to the East Holland River Contacted for

Neighbourhood Survey ............................................................................... 3

List of Tables Page Table 3.1: Familiarity with the UYSS EA ..................................................................... 4

Table 3.2: Frequency of Use of the East Holland River during the Spring, Summer and Fall ........................................................................................ 5

Table 3.3: Uses of the East Holland River in Spring, Summer and Fall ...................... 5

Table 3.4: Potential Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Spring, Summer and Fall ............................................................................ 6

Table 3.5: Changes in Water Quality in the Past 2 Years ........................................... 6

Table 3.6: Ways in Which Water Quality has Changed ............................................... 7

Table 3.7: Frequency of Use of East Holland River in Winter ..................................... 8

Table 3.8: Winter Activities on East Holland River ...................................................... 8

Table 3.9: Changes in Ice Coverage on East Holland River ....................................... 8

Table 3.10: Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Winter ............... 9

Table 3.11: Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Past 2 Years .......................................................................................................... 9

Table 3.12: Reasons for Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Past 2 Years ............................................................................................. 10




Appendices

Appendix A. Riverside Neighbourhood Survey and Script

Appendix B. Record of Attempts Made to Contact Interviewees

Appendix C. Survey Results



050278 Page 1 York Region No. 74270

Section 1.0 Introduction

This document summarizes the results of a telephone survey conducted with residents and business operators along the East Holland River in the Town of East Gwillimbury between Queensville Sideroad and Holborn Road as part of the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment (EA). At the request of the Regional Municipality of York (York Region), AECOM undertook the survey to gain a better understanding of residents and business operator’s use and enjoyment of the East Holland River and gauge their level of interest and understanding of the UYSS EA prior to the October 2012 Public Information Forums (PIFs). By speaking directly to residents and business owners, it was possible to gain insight regarding community use of the East Holland River. With a greater understanding of how people use and enjoy the East Holland River throughout the year, York Region can better consider the need for avoidance/mitigation measures to address any potential effects identified. A description of the methodology used to develop and implement the survey is provided in Section 2.0. The telephone surveys were completed from September 10 to 27, 2012. Twenty surveys were completed from the 74 households and businesses called. The findings from the twenty completed surveys are summarized in Section 3.0 with the highlights provided as followed:

The majority of the respondents were familiar with the UYSS EA;

The majority of the respondents said that they thought additional treated water in the spring, summer and fall would not affect their use of the East Holland River;

The East Holland River is used frequently during the winter months and more than half of respondents indicated that the additional treated warm water in the winter would affect their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River in some way.

Section 2.0 Methodology and Approach

AECOM developed the survey with guidance and objectives provided by York Region (see Appendix A). The survey was carried out through telephone interviews and included 20 questions, including six open ended questions to provide the opportunity for respondents’ comments and for their opinions to be documented qualitatively. The 14 closed questions (those with defined response categories) were used to tabulate the responses and provide a quantitative summary. A total of 74 properties adjacent to the East Holland River, between Queensville Sideroad and the unopened Holborn Road allowance were identified from York Region Property Parcel mapping (see Figure 2.1) for inclusion in the survey. This area includes the properties associated with the maximum extent of potential loss of ice cover resulting from the warm water discharge from the outfall of the proposed Water Reclamation Centre (WRC). These properties




are primarily residential along with a small number of agricultural properties, marinas and one golf course. From the 74 addresses, a total of 47 phone numbers were obtained using Canada 411.com. Every number identified through Canada 411.com was called at least once. If no contact was made, a voicemail was left if possible with a message asking the resident or business operator to call back if they would like to be interviewed. If no voicemail was available, then follow-up attempts were made to a maximum of four times. Telephone calls were completed between September 10th - 14th, 2012 with the majority of calls made between 1:00 pm and 7:00 pm. All surveys were completed by September 27, 2012. If a voicemail message was left, residents or business operators were asked to return the call by September 21, 2012. The interviewer initiated the interview by explaining that York Region had asked them to call and talk to them about the UYSS EA. Specifically, to discuss how they use the East Holland River throughout the year. The interviewer explained that responses were confidential and they would not be identified in any way from their responses. The interviewer proceeded by describing the UYSS EA and its goals as scripted in the survey instrument. Interviews took approximately 15 minutes each to complete. The interviewer also provided the UYSS EA website address if the respondent wanted further information. Respondents’ answers were recorded by the interviewer. Of the 47 phone numbers called a total of 20 surveys were completed. Nineteen were residents, and two were local business operators. One of the residents also operated a home-based business and was therefore recorded as both residential and business. Seventeen (17) messages were left on voicemail, four residents did not wish to complete the survey and six residents were unable to be contacted either because there was no answer or the number was incorrect. Attempts to contact residents were documented and are included in Appendix B. The respondents’ responses were documented in a database and are included in Appendix C.




Figure 2.1: Properties Adjacent to the East Holland River Contacted for Neighbourhood Survey




Section 3.0 Summary of Survey Results

As mentioned, respondents were asked a series of questions to gauge both their knowledge of the UYSS EA and their use of the East Holland River for business or recreational purposes at different times of the year. A summary of their responses is included in the following subsections. Summary of Respondents

Almost all respondents had lived or worked on the East Holland River for more than ten years (18 out of 20 respondents) with seven respondents having lived or worked there for over 20 years. Only two of the 20 respondents interviewed had businesses on their property: a marina and a Naturopathic Medical business run from home. Familiarity with the UYSS EA

Respondents were asked if they were familiar with the UYSS EA. As shown in Table 3.1, over two thirds of respondents (14) said that they were familiar with the UYSS EA. When asked what they knew about the UYSS EA responses included:

To do with sewage/wastewater;

Will change water quality in the East Holland River;

Familiar with the WRC and potential alternative sites.

Table 3.1: Familiarity with the UYSS EA

Question Responses

Are you familiar with the project? Yes No Total Responses 14 6

Two (2) respondents also recalled seeing advertisements in the local newspaper and two respondents indicated that they had attended a Public Information Forum earlier this year. Use of the East Holland River in Spring, Summer and Fall

Respondents were asked a series of questions on their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River during Spring, Summer and Fall months. Fourteen (14) of the 20 respondents indicated that they use the East Holland River at least once a week (including 5 respondents who use it every day) while only four respondents stated that they never use the East Holland River (Table 3.2).




Table 3.2: Frequency of Use of the East Holland River during the Spring, Summer and Fall

Question How frequently in the past 2 years have you used the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall?

Number of Responses

Never 4 Less than once a month 0 Once a month 1 Less than once a week but more than once a month 1 Once a week 4 2-4 times a week 5 Everyday 5 Total Responses 20

The most commonly mentioned uses of the East Holland River were boating, fishing, nature viewing and the use of river water for watering their lawns. Concerns were raised by three (3) respondents that there is too many reeds in the East Holland River near Soldiers Bay to allow for easy access the East Holland River directly behind their property. As a result, some need to access the East Holland River further downstream. Table 3.3: Uses of the East Holland River in Spring, Summer and Fall

Question Describe the main ways in which you use the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall.

Number of Responses

Boating 16 Fishing 7 Watering property 4 Nature Viewing 3 Other 2 Total Responses 32 Note: Some respondents gave multiple answers Respondents were asked if they thought that the additional high quality treated water to be discharged to the East Holland River resulting from the proposed WRC discharge would affect their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River. Twelve (12) out of 20 respondents said that it would not affect their use or enjoyment of the East Holland River (See Table 3.4). The remainder suggested that they would experience an effect relating to a change in flows.




Table 3.4: Potential Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Spring, Summer and Fall

Question Responses Do you expect any change in your use and enjoyment of the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall?

Yes No

Number of responses 8 12

Respondents were asked what opportunities they saw related to increased water levels in the East Holland River. The majority of respondents, (11 out of the 20) did not see any opportunities from additional clean water added to the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall. Additional comments included:

Some respondents questioned the quality of the outfall discharge;

There were concerns expressed that increased water levels might flood properties;

Some respondents were worried that the project would result in potential sewage leaks.

Nine (9) respondents said that they thought there would be opportunities to increase their use of the East Holland River if additional clean water was added; commenting that people would use the East Holland River more and might possibly be able to eat any fish caught in the river if it is coming from cleaner water. All the comments provided in responses to this question are listed in Appendix C.

1.1 Changes in the East Holland River

Respondents were asked if they had noticed any changes in the East Holland River over the past two years in terms of water quality or water levels. Almost all (18 out of the 20) respondents said they had noticed a change of some sort (see Table 3.5). Table 3.5: Changes in Water Quality in the Past 2 Years

Question Responses Have you noticed any changes in the East Holland River in terms of water quality or water levels in the past 2 years?

Yes No

Total Responses 18 2

When asked what kind of changes they had seen; 14 respondents indicated that they had noticed changes in the water clarity. Four (4) of those 14 respondents indicated that they noticed that the East Holland River’s water seemed to be getting cleaner in the past two years while the rest believed the water was getting dirtier and filled with weeds (See Table 3.6). Respondents also noticed a change in water levels. Seven (7) respondents noticed a decrease in the water levels the past two years; all noting this was due to the hot weather. One respondent thought there was increase in the water levers, commenting that “water levels at the




end of July used to go down but now the last two years it has stayed up”. Two (2) respondents indicated that there was a decrease in the number aquatic animals in the East Holland River. One (1) of which commented that in the past there were fish dying in the river and causing a bad smell in the East Holland River. Other comments included one individual who had noticed that he had “lost 6 feet of property along the river due to erosion from the boat waves”. According to one individual, the “river quality has gone downhill; there used to be a culvert under the bridge which would circulate the water but it is blocked with sediment and has resulted in Soldier’s Bay being filled with weeds and sediment”. Nineteen (19) respondents commented on the changes seen in the East Holland River and are included in Appendix C. Table 3.6: Ways in Which Water Quality has Changed

Question If yes to the previous question, in what way? Number of

Responses

Increase in Water Clarity 4 Decrease in Water Clarity 10 Increase in Water Level 1 Decrease in Water Level 7 Decrease in Aquatic Animals 2 Other 1 Total Responses 25 Note: Some respondents gave multiple answers Use of the East Holland River in Winter

Respondents were asked how often they or their business used the East Holland River in winter. Seven (7) respondents said they use the East Holland River once a month or less while thirteen (13) respondents indicated that they use the East Holland River once a week or more (with 5 using it every day), only four respondents said that they never used the East Holland River in the winter. Skating and snowmobiling were the most common activities on the East Holland River in winter (11 respondents each said they did these) (See Table 3.7 and Table 3.8). The importance of the East Holland River as a community facility was highlighted by a number of respondents. “The river is a community place” and “[it is] as busy as the 401” with snowmobiles and skaters. “The whole neighbourhood uses the river; it is a community event”. Four (4) respondents who don’t use the East Holland River in the winter indicated that their neighbours use the East Holland River. One individual who doesn’t use the East Holland River in the winter still clears off the snow in a patch so that the neighbourhood kids could use it. The comments provided are listed below in Appendix C.




Table 3.7: Frequency of Use of East Holland River in Winter

Question How frequently in the past 2 years have you used the East Holland River during the winter months (i.e., November – February)?

Number of Responses


Table 3.8: Winter Activities on East Holland River

Question Please describe the main ways in which you and your family [or your business] uses the East Holland River during the winter months?

Number of Responses

Skating 11 Snowmobiling 11 Walking 9 Cross-country Skiing 4 Ice Fishing 3 Nature Viewing 3 Snowshoeing 3 ATV 2 Total Responses 46 Note: Some respondents gave multiple responses.

Changes in Ice Coverage

When asked if they had seen any change in ice coverage on the East Holland River in the past two years, 16 respondents indicated that they had. All of these respondents believed this was due to warmer weather in the past two winters. Two (2) respondents noted that there was not a lack of ice coverage, but felt that it took longer for the ice to become thick enough to use the East Holland River. Table 3.9: Changes in Ice Coverage on East Holland River

Question Responses Have you noticed any changes in the amount of ice coverage on the East Holland River during the winter months?

Yes No

Number of Responses 16 4




When asked if the potential reduction in ice coverage on the East Holland River due to the discharge of warmer water into the East Holland River would affect their use of the East Holland River during the winter time, 12 responded “Yes” while eight (8) said “No” (see Table 3.10). For those individuals who responded affirmatively, they indicated that the reduction in ice coverage would adversely affect the community as illustrated in the comments provided. There were concerns from respondents regarding how it would affect the Riversports Recreation marina as they rely on snowmobiler business during the winter. Five (5) of the eight (8) respondents who indicated that the potential loss of ice coverage would not affect their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River qualified their response by noting that it would likely affect their neighbours. There was also a concern that the lack of ice coverage would be dangerous for snowmobilers going through ice. Table 3.10: Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Winter

Question Responses Do you expect the change in ice coverage to affect your use or enjoyment of the River during the winter months?

Yes No


Only eight (8) respondents offered suggestions to York Region with respect to ways the neighbourhood could continue to enjoy the East Holland River in the wintertime. Five (5) respondents suggested moving the discharge pipe, two (2) respondents indicated that Soldiers Bay needs a culvert under Queensville Sideroad to help make the water less stagnant, and one individual suggested that York Region “correct the temperature of the water before it reaches the outflow pipe”. Some comments provided did not address the question asked on suggestions to York Regions with regards to the ice melting in the winter time or the respondents simply did not know how to respond. Comments are provided in response to this question in Appendix C. Overall Use and Enjoyment of the East Holland River

Respondents were asked if their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River had changed in the past 2 years. The data in Table 3.11 show that nine (9) respondents said that it indeed has changed. Table 3.11: Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Past 2 Years

Question Responses Would you say that your use or enjoyment of the East Holland River changed at all in the past 2 years?

Yes No


Of these nine (9) respondents, seven (7) mentioned they enjoyed it less than they had in the past (see Table 3.12). The most common reason was because of increased vegetation growth (four




(4) responses). Two (2) respondents said that they had experienced a positive change in their use and enjoyment as a result of increased wildlife and a perceived healthier East Holland River. Table 3.12: Reasons for Changes in Use and Enjoyment of East Holland River in Past

2 Years

Question Reasons for change in use or enjoyment of the East Holland River changed at all in the past 2 years?

Number of Responses

Positive Increased Wildlife 2 Improved Health of River 2

Negative

Increased amount of vegetative 4 Decrease in winter ice 2 Increase siltation in East Holland River 1 Loss of waterfront property 1

Total Responses 12 Note: Some respondents gave multiple answers.

Finally, respondents were asked if they had any additional comments regarding their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River. The following are all of the comments that were offered and are also listed in Appendix C.

“We enjoy the river as it is now. It won't be beneficial for us if the river is changed. Also we’re concerned about the environment and the effects on it.”

“I'm concerned about waste water going into the river.”

“Just what I’ve mentioned in previous questions, if it impacts how we use the river then we won't be happy. We enjoy raising the kids on the river.”

“We enjoy the river the way it is; we don't agree with the outfall where it is. Would like to see kids swim in the river but won't be as clean with sewage water in it.” “The weeds in Soldiers Bay are really bad. Would like to have them dredged or raked.”

“This all came through the back door - where did this come from? Why are you picking on East Gwillimbury. We are here to heal the planet and water. Time to stop polluting. We are on a well system and I'm worried about the drinking water as sewage will get into water table.”

“The river has been here forever and it is a great feature of the community. We can't do much about the increase of population but I would like the pipe to go directly into Lake Simcoe instead.”

“It just matters where and when. It would be nice to make the whole river cleaner and dredging the river.”

“Our street is now on septic tanks - are they switching the street over to municipal sewer? Can we keep the septic tank? What cost is it with taxes if we have to switch?”

“None other than please hurry and put sewage treatment in. I would rather taxes going to sewage instead of paying for paying to dump out holding tank.”




“We would like to see the river cleaned up water - it's dirty”

“None other than the main concern about filling in of river.”

“We used to be able to keep 26" boat at end of dock but can't put it in there anymore; we had to sell a boat. We also used to be able to swim in the river at one time too.”

“It would be good if someone from the Region could do something about the garbage in the River and the Bay from the fisherman. There is no extra advantage of the sewer discharge because we are all on septic tanks. There will be a lot of impact with different temperature water entering the river. The discharge pipe will also depreciate property values. It should be noted that there is a lot of history in the whole area dating back to the war of 1812 when there was an ammunition depot at this location.”

“A lot of boats go by at top speed – we thought there was a speed limit. The waves they create affect the shoreline causing erosion and taking away property.”

Section 4.0 Summary

From the 74 properties adjacent to the East Holland River, between Queensville Sideroad and the unopened Holborn Road allowance, 20 surveys were completed. A summary of key findings is presented below: Familiarity with the UYSS EA Project

The majority of respondents were familiar with the UYSS EA before the survey was conducted.

Use of the East Holland River in Spring, Summer and Fall Months

During the spring, summer and fall months, most of the respondents use the East Holland River once a week or more to boat and fish;

Less than half of respondents said that they thought additional treated water in the spring, summer and fall would affect their use of the East Holland River;

Just over half of respondents did not see any new opportunities from additional clean water in the East Holland River; and

Almost all respondents had noticed a change of some kind in the water clarity and water levels during the past two years in the East Holland River.

Use of the East Holland River in Winter Months

During the winter months, the majority of respondents use the East Holland River once a week or more to snowmobile, skate or walk on;




Almost all respondents had noticed a decrease in ice coverage in the winter which most attributed to weather; and

More than half of respondents indicated that the additional treated warm water in the winter would affect their use and enjoyment of the East Holland River. Those who said it would not affect them personally suggested that reduced ice coverage would affect their neighbour’s use of the East Holland River.

Key Suggestions to York Region from Respondents

Adjust the temperature of the water before it reached the East Holland River.

Move outfall pipe to another location.

Open a culvert under the Queensville Sideroad Bridge to create water flow.

Overall use and Enjoyment of the East Holland River

Less than half of the respondents felt that there had been a change in their use and enjoyment in the past two years. Those who noted that their enjoyment had decreased explained that this was due to increased vegetation (e.g. reeds) growth.

Overall, respondents mentioned at the end of the survey that they were happy to answers questions and appreciated York Region asking the community for its’ opinions.

Section 5.0 Recommendations

In general, respondents were concerned regarding the potential for the treated water to affect their use of the East Holland River in the winter months, but appreciated that York Region was seeking their opinion and suggestions. With these results in mind, we recommend that York Region consider implementing the following activities:

Include all the individuals who agreed to be added to the UYSS contact list for future project notifications.

Communicate the survey results and how York Region is engaging residents further at the next Consultation Round including the Public Information Forums.

Prepare a one-page fact sheet summarizing the survey results and next steps, similar to the document prepared for the survey of potential water reuse customers, including how York Region is further exploring the effects of the outfall and mitigation measures; and circulate this fact sheet to the 74 properties identified in this survey.

Re-visit the options with the project team for discharging treated water from the proposed Water Reclamation Centre into the East Holland River to address/minimize the concerns of open water in the Winter.




Consider mitigation measures to mitigate the potential risk of open water, such as signage and barriers; as well as measures to mitigate the loss of the East Holland River as a recreational space such as alternate snowmobile trails, and naturalized skating pond (i.e. on the existing lagoons or another suitable location).

If Soldier’s Bay is selected as the recommended outfall location, undertake additional outreach with the 15 residents on Soldier’s Bay and Riversports Recreation Marina (i.e., through kitchen table meetings, focus groups or door to door visits), prior to confirming it as the preferred outfall location.

Once the outfall location is confirmed, undertake further focussed consultation with residents directly affected to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Follow up with the Holland Landing Snowmobile Club once an outfall location has been confirmed to discuss potential mitigation measures such as alternative snowmobile routes.

Review the draft net effects analysis in light of the survey results and preferred option for discharging treated water from the proposed Water Reclamation Centre into the East Holland River.

Inform East Gwillimbury staff and elected members of the survey results and the preferred option for discharging the treated water.

Incorporate the survey results into the Environmental Assessment Report as part of the consultation record provided to the Ministry of the Environment.




APPENDICES

Appendix A Survey and Script

Appendix B

Record of Attempts Made to Contact Interviewees

Appendix C

Summary of Results of Neighbourhood Survey of Properties Adjacent to the East Holland River

Survey Results




Appendix A

Survey and Script

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

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

www.uyssolutions.ca

Survey # ______

Neighbourhood Survey

Survey and Script

Upper York Sewage Solutions

Servicing Tomorrow's Communities

Date:

Name:

(please print)

Address:

(please print)

Phone:

Postal Code:

(please print) (please print)

Protocol for Engaging in Discussions with Members of the Public

When speaking to members of the public or agencies, staff are to avoid offering an

opinion in regards to any matter related to the study. Stick to the facts provided in this

document.

This project is about conducting an Environmental Assessment.

In responding to requests for further details or study process information, direct the

individual to the contacts listed in the FAQ’s below.

Script

My name is ___________ and York Region has asked me to talk to you about the Upper

York Sewage Solutions project. Specifically, to find out how you and your family use the

East Holland River throughout the year. Would you have about 15 minutes to talk with

me so I can note your opinions? Your responses are strictly confidential and you will not

be identified in any way.

If answer is NO: Is there a better day and time over the next week that we could

speak?

If another interview cannot be arranged, thank them for their time.



If you get an answering machine state:

My name is ___________ and York Region has asked me to talk to you about

the Upper York Sewage Solutions project. Specifically, to find out how you and

your family use the East Holland River throughout the year. We’d like to hear

from you so please call Jennifer Owen before: (Friday, September 21st) at 905-

477-8400 extension 312 between 8am and 4pm Monday – Friday. Again, that is

Jennifer Owen at 905-477-8400 extension 312.

Thank you for agreeing to talk to me.

Ask the interviewees “Are you familiar with the project?” (If No, provide the

background below. Otherwise, continue with interview)

Yes No

If the answer is yes: Can you tell me what you know about the UYSS EA?

Tabulate the number of people that said they were familiar with the project,

versus those that wanted the description.

York Region is undertaking the Upper York Servicing Solutions Environmental

Assessment, in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, to

determine wastewater servicing for the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury and

Newmarket.

The goal of this project is to develop a sustainable sewage servicing solution that

can accommodate the population forecasted to occur in this area to the year 2031.As

part of the sustainable solution, York Region has identified a proposed Water

Reclamation Centre in the area of 2nd Concession, Queensville Sideroad and Leslie

Street in East Gwillimbury. The proposed Water Reclamation Centre includes an

outfall pipe to discharge treated water into the East Holland River at Queensville

Sideroad. This outfall will discharge clean, but likely warmer water into the River

during the winter months and clean, but likely cooler water during the summer

months.

[Note for interviewer: Check FAQs for understanding of Water Reclamation Centre]

If you would like more information on the project you can visit project website at

www.uyssolutions.ca

http://www.uyssolutions.ca/



Survey Instrument

Firstly, a few questions about you and your household:

1. How long have you lived at this address?

Less than 2 years 11 – 20 years

2 – 10 years more than 20 years

2. Is this property used for business purposes?

Yes No [go to Q5]

3. If YES, How long have you conducted business at this address?

Less than 2 years 11 – 20 years

2 – 10 years more than 20 years

4. If YES, Please describe your business operation: 4a Name of Business

4b Type of Business (i.e., what are your products or services):

Interviewer: Code response below:

Farming/agriculture, Retail

Marina Golf Course

Other (Specify)



First, I’d like to hear about your use of the river in the summer season and then throughout the winter (November – February).

5. How frequently in the past 2 years have you or your family [or your business]

used the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall (e.g. for fishing

or boating etc.)?

Household use (if applicable):

Never Less than once a month

Once a month Less than once a week but more than

once a month

Once a week 2-4 times a week

5 or more times a week

Business use (if applicable):


Once a month Less than once a week but more than

once a month



6. Please describe the main ways in which you and your family [or your business]

use the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall.

Boating Swimming

Fishing Nature Viewing

Other (Specify)

7. For spring, summer and fall, York Region anticipates that the additional high

quality treated water discharged to the East Holland River will improve overall

quality and augment water flows during the heat of the summer. Knowing this,

do you expect any change in your use and enjoyment of the River during the

spring, summer and fall? If so, how?



8. What opportunities do you foresee for you and your neighbours related to this

additional clean water in the river during the spring, summer and fall months?

9. Have you noticed any changes in the East Holland River in terms of water quality

or water levels in the past 2 years?

Yes No [go to Q15]

If yes, in what way?

Water clarity Aquatic habitat

Increase in water level Decrease in water level

Other (Specify)

10. How frequently in the past 2 years have you or your family [or your business]

used the East Holland River during the winter months (i.e., November –

February)?

Household Use (if applicable):


Once a month Less than once a week but more

than once a month



Business Use (if applicable):


Once a month Less than once a week but more

than once a month





11. Please describe the main ways in which you and your family [or your business]

uses the East Holland River during the winter months?

Skating Snowmobile

Cross-country skiing Nature Viewing

ATV Ice Fishing

Other (Specify)

12. In the past two years, have you noticed any changes in the amount of ice

coverage on the East Holland River during the winter months? If yes – what kind

of changes have you noticed?

13. For the winter, York Region anticipates that the additional higher quality but

warmer water discharged to the East Holland River has the potential to reduce

ice cover on the river downstream from Queensville Sideroad. Knowing this, do

you expect the change in ice coverage to affect your use or enjoyment of the

River during the winter months? If so, how?

14. What suggestions or ideas can you offer to York Region on ways for your and

your neighbours’ continued use and enjoyment of the East Holland River during

the wintertime?

We’re nearly finished, I just have a couple of summary questions for you.



15. Would you say that your use or enjoyment of the East Holland River changed at

all in the past 2 years?

Yes No [go to Q16]

If yes, in what way?

16. Do you have any additional comments regarding your use and enjoyment of the

river? If so, please let me know and I can pass them on to York Region.

Would you like a follow up call from York Region’s Project Manager to discuss

your additional comments??

Yes No

17. York Region is proposing Public Information Forums for early October. As a

resident in the area, you will receive a flyer in the mail. You can also receive

project information directly by email. Would like to be added to the project e-

mail contact list to receive notifications directly?

Yes No Email:

18. Finally, Can you please share your postal code with me? [if not already

recorded]

Postal Code:



Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What can I do to learn more about the project?

A: You can either go the project website at www.uyssolutions.ca for more information on the project or please contact the following individual:

Adrian W. Coombs, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager The Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1 Telephone: 905-830-4444, ext. 5098 Email: [email protected]

Q: What’s an Environmental Assessment?

A: An environmental assessment is the process of assessing potential environmental effects and project-related social impacts of a project – in this case sewage servicing within a defined area.

Q: What will the information be used for?

A: The information obtained through these interviews will provide York Regions with a better understand the communities’ use of the East Holland River and to also gauge the communities’ understanding of the project and potential level of interest leading up to the October 2012 PIFs. All information provided in the survey will remain confidential.

Q: What is a Water Reclamation Centre?

A: Short Version York Region has identified a Water Reclamation Centre with associated infrastructure

as the identified option to accommodate wastewater generated from provincially approved growth to 2031 in the Town of East Gwillimbury and a portion of the Town of Newmarket. The proposed Lake Simcoe Water Reclamation Centre will employ environmentally-sustainable wastewater purification and water recycling technologies.

Long Version The Water Reclamation Centre will treat wastewater using proven, leading-edge,

wastewater purification and water reclamation technologies that are environmentally sustainable. The reclaimed water, or recycled water, is wastewater that has been thoroughly treated to produce nutrient-rich water for irrigation and industrial purposes. Replacing potable water with reclaimed water is a sustainable way to conserve York Region’s water resources. Additional advanced treatment will substantially remove phosphorus so that high quality water can be discharged into a local watercourse, improving water quality and increasing the quantity of water flowing into Lake Simcoe.

http://www.uyssolutions.ca/

mailto:[email protected]




Appendix B

Record of Attempts Made to Contact Interviewees



050278 Page A-1 York Region No. 74270

Table B1: Record of Contact Attempts

Respondent Number

Date Contacted Time Notes

1 September 11 2:17pm Left Voicemail September 13 3:00pm Interviewee returned call – Survey Completed

2 September 11 2:23pm Interviewer was asked to call back the next day September 12 5:50pm Left Voicemail September 14 10:45am Interviewee returned call – Survey Completed



5 September 11 3:10pm Survey Completed 6 September 11 2:45pm Survey Completed 7 September 11 3:05pm Left Voicemail 8 September 11 3:30pm Survey Completed 9 September 11 3:45pm Survey Completed 10 September 11 5:10pm Left Voicemail 11 September 11 5:11pm Interviewer was asked to call back after 6pm

September 11 6:27pm Left Voicemail 12 September 11 5:12pm No answer and no voicemail

September 12 3:45pm Interviewer was asked to call back Friday 10:30am

September 14 10:38am No answer and no voicemail 13 September 11 5:14pm No answer and no voicemail

September 12 3:43pm No answer and no voicemail September 12 5:58pm No answer and no voicemail September 13 1:12pm No answer and no voicemail

14 September 11 5:16pm Left Voicemail 15 September 11 5:17pm Survey Completed 16 September 11 5:33pm Interviewer was asked to call back after 6:30pm

or the next day 16 September 12 3:47pm Survey Completed 17 September 11 5:35pm No answer and no voicemail

September 12 3:00pm Left Voicemail 18 September 11 5:37pm Left Voicemail 19 September 11 5:40pm Survey declined 20 September 11 5:41pm Left Voicemail 21 September 11 5:55pm Interviewer was asked to call back at 6:30pm

September 11 6:32pm Survey Completed 22 September 11 5:58pm Left Voicemail 23 September 11 6:01pm Interviewer was asked to call back two days later

September 13 5:20pm Survey Completed 24 September 11 6:02pm Left Voicemail

September 18 4:15pm Interviewee left voicemail for Interviewer to call back after 4:00pm



050278 Page A-2 York Region No. 74270

Respondent Number

Date Contacted Time Notes

September 19 4:40pm Left Voicemail 25 September 11 6:05pm Survey Completed 26 September 11 6:50pm No answer and no voicemail

September 12 2:54pm Survey declined 27 September 11 6:51pm Left Voicemail

September 27 11:20pm Interviewee returned call – Survey Completed 28 September 11 6:53pm Left Voicemail 29 September 11 6:55pm Survey declined 30 September 11 6:57pm Survey declined 31 September 12 2:40pm Left Voicemail 32 September 12 2:42pm No answer and no voicemail

September 12 3:58pm No answer and no voicemail September 12 5:52pm No answer and no voicemail September 13 1:15pm No answer and no voicemail

33 September 12 2:43pm Left Voicemail 34 September 12 2:52pm Left Voicemail

September 13 9:05am Interviewee returned call – Survey Completed 35 September 12 3:16pm Survey Completed 36 September 12 4:25pm Number not in service 37 September 12 4:26pm Left Voicemail 38 September 12 4:28pm Survey Completed 39 September 12 5:08pm Incorrect Number – Don’t live at that property 40 September 12 5:13pm Survey Completed 41 September 12 5:30pm Left Voicemail

September 19 2:20pm Interviewee returned call – Survey Completed 42 September 12 5:32pm Left Voicemail 43 September 12 5:36pm Left Voicemail 44 September 12 5:46pm Busy Signal

September 12 6:10pm Busy Signal September 13 1:16pm Left Voicemail

45 September 12 5:47pm Voicemail not initialized September 13 1:19pm Voicemail not initialized September 13 5:44pm Interviewer was asked to call back the next day September 14 10:40pm Interviewer was asked to call back in an hour September 14 11:35am Survey Completed

46 September 11 2:05pm No answer and no voicemail September 12 5:48pm No answer and no voicemail September 13 1:20pm No answer and no voicemail September 13 5:42pm No answer and no voicemail

47 September 11 2:11pm Left Voicemail




Appendix C

Summary of Results of Neighbourhood Survey of Properties Adjacent to the East Holland River

Survey Results



050278 Page C-1 York Region No. 74270

QA - Are you familiar with the project?

Total Number of Responses Yes No

20 14 6

QB - If yes, can you tell me what you know about the UYSS EA?

Total Number of Responses

Went to Town Hall/Info Session

Wastewater Servicing for

Towns

Know About Potential Locations

Outfall Pipe Location at Queensville

Sideroad

Read About it in the Paper

Other

14 3 7 9 9 2 9

QB – ‘Other’ Responses Summarized

Have had many conversations with York Region.

There was drilling happening near their property that was related to the project.

On committee for River Drive Park. Wants to know why not pump directly west from Centre to the River instead of coming down to Queensland Sideroad.

Had comments about the info session - one of the few that had arguments, felt sorry for presenters. Felt sad for engineers as not people orientated. Need more visual presentation. Would have gotten up and told others that it’s not that bad and it’s a necessary evil.

Know it will change the temperature of the water and the water levels and ecology.

Don't recall notices being sent out. Value water greatly - part of the World Healing Project.

Pumping effluent back into water

Live right on Soldiers’ Bay

Knew about a pumping station at Yonge and Doone Road.

Q1 - How long have you lived at this address?

Number of Responses

Less than 2 years 0 2 -10 years 1 11 - 20 years 11 More than 20 years 7 Total Responses 19

Q2 - Is this property used for business purpose?


20 2 18

Q3 - If yes, how long have you conducted at this address?

Number of Responses

Less than 2 years 0 2 -10 years 2 11 - 20 years 0 More than 20 years 0 Total Responses 2




Q4 - If yes, Please describe your business operation

Name of Business Description

Riversports Recreation Snowmobile and ATV Service, parts and sales, Marina, boat service parts and sales. Centre of Healing Provide Reiki treatments, teach meditation and Reiki. Also a certified medical intuitive.

Q5 - How frequently in the past 2 years have you used the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall?

Number of Responses


Q6 - Describe the main ways in which you use the East Holland River during the spring, summer and fall.

Number of Responses

Boating 16 Fishing 7 Watering property 4 Nature Viewing 3 Other 2 Total Responses 32

Q7 - Do you expect any change in your use and enjoyment of the River during the spring, summer and fall?


20 8 12

Q7 – If yes, how?

“Double edged sword, it would be nice to clean up river than it would more enjoyable.”

“(I’m) concerned about flooding with more water in the river. Already we have problems in the spring with flooding. There is also erosion of our property with more water and flow.”

“I want to know where everyone lives that (is) asking these questions. I hate to see increase of water levels as it would affect my property. My house is 8km from the lake and the house is 4km down the road - why pump south down to Queensville Sideroad and across to the river when they can just pump directly across to the river where there are no homes or move the plant closer to the lake and pump into the lake. (I would) hate to see the river destroyed because of more houses.”

“If the water level rises then we would lose part of our lawn and property. I believe it would affect fishing because it would change the fish habitat from what they are used too. There is a lot of fishing that happens down by the marina.”

“Only worried about when the plant doesn't work and raw sewage comes out.”

“We’ve notice we are affected by lock systems and that they (York Region) will control the water during heavy rain. I’m concerned about water levels and flooding of their property.”




Q7 – If yes, how?

“Maybe if (the river) is cleaned up a bit more, it would be more appetizing for swimming but not sure how it would affect the water.”

“Can't use it any differently.”

“Doubt it will have an impact. If it gets cleaner I might go swimming.”

“No, don't use water itself but boat in it.”

“That's garbage; it's sewage in the water. What about all the life in the water? How would you like sewage in your coffee? There are other ways of doing things.”

“The problem is now that the weeds and algae are very heavy; more flow would be better to get rid of weeds.”

“Probably use more if the increased flow would clean up the river and Bay.”

“It is hard to tell. Currently Soldier's Bay is a swamp. (I’m) not sure how the discharge will affect the Bay. Will it make it worse?”

Q8 – What opportunities do you foresee for you and your neighbours related to this additional clean water in the river during the spring, summer and fall months?

“Besides boating in clean water, don't think you could swim in it; it’s a positive for fishing.”

“If clean water does enter the river, then potentially it will help things. Problem is when it’s not clean. Discharge further up towards the lake away from people.”

“Because of the increase water flow and cleaner water, (I) would like the possibility of being able to swim in the water.”

“Currently we’re on a holding tank system - it costs a large amount of money to dump out. I would like to see septic sewage in area and like the idea of more sewage treatment.”

“(It will) possibly improve the health of the river. We can't use it because of the weed growth; didn't used to see it like that.”

“Right now I won't eat the fish - if the water (quality) changes that may help.”

“If it really is clean, people would use it more. A park at the Bay next to the Marina would be nice.”

“Hopefully with the clean water it will get rid of the algae. We have a boat but it is elsewhere; would like to bring it to the river.”

“If the added water gets the river clean, then I might swim but pigs will fly before that happens. I don't see any additional benefit. I'm not sure how it will affect the ecology.”

“Other than aesthetics – none.”

“Don't know; I still won't swim in it”.

“It won't be clean water. Where I live there is 1 km of houses (along the river) - just move the outfall north where there is no housing.”

“None – (we’re) already self-sufficient now.”

“Don't see any.”

“No, not really.”

“As long as it doesn't raise the water table as that would cause flooding. I have a real concern about the higher water table.”

“Not sure how clean it will be - if the water is clean, it won't affect wildlife.”

“There (aren’t) any opportunities.”

“None”

“No benefit - currently on a septic tank. Doubt that the sewer hook-up will come on Yonge Street north of Queensville Sideroad.”

supporting documentation for queensville sideroad wrc outfall · 050278 (115) page 15 york region...

Documents