municipal class environmental assessment study greenwich sewage pumping …brantford.ca/projects...

Prepared by: AECOM Canada Ltd. 101 Frederick St. Suite 702, Kitchener ON N2H 6R2 T 519-570-4886 F 519-570-3379 www.aecom.com Project Number: 60120288 Date: February 19, 2010

Capability

City of Brantford

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade Project File

AECOM City of Brantford Greenwich SPS Upgrade

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report:

• are subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)

• represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports

• may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified

• have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which they were collected, processed, made or issued

• must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context • were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement • in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited

testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time

Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:

• shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared or for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant

• agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above for the specific purpose described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations with respect to the Report or any part thereof

• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such conditions geographically or over time

The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

• as agreed by Consultant and Client • as required by law • for use by governmental reviewing agencies

Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report.


i

Executive Summary A. Background

The City of Brantford (the City), through its

consultant AECOM, has completed a Municipal

Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA)

study for planned upgrades and improvements

to the Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station

(SPS). The existing Greenwich SPS (see map)

is over 100 years old. Recent inspections have

noted several structural and mechanical

deficiencies that cause concern for station

operation and maintenance. This includes the

need to replace the existing generator for

standby power.

Figure 1-1 illustrates the project study area which is located in the central area of the City and is generally

bounded by Alfred Street to the west, Huron Street to the east, Port Street to the south and Newport

Street to the north. The SPS is located on the south side of Greenwich Street.

B. Municipal Class EA Planning Schedule

This project was completed under the Municipal Class EA Schedule B planning process as the proposed

Greenwich SPS Upgrade may involve the construction of a new pumping station and a new standby

power facility that is located in a new building or structure (Schedule B triggers). As such, Phases 1 to 2

of the Municipal Class EA planning process apply to this study.

C. Problem/Opportunity Statement

The Problem/Opportunity Statement for the Greenwich SPS Upgrade Municipal Class EA is defined as

follows:

The existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) was built in 1907 and is

currently in poor structural condition with numerous equipment deficiencies. The

standby power generator requires replacement due to its age and difficulty to

maintain. The current station configuration also leads to surcharging in the

sanitary sewers entering the station which can result in odour issues. Upgrades to

the SPS and its standby power are required to address these deficiencies, and to

increase the reliability of the station and improve staff safety.


ii

Figure 1-1 Study Area


iii

D. Alternative Solutions to the Problem

Development of Alternative Solutions for SPS Upgrades

Alternative solutions to the problem included:

Alternative Description

Alternative 1: Do Nothing • Continued use of current system with no improvements. • The Do Nothing alternative represents what would likely occur if

none of the alternative solutions were implemented. • It also provides a baseline for evaluating alternatives.

Alternative 2: Upgrade Existing SPS and Generator • Existing wet well requires extensive repairs which include lowering the invert to resolve surcharging which is not technically viable from a constructability perspective.

• Various pieces of electrical, mechanical and pumping equipment require replacement. Generator requires replacement.

• Structural condition of the existing building is poor as recorded in structural inspections by AECOM, extensive structural rehabilitation and modification are required to implement this alternative.

• Building and wet well must remain fully operational while upgrades are made posing constructability challenges.

• Provides a short term solution, adding approximately 15 years of service life.

• Generator requires replacement diesel unit in same location as existing; would require new approvals including emission stack.

Alternative 3: Construct Separate Wet Well with Upgrades

to Existing Station and Generator • Separate wet well construction allows for existing station to remain

fully operational during construction. • Decommissioning of existing wet well required. • Poor structural condition of existing building must be addressed to

allow its continued use for electrical and standby power. Some repairs and structural upgrades required.

• Various pieces of equipment require replacement • Generator requires replacement diesel unit in same location as

existing; would require new approvals including emission stack. Alternative 4: Construct New SPS and Generator Building • Existing station may remain fully operational during the majority of

construction. • Structural deficiencies of existing building become less significant

as existing building will not be used for its original purpose once new building is commissioned.

• New building provides approximately 100 additional years of service life for the Greenwich SPS including all required equipment upgrades and 200% pump redundancy.

• New generator outdoor unit for new pump station with soundproof weather enclosure and separate exhaust stack.


iv

Alternative Standby Power Options

Various options for upgrading the current standby power unit are identified for consideration in this Class

EA and are described below.

Alternative Description

Option 1: Do Nothing • Continue use of current generator with no improvements. • Service life remaining on existing unit is limited. • Does not meet City mandate of upgrading current unit as

identified in the Optimization Study. • Due to age of existing unit many parts are unavailable

making maintenance difficult. • Existing unit does not meet current air/emissions regulation

standards. Option 2: New Natural Gas Generator • Engine size is double that of diesel generator thus this

space would need to be accounted for when incorporating into the preferred alternative.

Option 3: New Diesel Generator • Engine size smaller in comparison with natural gas

generator. • Consistent with other City pumping stations allowing for

common routine maintenance and parts.

By considering all possible options for standby power Option 3 is the preferred option and will be carried

throughout the assessment of alternatives for the Greenwich SPS upgrade. A diesel generator provides

a smaller footprint than the natural gas generator which is an important factor in the evaluation. Space is

limited in the existing building and also on the site. In addition, the City has expressed preference to a

diesel generator as it is consistent with other City pumping stations.

E. Preferred Sewage Pumping Station and Standby Power Upgrades

Based on the evaluation of alternative solutions, the preferred SPS Upgrade solution is Alternative No. 4

(construct new SPS and generator building). Rationale for selecting Alternative No .4 includes:

• Low environmental impacts;

• Least amount of social/cultural impacts;

• Fully addresses problem statement and existing station deficiencies;

• Lowest life cycle cost with longest service life; and

• Most preferred from constructability perspective providing a complete and long term solution.

Figure 6-1 illustrates the preliminary site plan and location for the new Greenwich SPS.


v

Section 6.1 of this report includes an overview of design factors and considerations including:

• Flow rates;

• Number of pumps;

• Wet well design;

• Noise and odour control;

• Geotechnical;

• Proposed connection to existing system; and

• Standby power unit.


vi

Figure 6-1 Site Plan for Preferred Greenwich SPS Upgrade


vii

F. Remaining Approvals

As part of detailed design, approvals will be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). An amendment to the existing MOE Certificate of Approval

(CofA) will be required prior to construction dependent on further hydrogeological investigations and a

Permit to Take Water (PTTW) may be required by the contractor for dewatering the excavation. As the

proposed works are located within the Brantford Special Policy Area for floodplain planning as well as

GRCA’s regulatory flood plain a Development, Interference permit will be required from the GRCA prior to

construction commencement.

G. Mitigation Measures

Impacts related to construction of a new SPS and standby generator building are expected to have

varying but relatively minor and manageable environmental effects. Impacts can be minimized by

incorporating proper best management practices and construction techniques and controls, including

specific measures such as traffic management, dust control and limiting construction to daytime in

accordance with local noise by-laws. Other impacts such as SPS building architectural design, noise and

vibration and odour management will be addressed at detailed design.

H. Consultation Program

As part of the Municipal Class EA planning process communications and consultation program, efforts

have been made to inform government review agencies, First Nations and the local community of the

nature and scope of the project and to solicit input/comments. These efforts included advertising and

mailing the Notice of Project Commencement and Notice of Project Information Package as well as

Notice of Study Completion. A Project Information Package was made available for agency and public

review and comments at the City of Brantford and the Brantford Library. No comments were received that

cannot be addressed at detailed design.

I. Recommendations

Based on the above it is recommended that:

• Following EA Approval, the preferred SPS upgrade should proceed to detailed design and

remaining approvals. Required approvals include MOE CofA, GRCA Development Interference

Permits; and

• The mitigation measures identified in Section 7 of this report should be confirmed and further

elaborated upon during detailed design, and implemented as part of the construction process.


Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List Executive Summary

1. Introduction/Background ............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Format of this Report .......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Scope and Location .................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Study Organization.............................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ........................................................ 4

1.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 4 1.5.2 Project Planning Schedule ..................................................................................... 8 1.5.3 EA Documentation Filing ....................................................................................... 8 1.5.4 Consultation and Communications Program ....................................................... 10

2. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Technical ........................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.1 Existing Sewage Pumping Station ....................................................................... 11 2.2 Social/Cultural Environment .............................................................................................. 11

2.2.1 Existing Land Uses .............................................................................................. 11 2.2.2 Future Land Uses ................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 12

2.3 Natural Environment ......................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Aquatic ................................................................................................................. 14 2.3.2 Terrestrial ............................................................................................................. 14

2.4 Current Planning Studies .................................................................................................. 14 2.4.1 City of Brantford Official Plan ............................................................................... 14 2.4.2 City of Brantford Zoning By-law ........................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Future Brantford Southern Access Route (BSAR) ............................................... 14

3. Phase 1: Identification and Description of the Problem/Opportunity ...................... 15 3.1 Previous Studies/Investigations ........................................................................................ 15 3.2 Problem/Opportunity Statement ........................................................................................ 15

4. Phase 2: Alternative Solutions – Sewage Pump Station Upgrades ......................... 17 4.1 Development of Alternative Solutions for SPS Upgrades ................................................. 17

4.1.1 Standby Power Options ....................................................................................... 18 4.2 Evaluation Framework and Criteria ................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Development of Evaluation Framework and Criteria ........................................... 19 4.2.2 Use of Descriptive Information and Qualitative Evaluation .................................. 20

5. Phase 2: Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for SPS Upgrade ......... 21 5.1 Natural Environmental ...................................................................................................... 21 5.2 Social/Cultural ................................................................................................................... 21 5.3 Economic/Financial ........................................................................................................... 22


5.4 Technical ........................................................................................................................... 22

6. Phase 2: Preferred Solution for SPS Upgrade and Standby Power ......................... 25 6.1 Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 25

6.1.1 Flow Rates ........................................................................................................... 25 6.1.2 Number of Pumps ................................................................................................ 25 6.1.3 Wet Well Design ................................................................................................... 26 6.1.4 Noise and Odour Control ..................................................................................... 26 6.1.5 Geotechnical ........................................................................................................ 27 6.1.6 Proposed Connection to Existing System ............................................................ 27 6.1.7 Standby Power Unit ............................................................................................. 28

6.2 Remaining Approvals ........................................................................................................ 30 6.2.1 Ministry of the Environment (MOE) ...................................................................... 30 6.2.2 Utility Relocations ................................................................................................ 30 6.2.3 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) ...................................................... 30 6.2.4 Federal EA ........................................................................................................... 30

6.3 Property Requirements ..................................................................................................... 30 6.4 Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................. 30

7. Recommended Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 31 7.1 Construction Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 31

8. Public, Agency and First Nations Consultation ......................................................... 34 8.1 Public and Agency Notification ......................................................................................... 34 8.2 Comments Received and Responses ............................................................................... 34

8.2.1 Review Agencies.................................................................................................. 34 8.2.1.1 Ministry of the Environment ............................................................... 34 8.2.1.2 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) .................................... 34 8.2.1.3 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) ........................... 34 8.2.1.4 Transport Canada .............................................................................. 34 8.2.1.5 CN Rail ............................................................................................... 34

8.3 First Nations ...................................................................................................................... 35 8.3.1 Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit .................. 35

9. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 36 9.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 36 9.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 36

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2-1 Existing Land Uses .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6-1 Site Layout Schematic for Preferred Greenwich SPS Upgrade ............................................ 29


List of Tables

Table 4-1 Evaluation Components .......................................................................................................... 19 Table 4-2 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................... 20 Table 5-1 Evaluation of Greenwich SPS Upgrade Alternatives .............................................................. 24 Table 7-1 Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 31 Appendices

Appendix A. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Appendix B. Agency, Public and First Nations Consultation Appendix C. June 30, 2009, City of Brantford Official Plan, Zoning By-laws Excerpts and BSAR


List of Acronyms

ANSI Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest asl Above sea level BSAR Brantford Southern Access Route CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Class EA Class Environmental Assessment CN Rail Canadian National Railway CofA Certificate of Approval EA Environmental Assessment EAA Environmental Assessment Act ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area ESR Environmental Study Report GPM Gallons per Minute GRCA Grand River Conservation Authority INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada kW Kilowatts L/s Litres per second MEA Municipal Engineers Association MOE Ministry of the Environment MTO Ministry of Transportation m3/d Metres cubed per day OP Official Plan PTTW Permit To Take Water SPS Sewage Pumping Station TDH Total Discharge Head WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant


- 1 -

1. Introduction/Background 1.1 Background

The City of Brantford (the City), through its

consultant AECOM, has completed a Municipal

Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study

for planned upgrades and improvements to the

Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (SPS). The

existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (see

map) is over 100 years old. Recent inspections

have noted several structural and mechanical

deficiencies that cause concern for station operation

and maintenance. This includes the need to replace

the existing diesel generator for standby power.

1.2 Format of this Report This report was prepared to meet the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Engineers Association (MEA)

Municipal Class EA planning process. The report combines all phases of the planning process under one

cover and incorporates steps considered essential for compliance with the requirements of the

Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) in the following sections:

• Section 1 – Provides an introduction and background information leading to the initiation of this

Municipal Class EA study, an overview of the Municipal Class EA planning process and schedule

followed as well as the format of this report. This section also describes the study scope, location

and organization;

• Section 2 – Describes the study area features including the existing sanitary sewer system, study

area land uses and relevant social/cultural and natural environmental features.

• Section 3 - Identifies and describes the problem/opportunity to be addressed in this Municipal Class

EA, including supplementary background information;

• Section 4 – Presents a screening of alternative solutions to the problem and development of

alternative sewage pump station upgrades including the evaluation methodology and development of

evaluation framework and criteria;

• Section 5 – Summarizes the evaluation of alternative sewage pump station upgrades;

• Section 6 – Presents the preferred alternative sewage pump station upgrades including rationale for

its selection as well as an overview of construction, required approvals and implementation schedule;


- 2 -

• Section 7 – Describes mitigative measures recommended to ensure that any disturbances are

managed by the best available methods;

• Section 8 – Summarizes public, agency and First Nations consultation activities undertaken as part of

this Municipal Class EA; and

• Section 9 – Presents the final study recommendations and conclusions of the Greenwich SPS

Upgrades Class EA Study.

1.3 Study Scope and Location The purpose of this EA is to identify realistic alternatives which examine the various ways of

addressing the poor structural and mechanical conditions of the existing Greenwich SPS while

incorporating the necessary upgrades to achieve a level of performance which is required by the

City. Implementation of the Greenwich SPS Upgrades project includes the following components:

• Evaluation of existing deficiencies;

• Determination of future requirement with respect to service area population projections, and

future collection system upgrades;

• Review of pumping station upgrade alternatives to address deficiencies and future needs;

• Review of standby power requirements and alternatives;

• Evaluation of environmental, technical and financial impacts of proposed SPS and standby

power alternatives; and

• Selection of the preferred alternatives and identification of mitigative measures.

The need and justification for this EA was assessed at a project specific level of detail. The project scope

for this Schedule “B” (see Section 1.5.1) Class EA project is to identify a preferred alternative for

upgrading the existing Greenwich SPS to address existing structural and mechanical deficiencies while

incorporating new standby power. This project is endorsed by the majority of residents, acceptable to

stakeholders, effective in achieving the goals and objectives of the study, and sustainable over the long

term.

The general study area is illustrated on Figure 1-1. The project study area is located in the central area of

the City and is generally bounded by Alfred Street to the west, Huron Street to the east, Port Street to the

south and Newport Street to the north. The SPS is located on the west side of Greenwich Street.


- 3 -

Figure 1-1 Study Area


- 4 -

1.4 Study Organization This EA study was undertaken by AECOM on behalf of the City of Brantford. General direction was

provided by City representatives with project team meetings being held at key points throughout the

planning process. The project team was comprised of the following individuals:

City of Brantford

Lyle Long, C.E.T Environmental Services

AECOM

Patty Quackenbush, P.Eng Project Manager

Joe Gemin, P.Eng Senior Project Engineer

Leah Walter Engineering Designer

Karl Grueneis Class EA Lead

Tara Lynn Nava EA Planner

1.5 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process 1.5.1 Overview

All Municipalities in Ontario, including the City of Brantford, are subject to the provisions of the

Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and its requirements to prepare an Environmental Assessment for

applicable public works projects. The Ontario MEA “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment”

document (October 2000, as amended in 2007) provides Municipalities with a five-phase planning

procedure approved under the EAA to plan and undertake all municipal sewage, water, stormwater

management, and transportation projects that occur frequently, are usually limited in scale, and have a

predictable range of environmental impacts and applicable mitigation

measures.

5 Phases

In Ontario, municipal infrastructure projects are subject to the

Municipal Class EA process and must follow a series of mandatory

steps outlined in the Municipal Class EA document. The Class EA

consists of five phases, which include:

• Phase 1 – Problem or Opportunity: Identify the problem or

opportunity, need and justification;

• Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions: Identify alternative solutions to


- 5 -

the problem by taking into consideration the existing environment, and establish the preferred

solution taking into account public and agency review and input;

• Phase 3 – Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution: Examine alternative methods of

implementing the preferred solution, based upon the existing environment, public and agency input,

anticipated environmental effects and methods of minimizing negative effects and maximizing positive

effects;

• Phase 4 – Environmental Study Report: Document, in an Environmental Study Report (ESR) a

summary of the rationale, planning, design and consultation process of the project as established

through the above phases and make such documentation available for scrutiny by review agencies

and the public; and

• Phase 5 – Implementation: Complete contract drawings and documents, and proceed to

construction and operation; monitor construction for adherence to environmental provisions and

commitments. Where special conditions dictate, also monitor the operation of the complete facilities.

The Class EA process ensures that all projects are carried out with effectiveness, efficiently and fairness.

This process serves as a mechanism for understanding economic, social and environmental concerns

while implementing improvements to municipal infrastructure.

Mandatory Principles

The process followed not only adheres to the guidelines outlined by the Class EA document, but reflects

the five mandatory principles of Class EA planning under the EA Act:

1. Consultation with affected parties early on, such that the planning process is a co-operative venture;

2. Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives;

3. Identification and consideration of the impacts of each alternative on all aspects of the environment;

4. Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages to determine

the net environmental effects; and

5. Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process, to allow “traceability” of

decision-making with respect to the project.

Following these five principles ensures that the EA process is devoted to the prevention of problems and

damage through thorough planning and decision-making, recognizing that research and evaluation of

possible impacts have been taken into account prior to the implementation of the project.

Figure 1-2 illustrates the process followed in the planning and design of projects covered by a Municipal

Class EA, including the Greenwich SPS Upgrade project.


- 6 -

Figure 1-2 Municipal Class Environmental Planning Process


- 7 -

Project Classes

The Class EA defines four types of projects and the processes required for each (referred to as Schedule

A, A+, B, or C). The selection of the appropriate schedule is dependent on the anticipated level of

environmental impact, and for some projects, the anticipated construction costs.

Projects are categorized according to their environmental significance and their effects on the

surrounding environment. Planning methodologies are described within the Class EA and are different

according to Class type, such as the following:

Schedule A: Projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental effects and include a

number of municipal maintenance and operational activities. These projects are pre-approved and may

proceed to implementation without following the full Class EA planning process. Schedule A projects

generally include normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities where environmental

effects of these activities are usually minimal. Examples of Schedule A projects include cleaning, relining,

repairs and renovations to an existing sewage collection system. As such, these projects are pre-

approved and subsequently do not require any further planning and public consultation.

Schedule A+: The purpose of Schedule A+ is to ensure some type of public notification for certain

projects that are pre-approved under the Class EA. It is appropriate to inform the public of municipal

infrastructure project(s) being constructed or implemented in their area, however there would be no ability

for the public to request a Part II Order1. If the public has any comments, they should be directed to the

municipal council where they would be more appropriately addressed. Examples of Schedule A+ projects

include establishing or extending a sewage collection system (and all works necessary) to connect to an

existing sewage outlet where such facilities are within an existing road allowance or utility corridor.

Schedule B: These projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. The proponent is

required to undertake a screening process, involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and

with relevant government agencies to ensure that they are aware of the project and that their concerns

are addressed. If there are no outstanding concerns, then the proponent may proceed to implementation.

Schedule B projects include constructing a new pumping station or increasing pumping station capacity

by adding or replacing equipment, where new equipment is located in a new building or structure and new

standby power facilities located in a new structure. As a result, the proponent is required to proceed

through a screening process (Phases 1 and 2) including consultation with those who may be affected.

At the end Phase 2, a Project File documenting the planning process followed through Phases 1 and 2

shall be finalized and made available for public and agency review. However if the screening process

1 Part II Order refers to a request to the Minister of the Environment for a project to comply with Part II (addresses Individual Environmental Assessments) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The requirement to prepare an Individual EA involves the preparation of Terms of Reference and EA document that are submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), other government agencies and the public for review.


- 8 -

raises a concern which cannot be resolved, the Part II Order may be requested and considered by the

Minister of the Environment; alternatively, the proponent may elect voluntarily to plan the project as a

Schedule C undertaking.

Schedule C: Such projects have the potential for significant adverse environmental effects and must

proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA document.

Schedule C projects require that an Environmental Study Report (ESR) be prepared and filed for review

by the public and review agencies. Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new

facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. Examples of Schedule C projects include

construction of a new sewage system, including outfall to receiving water body or expanding an existing

wastewater treatment plant beyond its rated capacity. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, the

Part II Order may be requested.

Appendix A further expands on the steps required to complete the Municipal Class EA planning process.

1.5.2 Project Planning Schedule This project was completed under the Municipal Class EA Schedule B planning process as the proposed

Greenwich SPS Upgrade requires the construction of a new pumping station and a new standby power

facility that is located in a new building or structure (Schedule B triggers). As such, Phases 1 to 2 of the

Municipal Class EA planning process as described above apply to this study and that a Project File be

prepared and filed for review by the public and review agencies.

1.5.3 EA Documentation Filing The documentation for a Schedule B project consists of a Project File Report, which is presented in this

document. The placement of the Project File Report for public review completes the planning and

preliminary design stages of the project.

The Project File Report is available for public review for a minimum thirty (30) calendar day period. A

public notice (Notice of Study Completion) is published to announce the commencement of the review

period. Copies of the Project File Report and all supporting documentation are available during normal

business hours at the following locations:

City of Brantford Clerks Department 100 Wellington Square Brantford, Ontario N3T 2M3 Hours 8:30 am to 4:30 pm

The Brantford Public Library173 Colborne Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 2G8 Hours Monday-Thursday: 9:00 am to 9:00 pm Friday: 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturday: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Sunday: Closed


- 9 -

If after reviewing the Project File Report, you have questions or concerns, please follow this procedure:

1. Contact the following City staff to discuss your questions/concerns:

Mr. Lyle Long, C.E.TEnvironmental Engineering Environmental Services City of Brantford 100 Wellington Square Brantford, Ontario N3T 2M3 Tel: 519.759.1350 ext. 2330 Fax: 519.754.0724 Email: [email protected]

2. Arrange a meeting with the above if you have significant concerns that may require more detailed

explanations;

3. If you raise major concerns, the City will attempt to negotiate a resolution of the issues(s). A

mutually acceptable time period for this negotiation will be set. If the issues remain unresolved, you

may request the Minister of the Environment, by order, to require the City to comply with Part II

of the Environmental Assessment Act before proceeding with the project; this is called a Part II

Order (“bump-up”) request. The Minister may make one of the following decisions:

• Deny the request;

• Refer the matter to mediation; or

• Require the City to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act by undertaking one

of the following:

− Submitting the Project File Report for government review and approval; or

− Completing an Individual Environmental Assessment for government review and

approval; or

− Prepare Terms of Reference governing the preparation of an Individual Environmental

Assessment for government review and approval.

Requests must be submitted in writing to the Minister of the Environment at the following address within

the 30-day review period:

Minister’s Office

Ministry of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 12th Floor

Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5

A copy of the request must be forwarded to the City of Brantford, addressed to the attention of Mr. Lyle

Long (address provided above).


- 10 -

1.5.4 Consultation and Communications Program As part of the planning process, several steps have been undertaken to inform government agencies,

affected landowners and the local community/general public of the project and to solicit any comments.

The MEA Municipal Class EA document outlines specific mandatory public and agency consultation

contact points and methods. In order to properly communicate the project and solicit feedback

throughout the planning process, the following activities were undertaken:

• Direct hand delivery of Notice of Commencement to immediate neighbours of the SPS.

• Newspaper notices for all project milestones; including a Notice of Commencement which appeared

in the Civic News Section of the Brantford Expositor on January 8, 2010 and January 15, 2010. A

notice of Project Information Package for review and comment was posted in the Brantford Expositor

on February 5th and 8th, 2010 and a notice of Study Completion was also published on February 19th

and 26th, 2010.

• Direct mailing (e.g. Notices of Project Commencement, Project Information Package, and Study

Completion) to stakeholders, affected land owners and review agencies, including First Nations;

• Posting project milestones (i.e. Notices and Project Information Package) on the City’s website and at

the City’s Engineering Department; and

• Holding individual meetings with key affected stakeholders and review agencies, as required.

The above consultation and communications program outputs are further described in Section 8. All

comments received have been appended to this document in Appendix B.


- 11 -

2. Existing Conditions The following describes the project study area including an overview of the current sewage pumping

station, existing and future land uses and relevant social/cultural and natural environmental features.

2.1 Technical 2.1.1 Existing Sewage Pumping Station

The Greenwich SPS was first constructed in 1907 with major upgrades being completed in 1975. The

SPS is a single storey structure with the pump room on the lower level and the control room on the upper

level and wet wells below the pump room. The facility consists of two wet wells, each 9.2 metres by 5.5

metres in surface area and 6.6 metres deep. Four submersible pumps are contained in the wet wells,

consisting of two pumps each with a design capacity of 190 L/s and 7.3 m Total Discharge Head (TDH),

and two pumps each with a design capacity of 250 L/s and 7.3 m TDH.

There is a Ministry of Environment (MOE) Sewage Works Approval for the Greenwich SPS which lists the

installation of two 2600 GPM (164 L/s) and two 4300 GPM (271 l/s) sewage pumps and an associated

diesel generator.

2.2 Social/Cultural Environment 2.2.1 Existing Land Uses

The majority of lands within the study area are defined as Core Commercial under the Official Plan (City

of Brantford, 2005). Existing land uses within the study area include the Canadian National Railway

(CNR) line, which bisects the study area, and commercial/industrial uses along Greenwich Street and

Newport Street. Residential (predominately single family) land uses are located to the east and south of

Eagle Avenue and Alfred Street, including the Shallow Creek residential area. Lands between Alfred

Street and Greenwich Street include a community park with multi-use trail (Shallow Creek Park) and

several commercial and institutional uses, including a police/fire station. All lands to the south of the

Greenwich SPS, within the study area, are owned by the City of Brantford. Figure 2-1 illustrates existing

land uses.

Specific to the Greenwich SPS adjacent land uses include:

• North –Commercial (Auto Mechanic) and Institutional (Fire/Police)

• East – Shallow Creek Community Park

• South – Residential

• West – Canadian National Railway


- 12 -

2.2.2 Future Land Uses The only known possible land use change within the study area that is to be implemented in the future is

a proposed access ramp to the future Brantford Southern Access Route (BSAR) to be located southwest

of the SPS. The proposed future BSAR alignment right-of-way is situated adjacent to the northwest

corner of this property.

2.2.3 Archaeological Resources The area south of the Greenwich SPS was previously developed as industrial, and reportedly included a

sluiceway for industrial discharges. The area has also been subjected to landfilling. The potential for

archaeological resources and the need for archaeological investigations will be confirmed through the

Ministry of Culture and background information. Geotechnical and environmental investigations

completed south of the CNR railway tracks have shown no findings to indicate archaeological resources.


- 13 -

Figure 2-1 Existing Land Uses


- 14 -

2.3 Natural Environment 2.3.1 Aquatic

The East Ward Creek which flows into the Mohawk Canal (a tributary of the Grand River) is located

across the street from the SPS. The Greenwich SPS is located within the regulatory flood plain of the

Grand River. The area is located within the Brantford Special Policy Area for flood plain planning,

which is located behind the flood protection dykes. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the watercourse

including Mohawk Canal. It is important to note that all alternatives under consideration involve work

limited to the existing SPS site which is not in close proximity to any water courses.

2.3.2 Terrestrial Terrestrial features within the study area include Shallow Creek Park, various street trees and the

wooded area north of Eagle Avenue and south of the CNR. Prior to the commencement of the

construction works, the City Arborist will be called upon to review and mitigate any concerns

regarding terrestrial vegetation that could be affected by construction. There are no identified ESAs,

ANSIs or sensitive species habitat within the study area. Trees located along the rear property line

consist of Norway and Manitoba Maples.

2.4 Current Planning Studies 2.4.1 City of Brantford Official Plan

The January 2005 Consolidation of the Brantford Official Plan, Section 12.1.1 states that public

services including sanitary sewers and pumping facilities may be permitted within any land use

designation on Schedule 1-Land Use Plan (see Appendix C).

2.4.2 City of Brantford Zoning By-law Section 6.19 of the June 30, 2009 City of Brantford Zoning By-Law states that public services

(excluding fire, ambulance, police stations, public works yards and sanitary landfill sites) shall be

permitted in all zones. See Appendix C for relevant Zoning By-Law excerpts.

2.4.3 Future Brantford Southern Access Route (BSAR) The City of Brantford has plans to continue with the development of the BSAR which has a 60 metre

right-of-way associated with it. The works related to the Greenwich SPS Upgrade will not impact the

BSAR corridor.


- 15 -

3. Phase 1: Identification and Description of the Problem/Opportunity

Phase 1 of the five-phase Class EA planning process requires the proponent of an undertaking to first

document factors leading to the conclusion that the improvement is needed, and develop a clear

statement of the problem/opportunity to be investigated.

As such, the Problem/Opportunity Statement is the principle starting point in the undertaking of a

Class EA and becomes the central theme and integrating element of the project. It also assists in

setting the scope of the project.

3.1 Previous Studies/Investigations In developing the Problem/Opportunity Statement for the Class EA, the following was considered:

• Age, structural condition of the existing station;

• Age and condition of existing equipment and available parts;

• Improvement of working conditions;

• Existing flows and projected future flows;

• Geotechnical Investigation2;

• Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment3; and

• The Water Pollution Control Program Optimization Study.

3.2 Problem/Opportunity Statement Based on the above considerations, the problem/opportunity statement for the Greenwich Sewage

Pumping Station Upgrade Class EA is defined as follows:

The existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) was built in 1907 and

is currently in poor structural condition with numerous equipment deficiencies.

The standby power generator requires replacement due to its age and difficulty

to maintain. The current station configuration also leads to surcharging in the

sanitary sewers entering the station which can result in odour issues.

Upgrades to the SPS and its standby power are required to address these

deficiencies, and to increase the reliability of the station and improve staff

safety.

2 Geotechnical Investigation Greenwich SPS Upgrade and Eagle Avenue Sewer Realignment Greenwich Street

Brantford, Ontario. Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd. February 2007. 3Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Draft Report 221 Greenwich Street Brantford, Ontario. Belko

Group. October 2002.


- 16 -

In order to address the above problem/opportunity statement, the City initiated this Class EA planning

process in December 2009 which identifies and evaluates alternative solutions. This Project File has

been prepared to determine how to best implement the required upgrades to the Greenwich SPS.


- 17 -

4. Phase 2: Alternative Solutions – Sewage Pump Station Upgrades

The Class EA process recognizes that there are many ways of solving a particular problem and

requires that various alternative solutions be considered. Alternative solutions identified for

consideration in this Class EA are described below.

4.1 Development of Alternative Solutions for SPS Upgrades Alternative Description

Alternative 1: Do Nothing • Continued use of current system with no improvements. • The Do Nothing alternative represents what would likely

occur if none of the alternative solutions were implemented.

• It also provides a baseline for evaluating alternatives. Alternative 2: Upgrade Existing SPS and Generator • Existing wet well requires extensive repairs which include

lowering the invert to resolve surcharging which is not technically viable from a constructability perspective.

• Various pieces of electrical, mechanical and pumping equipment require replacement. Generator requires replacement.

• Structural condition of the existing building is poor as recorded in structural inspections by AECOM, extensive structural rehabilitation and modification are required to implement this alternative.

• Building and wet well must remain fully operational while upgrades are made posing constructability challenges.

• Provides a short term solution, adding approximately 15 years of service life.

• Generator requires replacement diesel unit in same location as existing; would require new approvals including emission stack.

Alternative 3: Construct Separate Wet Well with Upgrades to

Existing Station and Generator • Separate wet well construction allows for existing station

to remain fully operational during construction. • Decommissioning of existing wet well required. • Poor structural condition of existing building must be

addressed to allow its continued use for electrical and standby power. Some repairs and structural upgrades required.

• Various pieces of equipment require replacement • Generator requires replacement diesel unit in same

location as existing; would require new approvals including emission stack.


- 18 -

Alternative 4: Construct New SPS and Generator Building • Existing station may remain fully operational during the majority of construction.

• Structural deficiencies of existing building become less significant as existing building will not be used for its original purpose once new building is commissioned.


• New generator outdoor unit for new pump station with soundproof weather enclosure and separate exhaust stack.

4.1.1 Standby Power Options

Various options for upgrading the current standby power unit are identified for consideration in this Class EA and are described below. Alternative Description

Option 1: Do Nothing • Continue use of current generator with no improvements. • Service life remaining on existing unit is limited. • Does not meet City mandate of upgrading current unit as

identified in the Optimization Study. • Due to age of existing unit many parts are unavailable

making maintenance difficult • Existing unit does not meet current air/emissions

regulation standards Option 2: New Natural Gas Generator • Engine size is double that of diesel generator thus this

space would need to be accounted for when incorporating into the preferred alternative.

Option 3: New Diesel Generator • Engine size smaller in comparison with natural gas

generator. • Consistent with other City pumping stations allowing for

common routine maintenance and parts.

By considering all possible options for standby power Option 3 is the preferred option and will be

carried throughout the assessment of alternatives for the Greenwich SPS upgrade. A diesel

generator provides a smaller footprint than the natural gas generator which is an important factor in

the evaluation. Space is limited in the existing building and also on the site. In addition, the City has

expressed preference to a diesel generator as it is consistent with other City pumping stations.


- 19 -

4.2 Evaluation Framework and Criteria 4.2.1 Development of Evaluation Framework and Criteria

Evaluation criteria were developed based on the following environmental components that address

the broad definition of the environment described in the EAA4. The evaluation components are briefly

described below in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Evaluation Components

Component Overview

Natural Environmental • Component having regard for protecting the natural and physical components of the environment (i.e. air, land, water and biota) including the environmentally sensitive areas.

Social/Cultural • Component that evaluates potential effects on existing land uses (i.e., residential, open space)

Economic/Financial • Component that compares the potential costs related to construction and operation.

Technical • Component that considers technical suitability and other engineering aspects.

Based on the above components, evaluation criteria were developed and used to evaluate alternative

bridge rehabilitation solutions. Evaluation criteria are described in Table 4-2.

4 The Environmental Assessment Act (Section 1.(c)(i) to (vi) defines the “environment” as: “air, land, water, plant and animal

life including human life; the social and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community; any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans; any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from the human activities, or; any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario.” This definition of the environment is used and is reflected in the environmental components used in the Phase 2 evaluation.

AECOM

Table

EvaluComp

Natur

Socia

Econ

Techn

A det

comp

evalu

The e

validit

apply

used

offs th

offs fo

the al

respe

result

M

e 4-2 Evaluat

uation ponent

ral Environm

al/Cultural

omic/Financ

nical

4.2.2 Ustailed evaluat

onents stated

ation criteria.

evaluation in

ty, such an ap

in a multi-fac

to consider th

hat have been

orm the ration

lternatives ha

ect to each as

ts of the evalu

tion Criteria

Eva

ment • P

• Ttr

• Pre

• C

cial • E

• C

• A

• Uu

se of Description of each a

d above. Ba

For the eval

this report i

pproach woul

ceted issue s

he suitability o

n made betwe

nale for the id

ave been rank

spect of the e

uation process

City of

luation Crite

Potential impa

− Aquamana

− Terre

Temporary disraffic manage

Potential sitinesources.

Compatibility w

Estimated cap

Constructabilit

Ability to maxi

Utilities and Ipon existing

ptive Informaalternative wa

ased on subje

luation summ

s not based

ld have to stri

such as a Cla

of alternative

een alternativ

entification of

ked in order o

nvironment.

s described in

Brantford

eria

acts to natural

atic environmagement); and

estrial environ

sruption durinement).

ng impacts in

with existing l

pital and life cy

ty.

mize existing

nfrastructure infrastructure

ation and Quas completed

ective evalua

mary, the follow

Least preferre

Most preferred

on a numer

ictly adhere to

ass EA. Inste

solutions and

ves are descri

f the preferred

of preference

This is intend

n Section 5.

l heritage feat

ment (e.g., d

nment (e.g., tr

ng constructio

ncluding arch

and uses (e.g

ycle costs co

infrastructure

(conflicts wie).

ualitative Evd based on th

ations, alterna

wing rating sy

ed

d

rical ranking

o statistical m

ead, a descrip

d design conc

ibed in the tex

d solution(s).

e (based on a

ded to assist t

Green

tures, includin

ground an

ree removal).

on (e.g., dus

haeological a

g., residential

nsidering serv

e.

th existing u

valuation he impact to

atives were r

ymbols were u

system. To

methods that a

ptive or qualit

cepts. In this

xt of the repo

For informat

advantages/di

the reader in

nwich SPS Upgrade

ng:

d surface

st, noise, vibr

and built he

).

vice life.

utilities and im

the environm

anked under

used:

o ensure stat

are often diffic

tative evaluat

respect, the t

ort and these t

tion purposes

isadvantages

understandin

e

- 20 -

water

ration,

ritage

mpact

mental

each

tistical

cult to

tion is

trade-

trade-

s only,

s) with

ng the

-


- 21 -

5. Phase 2: Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Solutions for SPS Upgrade

The evaluation of alternative solutions was undertaken through the use of an evaluation table as

presented in Table 5-1 (end of this section). Significant findings of this evaluation are presented

below. Following the identification of potential impacts, typical mitigation measures are considered

and presented in Section 7.

5.1 Natural Environmental As Alternative No. 2 involves constructing all upgrades within the existing SPS structure there would

be no loss of trees and vegetation.

Both Alternatives No. 3 and No. 4 are based on new construction and would require minimal removal

of some trees and vegetation as the new wet well or SPS would be constructed within the existing

site limits where tree/vegetation removal is limited to southern property limits. Contaminated soils are

a consideration for both options based on supplementary geotechnical investigations that were

completed to determine the likelihood of encountering contaminated soils during excavation.

All alternatives are located within GRCA regulatory flood plain and conservation authority regulation

limit and as such will require GRCA permits (see section 6.2). There are no identified ESAs, ANSIs

or sensitive species habitat within the study area.

Lastly, with respect to dewatering, Alternatives No. 3 and 4 would require some degree of dewatering

which can be better estimated by results from a supplementary geotechnical investigation.

5.2 Social/Cultural Alternatives No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 result in minimal disruptions to traffic as the majority of

construction is limited to the current SPS site which is outside municipal road allowances. However,

Alternative No. 4 involves some construction within Greenwich Ave to accommodate new sanitary

sewer forcemain tie-ins. Given surrounding land uses (i.e., industrial and open space) all alternatives

result in minimal impacts to adjacent land uses.

Alternatives No. 3 and No. 4 involve construction within the existing SPS property limits that have

been already disturbed, however, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources does exist. If

any archaeological and/or historical resources are discovered during the performance of construction

work, the work in the area of the discovery is to halt. The Ministry of Culture (Archaeological Unit) will

be notified for an assessment of the discovery. Work in the area of the discovery would not resume

until cleared to do so by the Ministry.


- 22 -

5.3 Economic/Financial The table below outlines the capital cost and life cycle costs associated with each alternative, broken

down by the major tasks associated with the Greenwich SPS Upgrade.

Table 5-1 Task versus Cost Breakdown

As displayed in the above table, Alternative No. 2 has the lowest capital cost associated with it and is

the preferred option from a capital cost standpoint. However, Alternative No. 4 provides a long term

and complete solution while satisfying all current technical and regulatory standards. It also

addresses process related deficiencies of the existing station, such as wet well depth, to

accommodate proposed sewer re-alignments/installation.

In order to properly compare all alternatives, it must be noted that Alternative No. 4 provides a long

term solution while Alternatives No. 2 and No. 3 provide short term solutions, where in 15 - 25 years,

the old station must be decommissioned and a new station built. To perform a basic life cycle

analysis, the current costs to build construct a new building and perform necessary site works in 25

years, based on an inflation rate of 1%, were added to the total costs of Alternatives No. 2 and No. 3.

This analysis assumes that process and control equipment would be replaced on a similar schedule

for all alternatives. Although the capital investments of Alternatives No.2 and No. 3 may be lower, the

associated life cycle costs are higher based on the estimated remaining service life of the facility thus

it is recommended that Alternative No. 4 be implemented based on life cycle costs.

5.4 Technical The best Alternative from a technical perspective is Alternative No. 4. Building a new SPS ensures a

longer service life for the SPS and allows for the existing SPS to operate without disruption during

construction. Constructing a new SPS provides more reliability structurally and operationally.

Alternative No. 3 would have some construction complexity on site for new structures, but would

result in continued use of the existing structure and therefore upgrades to the existing structure.

Alternative No. 2 is least preferred as it would impose the greatest challenge in keeping the SPS fully

operational during construction. A temporary operation plan would be prepared that represents the

best plan for operators to keep the station running during construction. It also does not address the

Task Cost Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Site Works $ 50,000 $ 80,000 $ 400,000Structural Works $ 975,000 $ 1,470,000 $ 2,910,000Process Equipment $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 900,000Building/Electrical/Control $ 1,710,000 $ 2,630,000 $ 1,470,000 Total Capital Cost $ 3,735,000 $ 5,180,000 $ 5,680,000Total 100 year Life Cycle Cost $ 9,260,000 $ 10,700,000 $ 5,680,000


- 23 -

current issues as stated in the Problem Statement and would not provide sufficient wet well depth for

future replacement of the incoming gravity sewer.


- 24 -

Table 5-1 Evaluation of Greenwich SPS Upgrade Alternatives

Alternative Alignments

Natural Environment Social/Cultural Economic/Financial Technical Evaluation Summary

Potential effects to the natural environment including siting/ routing considerations and/or constraints

Short term construction related impacts including disruptions to existing land uses, traffic, access and noise

Potential siting/ routing considerations including cultural, heritage (e.g. archaeological) and/or tourist recreational resources

Capital and Life Cycle Costs

Least preferred Most preferred

Alternative 1

• Potential for flooding and overflow at SPS.

• Potential for continued sewer surcharging.

• . • Standby power not meeting

current air/noise regulations

• No construction related impacts; however existing land uses could be impacted by poor sanitary sewer and SPS operation (e.g. flooding and odours).

• Potential for health and safety related injury resulting from unsafe working conditions.

• None identified. • Potential for odour issues

• Lowest capital cost but does not address the problem statement.

• Costs will be incurred due to operational and safety risks, and maintaining aged equipment.

• Cost to operate and maintain outdated standby power unit will be incurred as parts for the machine are limited in availability.

• Results in system which is unsafe to operate and maintain and will eventually require replacement.

• Building will continue to structurally deteriorate. • Poor operation conditions will prevail due to

deterioration of equipment and standby power unit. • Does not address existing deficiencies.

Alternative 2

• Avoids tree and vegetation removal.

• Potential for contaminated soils and groundwater.

• Standby power upgrade ensures regulations for noise and air are being met.

• Highest construction impact: mainly due to challenges with keeping existing SPS in full operation during repairs/equipment upgrades.

• Pedestrian access would be limited along front sidewalk due to limits of excavation.

• Avoids impacts as work would be within a previously excavated area

• Potential future conflict with BSAR alignment.

• Low capital costs when considering structural and equipment upgrades only.

• Challenging structural retrofit providing 15 years of additional service life.

• Temporary generator required during removal of existing generator and upgrading to new generator.

• Building Code requirements must be met when upgrading standby power unit, requires extensive modifications to building interior.

• Does not address issues related to surcharging in nearby sewers.

Alternative 3

• Potential for some tree and vegetation removal.

• Potential to encounter contaminated soils and groundwater.


• Some impacts to existing land uses, traveling public and access to property.

• Construction impacts associated with new structures as well as upgrades to existing facility

• Potential to impact adjacent building.

• Potential for archaeological resources minimal as all work to be conducted in previously disturbed area on existing site. Potential future conflict with BSAR alignment.

• High capital cost • High life cycle costs due

to limited remaining building service life requiring facility replacement within the lifespan of other alternatives.

• Provides new wet well with a 100 year service life. • Facility rehabilitation and modification required to meet

Ontario Building Code standards, providing additional 15 years of service life to existing structure

• Existing facility can remain operational during construction with some impact to existing operation during tie-ins and upgrades.

• Temporary generator required during removal of existing generator and upgrading to new generator; requires new C of A for Air.

• Building Code requirements must be met when upgrading standby power unit, requires extensive modifications to building interior.

Alternative 4 *Preferred*

• Potential for some tree and vegetation removal along excavation limits.



• Some impacts to existing land uses, traveling public and access to property during utility tie-ins along Greenwich Ave.

• Potential to impact adjacent building.

• Potential for archaeological resources minimal as all work to be conducted in previously disturbed area on existing site.

• SPS location minimizes future conflict with BSAR alignment.

• Highest capital cost • Lowest life cycle cost due

to longest service life

• Provides long term and complete solution with 100 year service life for the building.

• Rehabilitation and modifications to existing building not required.

• Existing facility can remain operational with relative ease during construction.

• Requires C of A for Noise and Air.


- 25 -

6. Phase 2: Preferred Solution for SPS Upgrade and Standby Power

Based on the evaluation of alternative solutions, the preferred SPS upgrade solution is Alternative No. 4

(Construct New SPS with new Standby Power Generator). Rationale for selecting Alternative No. 4

includes:



• Fully addresses problem statement and existing station deficiencies;


• Most preferred from constructability perspective providing a complete and long term solution.

Figure 6-1 illustrates the preliminary site plan and location for the new Greenwich SPS.

6.1 Overview of Design 6.1.1 Flow Rates

Flow data is available for this station which dates back to 1964. Comparison of the past 5 years to

historical data from the last 20 years indicates that flows have reduced dramatically over time. Discussion

with the City indicates that the nature of industry in the area has changed from heavier industrial water

users to more commercial establishments. In addition, a number of repairs have been made to the City’s

collection system, resulting in reduction in flow to the pumping station. This included repair to a siphon in

the gravity sewer main, which crosses the river before discharging to the SPS, which had sustained

damage resulting in significant inflow to the station. Once this was fixed, the flows reportedly dropped by

approximately 5000 m3/d.

In summary the flow information provided for the Greenwich SPS based on the previous 5 years is as

follows:

• Present average dry weather flow – 6,702 m3/d (78 L/s)

• Present peak wet weather flow – 16,169 m3/d (187 L/s)

The area serviced by this SPS is an older area of the City which is fully built out, with no changes

anticipated in the sanitary sewer drainage area. An allowance of 10% additional flows is provided for

infilling and changes in industrial/commercial dischargers.

6.1.2 Number of Pumps The City of Brantford’s standard for Sewage Pumping Station design is to provide 200% redundancy in

the largest pump. For the Greenwich SPS, the City has requested that the duty pumps be designed for 2


- 26 -

times the peak flow which amounts to 32,338 m3/day. Therefore, it is proposed that there are two duty

pumps, plus two standby pumps, where the design peak flow can be achieved with two pumps out of

order, and so each pump must be capable of pumping the peak flow of 187 L/s @ 17m TDH.

The two duty pumps will correlate to the wet well size to prevent excessively short periods between pump

starts. These will be cycled as lead and lag pumps to ensure less wear on one pump by reducing its

starts per hour. Soft starts will be provided for all pumps and each submersible pump will have a flushing

valve.

6.1.3 Wet Well Design The main operational issue which must be addressed is the surcharging of sewers leading into the

existing wet well. Surcharging occurs since the existing wet well invert is at too high an elevation and

nearby sewers are not able to properly drain. Through modeling and analysis it was found that the

optimal invert elevation for the new wet well invert should be 186.65 m asl.

The following items shall be incorporated into the wet well design:

• Facilitation of cleaning;

• Sufficient storage volume;

• Confine sludge to maximize amount pumped out on each pump cycle; and

• Provide minimum wet well volume to not exceed 6 pump starts per hour.

Other considerations in design of a wet well include:

• Access: aluminum safety railings around hatch; aluminum ladder with extendable spring-loaded

aluminum safety poles at the top to permit safe entry; square rungs with serrated top surfaces;

• Intermediate landings as required to obtain less than 6 m intervals;

• Wet well work platform – aluminum perimeter platform with handrail over wet well;

• Locate removable grating sections consistent with equipment placement and removal

requirements; and

• Bolt down all fixed grating; fasteners to be stainless steel.

6.1.4 Noise and Odour Control Potential odour issues will be addressed through a new wet well design and future plans to deepen the

incoming sewer. However, provisions for future odour treatment measures for ventilation air will also be

considered as required.

Noise and air emissions will be addressed under the application of a Certificate of Approval for the

Standby Power Generator. The assessment will include all potential sources of noise such as the


- 27 -

generator, ventilation equipment, motor and pump operation. In general, to reduce noise caused by the

generator, a hospital-plus grade silencer is recommended as a minimum on the generator’s exhaust.

6.1.5 Geotechnical A Geotechnical study was performed by Naylor Engineering Associates in 2007 which included several

borehole locations on the current SPS property. These boreholes are located on Figure 6-1 and are

noted as BH101, BH102 and BH 102A. As recommended in the Geotechnical Report (Naylor, 2007),

soils generated at BH101 may be considered as excess soil and/or reused on site during construction

activities whereas soil cuttings from BH102 and BH102A should be considered impacted above the MOE

Table 3 Standards and disposed of properly. As seen in Figure 6-1, the new SPS is situated in the

vicinity of BH101 where soil is considered to meet MOE Table 3 Standards and thus may be suitable for

disposal to a fill site depending on the receiver’s criteria for receiving excess soil. Additional geotechnical

work may be required in the location of the new SPS to better determine the quality of the soil for disposal

purposes.

Additional geotechnical work was completed recently by LVM-Naylor in December of 2009 to determine

the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the existing SPS site in further detail. In general it was

found that the subsurface stratigraphy was comprised of fill overlying native deposits of silt, sand, sand

and gravel, and silt and clay, groundwater occurring at 2.4 to 4.6 m below grade. Native subsoils are

considered to be suitable for construction but the shallow groundwater table and layer of fill will affect any

construction.

This study provided recommendations to mitigate potential impacts of construction on existing structures,

including measures to be carried out prior to construction activities.

6.1.6 Proposed Connection to Existing System

The drainage area serviced by the Greenwich SPS consists of West Brant and Holmedale/Lansdowne

areas. Two new gravity sewers will be built to direct existing flows into the new SPS. As seen on Figure

6-1, all flows from Greenwich Street will be directed through a new 300 mm diameter pipe, and the

remainder of flows coming from the 600 mm diameter pipe through the south side of the property will be

directed into a new 900 mm diameter sewer. The new pipes will connect to a drop structure and flow into

the new wet well as seen in Figure 6-1.

The sewage from the wet well is then pumped through the station exiting through a 500 mm diameter

sanitary forcemain into a new manhole which connects to the existing 750 mm sanitary trunk sewer and is

carried by gravity to the Water Pollution Control Plant. The new forcemains and manhole can also be

seen in Figure 6-1.


- 28 -

6.1.7 Standby Power Unit

The proposed standby power unit consists of a 150 kW diesel generator in a sound attenuated and

weather protective enclosure to be located behind the proposed new pumping station building. The air

emission impact will be modeled to determine the extent of the vertical exhaust stack. The generator

package includes an above ground diesel fuel storage tank sufficient for 24 hours.


- 29 -

Figure 6-1 Site Layout Schematic for Preferred Greenwich SPS Upgrade


- 30 -

6.2 Remaining Approvals

6.2.1 Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

An amendment to the Certificate of Approval (CofA) will be required for the SPS prior to construction. In

addition, dependent on construction methods, a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) may be required by the

Contractor for dewatering the excavation.

A separate application for a CofA (Noise and Air) is required prior to commissioning the standby power

unit.

6.2.2 Utility Relocations A new power feed to the new building will be required. Additionally, a 50 mm diameter water service will

be provided to the new building.

6.2.3 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) All work related to the preferred alternative will be within the Brantford Special Policy Area for flood plain

planning, which is located behind the flood protection dykes. The City will be required to obtain a GRCA

permit (i.e. Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and

Watercourses, regulation-O. Reg. 155/06) prior to construction commencement.

6.2.4 Federal EA No Federal EA triggers were identified through the EA planning process.

6.3 Property Requirements Construction is limited to the existing Greenwich SPS site and all work associated with the SPS will be on

City owned lands (north of CNR).

6.4 Implementation Schedule To implement the preferred solution, the following schedule is proposed:

• February 2010 – Commence Class EA 30 Day Review Period;

• February 2010 & March 2010 – Detailed Design;

• April 2010 – Submit Design for Approvals, File CofA Applications;

• May 2010 – Tender Advertisement;

• May 2010 – Begin Construction; and

• May 2011 – Commission New SPS.


- 31 -

7. Recommended Mitigation Measures Based on the preferred solution for the Greenwich SPS (Alternative No. 4), the proposed upgrades are

expected to have varying but relatively minor and manageable environmental effects. In order to address

the effects, the following approach was taken:

• Avoidance: The first priority is to prevent the occurrence of negative effects (i.e., adverse

environmental effects) associated with the implementation of an alternative (i.e., the new SPS).

• Mitigation: Where adverse environmental effects cannot be avoided, it will be necessary to develop

the appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce to some degree, the negative effects associated with

implementing the alternative.

• Compensation: In situations where appropriate mitigation measures are not available, or significant

net adverse effects will remain following the application of mitigation, compensation measures may

be required to counterbalance the negative effect through replacement in kind, or provision or a

substitute or reimbursement.

Based on conceptual design and considering the above, in some cases avoidance measures were able to

be applied more extensively thus reducing the extent and magnitude of potential adverse environmental

effects requiring the application of mitigation measures.

The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that any short-term disturbances are

managed by the best available methods. These measures will be further confirmed and defined during

detailed design.

7.1 Construction Mitigation Measures Table 7-1 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Potential Impact Mitigation

Removal of Trees and Vegetation

• Preferred alternative minimizes tree removal to those on site consisting of Norway and Manitoba Maples. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a tree replacement program will be put in place.

• All trees to be retained shall be clearly marked by the City Arborist. • Where required, protect mature and mid-aged trees along the edge

of construction area. • Restore disturbed areas/habitat to natural or better conditions. • Detailed design will outline all construction practices having regard

to vegetation and ensuring that all impacts are avoided or minimized.

Groundwater Resource Management

• Where significant water-taking is anticipated (i.e., > 50,000 L/day), a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required from the MOE prior to construction.


- 32 -


• The extent of water-taking required will be confirmed through additional hydrogeological investigations during detailed design. These investigations will determine if and how much water-taking may be required, if a MOE PTTW is needed and potential draw-down impacts, impacts to baseflow, zones of influence at each dewatering location, if required, and mitigation measures.

• As potential for encountering contaminated groundwater exists, groundwater from dewatering may be pumped to existing sanitary sewers.

Sediment Deposition

• As required, prepare an erosion and sediment control plan. The plan will, at minimum, be consistent with the OPSD standards as well as recommendations, contained within the “Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction” (available at www.sustainabletechnologies.ca) and the MOE “Guidelines for Evaluation Activities Impacting Water Resources”.

• The erosion and sediment control plan will include details relating to the location and protection of any proposed stockpile areas.

• Ensure proper onsite monitoring of erosion and sediment control, especially during/after wet weather events.

• Any areas disturbed by construction will be restored and stabilized as soon as practically possible.

Waste Disposal

• Soils removed shall be tested for contamination. If contaminated, soil disposal shall be consistent with Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg 153/04).

• All waste generated during construction activity will receive proper disposal as per MOE requirements.

Traffic and Access

• Traffic control including notification signage for forcemain tie in. • Minimize construction duration (e.g. working days). • City access to property maintained for ongoing operations and

maintenance activities. Temporary (construction) Social Impacts (e.g. noise, dust, vibration) to Adjacent Properties

• Construction operations will be restricted to the day time (wherever possible). In addition, the contractor will be required to adhere to local noise by-laws.

• Dust control by spraying water/street sweeping. • Adjacent open space area to have fencing and signage for safety.

Visual Impact/ Noise/Vibration/Odour

(SPS Operations)

• Appropriate SPS building architectural design captured in detailed design.

• Noise and vibration requirements addressed through detailed design and MOE Certificate of Approval (sewage and air).

• Odour management measures will be addressed during the detailed design stage.

Structural Impact to Adjacent Properties

• Geotechnical investigation report recommends stabilizing foundations of the adjacent building to the west (Veterinary Clinic).

• Pre and post construction surveys will be completed. In the event


- 33 -


of damages repairs or restoration to correct impacts will be required.

Archaeology

• If any archaeological and/or historical resources are discovered during the performance of construction work, the work in the area of the discovery is to halt. The Ministry of Culture (Archaeological Unit) will be notified for an assessment of the discovery. Work in the area of the discovery would not resume until cleared to do so by the Ministry.

Other Measures

In addition, the provision of an experienced field representative to review construction will ensure that the

project follows contract specifications and does not unnecessarily impact vegetation, the community or

the aquatic environment. Furthermore, contract tender documents will clearly specify the mitigation

measures that are to be followed during construction.


- 34 -

8. Public, Agency and First Nations Consultation 8.1 Public and Agency Notification

As part of the Municipal Class EA communications and consultation program, efforts have been made to

inform government review agencies and the local community of the nature and scope of the project and to

solicit input/comments. These steps included advertising and mailing the Notice of Project

Commencement and Notice of Project Information Package (mandatory Class EA Phase 2 contact point)

as well as Notice of Study Completion.

8.2 Comments Received and Responses 8.2.1 Review Agencies

8.2.1.1 Ministry of the Environment

A Notice of Project Commencement was sent to the MOE on January 8th, 2010. In a response letter

dated January 22nd, 2010, MOE outlined the planning process requirements for the Greenwich Sewage

Pumping Station Upgrade Municipal Class EA, Schedule “B” project. A copy of the letter can be found in

Appendix B. The letter also requested that a copy of the Project File be sent to MOE in addition to the

Notice of Study Completion for review, filing and potential comments, if requested.

8.2.1.2 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)

A letter from the GRCA was received on February 4, 2010 which indicated the GRCA’s wish to participate

in the study as it is within the regulatory flood plain associated with the Grand River. The letter also noted

that a GRCA permit may be required.

8.2.1.3 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

In a fax dated January 14th, 2010, the MMAH requested that all further correspondence be sent to the

MMAH Western Region offices. A copy of the fax can be found in Appendix B.

8.2.1.4 Transport Canada

In an email dated January 18th, 2010, Transport Canada advised that Navigable Waters was not

applicable and therefore has no concerns. A copy of the email can be found in Appendix B.

8.2.1.5 CN Rail

In an email dated January 18th, 2010, CN Rail expressed that they have no concerns at this time, but

would like to be kept informed throughout the project. CN Rail also advised that they must be notified if

there will be any potential impact to the railway due to the potential for utility crossing. In addition, Alex

Tam (Assistant Engineer) requested he be added to the project mailing list as he will be taking over as

CN’s person of contact. A copy of the email can be found in Appendix B.


- 35 -

8.3 First Nations Through the Class EA process, the City has had contact with the following First Nations groups and

agencies in order to explain the project and solicit input.

8.3.1 Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit The contact process followed the Grand River Notification Agreement and included contact with the

following groups:

• Six Nations of the Grand River; and

• Mississaugas of the New Credit.

To date no comments have been received from both First Nations groups.


- 36 -

9. Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Conclusions

Through the completion of this Municipal Class EA study and supporting studies, the preferred solution

has been identified as Alternative No. 4 (see Section 6 and Figure 6-1).

Implementation of the above solution resolves the problem statement identified in Section 3 of this report.

An evaluation of the potential impacts associated with construction of the preferred solution is included in

Section 5 of this report. Considering all aspects of the evaluation (i.e., natural environmental,

social/cultural and technical components), this preferred SPS upgrade is the most economical over the

facility’s service life, and is easiest to construct and has the lowest possible adverse impacts. In general,

these impacts are considered predictable and can be addressed by the recommended mitigative

measures as presented in Section 7 of this report.

In addition, communications and consultation were undertaken throughout the duration of the study with

numerous stakeholders, including the City of Brantford, government review agencies, MOE, GRCA, CNR

and other interested members of the public. No concerns were raised that the City cannot further

address and resolve during detailed design.

9.2 Recommendations Given the above, this Municipal Class EA Project File report ensures that the proposed SPS upgrade

meets the requirements of the EAA. Therefore, it is recommended that:

• Following EA Approval, the preferred SPS upgrade should proceed to detailed design and remaining

approvals. Required approvals include MOE CofA, GRCA Development Interference Permits; and

• The mitigation measures identified in Section 7 of this report should be confirmed and further

elaborated upon during detailed design, and implemented as part of the construction process.

This notice was first issued on January 8, 2010.

NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

The Study The City of Brantford (the City), through their consultant, AECOM, has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study for the upgrade of the Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (see map). The existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station is over 100 years old. Recent inspections have noted several structural and mechanical deficiencies that cause concern for station operation and maintenance. This includes the need to replace the existing diesel generator for standby power. The Process

The study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements for a Schedule B project as described in the Municipal Engineers Association, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007). The Municipal Class EA applies to public sector agencies that are undertaking common water, wastewater and road infrastructure projects. The Class EA process includes public and review agency consultation, an evaluation of alternatives, an assessment of the impacts of the proposed improvements, and identification of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts.

Comments

Public consultation is vital and key to the success of this study. We want to ensure that anyone interested in this study has the opportunity to get involved and provide input. In the near future a project information package will be made available to review agencies and the public for review and comments. Notice of the project information package’s availability will be by similar newspaper notice and to those on the project mailing list. Should you have any questions or comments or wish to be added to the project mailing list please contact any one of the individuals listed below.

Mr. Lyle Long Environmental Engineering Technologist Engineering, Environmental Services City of Brantford 100 Wellington Square Brantford, Ontario N3T 2M3 Tel: 519.759.1350 ext. 2330 Fax: 519.754.0724 Email: [email protected]

Ms. Patty Quackenbush Project Engineer AECOM The Galleria-Suite 702 101 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2 Tel: 519.570.4886 Fax: 519.570.3379 Email: [email protected]

Comments and information regarding this project are being collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the purpose of meeting environmental assessment requirements.

navat

Text Box

Ad ran in The Brantford Expositor on January 8th and 15th, 2010.

NOTICE OF PROJECT INFORMATION PACKAGE GREENWICH SEWAGE PUMPING STATION UPGRADE

MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This notice was first published in print on February 5, 2010.

The Project

The City of Brantford (the City), through their consultant, AECOM, has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study for the upgrade of the Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (see map). The existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station is over 100 years old. Recent inspections have noted several structural and mechanical deficiencies that cause concern for station operation and maintenance. This includes the need to replace the existing diesel generator for standby power.

The Process

The study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements for a Schedule B project as described in the Municipal Engineers Association, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, as amended in 2007). The Municipal Class EA applies to public sector agencies that are undertaking common water, wastewater and road infrastructure projects. The Class EA process includes public and review agency consultation, an evaluation of alternatives, an assessment of the impacts of the proposed improvements, and identification of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts.

Project Information Package

Public consultation is vital and key to the success of this study. We want to ensure that anyone interested in this study has the opportunity to get involved and provide input. In order to solicit feedback on the project, a Project Information Package has been assembled to present background information on the study including the various alternative solutions considered and a comparative analysis of those alternatives. The package also presents the short-listed alternative solutions, including associated impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

The Project Information Package can be found on the City’s website: www.brantford.ca and also in hard copy at City hall between the hours of 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday to Friday.

Comments

Public input and comment are invited for the incorporation into planning and design of this project and will be reviewed until February 12, 2010.

Contact one of the following team members if you have any questions or comments, or wish to be added to the mailing list and receive a copy of Notice of Completion.


Ms. Patty Quackenbush Project Engineer AECOM The Galleria-Suite 702 101 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2 Tel: 519.570.4886 Fax: 519.570.3379 Email: [email protected]


navat

Text Box

Ad ran in The Brantford Expositor on February 5th and 8th, 2010.

Project Information Package

Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station UpgradeMunicipal Class Environmental Assessment


1 Contact Information

Please review this package and provide comments or questions to one of the contacts provided below:

Ms. Patty Quackenbush, P.Eng.Project Engineer

AECOMThe Galleria-Suite 702101 Frederick Street

Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2Tel: 519.570.1479

Mr. Lyle LongEnvironmental Engineering Technologist

Engineering, Environmental ServicesCity of Brantford

100 Wellington SquareBrantford, Ontario N3T 2M3Tel: 519.759.1350 ext. 2330


Tel: 519.570.1479Fax: 519.570.3379

Email: [email protected]

Project Information

available at

www.city.brantford.on.ca

Tel: 519.759.1350 ext. 2330Fax: 519.754.0724

Email: [email protected]

Please provide comments by Friday, February 12, 2010.

Background 2

• The Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station(SPS) is over 100 years old.

• Recent inspections noted severalstructural and mechanical deficienciesthat cause concern for station operationand maintenance.


• The existing diesel generator needs to bereplaced due to its age and condition toensure adequate stand-by power for thestation.

• The existing equipment is outdated andaged, making it difficult to maintain andlocate necessary parts for commonrepairs.

Class EA Trigger3

• Based on the Municipal EngineersAssociation Municipal ClassEnvironmental Assessment (EA)document, a Schedule ‘B’ Class EA isrequired to identify the preferredalternative for upgrading the existingGreenwich SPS to address existingstructural and mechanical deficiencieswhile incorporating new standby


while incorporating new standbypower.

• Upon review of the required upgradesto the SPS, it was determined that anew standby power unit is needed.Relocation outside the existingbuilding requires completion of aSchedule B Class EA Study.

Overview of Class EA Process

• This project is being undertaken in accordancewith the Municipal Class EA document for aSchedule ‘B’ undertaking.

• By completing the process EAA approval will beobtained for the upgrading of the Greenwich SPSthrough the EA planning and documentationprocess.

• The Municipal Class EA is approved under theEnvironmental Assessment Act and enables theplanning of municipal infrastructure projects inaccordance with a proven process for protecting

4


accordance with a proven process for protectingthe environment.

• There is an opportunity for public input atselected points in the study (see diagram).

• Upon completion of the Class EA process, aProject File will be prepared and made availablefor public review and comment (minimum 30days).

Problem Statement5

• The existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) was built in1907 and is currently in poor structural condition with numerousequipment deficiencies. The standby power generator requiresreplacement due to its age and difficulties related to maintenance.The current station configuration also leads to surcharging in thesanitary sewers entering the station which can result in odour issues.Upgrades to the SPS and its standby power generator are required to


Upgrades to the SPS and its standby power generator are required toaddress these deficiencies, and to increase the reliability of the stationand improve staff safety and ease of operation.

Study Area6

• The general study area (see Figure1-1) is located in the central area ofthe City of Brantford and is boundby Alfred Street to the west, HuronStreet to the east, Port Street to thesouth and Newport Street to thenorth.

• The Greenwich SPS is located onthe west side of Greenwich Street.


the west side of Greenwich Street.

• This area is located within the floodplain of the Grand River andBrantford Special Policy Area forflood plain planning.

• Mohawk Canal is located southeastof the SPS.

Existing Land Uses7

Social/Cultural Environment

• The Official Plan designates the studyarea as Core Commercial;

• Existing land uses include theCanadian National Railway (CNR) andcommercial/ industrial uses alongGreenwich Street and Newport Street;


• A residential area is located to thesouthwest of the SPS; and

• Lands northeast of the SPS include aresidential area and Shallow Creekcommunity park with multi-use trailsand several commercial andinstitutional uses, including a police/firestation.

Natural Environmental Features8

• Aquatic Assessment:

– Mohawk Canal is located approximately 250 m to the southeast of the Greenwich SPS;

– The SPS is located within the regulatory flood plain of the Grand River; and

– The SPS within the Brantford Special Policy Area for flood plain planning.

• Terrestrial Assessment:

– The Study Area includes various street trees.

– There is a wooded area north of Eagle Avenue south of the CNR; and


– There is a wooded area north of Eagle Avenue south of the CNR; and

– Trees located on the SPS site along the rear property line consist of Norway andManitoba Maples.

• Assessment of Significance:

− No ESAs, ANSIs or sensitive species habitat were observed identified.

Alternative Solutions for SPS Upgrades 9

Alternative Solutions Description1) Do Nothing

• No improvements• The ”Do Nothing” alternative represents what would likely occur if none of the alternative

solutions were implemented.• Continued use of current system.• Provides a baseline for evaluating alternatives.

2) Upgrade Existing SPS andGenerator

• Existing wet well requires extensive repairs which would include lowering the invert to resolve surcharging which is not technically viable from a constructability perspective.

• Various pieces of electrical, mechanical and pumping equipment require replacement, including the standby power generator.

• Upgrades would consist only of extensive structural rehabilitation and modifications, and mechanical upgrades, adding approximately 15 years of service life. This would not address deficiencies and operational issues related to the existing wet well invert and would not allow for deepening the incoming sewer in the long term.


3) Construct Separate Wet Well with Upgrades to Existing Station and Generator

• Separate wet well construction allows for existing station to remain fully operational during construction.

• Decommissioning of existing wet well required.• To allow for the existing building’s continued use, electrical systems must be upgraded and

structural deficiencies addressed; standby diesel generator requires replacement (requires new approvals including emission stack).

4) Construct New SPS with New Standby Power Generator

• Existing station may remain fully operational during the majority of construction.• Structural deficiencies of existing building become less significant as existing building will

not be used for its original purpose once new building is commissioned; eventually decommissioning of existing building.


• New diesel generator unit for new pump station installed outside with soundproof weather enclosure and separate exhaust stack.

Evaluation Criteria10

Natural Environment

• Potential impacts to natural heritage features, including:

• Aquatic environment (e.g., ground and surface water management); and

• Terrestrial environment (e.g., tree removal).

Social/Cultural

Economic/Financial

• Estimated capital cost

• Estimated life cycle cost considering remaining service life

Technical

• Constructability;

• Ability to maximize existing infrastructure; and


Social/Cultural

• Temporary disruption during construction (e.g., dust, noise, vibration, traffic management);

• Potential siting impacts including archaeological and built heritage resources; and

• Compatibility with existing land uses

infrastructure; and

• Utilities and Infrastructure (conflicts with existing utilities and impact upon existing infrastructure).

Evaluation of Alternative Solutions11

Alternative Solutions

Natural Environment

Potential effects to the natural

environment

Social/Cultural

Short term construction related

impacts

Social/Cultural

Potential sitingconsiderations

Economical

Capital & Life Cycle Costs

Technical Evaluation Summary

Least Preferred

Most Preferred

Alternative 1Do Nothing

• Potential for flooding

and overflow at SPS.• Potential for

continued sewer

surcharging.• Standby power not

meeting current

air/noise regulations

• No construction

related impacts; existing land uses could be impacted

by poor sanitary sewer and SPS operation.

• Potential for health and safety related injury.

• Potential for

odour issues.

• Low capital cost,

does not address the problem statement.

• Costs incurred due to operational, safety risks,

maintenance• Cost to operate

and maintain

• Unsafe to operate and

maintain.• Does not address

existing deficiencies.

• Building will continue to structurally deteriorate.


injury. and maintain

outdated standby power.

Alternative 2Upgrade Existing SPS andGenerator

• Avoids tree and

vegetation removal.• Standby power

upgrade ensures

regulations for noise and air are being met.

• Highest construction

impact: challenges with keeping existing SPS in full operation

during upgrades.• Pedestrian access

limited along front

sidewalk due to excavation

• Avoids impacts

as work would be within a previously

excavated area.• Continued

potential odour

issues from wetwell

• Potential future

conflict with BSAR alignment.

• High costs due to

constructability issues and very high life cycle costs

due to remaining building service life.

• Challenging structural

retrofit.• Does not address

existing deficiencies,

specifically existing wetwell invert.

• Temporary generator

required.• Building Code

separation requires

extensive modification to building interior

Evaluation of Alternative Solutions (continued)11

Alternative Solutions

Natural Environment

Potential effects to the natural

environment

Social/Cultural

Short term construction related

impacts

Social/Cultural

Potential sitingconsiderations

Economical

Capital & Life Cycle Costs

Technical Evaluation Summary

Least Preferred

Most Preferred

Alternative 3ConstructSeparate Wet Well with Upgrades to Existing Station and Generator

• Potential for some

tree and vegetation removal.

• Potential to encounter

contaminated soils and groundwater.

• Standby power

upgrade ensures regulations for noise and air are being met.

• Some impacts to

existing land uses, traveling public and access to property.

• Construction impacts associated with new structures

as well as upgrades to existing facility

• Potential impact to

• Potential for

archaeological resources minimal as all work to be

conducted in previously disturbed area on

existing site.• Potential future

conflict with BSAR

• High capital

cost• High life cycle

cost due to

continued use of existing building with

limited remaining service life.

• New wet well, 100 year

service life.• Facility rehabilitation and

modification required.

• Existing facility can remain operational during construction.

• Temporary generator required

• Building Code separation


adjacent building alignment. requires extensivemodification to building interior

Alternative 4Construct New SPS withNew Standby Power Generator

• Potential for some

tree and vegetation removal along excavation limits.


• Standby power upgrade ensures regulations for noise

and air are being met.

• Some impacts to

existing land uses, traveling public and access to property

during utility tie-ins along Greenwich Ave.

• Potential impact to adjacent building

• Potential for

archaeological resources minimal as all work to be

conducted in previously disturbed area on

existing site.• SPS location

minimizes future

impacts on BSAR

• Highest capital

cost• Lowest life

cycle cost due

to longer service life

• Long term solution, 100 year

service life• No Rehabilitation or

modifications required.

• Existing facility can remain operational during construction.

• Generator can be commissioned in conjunction with new pump station.

Rationale for Preferred Alternative12

Based on the evaluation of alternative solutions, the preferred SPSUpgrade solution is Alternative No. 4 (Construct New SPS with NewStandby Power Generator). Rational for selecting Alternative No. 4includes:



• Fully addresses problem statement and existing station


• Fully addresses problem statement and existing stationdeficiencies;


• Most preferred from constructability perspective providing acomplete and long term solution.

The following Figure illustrates the preliminary site plan and location for the new Greenwich SPS.

Preliminary Site Plan and Location13

Greenwich SPS Upgrades Include:

• New SPS building located west of existingbuilding.

• Wet well elevation lower than existingstation to relieve incoming sewers ofsurcharging conditions.

• 200% pump redundancy.

Existing Sanitary Sewer

Existing

SPS

LEGEND

New Sanitary Sewer

New Sanitary Manhole

Existing Sanitary

Manhole

New SPS New

Wet Well

Greenwich Street

Site Boundary


• New 500 mm diameter forcemain.

• Concrete pad designed for standby powergenerator with weather proof and noiseattenuated enclosure.

• Diesel generator unit preferred by City, toremain consistent with other stations

• Meets all regulations and standards.

Generator Pad

Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade

Figure 6-1

Preliminary Site Layout

27 January 2010

N.T.S

L.N.W.

Overview of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures14


Removal of Trees and Vegetation

• Preferred alternative minimizes tree removal to those on site consisting of Norway and Manitoba Maples. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a tree replacement program will be considered.

• All trees to be retained shall be clearly marked by the City Arborist.

• Restore disturbed areas/habitat to natural or better conditions.

Groundwater Resource Management

• Where significant water-taking is anticipated (i.e., > 50,000 L/day), a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required from the MOE prior to construction.

• The extent of water-taking required will be minimized through construction and shoring techniques.

• Potential for encountering contaminated groundwater exists, groundwater will be pumped and filtered prior to discharge to existing sanitary sewers for treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).


discharge to existing sanitary sewers for treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

Sediment Deposition

• As required, Contractor to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan to meet Ontario standards and to meetGRCA requirements.

• Ensure proper onsite monitoring of erosion and sediment control, especially during/after wet weather events.

• Any areas disturbed by construction will be restored and stabilized as soon as practically possible.

Waste Disposal

• Soils removed shall be tested for contamination. If contaminated, soil disposal shall be consistent with Part XV.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg 153/04).

• All waste generated during construction activity will receive proper disposal as per MOE requirements.

Overview of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures14


Traffic and Access • Traffic control including notification signage.

• Minimize construction duration (e.g. working days) within roadways.

Temporary (construction) Social Impacts (e.g. noise, dust, vibration) to Adjacent Properties

• Construction operations adhere to local by-laws.

• Dust control by spraying water/street sweeping.

• Construction area to have fencing and signage for safety.

Visual Impact/ Noise/Vibration/Odour

(SPS Operations)

• SPS building architectural design consistent with municipal buildings.

• Noise and vibration requirements addressed through detailed design and MOE Certificate of Approval (sewage andair).


(SPS Operations)• Odour issues addressed through proper design of the new SPS facility.

Structural Impact to Adjacent Properties

• Geotechnical investigation to identify any potential impacts of construction on adjacent properties and recommendappropriate mitigative measures.

• Pre and post construction surveys will be completed. In the event of impacts, repairs or restoration will be required.

Archaeology

• All proposed construction to take place in a previously disturbed area.

• If any archaeological and/or historical resources are discovered during the performance of construction work, thework in the area of the discovery is to halt. The Ministry of Culture (Archaeological Unit) will be notified for anassessment of the discovery. Work in the area of the discovery would not resume until cleared to do so by theMinistry.

Project Implementation15

• To implement the preferred solution, the following schedule is proposed:

• February 2010 – Commence 30 Day Review Period

• February & March 2010 – Detailed Design

• March & April 2010 – Submit Applications for Approvals


• April 2010 – Tender Advertisement

• May 2010 – Begin Construction

• May 2011 – Commission New SPS

30 Day

PublicReview

January 2010 February 2010

Class EA Consultation Program

Spring 2010

16

Evaluate Alternatives

Proceed to Tender and

Construction

Public/Agency Notice

Review of Project Information

Package(Mandatory Phase 2 Contact Point)

Respond to Agency/Public Comments


Additional Ongoing Consultation as Necessary

• Prepare and File Project File

• Letter• Newspaper

Notice• Website• Hand delivery to

nearby residents

2 Contact Point)



nearby residents



nearby residents

Review agencies* and the public will be notified ofthe Project File and will be provided with theopportunity to comment during the 30-DayReview Period.

Comments from review agencies* and general publicwill be reviewed for consideration in the confirmationof the recommended solution which will be capturedin a Class EA Project File.

Next Steps17


Review Period.

Upon completion of the mandatory public reviewperiod (30 calendar day duration) the Project File willbe finalized and subject to comments, the project mayproceed to detailed design and construction.

* Review agencies include Provincial Ministries (e.g. Environment, Natural Resources, Culture), Grand River Conservation Authority, local Municipal and Regional departments, utilities (e.g. hydro, gas, Bell etc.) and interested stakeholders (e.g. Affected Land Owners, etc.).

AECOM 101 Fredrick Street Suite 702 519 570 4886 tel Kitchener, ON, Canada N2H 6R2 519 570 3379 fax www.aecom.com

February 17, 2010 Project No: 88320/60120288 Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright Director – EA Section Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 Subject: City of Brantford Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment: Notice of Study Completion Dear Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright: The City of Brantford, through their consultant AECOM, has completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study for the Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade. The proposed works will address several structural and mechanical deficiencies that cause concern for station operation and maintenance. This includes the need to replace the existing diesel generator for standby power. The preferred solution is to construct a new sewage pumping station (SPS), with a new enclosed generator unit. This alternative fully addresses the problem statement and existing station deficiencies and provides a complete and long term solution. Construction is expected to start in spring 2010 and be completed by summer 2011.

A Project File has been prepared to document the planning process followed, including conclusions, recommendations and how public input was received and considered. The 30-calendar day review period will commence on February 19, 2010 and end March 20, 2010. For further information, including Project File review locations and commenting procedures, please see the enclosed Notice of Study Completion.

We thank you for your participation in this study to date. If you have any questions or comments at this time, or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd.

Patty Quackenbush, P.Eng, M.Eng Project Manager PQ:lw Encl. Notice of Study Completion cc: Lyle Long, City of Brantford Karl Grueneis, AECOM

AECOM 101 Fredrick Street Suite 702 519 570 4886 tel Kitchener, ON, Canada N2H 6R2 519 570 3379 fax www.aecom.com

February 17, 2010 Project No: 88320/60120288 Mr. Alan Kary Deputy Director Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Policy and Relationships Branch 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 Subject: City of Brantford Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment: Notice of Study Completion Dear Mr. Alan Kary: The City of Brantford, through their consultant AECOM, has completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study for the Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade. The proposed works will address several structural and mechanical deficiencies that cause concern for station operation and maintenance. This includes the need to replace the existing diesel generator for standby power. The preferred solution is to construct a new sewage pumping station (SPS), with a new enclosed generator unit. This alternative fully addresses the problem statement and existing station deficiencies and provides a complete and long term solution. Construction is expected to start in spring 2010 and be completed by summer 2011.

A Project File has been prepared to document the planning process followed, including conclusions, recommendations and how public input was received and considered. The 30-calendar day review period will commence on February 19, 2010 and end March 20, 2010. For further information, including Project File review locations and commenting procedures, please see the enclosed Notice of Study Completion.

We thank you for your participation in this study to date. If you have any questions or comments at this time, or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd.

Patty Quackenbush, P.Eng, M.Eng Project Manager PQ:lw Encl. Notice of Study Completion cc: Lyle Long, City of Brantford Karl Grueneis, AECOM

NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION CITY OF BRANTFORD

GREENWICH SEWAGE PUMPING STATION UPGRADE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This notice was first published in print on February 19, 2010.

The Study The City of Brantford (the City), through their consultant, AECOM, has completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study for the upgrade of the Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station (see map for location). The existing Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station is over 100 years old. Recent inspections have noted several structural and mechanical deficiencies that cause concern for station operation and maintenance. This includes the need to replace the existing diesel generator for standby power.

The Process The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements for a Schedule ‘B’ project under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007), which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The Class EA process included public and review agency consultation, an evaluation of alternatives, an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed improvements, and identification of reasonable measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may result.

Preferred Solution The preferred solution is to construct a new sewage pumping station (SPS), with a new enclosed generator unit, to replace the existing station. This alternative is preferred due to its low environmental impacts, minimal social/cultural impacts, least constructability issues, and low life cycle cost considering service life. This alternative fully addresses the problem statement and existing station deficiencies and provides a complete and long term solution. Construction is expected to start in spring of 2010 and be completed by summer 2011.

Project File A Project File has been prepared to document the planning process followed, including conclusions and recommendations, and how public input was received and considered. The Project File will be available for public review for a period of 30 calendar days, starting on February 19, 2010 and ending on March 20, 2010. The project file will be available online at www.brantford.ca and during regular business hours at the following locations:

City of Brantford 100 Wellington Square

Brantford, Ontario N3T 2M3 Hours:

Monday - Friday - 8:30 am to 4:30 pm

The Brantford Public Library 173 Colborne Street

Brantford, Ontario N3T 2G8 Hours:

Monday – Thursday: 9:00 to 9:00 pm, Friday: 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturday: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Sunday: Closed

Comments During this prescribed 30-day review period, anyone who has any outstanding concerns with the project that cannot be resolved in discussion with the City may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests must be submitted to the Minister of the Environment at the following address:

John Gerretsen Minister of the Environment

Ministry of the Environment – The Executive 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 12th Floor

Toronto, ON M4V 1P5

A copy of the Part II Order request must also be sent to:



Ms. Patty QuackenbushProject Engineer AECOM The Galleria-Suite 702 101 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2 Tel: 519.570.4886 Fax: 519.570.3379 Email: [email protected]

navat

Text Box

Ad ran in The Brantford Expositor on February 19th and 26th, 2010.

municipal class environmental assessment study greenwich sewage pumping …brantford.ca/projects...

Documents