St Jacobs Elmira St. Jacobs - Region of Waterloo

St. Jacobs – ElmiraWastewater TreatmentMaster PlanPublic Information CentreDecember 4, 20125 – 7 pmSt. Jacobs Community Centre31 Parkside Drive

What are the Study Objectives?‣ Undertake a Wastewater Treatment Master Plan(WWTMP) for Elmira and St. Jacobs, completingPhases 1 and 2 of the Municipal ClassEnvironmental Assessment (MCEA).‣ Review existing status and recommend awastewater t treatmentt t strategy t to meet growth upto 2041.‣ Consider feasibility of incorporating flows from the‣ Consider feasibility of incorporating flows from theHeidelberg wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)into an overall solution.

Projected Population and FlowsSt. Jacob’s WWTPElmira WWTP2041 Population ~ 3,660 2041 Population ~ 21,3592,50040009,00025,0002,000Population350030008,0007,000FlowC of A rated capacity = 7800 m 3 /d20,000Total Flow (m3/d )1,5001,000500FlowC of A rated capacity = 1450 m 3 /d2500200015001000500Projected Populatio onTotal Flow (m3/d d)6,0005,0004,0003,0002000 2,0001,000Population15,00010,0005,000onProjected Populati002005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045YearFlow Population002005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Year Flow Population• Heidelberg population and flow expected to remain constant at 277 and 51 m 3 /d, respectively.

Evaluation Process

Will AlternativeSatisfy All ProjectObjectives?YesNo(Shortlisted)XXXXXXXXXWasteewaterAlternnativesXXXXXon and water efficiencyAlternative 3C – Decommission HeidelbergWWTPand transfer flows to Waterloo WWTPTreatmmentfiltration (I/I)Alternative 2C - Upgrade and expand St. JacobsWWTPAlternative 2D - Decommission St. JacobsWWTPand construct new WWTPAlternative 2E - Upgrade existing plant andconstruct new plant forflows beyond existingcapacity of St Jacobs WWTPAlternative 2F - Decommission St. JacobsWWTPand transfer flows to Elmira WWTPAlternative 2G – Upgrade existing plant andtransfer flows beyond existing capacityof StJacobsWWTP to Elmira WWTPAlternative 2H - Decommission St. JacobsWWTPand transfer flows to Waterloo WWTP(when capacity is available)Alternative 2I – Upgrade existing plant andtransfer flows beyond existing capacityof StJacobsWWTP to Waterloo WWTPAlternative 3B – Decommission HeidelbergWWTPand transfer flows to St. Jacobs WWTPAlternative 3A – Maintain existing HeidelbergWWTPCommunityAlternativeAlternative 1A - "Do nothing"Alternative 1B - Reduce Inflow and Infand implement water efficiency* All Alternativeswill include I/I reductiElmiraSt JacobsAlternative 2A - "Do nothing"Alternative 2B - Reduce I/I and implement waterefficiency *rgHeidelbe

Wastewater Servicing for Elmira‣ Preferred alternative for servicing Elmira isAlternative 1B:• Reduce I/I and implement water efficiency‣ Optimize and/or upgrade at a future date toaddress capacity limitations

Wastewater Servicing Optionsfor St. Jacobs and HeidelbergOption St. Jacobs Servicing Component Heidelberg Servicing Component1232C - Upgrade and expand St. Jacobs WWTP4 2H – Decommission St. Jacobs WWTP andtransfer flows to Waterloo WWTP (when5 capacity is available)6782I – Upgrade existing plant and transfer flowsbeyond existing capacity of St. JacobsWWTP to Waterloo WWTP* All Alternatives will include I/I reduction and water efficiency3A - Maintain existing Heidelberg WWTP3B – Decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to St. Jacobs WWTP3C – Decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to Waterloo WWTP3A - Maintain existing Heidelberg WWTP3C – Decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to Waterloo WWTP3A - Maintain existing Heidelberg WWTP3B – Decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to St. Jacobs WWTP3C – Decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to Waterloo WWTP

St. Jacobs WWTP Expansion(Options 1, 2, 3) – Conceptual Layout

St. Jacobs WWTP Upgrades(Options 6, 7, 8) – Conceptual Layout

Forcemain Routes(Options 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)NHeidelberg WWTPVillage ofSt. JacobsSt. Jacobs WWTPVillage ofHeidelbergWoolwichTownshipCity ofWaterlooPotential Connection toWaterloo WastewaterCollection System

CriteriaEA Category - TechnicalEvaluation Criteria and KeyConsiderationsMeets Objectives all options meet objectivesConsistent with Regulatory Requirements,Policies, Guidelines and StandardsKey Considerationsall options consistent with Region’s policies, guidelines and standardsoptions involving pumping of St. Jacobs flows to Waterloo have higher energyconsumption and greenhouse gas emissionsiTechnical Feasibility pumping stations easier to operate than WWTPs all options expected to meet effluent limits conversion of WWTPs to pumping stations will result in less impact on operationsduring construction than WWTP upgrade or expansion no capacity at Waterloo WWTP until it is expanded (2024)System Complexity decommissioning of St. Jacobs and Heidelberg WWTPs and transfer of flows toWaterloo WWTP results in lowest complexity since only one WWTP will beoperatedEA Category - EnvironmentalSurface Water Impacts removal of effluent discharge from St. Jacobs WWTP to Conestogo River bydiverting flows to Waterloo WWTP and discharging to Grand River results in lowerimpactupgrade or expansion of St. Jacobs WWTP within regulated floodplainGroundwater Impacts forcemain carrying flows from Heidelberg will cross a Wellhead Protection Areaand Regional Recharge Area – negligible construction impacts can be mitigated forcemain carrying flows from St. Jacobs to Waterloo does not pass through theseareas

CriteriaEA Category - EnvironmentalEvaluation Criteria and KeyConsiderationsKey ConsiderationsLand Requirement no land acquisition expected land recovered from possible decommissioning of St. Jacobs WWTP has limiteddevelopment potentialImpacts on Natural Environment DuringConstructionEA Category - SocialSt. Jacobs WWTP located within Significant Valley Featureconstruction of forcemain from Heidelberg WWTP to Waterloo WWTP will notimpact any Core Environmental Featuresforcemain routes involve stream crossings – impacts will be mitigatedSocio-economic Impacts construction of forcemains will cause short term disruption of traffic and propertyaccess expansion of St. Jacobs WWTP has lowest impact during construction long forcemains have the potential for odour problems at discharge points –mitigation measures can be implemented odours impacts not expected with WWTP operationImpacts on Archaeological and HeritageResourcesEA Category - EconomicalCapital, Operating and Maintenance, andLife Cycle Costsno expected impactsappropriate mitigation will be implemented, if requiredoptions ranked based on life cycle costs

Life Cycle Cost SummaryServicing OptionOption 1 – Upgrade and expand St. Jacobs WWTP, maintain existingHeidelberg WWTPOption 2 - Upgrade and expand St. Jacobs WWTP, decommission HeidelbergWWTP and transfer flows to St. Jacobs WWTPOption 3 - Upgrade and expand St. Jacobs WWTP, decommission HeidelbergWWTP and transfer flows to Waterloo WWTPOption 4 – Decommission St. Jacobs WWTP and transfer flows to WaterlooWWTP, maintain i existing Heidelberg WWTPOption 5 - Decommission St. Jacobs WWTP and transfer flows to WaterlooWWTP, decommission Heidelberg WWTP and transfer flows to Waterloo WWTPOption 6 – Upgrade existing St. Jacobs WWTP and transfer flows beyondexisting capacity to Waterloo WWTP, maintain i existing Heidelberg WWTPOption 7 – Upgrade existing St. Jacobs WWTP and transfer flows beyondexisting capacity to Waterloo WWTP, decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to St. Jacobs WWTPOption 8 – Upgrade existing St. Jacobs WWTP and transfer flows beyondexisting capacity to Waterloo WWTP, decommission Heidelberg WWTP andtransfer flows to Waterloo WWTP1. Based on the an inflation rate of 3%, interest rate of 3%, and hydro cost of 10 cents/kWhCapital Annual Life CycleCost O&M Cost Cost$9.5 M $192,647 $17.3 M$15 M $139,862 $20.3 M$14.1 M $139,324 $19.4 M$7.2 M $181,105 $14.6 M$11.8 M $127,782 $16.7 M$8.4 M $195,775 $16.4 M$13.9 M $142,776 $19.4 M$13 M $142,452 $18.4 M

Evaluation MatrixTechnical Environmental Social EconomicalOptionsSatisfactionofobjectivesConsistentwithregulatoryrequirements,policies,guidelinesandstandardsTechnicalfeasibilitySystemcomplexityAverageScoreSurfacewaterimpactsGroundwaterimpactsLandrequirementAverageScoreImpacts onNaturalEnvironmentDuringConstructionSocioeconomicimpactsImpacts onArchaelogicalandHeritageResourcesAverageScoreCapital,O&M, andLCCAverageScoreOverallRanking(Score)Option 1162 ( )16Option 2276(16)Option 3 287( 16 )Option 4141( 16 )Option 5183( 16 )Option 6214( 16 )Option 7298( 16 )25Option 8 5( 16 )Notes:No ImpactHigh Impact

Preferred Alternative for ServicingSt. Jacobs, Elmira and Heidelberg‣ St. Jacobs• Reduce I/I and implement water efficiency• Decommission the St. Jacobs WWTP andtransfer flows to the Waterloo WWTP after 2024‣ Elmira• Reduce I/I and implement water efficiency• Optimize i or minor upgrades to address currentcapacity limitations‣ Heidelberg• Maintain existing Heidelberg WWTP• Review alternatives when existing WWTP needsto be replaced

What Happens Next?Consider comments received at this PIC December 2012Prepare Master Plan Report January 2013Notify Public and Agencies of Completionof Master Plan ReportIssue Notice of Completion and PlaceReport on Public Record for 30 Day ReviewRespond to comments received from thepublic and review agenciesFebruary 2013March 2013April 2013Undertake Further Studies for Preferred2013+Alternative (Schedule B Class EA activities)

The Region is Interestedin Your CommentsPublic input is an important t component of the Class EA process. Pleasedeposit your comment form in the box provided or forward to the Region.Contact information:Pam LawProject EngineerRegional Municipality of WaterlooTransportation and EnvironmentalServices, Water Services150 Frederick Street , 7 th FloorKitchener, ON N2G 4J3519-575-4095PLaw@regionofwaterloo.caStephen NuttProject ManagerXCG Consultants Ltd.820 Trillium DriveKitchener, ON N2R 1K4519-741-5774stephen@xcg.com

St. Jacobs – ElmiraWastewater TreatmentMaster PlanThank you for yourinput and participation