township of tiny septage management class environmental ... documents/septage... · a project...

Prepared By:

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood ON L9Y 4J6

Prepared for:

Township of Tiny

October 2012

File No: MCB019184 The material in this report reflects best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

Township of Tiny Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2

Township of Tiny i Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited MCB019184 019184_Tiny Septage Management PFR

Executive Summary

The Township of Tiny, through their consultant, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, has completed Phases 1 and 2 of a Class Environmental Assessment to evaluate options and establish a preferred approach for the management of septage within the Township. The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). There is no municipal wastewater treatment system within the Township of Tiny, and all units are serviced with private sewage systems or holding tanks. There is currently no capacity within the Township to treat the resulting septage. Due to pending regulatory changes, as well as concerns raised about the current practice of land application, the Township evaluating alternative solutions to treat and dispose septage. In accordance with good environmental practice, an evaluation framework was developed to analyze and evaluate alternative solutions including: 1. The “Do Nothing” Alternative. 2. Construct a Municipal Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facility to

Service a Portion of the Township and Include Septage Receiving Facilities. 3. Contract to haul septage to treatment facilities in other municipalities.

(a) Construct a central receiving station within the Township (b) Private hauling to receiving wastewater treatment plants

4. Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny with full treatment

of solids and liquids 5. Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny with partial

treatment of solids and liquids. A Public Consultation Program was implemented for this study. A Notice of Study Commencement was circulated to agencies and stakeholders, providing an opportunity to comment. The Notice was circulated by mail to all Township of Tiny property owners (through the Tax Assessment for 2011). The Notice was also advertised on the Township website and in the Midland Mirror. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was established at the outset of the study to provide comments and advise pertaining to decisions made by the Township of Tiny and the Study Team with regard to septage management within the Township. The PAC met four times throughout Phases 1 and 2 of this Class EA study.

Township of Tiny ii Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012


Three Public Information Centres (PICs) were held during the course of the study to present information to the public, answer questions about the study, and provide an opportunity to submit comments. Comments received were incorporated into the evaluation of the alternatives. The alternative solutions were evaluated based on potential impacts and mitigation measures with respect to the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments, financial factors and technical factors. Based on the evaluation, the preferred solution is to construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny, with full treatment of solids and liquids (Alternative 4). Since the preferred alternative involves a Schedule C undertaking, the Township will be required to complete the remaining phases of the Class EA process and prepare an Environmental Study Report.

Township of Tiny iii Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Municipal Class EA Process .......................................................................... 1 1.3 Problem/Opportunity Statement ............................................................................ 2

2.0 Septage Characteristics...................................................................................... 5 2.1 What is Septage? .................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Typical Septage Characteristics ............................................................................ 5 2.2 What is Hauled Sewage? ...................................................................................... 6 2.3 Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Septage Treatment ..................... 7 2.4 Current Septage Treatment and Disposal Methods in Ontario .............................. 7

3.0 Demographics and Existing Wastewater Servicing in the Township of Tiny 9 3.1 Socio-economic Features Within the Township of Tiny ......................................... 9 3.1.1 Demographics ....................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Economic Development ........................................................................................ 9 3.1.3 Dwellings ............................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Current Wastewater Servicing in the Township of Tiny ....................................... 10 3.3 Current Septage Disposal Practices.................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Land Application .................................................................................................. 11 3.3.2 Existing Treatment Facilities................................................................................ 14 3.4 Estimated Quantities of Septage and Holding Tank Waste ................................. 14 3.4.1 Quantities Based on Existing Units ..................................................................... 16 3.4.2 Projected Future Quantities ................................................................................. 17

4.0 Description of the Environment ....................................................................... 19 4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1 County of Simcoe Official Plan ............................................................................ 19 4.1.2 Township of Tiny Official Plan ............................................................................. 19 4.1.3 Provincial Policy Statement ................................................................................. 24 4.2 Terrestrial Environment ....................................................................................... 24 4.2.1 Designated Areas ................................................................................................ 25 4.2.2 Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................... 31 4.2.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................. 32 4.2.4 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 35 4.3 Aquatic Environment ........................................................................................... 35 4.4 Natural Hazards .................................................................................................. 36 4.5 Archaeology/ Heritage ......................................................................................... 36

Township of Tiny iv Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012


5.0 Identification of Alternative Solutions ............................................................. 38 5.1 Alternative 1 – Do Nothing .................................................................................. 38 5.2 Alternative 2 – Construct a municipal wastewater collection system and treatment

facility to service a portion of the Township, and include septage receiving facilities ................................................................................................................ 38

5.2.1 Collection System ................................................................................................ 39 5.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................... 39 5.3 Alternative 3 – Contract to haul septage to treatment facilities in other

municipalities ....................................................................................................... 40 5.3.1 Alternative 3(a) – Construct a Central Receiving Station within the Township .... 40 5.3.2 Alternative 3(b) – Private Hauling to Receiving WWTPs ..................................... 41 5.4 Alternative 4 – Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny

with full treatment of solids and liquids ................................................................ 41 5.4.1 Potential Approvals ............................................................................................. 42 5.5 Alternative 5 – Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny

with partial treatment of solids and liquids ........................................................... 42 5.6 Description of Treatment Systems Applicable to Alternatives 4 and 5 ................ 42 5.6.2 Disposal Options for Alternatives 4 and 5 ........................................................... 49

6.0 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................ 50 6.1 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................... 50 6.2 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing ................................................................................... 55 6.3 Alternative 2 - Construct a Municipal Wastewater Collection System and

Treatment Facility to Service a Portion of the Township and Include Septage Receiving Facilities .............................................................................................. 55

6.4 Alternative 3 – Contract to Haul Septage to Treatment Facilities in Other Municipalities ....................................................................................................... 56

6.4.1 Review of Existing WWTPs ................................................................................. 57 6.4.2 Chatsworth/Georgian Bluffs Biodigester.............................................................. 59 6.4.3 Waypoint WWTP ................................................................................................. 59 6.4.4 County of Simcoe Biosolids Processing .............................................................. 60 6.4.5 Alternative 3 – Summary ..................................................................................... 60 6.5 Alternatives 4 and 5 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the

Township of Tiny ................................................................................................. 61 6.6 Preliminary Cost Analysis .................................................................................... 63 6.7 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................... 69

7.0 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 70

8.0 Agency, Public and Aboriginal Consultation Program .................................. 72 8.1 Notice of Study Commencement ......................................................................... 74 8.2 Summary of Comments and Issues .................................................................... 74 8.3 Project Advisory Committee ................................................................................ 78

Township of Tiny v Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012


8.4 Public Information Centres .................................................................................. 78 8.4.1 Public Information Centre #1 ............................................................................... 78 8.4.2 Public Information Centre #2 ............................................................................... 79 8.4.3 Public Information Centre #3 ............................................................................... 79 8.5 Considerations for Future Work........................................................................... 80

10.0 References ......................................................................................................... 81 Tables Table 2.1 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Typical Septage ....................... 5 Table 2.2 Septage vs. Typical Strength of Domestic Wastewater

Comparison ............................................................................................... 6 Table 3.1 Population in the Township of Tiny, 1991- 2011 ........................................ 9 Table 3.2 Employment by Industrial Sector in the Township of Tiny, 2006 ............. 10 Table 3.3 Details of Spreading Sites Located within the Township ......................... 13 Table 3.4 Summary of Septage Receiving at Existing WWTPs .............................. 14 Table 3.5 Large or communal sewage systems in the Township of Tiny ................ 16 Table 3.6 Existing and Projected Septage and Holding Tank Waste

Quantities................................................................................................. 18 Table 4.1 Life Science ANSI Identified within the Study Area ................................. 27 Table 4.2 Provincially Rare Vegetation Communities in the Study Area ................. 31 Table 4.3 Breeding Bird Species in the Study Area ................................................. 33 Table 6.1 Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................................ 51 Table 6.2 Survey of Potential for Septage Receiving at Regional WWTPs ............. 58 Table 6.3 Comparison of Treatment Technologies .................................................. 62 Table 6.4 Preliminary Cost Summary ...................................................................... 66 Table 7.1 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................... 71 Table 8.1 Summary of Comments and Issues Raised in Response to Notice

of Commencement .................................................................................. 75 Figures Figure 1.1 Location Plan ............................................................................................. 3 Figure 1.2 Municipal Class EA Process ...................................................................... 4 Figure 3.1 Existing Septage Spreading Sites ........................................................... 12 Figure 4.1 Existing Environment ............................................................................... 37 Figure 5.1 Example Treatment Options for Full Septage Treatment ........................ 44 Figure 5.2 Example Treatment Options for Partial Septage Treatment .................... 45 Figure 6.1 Estimated Costs to the Municipality ......................................................... 67 Figure 6.2 Cost per 1000 Igal Pump-Out .................................................................. 68

Township of Tiny vi Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012


Appendices A Septage and Hauled Sewage Volume Calculations B Natural Environment Database Review B1 Terrestrial Environment B2 Aquatic Environment C Review of Alternatives (Technical Factors) C1 Technical Correspondence C2 WWTP Questionnaire and Responses D Preliminary Cost Estimate

D1 Cost Overview D2 Cost Estimates for Alternatives E Public and Agency Consultation E1 Public Consultation Program

E2 Notice of Commencement Advertisement and Letters E3 Agency and Organization Contact List E4 Agency and Stakeholder Comments, Responses and Correspondence F Project Advisory Committee (PAC)

F1 PAC Meeting #1 Minutes F2 PAC Meeting #2 Minutes F3 PAC Meeting #3 Minutes F4 PAC Meeting #4 Minutes

G Public Information Centres (PICs)

G1 Public Information Centre #1 Summary Report G2 Public Information Centre #2 Summary Report G3 Public Information Centre #3 Summary Report

Township of Tiny 1 Septage Management Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Phases 1 and 2 October 2012


1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Township of Tiny is located within the County of Simcoe, and is geographically defined by County Road 6 to the south, County Road 26 to the east, and Georgian Bay to the west and north (refer to Figure 1.1). The Township population is mainly comprised of small urban centres and rural population that are serviced exclusively by on-site wastewater systems. There is no municipally owned wastewater treatment facility to accept sewage and septage within the Township. The Township has completed Phases 1 and 2 of a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) to identify and evaluate alternative solutions for the preferred approach for septage management. The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). Concerns have been raised in the community with respect to current septage disposal practices, which include land application of untreated septage. In undertaking this study, the Township has taken a proactive approach in developing a septage management plan in advance of potential regulatory changes in Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has indicated that a province-wide prohibition of on the land application of untreated septage will eventually come into effect. The timing for this prohibition is uncertain.

1.2 The Municipal Class EA Process

The Municipal Class EA (Municipal Engineers Association, 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011) outlines an approved planning process for municipal infrastructure projects. Municipal proponents can use the Class EA process to meet the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. for recurring municipal projects that are similar in nature, usually limited in scale and with a predictable range of environmental impacts that can be mitigated. The Municipal Class EA requires consultation with review agencies and the public at key points in the planning process. Figure 1.2 illustrates the Municipal Class EA process. Under the Municipal Class EA process, projects are categorized as: Schedule A and A+ (pre-approved); Schedule B (subject to a screening process); and Schedule C (subject to the full planning process of the Municipal Class EA). Schedule B projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities. Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities.



In addition, the Municipal Class EA process is divided into five phases. This study was undertaken in accordance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process. Phase 1 involves the identification of the problem or opportunity. Phase 2 involves the identification and evaluation of alternative solutions, taking into account public and review agency input At the end of Phase 2, a preferred solution is identified. Further evaluation of this preferred solution may be required in order fulfill the requirements of a Schedule B project. If the preferred solution is a Schedule C project, the project must proceed through the balance of the Municipal Class EA phases. The Municipal Class EA provides an opportunity for any member of the public or agency to request the Minister of the Environment to make an order for a project to be subject to an Individual Environmental Assessment. This is known as a Part II Order request. For a Schedule C project, this opportunity would be available at the end of Phase 4 of the Municipal Class EA process.

1.3 Problem/Opportunity Statement

The following problem/opportunity statement was developed in consultation with Township staff and the Project Advisory Committee (PAC):

“Current practice for dealing with septage and holding tank wastes in the Township of Tiny is primarily land application. Sewage servicing to all existing and potential units is provided by private sewage systems, potentially as many as 12,000 units. There is currently no capacity within the Township to treat the resulting hauled sewage. Due to pending regulatory changes, as well as concerns raised about the current practice of land application, the Township is initiating the development of a Septage Management Plan to deal with these wastes in an environmentally and financially responsible manner.”



Figure 1.2 Municipal Class EA Process (Source: MEA, 2000, as amended 2007 and 2011)



2.0 Septage Characteristics

2.1 What is Septage?

Where no municipal sewers exist, the majority of rural homes depend on onsite wastewater treatment technologies to treat and dispose of household sewage. The most common system is the conventional septic tank and leaching bed system, which has the advantage of being simple, reliable and easily maintained. One of the most common maintenance requirements is the removal of accumulated sludges (or septage) from the septic tank on a regular basis (every three to five years in most cases). 2.1.1 Typical Septage Characteristics

Septage is commonly collected from septic tanks on a relatively infrequent basis, and characteristically has high concentrations of organics, grease, nutrients, hair, scum, grit and other solids. Typical septage characteristics are listed in Table 2.1. When compared with typical domestic sewage, septage has significantly greater concentrations of most parameters. Table 2.2 provides a comparison of septage to typical medium-strength domestic wastewater. Table 2.1 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Typical Septage

Parameter Concentration (mg/L)

EPA Mean1

Suggested Design Value1,2 Avg. Min. Max.

Total Solids (TS) 34,100 1,100 130,500 38,800 40,000 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 12,900 300 93,400 13,000 15,000 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

6,500 400 78,600 5,000 7,000

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

31,900 1,500 703,000 42,800 15,000

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 600 100 1,100 700 700 Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) 100 5 120 160 150 Total Phosphorus (TP) 200 20 760 250 250 Alkalinity 1,000 200 4,200 - 1,000 Grease 5,600 200 23,400 9,100 8,000 pH - 1.5 12.6 6.9 6.0

(adapted from Chapter 19, Design Guidelines for Sewage Works 2008, MOE) Notes: 1. Values expressed in mg/L, except for values of pH

2. The data presented in this table were compiled from many sources. The inconsistency of individual data sets results in some skewing of the data and discrepancies when individual parameters are compared. This is taken into account in offering suggested design values.



Table 2.2 Septage vs. Typical Strength of Domestic Wastewater Comparison

Parameter

Concentration (mg/L)

Septage Typical

Domestic Sewage1

Total Solids (TS) 40,000 720 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 15,000 210 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 7,000 190 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 15,000 430 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 700 40 Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) 150 25 Total Phosphorus (TP) 250 7 Alkalinity 1,000 100 Grease 8,000 90 pH 6.0 6.5 – 8.0

Notes: 1. Values expressed in mg/L, except for values of pH

2. Septage concentrations are recommended design values from MOE’s 2008 Design Guidelines for Sewage Treatment Works 3. Values for typical domestic sewage taken from Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, 4th Edition, Metcalf and Eddy Inc.

As noted in Table 2.2, the concentrations of various parameters in septage are several times higher than the same parameter in typical domestic wastewater. The significant difference in wastewater strength becomes crucial when assessing treatment requirements.

2.2 What is Hauled Sewage?

In some cases sewage is collected in a holding tank which is periodically pumped out and taken for disposal elsewhere. Holding tanks are typically located in areas where site constraints do not allow adequate space for a conventional septic tank and leaching bed system. Vault privies (as used in parks and campgrounds) would also be considered a form of hauled sewage. The pump-out frequency of a holding tank is entirely dependent on the amount of water used in the home. Some tanks may require weekly pump-out; others may only require pump-out on an annual basis. The hauled sewage is typically taken to a municipal wastewater treatment plant for disposal. Hauled sewage usually has characteristics similar to a typical domestic wastewater, and is of significantly lower strength than septage (i.e. in terms of the concentrations of solids, organics and nutrients), although in cases where use is minimal and the tank requires relatively infrequent pump-outs, the concentrations would be expected to increase.



2.3 Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Septage Treatment

Septage generally has a much higher organic strength than typical domestic wastewater. There are several distinct phases or aspects to the septage: inert materials from initial screening and degritting operations, largely biodegradable solids, and the liquid waste stream. Treatment processes applied to municipal wastewater plants can be applied to the solids and liquids from the septage, provided both the solids and the liquids are given due consideration, and that the necessary allowances are made in the process for the high organic strength. The solid and liquid fractions can be treated by separate processes within a single treatment facility, or they can be dealt with at separate facilities. Various degrees of treatment can be employed for both the solid and liquid fractions of the waste stream, from simple physical dewatering processes to highly sophisticated mechanical treatment plants. Aside from incineration, there is no process that avoids the production of an end product that requires disposal or reuse. Septage that has been stabilized in a properly controlled process can provide a pathogen-free, stable end product that has value. A treated and stablized septage that is free of pathogens is a valuable soil amendment, full of organic material and nutrients.

2.4 Current Septage Treatment and Disposal Methods in Ontario

Traditionally, collected septage has been disposed of in an untreated form on agricultural land, where it has been applied as a soil amendment – of use for both its organic matter, as well as the nutrients that it contains (primarily phosphorus and nitrogen). Greater than one million septic systems exist in Ontario, and approximately 60% of the septage is land applied. The remaining 40% is typically taken to municipal treatment facilities, either a wastewater treatment plant that co-treats the septage with the wastewater, or a dedicated septage processing facility. Recent regulatory developments, such as the Nutrient Management Act, and the MOE’s contemplated ban on the land application of untreated septage, have resulted in the need to evaluate alternatives for managing and treating this septage waste. In many cases, septage is hauled to existing wastewater treatment plants and is co-treated with municipal wastewater and/or biosolids. However, with the ban on land application of untreated septage, the anticipated quantities of septage requiring treatment by alternate means may exceed the capacity or physical capability of municipal plants to handle this waste stream. As previously noted, septage is quite different from normal domestic wastewater; it has a high organic strength and high solids content which can be detrimental to treatment plant performance. In addition, long distances required to haul septage from remote areas, or to haul to a wastewater plant that does have capacity, can make this option challenging.



MOE has conducted a number of pilot scale studies on alternative methods for treatment and disposal of septage. In addition, there are a number of methods being used throughout the province, the rest of Canada, and throughout the United States. These methods range from simple dewatering activities (with subsequent disposal of solids and liquids) to more advanced physical, chemical and biological treatments (refer to Section 5.0). It is important to note that this study includes septage and hauled sewage. The treatment and disposal of municipal sewage biosolids are not within the scope of this study. The application of municipal sewage biosolids to land is regulated by the MOE.



3.0 Demographics and Existing Wastewater Servicing in the Township of Tiny

3.1 Socio-economic Features Within the Township of Tiny

This section profiles the socio-economic characteristics of the Township of Tiny provided in Statistics Canada’s Population Census of 2006 and 2011. Statistics Canada conducts the Census once every five years. Population and dwelling growth are also profiled and have been extracted from the Simcoe County Official Plan. 3.1.1 Demographics

The population of the Township of Tiny is shown in Table 3.1. The 2011 census reported a permanent population of 11,232 in the Township of Tiny. Because the area is such a popular seasonal destination, the Township’s population is reported to surge to approximately 27,000 in the summer months. Table 3.1 Population in the Township of Tiny, 1991- 2011

Population Census

Year Total

Population Change in Population

(between census periods) 1991 8,168 N/A 1996 8,644 5.8% 2001 9,035 4.5% 2006 10,784 19.4% 2011 11,232 4.4% Source: Statistics Canada, Population Profile of Canada (2011). Population growth is expected to continue within the Township of Tiny due to its close proximity to recreational areas and an increase in the retiree population. According to the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan, the 2031 population is expected to reach 13,500, while the Places to Grow Act reported a projected population of 11,750 based on the proposed provincial allocation. The Township of Tiny Planning Department advised that 13,900 was a more accurate estimate for the 2031 projected population. 3.1.2 Economic Development

Business services, manufacturing, health care and social services, and other services employ more than half of the people in the Township of Tiny, and represent the greatest source of jobs for residents of the Township (Table 3.2).



Table 3.2 Employment by Industrial Sector in the Township of Tiny, 2006

Industrial Sector Township of Tiny

(% of total)

Agriculture and other resource-based industries 270 (5.0%) Construction 545 (10.1%) Manufacturing 920 (17.1%) Wholesale trade 285 (5.3%) Retail trade 510 (9.5%) Finance and real estate 170 (3.2%) Health care and social services 585 (10.8%) Educational services 445 (8.2%) Business services 730 (18.1%) Other services 935 (13.5%) Total - Experienced labour force 5,395 Source: Statistics Canada, Population Profile of Canada (2006). 3.1.3 Dwellings

The 2011 census reported there were 9,564 dwellings in the Township of Tiny, with 4,619 (48%) being permanent and 4,945 (52%) seasonal. Christian Island is reported to have 457 private dwellings with 442 (97%) being permanent and 15 (3%) seasonal. The Township’s Septic System Re-inspection Program (administered by C.C. Tatham & Associates on behalf of the Township) reported that approximately 9,400 septic systems exist in the Township, with dwellings accounting for over 93% of the permitted systems. The Township estimates that by 2031 the 12,000 total lots in the Township of Tiny will be developed (with 9,400 currently developed). Using the 2031 projected population of 13,500 and 5,392 permanent residences, the population density is expected to be 2.4 persons per unit which is an appropriate estimate for this area. For purposes of this study, the 2031 projection for the number of septic systems was assumed to be 12,000.

3.2 Current Wastewater Servicing in the Township of Tiny

The Township of Tiny currently has no municipally-owned wastewater collection or treatment facilities. This means that the entire Township is serviced by privately-owned systems which are typically comprised of septic systems or holding tanks.

3.3 Current Septage Disposal Practices

Disposal of septage from the Township of Tiny occurs through land application at sites within and outside of the Township, as well as disposal at wastewater treatment plants outside of the Township. It is estimated that approximately 90% of the septage generated within Tiny is land applied, and the remaining 10% is taken to existing wastewater treatment plants in other municipalities.



Currently, septage from the Township of Tiny is hauled by as many as six privately-owned hauling companies. Two of the haulers are based in the Township, and the majority of their business is from residences located within the Township limits, as well as from residences located within the limits of Midland and Penetanguishene that do not currently have municipal sewer connections. The remaining haulers are based outside the limits of the Township, but are located in neighbouring municipalities within close proximity to the Township (i.e. Townships of Springwater and Georgian Bay). These haulers currently service a portion of the Township of Tiny, and haul the resulting septage to existing disposal sites or receiving facilities outside of the Township. Although septage can be hauled year-round, land application is only permitted to occur during the spring, summer and fall months. The majority of septage from the Township would be hauled between May and September. Septage from seasonal residents is normally hauled during July and August, creating a higher volume during this time period. Therefore, the collection and disposal of septage from the Township is generally concentrated into a five month period. Periodic pump outs would occur during the winter months in cases where a holding tank is servicing a non-seasonal dwelling, or if an emergency pumpout was required. 3.3.1 Land Application

Land application is regulated by MOE under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. The hauling companies are required to have a Certificate of Approval (C of A) for the site on which the septage is spread. There are currently two active land application sites located within Tiny, as well as four active sites located in neighbouring municipalities (Townships of Springwater and Georgian Bay). Details of the spreading sites located within the Township of Tiny are provided in Table 3.3, and their locations are identified in Figure 3.1. Georgian Bay Sanitation and Regional Sanitation Disposal each own and operate a spreading site within the Township of Tiny. Regional Sanitation Disposal has a 6.4 ha active spreading site with an application limit of 10 L/m2/week and Georgian Bay Sanitation has a 7.8 ha site with an application limit of 7.5 L/m2/week. Each C of A contains conditions that require spreading to be suspended when the ground is frozen, ice-covered, snow-covered, or during run-off conditions (heavy rain), which limits spreading to dry weather periods during the months of March to November. The disposal limits are set by the MOE, based on site specific criteria.

EXISTING SEPTAGE SITES

Figure 3.1

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

3 Ronell Crescent, Collingwood, Ontario

telephone (705) 446-0515 fax (705) 446-2399

web www.rjburnside.com

\\MONTY\Shared Work Areas\MCB019184 Tiny Twp Septage Study\Tiny Township\PFR Draft Write-up - Appendices and Figures\Figures\019184_Spread Sites.dwg

Date Plotted: Oct 17, 2012 - 1:56pm

Plotted By: clarwa

LOCATION

OF G.B.SANITATION

SPREADING SITE

LOCATION

OF REGIONAL SANITATION

SPREADING SITE

TOWNSHIP OF TINY

LOCATION OF

DETAIL

FARLAIN

LAKE

PENETANGUISHENE

TINY

PENETANGUISHENE

MIDLAND

SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT CLASS EA STUDY



Table 3.3 Details of Spreading Sites Located within the Township

Hauler Site Location (Figure 3.1)

Size of Site

(ha)

Application Limit

(L/m2/7 days)

Application Limit

(m3/7 days)

Current C of A

No.

C of A Expiry

Regional Sanitation

Lot 5 and 6, Concession 16

6.4 10 640 A920117 Dec/2012

Georgian Bay Sanitation

Lot 9 and 10, Concession 14

7.8 7.5 585 A920012 Dec/2012

Georgian Bay Sanitation and Regional Sanitation Disposal also haul septage from municipalities outside the Township of Tiny for disposal at their approved sites. Based on information provided by the Towns of Midland and Penetanguishene, it is estimated that approximately 900 homes within the Town of Penetanguishene, and as many as 400 homes within the Town of Midland are not serviced by municipal sewers and their septage must be collected by haulers based outside of their municipalities. The septage is typically collected and spread by the haulers based in the Township of Tiny. However, residents in Midland and Penetanguishene may not necessarily pump their septic tanks as frequently as the residents of the Township, due to the Township’s re-inspection program enforcing more frequent pumpouts. As previously noted, there are several hauling companies that service the Township of Tiny but are located in surrounding municipalities, including Ritchie’s Septic Tank Pumping (Elmvale), Ewart Ball and Robert Epsey in the Hillsdale area, and Pepi Sewage Disposal Services in Port Severn. A significant volume of septage is being removed from the Township and land applied elsewhere, which may offset the volumes being imported from Midland and Penetanguishene, although it is difficult to quantify based on the available information. For the purposes of this study, the quantity estimates include all of the septage generated within the Township of Tiny, as well as that generated from Beausoleil First Nation, and the unserviced portions of Midland and Penetanguishene. It should be noted that several local haulers were contacted and requested to provide information regarding hauled waste volumes to assist in quantifying the amount of septage. No information was provided since the haulers consider this information to be confidential. Therefore, the quantities were estimated based on available information and some reasonable assumptions, as outlined further in Section 3.4. Approximations of the volumes of septage and holding tank waste were also provided by MOE based on the hauler’s reported volumes, although these numbers have an estimated margin of error plus or minus 25%, possibly due to incomplete record keeping by the haulers.



3.3.2 Existing Treatment Facilities

Septage that is not land applied is typically hauled to a local wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). There are several existing, municipally owned WWTPs in nearby municipalities. A summary of the existing WWTPs and their ability or willingness to accept septage is summarized in Table 3.4. As noted above, it is estimated that approximately 10% of the septage generated in the Township would be taken to WWTPs as opposed to land applied. Of the WWTPs listed in Table 3.4, the local haulers would typically haul to Midland and Collingwood, and periodically Orillia, although the distance to both Collingwood and Orillia is somewhat prohibitive. The other WWTPs listed either do not accept the septage, or are too far from the Township to make it cost effective for the haulers. Table 3.4 Summary of Septage Receiving at Existing WWTPs

Municipality Wastewater Treatment

Plant Name

Septage Acceptance

(Yes/No) Limit

Town of Midland Midland WWTP Yes 5 truck loads/day Town of Penetanguishene Fox Street WWTP No -

Main Street WWTP No - Town of Wasaga Beach Wasaga Beach WWTP Yes None reported Town of Collingwood Collingwood WWTP Yes None reported City of Barrie City of Barrie WWTP Pending - City of Orillia City of Orillia WWTP Yes None reported Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Bradford West Gwillimbury WWTP

Yes 1000m3/year/carrier

**Adapted from the County of Simcoe Water and Waste Water Visioning Strategy (Draft June 2011) and supplemented with information gathered by a telephone survey.

Additional information regarding the existing WWTPs is provided in Section 6.0.

3.4 Estimated Quantities of Septage and Holding Tank Waste

C.C. Tatham & Associates has been contracted by the Township of Tiny to complete the Septic System Re-inspection Program, whereby all private septic systems are inspected for compliance with Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Data gathered through the re-inspection program have been used to estimate the total number of septic systems with daily sewage flows of under 10,000L, and the resulting volume of septage being generated. Based on information provided by C.C. Tatham & Associates, there are approximately 9,400 existing private septic systems in the Township of Tiny. This would include residential (more than 9,000 units) as well as commercial and institutional properties that generate sewage flows less of than 10,000 litres per day.



It is estimated that approximately 10% of these systems are Class 5 systems, which would consist of a single holding tank with no onsite leaching bed for disposal. The wastewater from the holding tanks would be pumped out when the tank reaches its capacity. The rate at which the wastewater is generated is directly correlated to the use of the facilities, and will be highly variable between units. The estimated volume of holding tank waste is described further in Section 3.4.1.2. Approximately 90% of the total 9,400 systems are Class 4 systems, which would include a septic tank and onsite leaching bed. Under the current re-inspection program, the septic tanks are required to be pumped out minimum 1 year from the time of inspection, which is currently on a 7 year cycle. However, it is advised that septic tanks be pumped out once every 3 to 5 years. There are also approximately 457 existing dwellings located on Christian Island. Approximately 442 of these would be occupied by year round residents, and the remaining 15 are assumed to be seasonal cottages. There are also an additional 50 dwelling units that are part of Beausoleil First Nation, but are not located on Christian Island, and are located at Cedar Point. All 457 dwellings at Beausoleil First Nation are serviced by private septic systems. Current practice for dealing with septage on Christian Island is land application by the community’s own hauling truck. It is assumed that the 50 residences at Cedar Point would be serviced by the local haulers in the Township of Tiny. Approximately 1,300 homes exist within the limits of the Towns of Midland and Penetanguishene and are not serviced by the municipal sanitary system. These lots would be serviced by private septic systems, and it has been assumed that they would be pumped every five years and the septage would be hauled into Tiny by one of the existing private haulers. Several sites with daily sewage flows greater than 10,000 L also exist in the Township of Tiny, and are not included in the total number of systems noted above, nor are they subject to the re-inspection program. Such sites include Lafontaine Resort Park, Awenda Provincial Park, and a several other residential and commercial sites. Sites with daily sewage flows greater than 10,000 L are required to have a C of A or Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from the Ministry of Environment (MOE). These sites were included in the septage quantity estimates, although the frequency of pumpout may vary depending on the owner and facility use.



3.4.1 Quantities Based on Existing Units

The quantities of septage and holding tank waste being generated in the Township of Tiny have been estimated using the information from the OBC Part 8 Re-inspection program, as well as from current MOE Certificates of Approval. Calculations are included in Appendix A.

3.4.1.1 Septage

It is estimated that Class 4 sewage systems account for 90% of the 9400 sites, or approximately 8,460 systems, all of which would include a septic tank. According to the OBC, the minimum septic tank size must be two times the daily design flow for residential sites and three times for non-residential sites. The minimum required septic tank size, regardless of daily design flow is 3,600 L. Current practice would typically install a 4,500 L septic tank for a typical three bedroom dwelling; therefore, 4,500 L has been assumed as the average septic tank volume. Class 4 sewage systems were assumed to be emptied from full once every three years. The tanks in Midland and Penetanguishene, and at Cedar Point, were assumed to be emptied every 5 years. For the sites subject to MOE Certificates of Approval, we have reviewed the available documentation regarding the quantity and size of tanks. It was assumed that the owners pump out their tanks every 3 years, although this would vary among owners. For Awenda Provincial Park, detailed information was provided by Ontario Parks, which enabled a calculation of the annual septage volume from this property. A list of the MOE-approved properties and their associated septic tank sizes are listed in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Large or communal sewage systems in the Township of Tiny Property Name Size of Septic Tank (L) Source LaFontaine Park (Campground)

72,200 C of A

Robertson 11,300 C of A Morneau 13,500 C of A La Villageois Retirement Home Community

108,000 C of A

Wasaga Dunes Trailer Park 28,000 C of A Awenda Provincial Park 19 - 4,500 L vault privies

3 – 9,000 L vault privies 3 – 40,000 L septic tanks

Correspondence with Ontario Parks

Based on the above information, the total volume of septage generated in the Township of Tiny is estimated to be approximately 14,500 m3/year. It was assumed that tanks were pumped only during the summer months (i.e. May through September), which would equate to a volume of approximately 95 m3/day on average.



3.4.1.2 Holding Tank Waste

For the approximately 940 Class 5 (holding tank) systems, an average size of 9,000 L was assumed, which is the minimum required size based on current OBC criteria. Some older holding tanks may have a smaller capacity, and some newer ones may be larger due to the OBC requirement for all holding tanks used in residential dwellings to have a minimum seven-day holding capacity. Based on a two to three bedroom dwelling, a holding tank must be at least 7,700 L to 11,200 L in volume; therefore, for purposes of this study, an average holding tank volume of 9,000 L was assumed. It was estimated that the holding tanks for seasonal residents are emptied two to three times per season on average. There are very few Class 5 systems associated with year-round properties; therefore, an average pumpout frequency of three times per year was assumed for the holding tanks. Based on the existing holding tank systems, the annual volume of holding tank waste was estimated to be approximately 25,400 m3, which equates to approximately 166 m3/day if pumped only from May through September. 3.4.2 Projected Future Quantities

The volume of septage and holding tank waste to be generated to 2031 was projected, as follows. There are currently a number of existing building lots in Tiny that have been approved for development but have not yet been built upon. As noted in Section 3.1.3, the projected number of dwelling units for 2031 is 12,000. The systems greater than 10,000 L/day were assumed to contribute the same in terms of future volumes. Accounting for 1,300 units in Midland and Penetanguishene, as well as approximately 450 private dwellings on Christian Island, and following the same assumptions described in the preceding sections, the projected volume of septage therefore increases to approximately 18,500 m3/year, or an average of 121 m3/day. The total number of holding tanks is not likely to increase in the future scenario, since it is unlikely that new development would be approved based on a holding tank. However, in order to be conservative with the estimate, the total number of holding tanks was rounded up from 940 to 1,000 for the future scenario. As a result, the projected volume of holding tank waste is approximately 176 m3/day. A summary of the estimated quantities is presented in Table 3.6, as well as in Appendix A.



Table 3.6 Existing and Projected Septage and Holding Tank Waste Quantities Existing Future Septage m3/year 14,500 18,500 m3/day (May to September) 95 121 Holding Tank Waste m3/year 25,400 27,000 m3/day (May to September) 166 176



4.0 Description of the Environment

A desktop review of information on existing environmental conditions in the Township of Tiny was completed. Descriptions of the various components of the natural environment were completed using aerial photography and are provided in the following sections.

4.1 Land Use

4.1.1 County of Simcoe Official Plan

Schedule 5.1, Land Use Designations of the County of Simcoe Official Plan (2007), classifies lands within the Township of Tiny as Greenlands, Agricultural, Rural and Urban Areas. The majority of the Township is designated as Greenlands and are found in large concentrations north of the Lafontaine community and south of the Wyevale community. Small concentration areas are also located along the eastern and western limits of the Township. The Greenlands designation includes all of the significant natural heritage features as well as linkage areas and Greenbelt areas within the Township. The land use designations identified above, as well as the permitted uses for the Township of Tiny are described in Section 4.1.2 of this report. Regarding wastewater infrastructure, the County’s Official Plan indicates that major facilities such as sewage treatment facilities shall be appropriately designed, buffered, and/or separated from each other in accordance with provincial standards and guidelines to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise, vibration and other contaminants. 4.1.2 Township of Tiny Official Plan

A review of the Township of Tiny Official Plan (2001) identified fifteen (15) land use designations for the Township. Schedule A of the Official Plan outlines the land use designations while Schedule B identifies the natural areas. According to Schedule A, the Township of Tiny is bounded by the Town of Wasaga Beach and Township of Springwater to the south, the Towns of Midland and Penetanguishene and Township of Tay to the east, the shoreline of Georgian Bay to the north and Nipissing Ridge to the west. A brief description of each land use designation and their permitted uses is provided in the following sections.

4.1.2.1 Environmental Protection One

The ‘Environmental Protection One’ designation includes the following significant features: all wetlands classified by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) including other wetlands that have not been classified by the MNR, provincially significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), significant portions of habitat of endangered, threatened or vulnerable species and any other area determined to be environmentally



significant. All of these areas are generally within the ‘County Greenland’ designation referenced in Section 6.1.1 of the County of Simcoe Official Plan. Permitted uses on lands designated as ‘Environmental Protection One’ are limited to conservation and passive recreational uses with the exclusion of golf courses. No buildings or structures are permitted nor is any site alteration permitted in this designation.

4.1.2.2 Environmental Protection Two

The ‘Environmental Protection Two’ designation applies to components of the natural heritage system that are not included in the Environmental Protection One designation discussed above. The ‘Environmental Protection Two’ designation includes: areas of regionally and locally significant ANSI, significant woodlands and valleylands, potential natural corridors, significant wildlife and wildlife core areas, the shoreline of Georgian Bay and the Nipissing Ridge. The uses permitted within this designation are similar to the ‘Environmental Protection One’ designation provided the uses conform to the policies of the ‘Environmental Protection Two’ designation. The development of new buildings or structures is not permitted within this zone.

4.1.2.3 Greenbelt

Lands within the ‘Greenbelt’ designation are located between the developed area in the shoreline area of Georgian Bay and the Nipissing Ridge that is not within the Shoreline, Open Space or Environmental Protection One designations. Permitted uses within the ‘Greenbelt’ designation include single detached dwellings on existing lots of record. Permitted accessory uses include bed and breakfast establishments and home occupations. Resource management uses and passive recreational uses such as walking trails/cross country ski trails are also permitted.

4.1.2.4 Open Space

Lands within this designation are owned by the Township of Tiny, the County of Simcoe or the province of Ontario. These lands include: all of the County of Simcoe forests, Awenda Provincial Park, the Tiny Marsh and all Townships parks on the western shoreline and in the settlements. Permitted uses are limited to passive and active recreational uses, conservation uses, and forestry uses in accordance with good management practices and accessory uses.



4.1.2.5 Major Recreation

Lands designated as ‘Major Recreation’ are utilized for major private recreational uses in the Township. Permitted uses include: accommodation uses such as private campgrounds, trailer parks, private parks, conservation clubs and rental cabin establishments, open-air recreational uses such as golf courses, conservation clubs, cross country ski facilities and mountain bike facilities and similar uses.

4.1.2.6 Shoreline

The ‘Shoreline’ designation applies to developed and undeveloped areas in close proximity to Georgian Bay and Farlain Lake. A small area designated ‘Shoreline’ also exists on Giant’s Tomb Island. Permitted uses include single detached dwellings, small scale retail uses such as convenience stores, personal service shops and restaurants, small scale accommodation facilities such as bed and breakfast establishments, institutional uses, public and private neighbourhood parks, public and private bathing beaches and home occupations. Tourist commercial uses that serve the wider region may be permitted in the Balm Beach area.

4.1.2.7 Settlement Area

Developed and undeveloped lands within the hamlets of Perkinsfield, Wyevale, Wyebridge, Lafontaine and Toanche are designated as ‘Settlement Area’. Permitted uses in the Settlement Area designation include: Residential uses; Small scale commercial uses that serve the needs of the settlement area and the

surrounding rural area; Commercial uses that serve the travelling public; Small scale industrial development in the form of repair garages, warehouses,

workshops or manufacturing and/or fabrication plants; Manufacturing operations with a retail component; institutional uses such as schools, places of worship, community centres, libraries

and similar uses; Accommodation facilities such as hotels, motels and bed and breakfast

establishments; public parks; Retirement homes and nursing homes; and Home occupations.



4.1.2.8 Country Residential

Developed and undeveloped areas that were approved for estate and country residential development are designated as ‘Country Residential’. Permitted uses are limited to single detached dwellings, home occupations, public parks, bed and breakfast establishments and accessory uses. 4.1.2.9 Employment Area

Lands designated as ‘Employment Area’ include the lands adjacent to the Township Public Works Yard, the Huronia Airport and privately held lands in the vicinity of the airport. Permitted uses include manufacturing, assembly, processing, fabrication, storage and/or warehousing uses and research establishments, wholesaling establishments and similar uses. Other permitted uses include wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants for road works in the area. Accessory retail uses are also permitted provided they occupy only a limited amount of the gross floor area of the industrial use.

4.1.2.10 Agricultural

Lands which are Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 for potential agricultural capability, according to the Canada Land Inventory, are designated as’ Agricultural’. The primary use of the land shall be agriculture, however permitted accessory uses include single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments, home occupations, veterinary clinics, forestry, resource management uses, commercial dog kennels, and seasonal produce stands. Wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants for road works in the area are also permitted as well as existing commercial and industrial uses. In addition home industries such as welding, carpentry or machine shops or agricultural-related uses that involve the processing of regionally produced agricultural crops or other products are also permitted within the designation.



4.1.2.11 Rural

The Rural designation applies to rural lands within the Township which are not considered to be prime agricultural land. Permitted uses include: agriculture, single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments, home occupations, home industries, forestry, commercial dog kennels and resource management uses. Other permitted uses include: institutional uses such as schools, places of worship and community centres; farm implement dealers, feed and fertilizer distribution facilities, greenhouses, seasonal produce stands, wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants for road works in the area. Small-scale accommodation facilities and corporate meeting facilities or corporate retreats are also permitted. 4.1.2.12 Urban Fringe

‘Urban Fringe’ lands include a portion of the undeveloped land surrounding the Towns of Penetanguishene and Midland. The principle use of land within this designation is agriculture. Other permitted uses include single detached dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments, home occupations and home industries and seasonal produce stands. Also wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants for road works in the area are permitted.

4.1.2.13 Mineral Aggregate Resources One

The ‘Mineral Aggregate Resources One’ designation applies to existing pit operations. Permitted uses are limited to quarrying and the extraction of gravel, sand and other aggregates and associated operations such as crushing, screening, washing and aggregate storage. Other permitted uses include wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants for road works in the area.

4.1.2.14 Mineral Aggregate Resources Two

The ‘Mineral Aggregate Resources Two’ designation applies to areas of primary and secondary mineral aggregate resources, but which are not the site of a pit operation. The uses within the ‘Mineral Aggregate Resources One’ designation are permitted if the proposed uses conform to the policies of the ‘Mineral Aggregate Resources Two’ designation.



4.1.2.15 Federal Lands

All lands that fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada are Federal Lands and therefore, are not subject to the Township’s Official Plan. These lands are known as Christian Island Indian Reserve No.30 and 30A, as well as lands at the southern tip of Giant's Tomb Island. 4.1.3 Provincial Policy Statement

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states that municipal projects should be directed to existing settlement areas, create stronger and improved communities, and have little to no impact on the natural features of the area. In general, projects should have consideration for future needs to ensure the benefits of the project are far-reaching. Section 1.6 of the PPS contains specific guidance on Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities: 1.6.1 Infrastructure and public services facilities shall be provided in a coordinated,

efficient and cost-effective manner to accommodate projected needs. Planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be integrated with

planning for growth so that these are available to meet current and projected needs.

1.6.2 The use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized

wherever feasible, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public services facilities.

As such, improvements made to public service facilities within the Township of Tiny are consistent with the PPS.

4.2 Terrestrial Environment

Terrestrial habitat and wildlife within the study area were assessed through background information reviews of the Township of Tiny Interactive Mapping, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Ontario Endangered Species Act (OESA), Natural Heritage Information Centre (“NHIC”) database, the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA), Important Bird Area (“IBA”), and Environment Canada (EC) Species at Risk Act (SARA), as well as aerial photograph interpretation. In addition background information was extracted from the Township of Tiny Official Plan.



4.2.1 Designated Areas

A review of the NHIC database and the Township of Tiny Official Plan for designated natural areas within the Township was reviewed and the finding provided in the following sections.

4.2.1.1 Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

One Provincial Park was identified in the northeast area of the Township identified as, Awenda Provincial Park, which can be described as a Natural Reserve and Natural Environment class of Provincial Park, which is located along Georgian Bay, approximately 5 km north of Penetanguishene. The Provincial Park encompasses 462 ha of the Giant’s Tomb Island and 363 ha of surrounding waters. According to the Township’s Official Plan, the park is referred to as a “natural environment park” since it consists of a number of significant wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). In addition there are 17 known archaeological sites within the park, dating back almost 11,000 years.

4.2.1.2 Provincially Significant Wetland

Seven records for Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW’s) were identified within the Township, including; Tiny Marsh, Macey Lake Bog, Second-Lake Wetland, Thunder Bay Swamp, Balm Beach Swamp, Lalligan Lake Wetland, and the Wye Marsh. Tiny Marsh, situated 6 km northeast of the Town of Elmvale and 3 km inland from Georgian Bay in the southern portion of the Township, and is designated as a Class 1 PSW and a Provincial Wildlife Area. The majority of the wetland is covered by cattail and meadow marsh communities, with a few small areas of open water. A small portion of the site is forested swamp. As such, the PSW is composed of three wetland types (0.5% fen, 20.5% swamp and 79% marsh). Tiny Marsh is also listed as an Important Bird Area (IBA) due to the exceptional high concentration of threatened and congregatory bird species that visit the area. Tiny Marsh includes the headwaters of the Wye River, which flows into the Wye Marsh in the eastern area of the Township near the Town of Midland (Bird Studies Canada, 2004). The wetland provides suitable habitat for the provincially Threatened (THR) Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) and the Species of Special Concern (SC) Black Tern (Chlidonias niger). Many of the native wetland plants at Tiny Marsh are threatened by the Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), an invasive species.



A portion of the Wye Marsh is located in the eastern area of the Township with the majority of the feature being located within the Town of Midland. The Wye Marsh is a coastal wetland complex made up of two individual wetlands and composed of four wetland types (0.4% bog, 3.0% fen, 41.4% swamp and 55.4% marsh). The Wye Marsh is also designated as an IBA due to the presence of a large concentration of congregatory species. The Wye Marsh provides suitable habitat for the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) which was reintroduced in the early 1980’s. Approximately 10% of the Trumpeter Swan population in the province resides in the Wye Marsh. In addition, the Wye Marsh provides habitat for a number of significant species including the provincially Threatened, Least Bittern and Species of Special Concern, Black Tern. A total of 222 species of birds have been recorded in the marsh, of which 64 have been confirmed as nesters. Primary threats to the site include the Purple Loosestrife a non-native, invasive species and agricultural development (Bird Studies Canada, 2004). Balm Beach Swamp located along the west central limits of the Township is also a coastal wetland complex made up of four individual wetlands and composed of four wetland types (0.9% bog, 0.4% fen, 92.7% swamp and 6.0% marsh). Lalligan Lake found in the central area of the Township, is composed of four wetland types (3.5% bog, 0.6% fen, 77.9% swamp and 18% marsh). Macey Lake Bog is located in the northeast area of the Township, and is composed of three wetland types (60.3% bog, 34.1% swamp and 5.6% marsh). The bog provides suitable habitat for waterfowl including the Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias). Second-Lake wetland also located along the north western limits of the Township and is composed of two wetland types (33.7% swamp and 66.3% marsh). Thunder Bay Swamp situated in the north central area of the Township is a coastal wetland complex, made up of two individual wetlands and composed of two wetland types (94% swamp and 6% marsh).

4.2.1.3 Wetlands

Four records of Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands (NPSW) were identified within the Township, including; Farlain Bog, Lafontaine Wetland, Wasaga Beach Wetland and Tiny Fourth Concession Wetland. Two Non-PSW’s were also identified on the Township Official Plan (2005) including the Tiny Bog and the Ossossane Creek Swamp. Farlain Lake Bog, composed of one wetland type (100% bog) was identified northeast area of the Township. In addition, the Lafontaine Wetland situated in the northern area of the Township consists of five individual wetlands and is composed of two wetland types (97% swamp and 3% marsh). The Wasaga Beach Wetland located in the south western area of the Township is described as a coastal wetland complex which is made up of twenty (20) individual



wetlands, and composed of two wetland types (94% swamp and 6% marsh). The Tiny Fourth Concession Wetland situated southern area of the Township and is composed of two wetland types (36% bog and 64% swamp). The Tiny Bog and Ossossane Creek Swamp were also identified in the central portion of the Township north of the Tiny Marsh, however, information on these features was not provided in the NHIC database.

4.2.1.4 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (Life Science)

Ten records of Areas of Life Science Natural and Scientific Interest (“ANSI”) were identified within the Township of Tiny. Table 4.1 provides a description each Life Science ANSI including the associated significance level. Table 4.1 Life Science ANSI Identified within the Study Area

Area Significance Description Awenda Provincial Park Nature Reserves Zones

Provincially Significant

Situated at the northern tip of the Penetang Peninsula in the northern tip of the Township of Tiny, 6 km northwest of Penetanguishene. This provincial park contains a number of former provincial and regional ANSI. The dominant vegetation of this zone includes mixed deciduous –coniferous forest, shallow marshes, thickets, wet coniferous woods, and a calcareous shoreline fen.

Macey Lake Bog Provincially Significant

Located southwest of Awenda Provincial Park, 4 km north west of Penetanguishene. Comprised of 75 ha of open water sphaghnum treed bog complex. This complex provides a suitable habitat for the rare to uncommon Pickerel Frog (Rana palustris), a species believed to be declining in southern Ontario.

Christian Channel Regional ANSI

Regionally Significant

Located in the northwest area of the Township and contains 170 ha of undeveloped forest tract on the eastern shore of Christian Channel mainland as well as a 50 m high post glacial Lake Nipissing shorecliff.

East of Awenda Regional Earth Science ANSI


Contains 1000 ha of forest east of Awenda Natural Environment Park, in the north eastern area of the Township.

Thunder Bay Regional ANSI


Spans 40 ha and consist of a series of beach ridges and intermittent swales rising inland to the Lake Nipissing shorecliff in the northern end of the Township.

Thunder Beach Regionally Spans 500 ha and is located on the south shore of



Area Significance Description West Regional ANSI Significant Georgian Bay in the northern area of the

Township. This natural area includes strip shoreline development and several reforestation plots.

Tiny Beach Regional ANSI


Located 8 km north of the Balm Beach Wetland on Nottawasaga Bay (Georgian Bay) in the north western area of the Township, Tiny Beach spans 250 ha and includes a series of beach ridges and intermittent swales gently rising to the Lake Nipissing shorecliff. The ridge is dominated with diverse types of maple forest.

Georgina Beach Regional ANSI


Located in the west central area of the Township and spans 300 ha and is a densely developed recreational shoreline area however further inland, the ridges and dunes are sparsely developed. The dominant vegetation of the beach is white pine-red oak whilst prairie and savannah communities characterize the high sand dunes. The open forest is a mixture of deciduous and coniferous forest.

Ossossane Beach Regional ANSI


Located in the west central area of the Township and spans 350 ha and is characterized by a series of 3 to 7 m high, beach ridges with intermittent swales and a wet sand plain area at the base of the Lake Nipissing shorecliff. The beach ridges are dominated by mixed coniferous and deciduous forest.

Lalligan Lake Regional ANSI


Located in the east central area of the Township and spans 80 ha. Surrounded by agricultural lands and reforestation plots and is a small spring-fed lake covered with marsh, bog, thickets and lowland conifers.

Wye Marsh Regional ANSI


Located in the east central area of the Township and spans 800 ha along the Wye River, southeast of Midland, consisting mainly of closed cattail marsh with small openings, fen, swamps, and wooded upland fringe.

4.2.1.5 Life Science Site

Life Science Sites are defined by the MNR as those sites recognized as having ecological features, including some areas identified by municipalities as being Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Four records of Life Science (LS) Sites were



identified within the study area; Farlain Lake Bog, Nipissing and Modern Shoreline, Second Lake Upland Forests and Second and Gignac Lake Wetlands. The four sites forms part of the Awenda Provincial Park Nature Reserve Zones provincial ANSI located in the northern reaches of the Township and are not designated as a Provincial Life Science ANSI. Second Lake is a marl lake and to the north and west sides a marshy shore is found with sedges and grasses.

4.2.1.6 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (Earth Science)

The Penetanguishene Harbour, near the northeastern boundary of the Township, was identified as a Provincially Significant Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (“ANSI”) exhibiting significant geological features.

4.2.1.7 Earth Science Site

Earth Science Sites are defined by the MNR as those areas recognized to have geological features that have not been officially designated as a Provincial Earth Science ANSI. Five records of Earth Science (ES) Sites were identified within the Township of Tiny; Awenda Provincial Park, Cedar Point, Sawlog Bay, Nipissing Ridge and Payette Shoreline. Awenda Provincial Park, located in the northern area of the Township, contains provincially significant glacial Lake Algonquin and post-glacial Lake Nipissing shorelines. Cedar Point is located along the northwestern limits of the Township and contains a number of depositional bar features. Sawlog Bay situated also along the north western limits of the Township includes shoreline features of strong storm beaches related to Cedar Point and Payette stages and a series of sandy windblown ridges of the Nipissing stage. According to the Township’s Official Plan, Nipissing Ridge is a major geographical feature that runs parallel to the Georgian Bay shoreline. This feature is considered a major defining physical feature of the Township since it separates the shoreline area from the rural area. This feature is a remnant of post-glacial Lake Algonquin and rises to a height of 50 m (164 ft) in some areas. Payette Shoreline is situated northwest area of the Township and a section of the Nipissing shorebluff is located along the road near the lakeshore.

4.2.1.8 Significant Valleyland

According to the Township of Tiny Official Plan, there is one significant Valleyland feature within the Township of Tiny. The Wye Valleyland located in the southern area of the Township is associated with the Wye River, which flows into Severn Sound. The slopes and elevated areas around the Wye Valley are covered with a mixture of hardwood and plantation forest.



4.2.1.9 Significant Woodland

Significant Woodland areas have been mapped by the Township of Tiny. Large blocks of forest are located in the northeast and southwest areas of the Township as well as along the eastern and western limits of the Township.

4.2.1.10 Significant Wildlife Habitat

A review of the Township’s Official Plan identified one area of significant wildlife habitat, the Deer Wintering Areas. A Deer Wintering Area is the area occupied by deer in early winter or occasionally all winter during mild winters (MNR, 2006). Four Deer Wintering Areas were identified within the study area; along the shoreline of Georgian Bay in the northern area of the Township. In the southern area of the Township, Deer Wintering Areas are located adjacent to the Tiny Marsh, adjacent to a tributary of the Wye River, and adjacent to the Wasaga Beach Wetland.

4.2.1.11 Natural Wildlife Corridors

Linear systems that exhibit good potential for linkage with core areas either naturally or with restoration and enhancement are considered to be potential natural corridors. Within the study area, two ‘Potential Natural Corridors’ are located along a tributary of the Wye River within the ‘Significant Valleyland ‘ area in the southern area of the Township. A third ‘Potential Natural Corridor’ is located in the central portion of the Township in the vicinity of the Ossossane Creek Swamp.

4.2.1.12 International Biological Program Site

Three records of International Biological Program (IBP) sites were identified within the study area; Methodist Point, Georgina Beach and Ossossane Beach. Methodist Point is situated along the northern limits of the Township, east of Awenda Provincial Park and contains special landscape features such as rock bluff approximately 100 ft high along the coastline and two small marshy lakes inland. Methodist Point Provincial Park also includes a special freshwater feature, Macey Lake. The dominant vegetation of this site includes upland deciduous and mixed forest, fen basin aquatics, coastal coniferous groves, and thickets and barrens. Georgina Beach is located along the western boundary of the Township and can be described as gentle to moderate rolling sand plain between Georgian Bay coast and steep backshore bluffs with sand dune ridge development. The dominant vegetation of the beach ridges consists of a diverse series of lowland mixed and coniferous forest, thickets and marshes and upland deciduous and mixed forest. Georgina Beach is being disturbed by cutting and is threatened by cottage development.



Ossossane Beach also situated along the western limits of the Township is dominated by well developed upland deciduous and mixed forest, diverse lowland mixed and coniferous forest, thickets and meadows. This area is also disturbed by cutting with a threat from cottage development. 4.2.2 Vegetation Communities

A review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (“NHIC”) database identified fourteen (14) provincially rare vegetation communities within the Township of Tiny. The relative rarity of the species observed is identified in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Provincially Rare Vegetation Communities in the Study Area

Species Provincial ‘S’ Rank

Record Date Common Name Scientific Name

Northern Long Sedge Carex folliculata S3 1977 Puttyroot Aplectrum hyemale S2 1972 Large-Round leaved Orchid

Platanthera macrophylla S2 1973

Ram’s-head Lady’s -slipper

Cypripedium arietinum S3 2002

Great Lakes Wild Rye Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus

S3 1972

Beaked Spiked-rush Eleocharis rostellata S3 1978 Woodland Pinedrops Pterospora andromedea S2 1948 Golden Puccoon Lithospermum caroliniense S3 2002 Low Nutrush Scleria verticillata S3 1997 Forked Three-awned Grass

Aristida basiramea S2 2008

Rugulose Grapefern Botrychium rugulosum S2 1960 American Lotus Nelumbo lutea S2 1969 American Beachgrass Ammophila breviligulata S3 2005 Stiff Yellow Flax Linum medium var. medium S3 1990

Notes: S2 – Imperilled due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 – Vulnerable due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.

Species with S-Ranks S1 to S3 are considered to be rare in the province. The S2-S3 ranked species noted above are discussed further in Section 4.2.4 of this report. The majority of the records were identified along in the north western area of the Township. Species at Risk (SAR) in Ontario are identified in Table 4.2.



Most records are historical, dating back to 1948 and are no longer relevant. The most recent and relevant records include the Ram’s Head Lady’s-slipper, Golden Puccoon, Low Nutrush, American Beachgrass, Stiff Yellow Flax and Forked Three-awned Grass. Ram’s Head Lady’s-slipper, which is ranked S3 – Vulnerable in Ontario, is found in moderately open forest possessing cool, sub-acid or neutral soils. The species is also found in conifer swamps and fens, and open forests on limestone bedrock. The Golden Puccoon (Vulnerable) is found on sandhills, in pine barrens, and in dry sandy woods. Low Nutrush (Vulnerable) is described as an annual plant and only grows for one season (early July – early September) and is found in moist, sandy meadows and shores. American Beachgrass (Vulnerable) grows on sand dunes along the Great Lakes and thrives under conditions of shifting sand, sand burial and high winds. The most suitable habitat for Stiff Yellow Flax (Vulnerable) includes open areas with moist, sandy soils. Forked Three-awned Grass is considered to be imperilled in the province and is also listed as endangered federally and provincially. The species is a member of the distinctive group of hardy plants that can colonize and grow in sandy soils (ROM, OMNR 2002). The record is from 2008 and is relevant, meaning that it is present within the study area. Recovery strategies for Fork Three-awned Grass were prepared under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Ontario Endangered Species Act (OESA). There are eleven populations of this species in Ontario which are found primarily in the County of Simcoe and/or on islands adjacent to Georgian Bay. Limited habitat as a result of succession and development is listed as the primary threat in the federal and provincial recovery strategies. 4.2.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (“OBBA”) was reviewed for records of birds breeding within the vicinity of the study area. The results of this review are provided in Appendix B1. A total of 159 bird species were identified. The number of species identified according to each provincial rarity ranking is provided in Table 4.3.



Table 4.3 Breeding Bird Species in the Study Area

Provincial Ranking

Description of Ranking No. of Bird

Species with Ranking

S5B,SZN Secure migrant / vagrant 89 S4B,SZN Apparently secure migrant / vagrant 40 S3B,SZN Vulnerable migrant / vagrant 6 S2B,SZN Imperilled migrant / vagrant 1 S2S3 Imperilled - vulnerable 1 S5 Common and demonstrably secure in the environment 10 S4 Apparently secure 3 S4S5 Secure – apparently secure 2 S4S5B,SZN Secure-apparently secure migrant/ vagrant 1 SE Exotic, not believed to be a native component of Ontario’s flora 4 S3S4B,SZN Vulnerable – apparently secure migrant/vagrant 1 S1B,SZN Critically imperilled migrant/ vagrant 1

All species in Ontario are given an “S-rank” which indicates their rarity. Species with an S-rank of 1, 2 or 3 are considered to be rare in the province. Species ranked S4 or S5 are generally considered to be common with secure population levels. The S2S3 ranked species noted above is discussed further in Section 4.2.4 of this report. The OBBA database search identified one record of interest for the Trumpeter Swan, an S2S3 ranked species. This species is considered rare in Ontario and was nearly exterminated in the 1800s as a result of over-hunting but populations have risen since to stable levels. The Wye Marsh to the east of the study area provides a suitable habitat for the Trumpeter Swan and accounts for approximately one-third of Ontario’s Trumpeter Swan population (Glen Perrett, 2011). The primary threat to the swans is lead poisoning from the ingestion of lead shots used for hunting. The use of lead shots at in this area has since been banned (Bird Studies Canada, 2004). The Trumpeter Swan is not protected under federal or provincial species at risk legislation. Area-sensitive species are those species that prefer to breed in large habitat blocks, usually at least 100 m from an edge. Forty-eight (48) species identified in the OBBA and Natural Heritage Information Centre (“NHIC”) is considered to be area-sensitive. The area-sensitive species and associated habitat are identified below. A table is provided in Appendix B1, indicating the area of the Township in which the species are located. The majority of the identified area-sensitive species are forest birds. There are large forest blocks on the northern and southern portion as well as along the eastern edges of the study area.



The Tiny and Wye Marshes in the south and east areas of the Township respectively provide the most suitable habitat for the Northern Harrier, Least Bittern and Black Tern, marsh area-sensitive species. Smaller bogs and marshes to the north and south as well as along the western and eastern limits of the Township provide open water habitat for area sensitive waterfowl and marsh birds. The Township of Tiny is comprised primarily of rural residential properties with open fields and agriculture. These lands may support open country breeding birds, depending on the type of agriculture and harvesting practices employed.

Marsh Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Common Loon (Gavia immer) American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) American Coot (Fulica Americana) Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis) Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeu)

Forest Common Merganser (Mergus

merganser) Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus

serrator) Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) Barred Owl (Strix varia) Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus

pileatus) Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

(Sphyrapicus varius) Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta

Canadensis) White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta

carolinensis) Brown Creeper (Certhia Americana) Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes)

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) Northern Parula (Parula Americana) Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica

magnolia) Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica

caerulescens) Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica

cerulean) Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) Black-throated Green Warbler

(Dendroica virens) Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta

varia) Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) Canada Warbler (Wilsonia Canadensis) Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila

caerulea) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Open Country Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus

savannarum) Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus

sandwichensis) Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia

longicauda) Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus

henslowii)



4.2.4 Species at Risk

A review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (“NHIC”) database and Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (“OBBA”) identified records of twenty four (24) species at risk that have been observed in the vicinity of the study area in the past. They are presented in more detail in Appendix B1. A number of the species listed in Appendix B1 were observed within recent years and are present in the Township. Many of the reptiles and bird species listed inhabit wetlands and woodlands.

4.3 Aquatic Environment

Township of Tiny Subwatershed Regions

The Township of Tiny is a part of the Severn Sound Watershed, which encompasses several townships within the region, and has an area of approximately 1,380 km2. The Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA), which acts as the unofficial conservation authority for the Township, produced a source water protection report for the Severn Sound Watershed in 2010. This report was reviewed for details relating to the subwatershed regions within the Township, and provided characteristics of the aquatic environments. According to the report, there are nine distinct subwatersheds in the Severn Sound Watershed located within the Township, including:

Wye River

Lafontaine Creek Copeland Creek Penetang Bay West Tiny Coastal Area North East Tiny Coastal Area North West Tiny Coastal Area West Central Tiny Coastal Area South Midland Area (only the far west portion of the subwatershed is within the Township

boundary) More detailed descriptions of the above watersheds are included in Appendix B2.

Aquatic Species at Risk

The Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) species lists were reviewed for Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) to determine if any listed aquatic species could exist in the immediate area. Conservation Ontario and the DFO Aquatic Species at Risk mapping did not have any information covering the Township of Tiny area, and as a result, could not be referenced for this report.



According to the NHIC and MNR, several fish species were identified as potentially having a habitat range in, or around the study area. These species were lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), northern brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon fossor), shortnose cisco (Coregonus reighardi), shortjaw cisco (Coregonus zenithicus), and the bloater (Coregonus hoyi). It should also be noted that redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) was identified as potentially encroaching into the Township in the Species at Risk distribution mapping available from the MNR. However, according to the NHIC redside dace was not identified as a Species at Risk in the study area. No other fish species were identified by the NHIC or MNR.

4.4 Natural Hazards

According to the Township’s Official Plan, the following policies apply to development proposed on hazard lands within the study area: Development is directed to areas outside of hazardous lands adjacent to a river or

stream system that is impacted by flooding hazards. Development and site alteration is not permitted within the floodway of a river or

stream system. Development and site alteration may be permitted within the flood fringe of a river or

stream system where flood depths and velocities are less severe than those experienced within the floodway. Lands located above the 1:100 year storm elevation and below the Regional Storm Event (Timmins storm of 1961) represent the flood fringe area.

4.5 Archaeology/ Heritage

The history of Township of Tiny reflects its three founding cultures: Aboriginal, French and British. Located within Wendake, the historical homeland of the Huron people, the region is closely tied to early missionary exploration of the region, including the Jesuit mission of Sainte-Marie among the Hurons in Midland. The Township is also the location of an important archaeological site, the 17th century ossuary of the community of Ossossane which is the capital of the Huron Confederacy (Wikipedia, 2011). A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment may be required to implement the preferred solution.



5.0 Identification of Alternative Solutions

In order to address the problem/opportunity statement identified above, the following alternative solutions have been proposed, and are evaluated in Section 6.0: 1. Do nothing; 2. Construct a municipal wastewater collection system and treatment facility to service

a portion of the Township, and include septage receiving facilities; 3. Contract to haul septage to treatment facilities in other municipalities via:

a. Construction and operation of a central receiving station within the Township; b. Private Hauling to receiving municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

(WWTPs); 4. Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny with full treatment

of solids and liquids; 5. Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny with partial

treatment of solids and liquids. An overview of each alternative is provided in the following sections.

5.1 Alternative 1 – Do Nothing

This is a mandatory alternative for consideration under the Municipal Class EA and serves as a reference point for comparing other alternative solutions. For this study, the “Do Nothing” option means the Township would take no action in the treatment or disposal of hauled sewage. Sewage from the Township would continue to be land applied by haulers until the pending regulatory changes come into effect. If and when a ban on land spreading is implemented by MOE, the haulers would be responsible for finding alternate receiving facilities for the setpage.

5.2 Alternative 2 – Construct a municipal wastewater collection system and treatment facility to service a portion of the Township, and include septage receiving facilities

The Township of Tiny currently does not have a municipal sanitary collection system or treatment facility. All properties in the Township are serviced by private on-site sewage systems to accommodate sanitary waste, generally consisting of either septic systems or holding tanks, which are maintained by the individual homeowners. This alternative would involve the construction of a municipal collection and treatment system within the Township. The most logical portion of the Township in which to implement the collection and treatment facility would be along the shoreline of Georgian Bay. This would reduce the potential for impacts on surface water as a result of private



systems along the shoreline, and would provide a higher level of treatment than is currently provided by most onsite systems. Stringent regulations and sampling requirements imposed on municipal WWTPs would ensure surface effluent is meeting provincial and federal standards. Such regulations are difficult to achieve with private disposal systems that discharge to the subsurface. By implementing a collection system that runs from the southern extent of the Township on Georgian Bay, northward over a distance of approximately 40 km, approximately 6,300 units could be serviced. A significant portion of these units may only be used on a seasonal basis, which could have impacts on the operation of the treatment facility. By implementing septage receiving facilities at a new wastewater treatment plant, the septage generated in the remainder of the Township (i.e. those areas with on-site systems) could be accepted and appropriately treated and disposed of at one centralized facility. 5.2.1 Collection System

The collection system could be constructed along the existing roads near shoreline of Georgian Bay. This is where the greatest density of housing exists, allowing the greatest number of units to be serviced per unit of pipe length. Approximately 100 km of new sewers would be required to service the shoreline of Georgian Bay in the Township. This sewer system could consist of gravity or pressurized collection system (or a combination of the two). If gravity sewers are used, the collection system would generally consist of a buried main sanitary sewer collecting waste from surrounding units through servicing connections. The collection system would require several pumping stations, given that the pipe route would be relatively flat, and would cover such a significant distance. Using the existing system in neighbouring Wasaga Beach as an example, at least 6 pump stations would be required convey wastewater flows. 5.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant

The estimated daily sewage flows for the treatment facility would be in the order of 6,050 m3/day from the sewage collection system, based on 400 L/capita-day and 2.4 capita/unit for 6,300 units. The wastewater from the remainder of the Township is estimated to consist of approximately 8,800 m3/year of septage and 12,900 m3/year of holding tank waste, based on estimates outlined in Section 3.4. The wastewater treatment plant would need to produce a treated effluent of acceptable quality for discharge into Georgian Bay. There would be a number of items to consider during the design process, including the ability of the facility to accommodate the higher strength septage waste, while still maintaining the quality of the effluent. It would be



important to have enough hydraulic operating capacity to dilute the septage and ensure that flows continue through the process. The plant would need to be a full, mechanical wastewater treatment plant, and could require several components such as headworks (i.e. screening, degritting), primary settling, biological treatment tanks, filtration, disinfection, and solids storage and/or treatment facilities. The installation of septage receiving facilities would also be required to control the dosage of the septage, and to prevent disruption of the treatment processes due to increased loadings from septage. The receiving facilities could be implemented at the treatment plant itself, or at one of the pump stations, and would likely consider the use of one centralized location with commercial cardlock access for the private haulers.

5.3 Alternative 3 – Contract to haul septage to treatment facilities in other municipalities

This alternative would include an agreement between the Township of Tiny and one or more municipalities, such that septage and holding tank waste generated within the Township would be accepted and processed at an existing treatment facility in another municipality. There are several existing municipal WWTPs in the region surrounding the Township of Tiny. To implement this alternative, the Township would need to enter into an agreement with one or more of these existing facilities. The costs for this process would include administrative, negotiative and legal fees for both the Township and the receiving municipality. Capital upgrades to the receiving plant may also be required. These could potentially include upgrades associated with site access, a receiving station, flow metering and other equipment. The treatment facilities that have the potential to accept septage from the Township of Tiny are discussed further in Section 6.0. This alternative was further divided into two sub-alternatives, as follows: 5.3.1 Alternative 3(a) – Construct a Central Receiving Station within the

Township

Alternative 3(a) is a version of Alternative 3 that would include the construction and operation of a central septage receiving and transfer station within the Township of Tiny. Private haulers would deposit septage at the receiving station where it would accumulate in holding tanks. Septage would then be transferred to larger tanker trucks and delivered to one or more WWTPs in another municipality, with which there would be a long-term contract or agreement for septage receiving. The Township would need to own and operate several sewage hauling trucks to transfer the waste from the receiving station to the receiving WWTP.



5.3.2 Alternative 3(b) – Private Hauling to Receiving WWTPs

In this version of Alternative 3 the Township would not construct a central receiving station, and all hauling would be done entirely by the private haulers. Tthe hauler would provide pump-out services to the property owners and deliver the septage directly to one or more receiving WWTPs with which the Township has an agreement for acceptance of septage.

5.4 Alternative 4 – Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny with full treatment of solids and liquids

Alternative 4 would include the construction of full septage treatment works within the Township of Tiny. This would include a septage receiving facility, along with treatment works and a disposal system. Full treatment of both the liquid and solids portion of the waste stream would be required, with the effluent being disposed of in the Township (surface or subsurface disposal, spray irrigation), and the solids fully treated and disposed of within the Township of Tiny. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that full treatment of solids would produce a solid material equivalent to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) definition of a Class A Biosolid; that is, the resultant end product would contain minute levels of pathogens. A Class A Biosolid must have undergone heating, composting, digestion or increased pH to reduce pathogens to below detectable levels. With this alternative, various options exist for the treatment of raw septage as well as for the disposal of the effluent and solids. Treatment options for the facility could include the separation of liquid treatment and solid treatment, or an option for treating both components in one process. Separation techniques often involve dewatering the raw septage and then treating the liquid and solid portions separately. Common dewatering techniques can include dewatering trenches, geotubes and reed beds. Treating both components in one action is commonly achieved through technologies such as lime stabilization, constructed wetlands, and lagoons. An overview of technologies that could potentially address the septage treatment needs of the Township are described in Section 5.6. Disposal techniques can be categorized into liquid disposal, solids disposal, or both in one action. The choice of disposal often depends on the quality of the liquid or solid waste stream. Liquid disposal is often achieved through spray irrigation, leaching beds or release to surface waters. The solid waste component can be composted, directed to a landfill, or spread on agricultural land as a soil amendment.



5.4.1 Potential Approvals

The design, construction and operation of septage management facilities in Ontario are potentially subject to a range of other provincial and federal approvals. Approvals under all other relevant legislation and regulations must be obtained prior to the construction and operation of any facility. The following Provincial and Federal Acts and Regulations may be applicable to the design, construction and operation of a septage management facility for the Township of Tiny. Provincial Federal Environmental Protection Act (EPA) Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Nutrient Management Act (NMA)

Fisheries Act Canada-Wide Strategy for the Management

of Municipal Wastewater Effluent Navigable Waters Protection Program

5.5 Alternative 5 – Construct a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny with partial treatment of solids and liquids

Alternative 5 would also require the construction of a septage treatment facility within the Township of Tiny; however, only partial treatment of the liquid and solids portions of the waste stream would be undertaken. A septage receiving facility and treatment works would be required, but further treatment and disposal of the waste would not necessarily need to occur within the Township. This alternative could include dewatering only, or some combination of dewatering and partial processing of the solids and liquids. For example, the liquid could be treated in the facility and the dewatered solids disposed of in a landfill or land applied as a soil amendment. Alternatively, the dewatered solids could be processed in the facility and the filtrate could be pumped elsewhere for disposal (e.g. the Midland WWTP). This option could employ the same technologies as Alternative 4.

5.6 Description of Treatment Systems Applicable to Alternatives 4 and 5

In order to construct a facility for the treatment and disposal of septage within the Township, consideration must be given to the type of facility that could be constructed. There are several technologies and methods for the treatment and disposal of septage in general, and more specifically, a number of alternatives are available for both the solids and liquid portions of the waste. The following sections present a more detailed discussion of Alternatives 4 and 5 based on the type of facility that could be constructed.



Flow charts outlining the some examples of the possible combinations of treatment and disposal options for Alternatives 4 and 5 are shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2.

5.6.1.1 Alkaline Stabilization

Alkaline stabilization has been widely practiced in the United States as a reliable option to treat septage prior to land application. This treatment process effectively reduces pathogen content and odour emissions, while taking place at a stationary storage facility, or within the septage haulage truck. The alkaline stabilization process involves increasing the pH of septage to a minimum pH of 12 for a minimum of 30 minutes using lime or another alkaline material. The increased pH destroys pathogens in the septage. Lime based products such as hydrated lime, quicklime, or proprietary lime based solutions are often used, although hydrated lime is often preferred due to ease of use, cost, and availability. Screening is recommended to be carried out prior to alkaline treatment with either a bar or sieve screen to remove debris from the septage. Treated septage with a maximum pH of 12 can then be land applied. Alkaline stabilization has been approved for use in Ontario, based on the results of MOE pilot studies undertaken in rural communities within the province. A pilot study is underway at an alkaline stabilization facility in the Township of Horton, which includes treating and sampling to optimize this process and add to the results observed during some previously completed field trials in Grey Country. The results from field trials indicated that the lime stabilization and screening of septage is a feasible option for the Ontario septage industry; however, research for the Horton project is still underway. A guide for alkaline stabilization of domestic septage published by MOE in 2008 is also available, and contains guidelines for the lime stabilization process and the spreading of lime-stabilized septage. Overall, the alkaline stabilization process is a cost-effective and reliable option to treat domestic septage; however, the process only reduces pathogen and odour content and does not reduce other constituents, such as solids and metals. There also may be operational difficulties associated with implementation in an efficient manner. Although this is considered an effective solution, it is not necessarily appropriate for long-term septage management within the Township. It could potentially be implemented as a short-term solution to improve the quality of the septage being land applied.



5.6.1.2 Lagoons

Lagoons have been used for many years as a cost effective, minimal technology solution to treat many types of wastewater (including septage) in areas where large amounts of land are available. A properly designed lagoon can provide a high level of treatment, although significant land area is typically required. Aerated lagoons are supplied with oxygen through the use of aerators to improve treatment performance. Facultative lagoons rely on atmospheric oxygen to provide treatment, and the solids that accumulate in the bottom of the lagoon undergo anaerobic digestion processes. A pre-treatment lagoon would provide settling of the solid material, prior to further treatment. A storage lagoon could be used to store treated effluent prior to discharge to a surface water body, a subsurface disposal facility, or via spray irrigation. Stabilized solids are typically removed from the lagoon every few years and applied to land. In aerated lagoon systems, the wastewater is artificially supplied with oxygen and mixed. This improves the oxidization of organic matter in the wastewater and so improves treatment performance. The footprint of the lagoon can be reduced as a result of aeration. Common methods of aerating lagoons include bubblers and surface or submersed aerators. Lagoons have successfully been used to treat septage in Ontario and other provinces, as well as in the United States. The District of Muskoka operates nine septage treatment lagoons that receive septage from private systems within the municipality. Two of the facilities pre-treat the septage and discharge the effluent to a wastewater treatment plant, while the remaining seven lagoons discharge to one of the following: surface water (seasonal discharge), subsurface infiltration, or spray irrigation. Retention times vary from 2 days (pre-treatment) to almost 250 days. Overall, the lagoons provide good reduction of organics and solids, as well as some nutrient reduction.

5.6.1.3 Composting

Composting is a feasible treatment alternative for the solid fraction of the septage, where a demand for the composted end product exists. The process will typically require a regular supply of a bulking agent (such as wood chips or sawdust), and can be done “in-vessel”, or in large open piles or windrows. Composting occurs as natural bacteria and microorganisms in the soil go through aerobic respiration to break down organic waste in the septage. This process releases carbon dioxide and heat, the latter of which increases decomposition rates and destroys pathogens. Septage is typically dewatered first. The process requires control of temperatures, moisture levels, and input materials. Septage composting is occurring in other Canadian provinces (e.g. Alberta and British Columbia) and in the United States.



Green Rite System One specific example of a technology that employs composting is the Biodryer system by Green Rite Solutions Inc. Biodrying is the rapid heating of biodegradable waste to accelerate the waste through the stages of composting. The BioDryer completes the composting process in fourteen days with two processing zones, heating and drying. The end product is a biomass fuel that can be resold. A carbon amendment is required as a bulking agent, and can include yard waste, wooden pallets, cardboard, etc. The ratio of carbon amendment is 75% septage by weight to 25% carbon amendment by weight. The septage must be dewatered to at least 16% solids or higher. Currently, the Township does not have a readily available source of potential carbon amendments, as the leaf and yard waste is collected by the County of Simcoe. The Township would have to provide dewatering facilities prior to composting. The smallest system by Green Rite requires a minimum mass of 30 tonnes of material (septage and carbon amendment) to operate. Based on the volume projections in Section 3.4, the 2031 volumes would just meet the minimum requirements. In the interim, there would be inadequate volume of waste for the Biodryer. A summary of the discussions with Green Rite are included in Appendix C1.

5.6.1.4 Reed Bed Filters

A reed bed filter is used to dewater the septage, similar to a sand drying bed used for sludge dewatering. The reed bed is a lined cell consisting of a porous sand media with an underdrain system to collect filtered liquid. Wetland vegetation is planted in the sand to enhance the dewatering and treatment processes. Septage is applied to the surface of the reed bed in a layer, then allowed to dry for a specific period of time. The moisture content of the septage is reduced through evaporation, and gravity drainage through the sand filter to the underdrain. Filtered liquid can be further treated in a municipal or private onsite wastewater treatment plant for disposal to surface waters, or it can be used for spray irrigation or disposed of using subsurface disposal beds. The dewatered and stabilized solids are periodically removed (i.e. approximately every five to ten years) and can be applied to land, or disposed of using other suitable methods. Reed bed systems are approved for use in Ontario based on a pilot project conducted by MOE through the Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre. The study evaluated the effects of the plants in the drying beds, as well as optimum dosing rates and cycles, sludge accumulation rates, and treated quality of the filtered effluent and sludge cake. The final report and design recommendations have not yet been issued by MOE; however, the results of the pilot project generally concluded that reed beds offer a cost-effective dewatering and treatment method, with a high quality filtrate similar to a relatively weak



domestic strength sewage or septic tank effluent (i.e. BOD and TSS less than 100 mg/L).

5.6.1.5 Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic treatment of septage and biosolids has been widely used across Europe and Asia to produce biogas, electrical power, and treated biosolids. Currently, greater than twenty biogas facilities are operating on farms and at (or near) food processing plants in Ontario. Biosolids from wastewater treatment plants in Ontario have also been anaerobically digested as a method of treatment for many years. Anaerobic digestion involves the waste being placed in the primary digester for a minimum of 35 days, then transferred to the secondary digester for another 35 days. Septage would need to be dewatered prior to digestion. This process produces a biogas, which is composed of approximately 65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide. The biogas is stored in the flexible roof of the primary and secondary digesters, then is utilized to run an engine, which operates a generator to produce electrical power. The power can then be used to operate the treatment facility, or can be fed to the Hydro One grid. The biogas can also be burned as a fuel in a boiler or furnace or cleaned and concentrated for use as a natural gas replacement. The digestion process produces a nutrient-rich, odourless slurry, in which 99.5% of pathogens have been killed, and would be equivalent to a Class A biosolid with nutrients that are beneficial for use on agricultural land. Anaerobic digestion as a means to treat septage and biosolids is currently being researched by MOE, who is undertaking a pilot study in partnership with in the Township of Chatsworth and the Township of Georgian Bluffs. The anaerobic bio-digester in Georgian Bluffs is currently accepting sewage biosolids, septage, and food and agricultural waste, and is producing and providing electricity to the power grid. The facility has been constructed adjacent to an existing municipal wastewater treatment facility (the Georgian Bluffs’ sewage lagoons) which accepts the liquid component of septage waste. Although the MOE study has not yet been completed, other applications of anaerobic digestion have proven to be a viable option for septage treatment with the potential to produce revenue.

5.6.1.6 Geotubes

Geotubes are a relatively new technology used for the dewatering and treatment of raw septage. They are high strength, permeable geotextile tubes that allow excess water to drain from material through small pores, resulting in effective dewatering and volume reduction of the contained material. The resulting dewatered septage is similar in nature to dewatered biosolids, but with lower metal and pathogen content, and has the potential to be used as an agricultural soil amendment.



The process involves discharging raw septage into a screening chamber where it is mixed to break down solids. A coagulant aid is added to the septage as it is pumped to the Geotube for dewatering. Coagulated solids stay in the Geotube, while the filtrate drains into a storage tank and is subsequently directed to a treatment facility for further treatment and disposal. Once the geotubes are full, they are allowed to sit for several months to allow the material to stabilize before it is removed for disposal. MOE recently partnered with the Township of Bonnechere Valley to create the biosolids and septage dewatering facility which employs Geotube technology. The final report was released in March of 2010 and results showed that Geotube technology is a viable process for the dewatering and stabilization of septage, with the end product being suitable for agricultural soil amendment or compost feed stock. The process had minimal odour during processing and storage, and the resulting dewatered septage met current MOE guidelines for pathogens, metals, and nutrients. Overall, Geotubes provide a cost-effective and viable means of dewatering and stabilizing raw septage. 5.6.2 Disposal Options for Alternatives 4 and 5

The technologies described for alternatives 4 and 5 will produce treated (or untreated) liquid and solid waste streams. There are several options for disposal of these components, which will depend heavily on the quality of the processed liquid or solids. Liquid disposal options that have been considered in costing include: Spray irrigation; Subsurface disposal/Leaching bed; Surface disposal; and Liquid fraction pumped to neighbouring WWTP. Options for the disposal of solids include: Soil amendment; Landfill disposal; and Land spreading.



6.0 Evaluation of Alternatives

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

The following are descriptions of the evaluation criteria that were used to evaluate the five alternatives presented in Section 5.0. Natural Environment – The impact on the natural environment was evaluated by considering the potential for each alternative solution to impact environmental features in the study area. Socio-Economic/Cultural Environment – The impact on the social environment was assessed for each alternative solution. These potential impacts included changes in quality of life, property value, cost of living, and public health issues. Financial Factors – The cost associated with each alternative was calculated based on the capital and operational costs associated with the infrastructure required. Technical Factors – The technical feasibility of the solution to address the problem statement in both the short term and long term, including aspects such as phasing, engineering and permitting requirements, and technical practicality was evaluated. Table 6.1 summarizes the evaluation of alternatives. Further details on the evaluation are provided in the following sections.



Table 6.1 Evaluation of Alternatives

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS EVALUATED

Alternative 1 – Do Nothing Alternative 2 – Construct a Municipal Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facility to Service a Portion of the Township (including septage receiving facilities)

Alternative 3 – Contract to Haul Septage to Treatment Facilities in Other Municipalities

Alternative 4 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township with Full Treatment of Solids and Liquids

Alternative 5 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township with Partial Treatment of Solids and Liquids

A Natural Environment Rating:

Highest Impact Least Preferred

Low to Moderate Impact

Partially Preferred

Least Impact

Most Preferred

Low to Moderate Impact

Partially Preferred

Moderate Impact

Partially Preferred 1 Designated Sites/Species No impact over existing conditions. Potential impacts over existing

conditions, depending on location of new facility.

No impact over existing conditions. Potential impacts over existing conditions, depending on location of new facility.

Potential impacts over existing conditions, depending on location of new facility.

2 Water Quality and Quantity No impact over existing conditions in the short term, however land application of raw septage would continue in the long term with the potential for impacts to groundwater.

Potential for short term impacts on groundwater and surface water quality as a result of construction activities; however, standard mitigation measures would be implemented. Over the longer term, potential for improvement over existing conditions, as land application of raw septage would no longer continue.

Potential for improvement over existing conditions, as land application of raw septage would no longer continue.

Potential for short term impacts on groundwater and surface water quality as a result of construction activities; however, standard mitigation measures would be implemented. Over the longer term, potential for improvement over existing conditions, as land application of raw septage would no longer continue.

Potential for short term impacts on groundwater and surface water quality as a result of construction activities; however, standard mitigation measures would be implemented. Over the longer term potential for improvement over existing conditions, as land application of raw septage would no longer continue. Potential for greater impacts as compared to Alternative 4, although depends on the type of treatment selected.

3 Floodplain Lands No impact over existing conditions. The location of the facility would be kept outside of the floodplain. Potential for some of the collection system infrastructure to be within regulated floodplain areas. Appropriate permits and approvals would be obtained, and appropriate measures implemented to mitigate impacts.

The location of any required infrastructure or receiving facilities within the Township would be kept outside of the floodplain.

The location of and any work required for the facility will be kept outside of the floodplain.

The location of and any work required for the facility will be kept outside of the floodplain.









4 Terrestrial Habitat No impact over existing conditions. The construction of a new facility has the potential to result in habitat loss depending on the location of the collection system and facility. The location would be chosen to minimize impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. Area of disturbance could potentially be larger than that for Alternatives 4 and 5 due to collection system requirements.

Potential impacts on air quality through transport. The location of any required infrastructure or receiving facilities within the Township would be chosen to minimize impacts.

The construction of a new facility has the potential to result in habitat loss depending on the location of the facility. The location would be chosen to minimize impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented.

The construction of a new facility has the potential to result in habitat loss depending on the location of the facility. The location would be chosen to minimize impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented.

5 Aquatic Habitat No impact over existing conditions. Potential impacts on surface water would be minimized by following applicable MOE approvals processes. Any new facility will have an Environmental Compliance Approval that sets specific effluent limits based on minimizing impacts to receiving waters.

Potential impacts to water courses would be minimized provided the existing facility (or facilities) can accept the septage from Tiny within the limits of their existing approval.

Potential impacts on surface water would be minimized by following applicable MOE approvals processes. Any new facility will have an Environmental Compliance Approval that sets specific effluent limits based on minimizing impacts to receiving waters.

Potential impacts on surface water would be minimized by following applicable MOE approvals processes. Any new facility will have an Environmental Compliance Approval that sets specific effluent limits based on minimizing impacts to receiving waters.

B Socio-economic/Cultural Environment Rating:


Moderate to High Impact

Partially Preferred


Partially Preferred

Most Preferred

Most Preferred

1 Compatibility with Township/ County Official Plan Provisions

N/A. The Township and County do not have jurisdiction over the existing spreading sites. All activities associated with the existing spreading facilities are regulated by MOE.

Compatible, although, no official “waste disposal zones” currently exist within the Township of Tiny.

Compatible. Existing wastewater facilities are built and operating within the Official Plan provisions.

Compatible, although no official “waste disposal zones” currently exist within the Township of Tiny.

Compatible, although no official “waste disposal zones” currently exist within the Township of Tiny.

2 Heritage Resources (archaeological features, built heritage, and cultural heritage landscapes)

No impact over existing conditions. Potential impact on heritage resources; however, location of facility will be chosen to minimize impact.

No impact over existing conditions. Potential impact on heritage resources; however, location of facility will be chosen to minimize impact.

Potential impact on heritage resources; however, location of facility will be chosen to minimize impact.









3 Nuisance Impacts Nuisance impacts associated with odour and truck traffic from spreading raw septage would continue.

Potential for nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour as a result of construction activities in the short term. Over the longer term, there is the potential for odour impacts during facility operation; however, appropriate odour mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with MOE requirements. Area of disturbance would be larger than Alternatives 4 and 5 due to collection system (sewers, pumping stations, forcemains).

Potential for nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour as a result of increased hauling distance.

Potential for nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour as a result of construction activities in the short term. Over the longer term, there is the potential for odour impacts during facility operation; however, appropriate odour mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with MOE requirements.

Potential for nuisance impacts such as noise, dust, emissions, and odour as a result of construction activities in the short term. Over the longer term, there is the potential for odour impacts during facility operation; however, appropriate odour mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with MOE requirements.

4 Land Requirements Spreading would continue on designated fields but additional land may be required to accommodate future septage volumes.

Land acquisition may be required. No impact over existing conditions Land acquisition may be required. Land acquisition may be required.

5 Compatibility with Future Ministry Requirements with respect to land application of untreated septage.

Not compatible, given that the MOE’s Nutrient Management Act (NMA) will ban the land application of raw septage in the future.

Compatible, as raw septage would no longer be land applied.




C Financial Factors Rating:

Lowest Cost Most Preferred

Highest Cost

Least Preferred

Low to Moderate Cost

Partially Preferred

Moderate Cost

Partially Preferred

Moderate Cost

Partially Preferred 1 Estimated Capital Costs, including

Restoration and Total Estimated Cost (25 year planning horizon)

No additional expense to Township and residents. All costs assumed by the owner of the system.

High capital costs associated with the construction of a new septage treatment facility and collection system to be borne by Township and residents.

Low capital cost associated with planning policy revisions and securing agreements with receiving municipality, to be borne by Township and residents.

Moderate capital costs associated with the construction of a new septage treatment facility, to be borne by Township and residents. Costs would be higher than for Alternative 5 due to additional treatment process(es) but lower than Alternative 2.

Moderate capital cost associated with the construction of a new septage treatment facility to be borne by Township and residents.

2 Estimated Operation & Maintenance Costs (25 year planning horizon)

O&M costs assumed by the owner of the system.

O&M costs to operate, monitor and maintain treatment facility. Costs assumed by the Township; paid by user fees.

Would require maintenance of existing facility that may be covered under the policy.

O&M costs to operate, monitor and maintain treatment facility. Costs assumed by the Township, to be paid by user/ tipping fees.

O&M costs to monitor and maintain treatment facility. Costs assumed by the Township, to be paid by user/tipping fees.









3 Estimated Cost to Township Residents

Hauling costs assumed by owner of the system.

Moderate cost to residents. Potentially high hauling and tipping costs assumed by owner. These costs could fluctuate with the cost of transportation and other factors.

Moderate cost to residents. Moderate cost to residents.

D Technical Factors Rating:


Moderate Impact

Partially Preferred


Partially Preferred

Least Impact

Most Preferred

Least Impact

Most Preferred 1 Capability to adequately address

septage volumes from existing units

No Yes Yes, although the Township would be dependent on the receiving municipality and the terms of the agreement.

Yes Yes

2 Capability to be adequately accommodated proposed population growth in the Township

No Yes Yes, although growth in the Township could be limited by the receiving municipality and the terms of the agreement.

Yes Yes

3 Technical Practicability Technically feasible. Technically feasible. Technically feasible. Technically feasible. Technically feasible.

4 Approval / Permits Required Yes, C of As required by haulers. Yes, permits and approvals required, as well as a Schedule C Class EA.

No Yes, permits and approvals required, as well as a Schedule C Class EA.

Yes, permits and approvals required, as well as a Schedule C Class EA.

5 Special engineering requirements No Yes No Yes Yes Addresses Problem Statement No Yes Yes Yes Yes RECOMMENDED SOLUTION NOT PREFERRED NOT PREFERRED PARTIALLY PREFERRED PREFERRED PREFERRED Understanding the Rating System:

Least Preferred to Most Preferred



6.2 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing

The Township could be vulnerable in the future, as MOE has committed to banning the practice of spreading untreated septage on land. Property owners within the Township must continue to have their septic or holding tank emptied due to the Re-inspection Program, and to maintain their system. This practice must be completed by a licensed hauler, and the septage must be taken to an MOE-approved facility. If the “Do Nothing” approach is pursued, the Township would be reliant on other disposal means, mainly disposing of septage at existing WWTP receiving stations in other municipalities, if a ban on land application is imposed. Relying on WWTPs in other municipalities may not be an efficient or cost-effective means of septage disposal. The plants may not have the hydraulic and/or treatment capacity to accept septage. They could also refuse septage for other reasons. This would force the hauler to store the septage or travel longer distances for disposal at other WWTPs. This alternative is potentially unreliable and would likely result in high disposal fees for Township residents. Based on information provided by a local hauler, hauling costs (not including tipping fees) would be expected to double as a minimum, in order to cover the increased hauling distance, the resulting fewer trips per day, increased number of trucks required, and increased operating costs (i.e. fuel, insurance, number of drivers, etc.). A high cost of septage disposal could deter residents from obtaining regular pump-outs and maintenance of their septic system, or illegal disposal of sewage. Negative impacts to the local environment, water resources, and public health could result. Accordingly, continuing with the current practice of land application, or the “do nothing” alternative, is an unacceptable course of action to pursue. This alternative would not address the problem statement and was therefore not considered as a viable option. However, it is included as a benchmark against which the other alternatives can be evaluated.

6.3 Alternative 2 - Construct a Municipal Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facility to Service a Portion of the Township and Include Septage Receiving Facilities

The approvals required to implement a new wastewater treatment facility would include additional environmental assessment requirements, followed by additional permitting and approvals associated with the treatment plant and effluent discharge requirements. Numerous studies and significant engineering would be required as part of this alternative. Approval and engineering costs have been accounted for under the capital costs for each alternative.



Capital costs for this alternative are primarily infrastructure costs, including the WWTP (headworks, settling tanks, treatment tanks, etc.), sewers, and pumping stations. The capital cost for this alternative is estimated to be approximately $104 million. With these costs, the construction of a WWTP is not a viable option for the Township. There is the potential for significant disruption associated with the construction of the infrastructure. This would include noise, vibration, dust, etc., due to construction activities, and general disruption to existing residents in order to construct the infrastructure. These effects would be limited in duration and can be mitigated. This alternative does not directly address the problem statement within the context of this study, mainly due to the capital costs associated with the construction of a collection system and central WWTP.

6.4 Alternative 3 – Contract to Haul Septage to Treatment Facilities in Other Municipalities

Under Alternative 3, the Township of Tiny would be reliant on existing infrastructure in another municipality to accept and treat the septage. Regardless of technical feasibility, the implementation of this alternative would require the political will and significant negotiations between the receiving municipality and the Township of Tiny. There is an element of risk associated with this alternative, as it relies entirely upon the plans and future development of other municipalities, and could leave the Township somewhat vulnerable. The Township’s successful negotiations with other municipal governments is what would guarantee access to the available capacity, and assure that septage from the Township of Tiny would be dealt with appropriately. Under Alternative 3(a), operational responsibility for the receiving station and subsequent transfer of septage would be assumed entirely by the Township. A central receiving and transfer station essentially adds an extra step in the disposal process, which will add cost and complexity, but reduces the distance to be travelled by the private haulers. Under Alternative 3(b), the driving time for the haulers would increase significantly due to the distance to the facilities that could accept the septage. Currently, septage is hauled a relatively short distance to the local spreading sites (except for out-of-season and poor weather conditions). If haulers had to travel further for each load, the hauling cost to property owners would increase significantly. Capital and operating costs to the municipality would be less than Alternative 3(a), as a central receiving station is not needed and the Township does not take operational responsibility.



6.4.1 Review of Existing WWTPs

The volume of septage that can be accommodated at any given wastewater treatment plant will vary depending on the type of treatment process and treatment capacity of the plant, as well as the hydraulic, organic and solids loading in the incoming wastewater stream. Septage has significantly higher organic and solids content (refer to Table 2.2), which will have an impact on the treatment process if it is not diluted to domestic strength wastewater. Such impacts could include odours or difficulty meeting required effluent criteria. To limit the impact to treatment processes, WWTPs place volume restrictions on septage receiving. These may vary from day to day and week to week, depending on the plant’s operation. Some facilities will only accept septage generated within the limits of their own municipality. Smaller treatment plants are more likely to be adversely affected by the higher-strength septage, as there is less wastewater available for dilution. Several WWTPs in neighbouring municipalities were contacted to obtain information on septage receiving. In total, 14 WWTPs were contacted and asked a series of questions related to their plant and operations (refer to Appendix C2 for the questionnaire). The operator of the Organic Waste Biodigester in Chatsworth was also contacted (refer to Section 6.4.2). The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6.2. The majority of the treatment plants surveyed do not accept septage. Five of the WWTPs currently willing to accept septage are willing to accept it from other municipalities. These WWTPs were asked further questions regarding tipping fees, acceptance volumes, and information regarding their receiving facilities, as summarized in Appendix C2. Based on the survey, it is unlikely that any one facility could process the estimated 14,500 m3 of septage produced in the Township annually (or 95 m3 per day May through September). Therefore, agreements would be required with more than one municipality if this alternative were to be implemented. This would also provide some redundancy, in the event that one WWTP is unable to accept the septage for any reason.



Table 6.2 Survey of Potential for Septage Receiving at Regional WWTPs

Town/Township Wastewater

Treatment Plant Name

Acceptance of septage from other

municipalities

Foreseeable that a long-term agreement with Township of Tiny

could be reached?

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Bradford West Gwillimbury WWTP No

Not likely feasible, have to be addressed at the political level

Town of Collingwood

Collingwood WWTP Yes

No long-term contracts with any hauler are currently in place, and none are anticipated.

Town of Midland Midland WWTP Yes Possibly, depends heavily on Council Town of Penetanguishene Fox Street WWTP No

Not likely due to size of plant and proximity to neighbours

Town of Penetanguishene

Main Street WWTP No

Not likely due to size of plant and proximity to neighbours

Town of Wasaga Beach

Wasaga Beach WWTP Not specified Not specified

City of Barrie City of Barrie WWTP

Once upgrades are completed, yes Possibly

City of Orillia City of Orillia WWTP Yes Possibly - it will be a Council decision

Township of Springwater Elmvale WWTP No No

Township of Tay Victoria Harbour WWTP No Not likely

Township of Tay Port McNicoll WWTP No Not likely

Township of Severn

Cumberland Beach WWTP No

No, but could be interested in using Tiny's facility if built

Township of Severn Coldwater WWTP No

No, but could be interested in using Tiny's facility if built

Town of Innisfill Innisfil WWTP No Not determined Town of New Tecumseth Regional WWTP No Possibly – it would be a Council decision Town of New Tecumseth Alliston WWTP No

No – Regional WWTP would be more likely to reach an agreement

Based on existing facilities, the three facilities most likely to enter into an agreement with the Township are Collingwood, Barrie and Orillia. The other two facilities that accept septage (Midland and Wasaga Beach) are simply too small to expect that treatment plant operations and performance would not to be adversely affected by the volumes of septage from the Township of Tiny.



All three potential receiving WWTPs are a significant distance from the Township, and the individual facilities likely could not accept the entire volume of septage produced in the Township. 6.4.2 Chatsworth/Georgian Bluffs Biodigester

The biodigester is located in the Township of Georgian Bluffs, Grey County, and was commissioned in January 2011. The facility has the capacity to treat 40 m3/day of septage and 5 m3/day of organic waste, including restaurant wastes, fats, oils, and organics. It also has the capacity to produce 100kW of energy from methane gas; however, the facility is currently only operating at around 20kW. Septage is dewatered at Chatsworth using a drum separator, with polymer addition, and excess water is drained to the existing sewage treatment lagoons on the property for further treatment. Although the operating capacity of the digester is 40 m3/day, the facility currently has the capacity to accept 18 to 20 m3/day of raw septage per day, due to a limited amount of raw septage storage. The biodigester is a significant distance (over 100 km) from most of the Township of Tiny. Because of high transportation costs associated with trucking raw septage, it would be recommended that the Township dewater the septage prior to transport to this facility, if it were to be used as a receiving facility. However, based on the hauling distance, the digester is not considered a feasible receiving facility at this time. 6.4.3 Waypoint WWTP

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) owns a small WWTP that services the mental health facility located at Waypoint (Penetanguishene). The original plant was constructed in the 1950s, although there have been some upgrades over the years. As part of the renewal of the hospital, IO set aside some money for upgrading the WWTP, and view it as a good case for a Design-Build-Finance-Operate project, as part of a larger redevelopment scenario that might provide a solution for other parties in the area. IO has identified a number of potential partners, including a local developer, and the Town of Penetanguishene. They have also identified the possibility of including septage receiving facilities to service this part of Simcoe County. A meeting was recently held between elected officials and senior staff from the various interested parties, including one local developer to discuss IO’s plans for the facility. Subsequent to the meeting, IO identified two potential options:



1. IO could proceed on their own and use the money they have set aside to do the necessary WWTP upgrades. This would service only the needs of the Waypoint facility.

2. A local agency could take over the project and move it forward using the money IO

has set aside, as well as some Federal Public-Private-Partnership (P3) money (up to 25% of the project cost). This would be a larger scale project and would be expected to manage flows from the Waypoint facility, additional sanitary flows from development in Penetanguishene, as well as septage and leachate.

Option 2 above could provide a potential solution to manage septage wastes generated within Tiny; however, there are significant unknowns associated with this option related to project timing, funding and the basis for charges at the plant, who would be the lead municipality, wastewater quantity and quality, etc. Therefore, relying on upgrades to the Waypoint WWTP is not a feasible option for the Township of Tiny at this time. 6.4.4 County of Simcoe Biosolids Processing

A feasibility study was recently carried out by the County of Simcoe, identifying that the implementation of an organics processing facility within Simcoe County is feasible. This would eliminate the current practice of collecting and hauling the County’s organic materials to a facility in the Hamilton area. Based on preliminary discussions with County staff, it is anticipated that an advanced solution would be required to meet MOE requirements, as well as minimize odour potential. This advanced solution may allow the County to receive and treat septage at this facility as well. However, there are significant unknowns associated with this option, including whether or not the proposed facility would be able to accept the septage produced in the Township of Tiny, as well timing and costs. Based on the significant unknowns, this option is not considered feasible at this time.

6.4.5 Alternative 3 – Summary

When reviewing Alternative 3(a) and 3(b), there does not appear to be a significant advantage to constructing a central receiving and transfer station as in 3 (a), over having the private haulers haul from the residences directly to the receiving plant as in 3(b). This would reduce labour and trucking costs associated with handling the material twice, but the increased hauling distance means that the homeowners would be paying more per pump-out. The use of a central receiving station provides some relief for the homeowners; however, there would be capital and operating costs associated with the central receiving station that would be assumed by the Township residents. For both Alternatives 3(a) and 3(b) there is an element of risk associated with being reliant on another municipality to receive the Township’s septage.



Based on the risk to the Township of being reliant on another municipality, as well as the significant hauling distances and associated costs, Alternative 3 is not preferred.

6.5 Alternatives 4 and 5 – Construct a Septage Treatment Facility within the Township of Tiny

Alternatives 4 and 5 would see the Township of Tiny construct a Township owned and operated septage treatment and disposal facility. A more detailed evaluation of the specific method(s) of treatment and disposal, as well as selection of a suitable site for the facility, would be part of Phase 3 of the Class EA process. However, there are several available technologies that have been tested and approved by MOE, and are being used in other locations throughout Ontario, other provinces and the United States. The construction of a septage treatment facility is more cost effective than a municipal sanitary sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant, but would still enable the Township to take complete ownership and management of the facility. Alternative 5 is assumed to have some level of dependence on another municipality to process and/or dispose of a portion of the partially treated wastewater. Alternative 4 would presumably produce an end product of higher quality when compared to Alternative 5, which would minimize impacts to the environment. There is a significant amount of flexibility in how these alternatives could be implemented to best suit the needs of the Township. The facility could be implemented in phases as warranted by incoming septage volumes. There is also the possibility to generate revenue through the acceptance of septage from other municipalities, and depending on the technology selected, generation of a useable product such as compost, fertilizer, electricity, etc. A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment technologies is provided in Table 6.3.



Table 6.3 Comparison of Treatment Technologies Method Description Advantages Disadvantage

Alkaline Stabilization

Increases the pH of the septage to a minimum of 12 for a period of at least 30 minutes, most commonly with lime. This can take place within the septage haulage truck or at a storage facility.

Cost-effective (low capital cost)

Reliable Simple and

flexible operation Reduce odours Compact Reduce vectors

Volume of material is increased, higher transportation costs

Dust production from lime products

Pathogen regrowth if pH is not maintained

Equipment requires regular maintenance

Anaerobic Digestion

Dewatered septage is placed in the digester where microorganisms break down organic material. This produces a biogas of methane and carbon dioxide that can generate electrical power.

Process generates electrical power and revenue

End-product is nutrient-rich and odourless – good for land application

Microbial population stability

Sensitive to loading rates

Dewatering is necessary prior to stabilization

Composting Dewatered septage is mixed with a bulking agent and aerated mechanically or by turning “in-vessel” or in large open piles. High temperatures produced by bioactivity destroy pathogens.

End product is a marketable and beneficial soil amendment

High odour High operating

costs Control of

temperature, moisture, and input (requires skilled operator)

Dewatering is necessary prior to composting

Geotubes High strength, permeable geotextile tubes allow excess water to drain (over several months) from septage material through small pores. This results in dewatered septage with low metal and pathogen content.

End product is suitable for soil amendment or agricultural stock

Minimal odour Metal removal

Filtrate must be treated further

Less efficient in cold weather (greenhouse required)

Removal of solids from the Geotubes can be labour intensive



Lagoons Provides treatment through a combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes, and is improved with the supply of oxygen (aerators or atmospheric). The accumulated solids at the bottom undergo anaerobic digestion and are usually removed every few years.

Cost-effective Minimal

technology/use of energy

Simple to operate Reuse effluent for

irrigation Can handle shock

loadings

Significant land area required

Less efficient in cold climates

Odour No heavy metal

removal Breeding ground

for vectors

Reed Bed Filters

Dewatering technique that uses a lined cell of porous sand media with an underdrain system and planted wetland vegetation. Filtered liquid is further treated or dispose of via spray irrigation or subsurface beds. Solids are periodically removed from the reed bed for disposal.

Low capital and energy costs

Low odour potential

High-quality filtrate

Low operations and maintenance requirements

Solids must be periodically removed

Moderate land area requirements

6.6 Preliminary Cost Analysis

After a preliminary review of the alternatives, Alternative 1 (Do Nothing) was eliminated from further consideration, as it does not address the problem statement for the study. In reviewing the natural and cultural environment, as well as the technical factors, for the remaining alternatives (2, 3, 4 and 5), they are similar in terms of overall impacts and mitigation of impacts. Therefore, it appeared that the most significant factor in selecting a preferred alternative was cost. Consequently, a preliminary cost evaluation was completed. To ensure that both the Township and homeowners were considered, the cost evaluation was presented in the form of municipal costs, as well as cost to the homeowner per 1,000 Igal tank pump-out. The municipal cost evaluation included capital and operating costs and is summarized in Table 6.4. The complete cost evaluation for each alternative is included in Appendix D.



Capital costs include such items as infrastructure, collection systems, pumping stations, land acquisition costs, vehicles, upgrades to receiving plants, administrative and engineering fees, and contingencies. Operating costs include (but are not limited to) operator employment, electricity and utilities, maintenance, fuel, tipping fees, and chemicals. Table 6.4 also summarizes the total cost to the property owner per 1,000 Igal septic tank pump out for each alternative. This estimate covers tipping fees, private hauling fees, and annual sewer charges (for Alternative 2 only). The tipping fee charged by the Township of Tiny was calculated based on the full recovery of the annual Township operating costs. Tipping fees to be paid to other municipalities were determined by averaging the current tipping fees at surrounding WWTPs, including Collingwood, Barrie, Orillia, and Midland. In order to evaluate the costs associated with Alternatives 4 and 5, a number of potential examples were identified using various combinations of the technologies and disposal options, as described in the preceding sections of this report. The average capital and operating cost of the example scenarios was used to evaluate the alternatives. Some of the examples under Alternatives 4 and 5 include: a. Geotubes with composting of biosolids, liquid treatment using a Membrate Bioreactor

treatment plant, and surface discharge to a watercourse; b. Reed beds with composting of biosolids and subsurface disposal of effluent; c. Lagoons with spray irrigation of treated effluent and landfill disposal of solids; and d. Anaerobic digester with liquid conveyed to Midland WWTP for treatment and

disposal. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 summarize the costs presented in Table 6.4. Figure 6.1 compares each alternative (except alternative 2) based on costs to the municipality, including capital, operating, and 20-year life-cycle costs. Alternative 2 was not included in the graph due to the high capital cost (more than ten times the other alternatives). Alternative 3(a) has high operating costs to the municipality due to the annual tipping fees to the receiving municipalities, while in 3(b), the property owner would be directly responsible for these fees. Alternative 3(b) only includes the start-up and capital costs, including administrative fees and upgrades to the receiving WWTP. Alternatives 4 and 5 are comparable in estimated costs to the municipality, regardless of full or partial septage treatment. Figure 6.2 shows the cost to homeowners, per 1,000 Igal septic tank pump-out (typically done every 3 to 5 years). The operating costs for Alternative 3(b) will be incurred by the property owners. Hauling costs will increase when wastewater is regularly sent to a receiving WWTP outside the Township. This is because the haulers will have to travel a



longer distance per load, and will require more trucks to be able to pump out as many tanks when compared to current practices. Based on the preliminary cost evaluation, Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration. The costs associated with constructing and operating a partial treatment facility (Alternative 5) are greater than for a full treatment facility (Alternative 4). This is due to the additional costs associated with disposal of a partially-treated end product, such as pumping filtrate to a neighbouring WWTP or disposing of the solids in a landfill. Given that a partial treatment system does not appear to provide any significant benefits over a full treatment system, there would be little merit in preferring Alternative 5 over Alternative 4.



Table 6.4 Preliminary Cost Summary

Alternative Capital Cost Capital

Cost per Lot

Annual O & M

Tipping Fee to Township of Tiny per 1000 Igal Pump-Out

Tipping Fee to Receiving

Municipality per 1000 Igal

Pump-Out

Private Hauling Cost per 1000 Igal

Pump-Out

Total Cost per 1000

Igal Pump-Out

Annual Sewer

Charge for Connected

Lots

1 Do Nothing $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 180 $ 480 $ 660 $ -

2 Construct Sewers/WWTP

$ 104,250,000 $ 8,700 $ 3,692,000 $ 140 $ - $ 150 $ 290 $ 480

3 Haul to Regional WWTPs

(a) Central Receiving and Hauling

$ 3,215,000 $270 $ 2,203,000 $ 220 $ - $ 150 $ 370 $ -

(b) Private Hauling $ 1,560,000 $130 $ 0 $ - $ 180 $ 480 $ 660 $ -

4 Construct Full Septage Treatment

Average Cost $ 6,217,000 $ 520 $ 489,000 $ 50 $ - $ 150 $ 200 $ -

5 Construct Partial Septage Treatment

Average Cost $ 4,630,000 $ 390 $ 522,000 $ 60 $ - $ 150 $ 210 $ -



Figure 6.1 Estimated Costs to the Municipality



Figure 6.2 Cost per 1000 Igal Pump-Out



In reviewing the capital, O&M, 20-year life cycle costs and costs to residents per 1,000 Igal pump-out, it would appear that the alternatives would be ranked in order of preference as follows: 1. Alternative 4 – Construct Septage Treatment Facility with Full Treatment. 2. Alternative 5 – Construct Septage Treatment Facility with Partial Treatment. 3. Alternative 3b. – Haul to Regional WWTPs via Private Hauling. 4. Alternative 3a. – Haul to Regional WWTPs via a Central Receiving and Transfer

Station (using Township-owned Tankers).

6.7 Preferred Alternative

Based upon the technical and environmental considerations, and the results of the preliminary cost analysis, Alternative 4: Construct a Septage Treatment Facility with Full Treatment within the Township, was selected as the Preferred Alternative Solution. Alternative 4 best addressed the problem statement, and can accommodate for the projected future need for septage treatment and disposal capacity within the Township in a financially responsible manner.



7.0 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

During the study, various issues were raised with respect to the proposed project. The following measures should be implemented in order to mitigate negative impacts of the proposed project on the environment. The impacts and mitigation will be further evaluated during Phase 3 and 4 of the Class EA process upon selection of a site for the facility, and identification of a preferred method of treatment.



Table 7.1 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Surface Water/ Hydrology and Stormwater Management

Potential for sediments to enter watercourse as a result of the following project activities: stockpiling excavation construction

The footprint of the disturbed area would be minimized as much as possible. For example, vegetated buffers would be left in place adjacent to watercourses/ waterbodies to the maximum extent possible.

A detailed erosion and sediment control plan would be developed during detailed design prior to construction. Implementation of the erosion and sediment control measures would conform to recognized standard specifications such as Ontario Provincial Standards Specification (OPSS).

Stockpiled material would be stored at a safe distance from the watercourses to ensure that no deleterious substances enter the water. Sediment and erosion control measures (silt curtains, silt fence, rock check dams) would be installed and maintained during the work phase and until the

site has been stabilized. Any temporary mitigation measures would be installed prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, excavation, filling or grading works and

would be maintained on a regular basis, prior to and after runoff events. Potential for localized water quality impacts as a result of

spills. All equipment fuelling and maintenance would be done at a safe distance from the watercourses so that no deleterious substances enter the waterway. The contractor would be required to develop spill prevention and contingency plans for construction and operational phases of the project. Personnel

would be trained in how to apply the plans and the plans would be reviewed to strengthen their effectiveness and ensure continuous improvement. Spills would be immediately contained and cleaned up in accordance with provincial regulatory requirements and the contingency plan. A hydrocarbon spill response kit would be on site at all times during the work. Spills would be reported to the Ontario Spills Action Center at 1-800-268-6060.

Groundwater Potential for localized groundwater quality impacts as a result of spills.

Refuelling of equipment and fuel storage should be conducted in designated areas away from the watercourses with spill protection provided.

Noise/ Vibration/ Air Quality Temporary nuisance noise and vibration during construction activities. Increased dust in air from construction activities.

Noise control measures, such as restricted hours of operation, the use of appropriate machinery/mufflers, would be implemented where required. Vehicles/machinery and equipment should be in good repair, equipped with emission controls, as applicable, and operated within regulatory requirements. Dust control measures would be implemented as required during construction.

Fish and Fish Habitat Potential water quality impairments (sediment loading; fuels and lubricants from machinery). In-water works may be required.

Sediment and erosion control measures (such as silt fence barriers, turbidity curtains etc.) would be installed and maintained during the construction phase if required and until the site has been stabilized. Control measures would be inspected daily to ensure they are functioning and are maintained as required. If control measures are not functioning properly, no further work would occur until the problem is resolved. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures would be installed in accordance with recognized provincial standards. Extra silt fence/turbidity curtain would be on site, should additional sediment control be required.

Prohibit any in-water operation of heavy equipment and minimize operation of the same on the banks of the watercourses. Any stockpiled material would be stored and stabilized away from watercourses. All materials and equipment used for the purpose of site preparation and project completion should be operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substance (e.g. petroleum products, silt, etc.) from entering watercourses.

All disturbed work areas should be stabilized immediately and re-vegetated as soon as conditions allow. If in water works are required, timing windows would be confirmed based on the species present. Discussions would be required with MNR during detailed design to confirm appropriate mitigation measures.

Archaeology/ Heritage Potential for locating historical remains or affecting designated properties depending on the site selected.

A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and Cultural and Built Heritage Assessment may be completed during Phase 3 and 4 of the MCEA.

Vegetation/ Wildlife/ Habitat Potential for loss of vegetation/habitat loss or impacts to designated features would be determined during Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process upon selection of a preferred treatment methodology and site.

Site selection would focus on minimizing potential vegetation/habitat loss or impacts to designated features. Disturbance to existing vegetation would be minimized during construction. Disturbed areas should be stabilized and revegetated upon project completion and restored to a pre-disturbed state. Topsoil should be stockpiled separately and used for restoration to facilitate natural regeneration of native species.

Land Use/ Land Acquisition Property acquisition would be determined during Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process upon selection of a preferred treatment methodology and site.

Property acquisition would be minimized.

Human Health and Safety Potential safety hazard from construction activities, heavy equipment and increased traffic.

The contactor would be required to implement a Health and Safety Plan (OHSA 1990).



8.0 Agency, Public and Aboriginal Consultation Program

Agency, public and Aboriginal consultation is a key component of the Municipal Class EA process. The agency, public and Aboriginal consultation program for this study consisted of: Project notices (Notice of Study Commencement, Notice of Public Information

Centres, Notice of Completion); Public information centres (PICs); and Project Advisory Committee meetings. In addition, a contact list was developed at the outset of the project. This contact list was used for all study notifications. The following agencies and stakeholders were included on the contact list: Federal Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Member of Parliament Transport Canada Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ministry of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Ministry of Transportation – Central Region Ministry of Tourism and Culture – Central Region Infrastructure Ontario Ontario Provincial Police Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Municipal County of Simcoe Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Clearview Township Town of Collingwood;



Essa Township Town of Innisfil Town of Midland Town of New Tecumseth Township of Oro-Medonte Town of Penetanguishene Township of Ramara Township of Severn Township of Springwater Township of Tay Town of Wasaga Beach City of Barrie City of Orillia Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit Simcoe County School Board Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board Conseil scolaire de district catholique centre-sud Conseil scolaire de district du centre sud-ouest Aboriginal Union of Ontario Indians Metis Nation of Ontario Alderville First Nation Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn Beausoleil First Nation Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chippewas of Mnijkaning First Nation (Rama) Curve Lake First Nation Hiawatha First Nation Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Moose Deer Point First Nation Saugeen Ojibway First Nation Utilities Bell Canada Rogers Communications MTS – Allstream BLINK Communications Inc. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. Hydro One Inc. Ontario Power Generation Trans Canada Pipelines Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc.



Stakeholders Severn Sound Environmental Association Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations Tiny Residents Working Together Farlain Lake Community Association A complete list of agency contacts is provided in Appendix E3.

8.1 Notice of Study Commencement

A Notice of Study Commencement was circulated to those on the study contact list. The Notice of Commencement was published on the Township of Tiny’s website on February 14, 2011, on the LED sign boards within the Township and circulated to all Township residents via distribution of the Township’s Tax Assessments for 2011. It was also advertised in the Midland Mirror. The Notice of Commencement advertisement is provided in Appendix E2.

8.2 Summary of Comments and Issues

Thirty-two (32) comments were submitted by various stakeholders in response to the Notice of Commencement. These comments area included in Appendix E4, and are summarized below: The following agencies provided comments:



Table 8.1 Summary of Comments and Issues Raised in Response to Notice of Commencement

Date Contact Comments Response to Comments

Federal 10-Jun-2011 Environment Canada Advised a change in contact for the project Comment noted;

contact list updated.

5-Apr-2011 Transport Canada Approval from Transport Canada is required for any works within or affecting a potentially navigable waterway, and that certain approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act can trigger a Federal EA. Provided and application and guide.

Comments noted.

Provincial 17-Mar-2011 Ministry of the

Environment Central Region Technical Support Section

Provided a list of items to be addressed in the EA including ecosystem protection and restoration, surface water, groundwater, air quality, dust and noise, contaminated soils, mitigation and monitoring, planning and policy, class EA process, First Nations consultation. They must also receive a copy of the Project File Report and Notice of Study Completion.

Comments noted.

8-Mar-2011 Ministry of the Environment Waste Management Policy Branch

Would like to remain on the study mailing list. Comment noted.

7-Mar-2011 Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Advised of a contact change. Archaeological studies are not required at this time but may be required in the future based on the approach and site selected. Also indicated that they would like to remain on the contact list.

Comments noted; contact list updated.

13-Jun-2011 Ministry of Transportation

Indicated that they have no concerns with the study. Any associated works within MTO permit control should be circulated for review and permit approval.

Comment noted.

11-Mar-2011 Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

Indicated that they would like to be circulated on the project and would like to have the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit Medical Office added to the circulation list.

Comment noted.

17-Mar-2011 Infrastructure Ontario Potential negative impacts to ORC tenants and lands; advised that the ORC MEI process may be triggered if ORC lands are directly impacted.

Comment noted.

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

Provided contact information for AANDC branches.

2-Mar-2011 Nottawasaga Would like to remain on the circulation list if the limits of the study area cannot be determined at this Comment noted.



Conservation Authority time. Will be removed from list if the study does not encroach within the NVCA Watershed. Municipal 9-Mar-2011 Township of Adjala-

Tosorontio Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted.

18-Mar-2011 Town of Midland Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted. 24-Mar-2011 Township of Oro-

Medonte Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted.

9-Mar-2011 Town of Penetanguishene

Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted.

14-Mar-2011 Township of Severn Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted. 31-Mar-2011 Township of Tay Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted. 4-Apr-2011 Town of Wasaga

Beach Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted.

25-Mar-2011 City of Barrie Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted. 7-Mar-2011 City of Orillia Would like to remain on the circulation list for the project. No comments or concerns at this time. Comment noted. 17-Mar-2011 Simcoe Muskoka

District Health Unit. Provided information regarding Health Unit programs of relevance to the study. Would like to be kept informed regarding the study.

Comment noted.

4-Apr-2011 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board

Would like to be kept informed on the study and have no comments to provide at this time. They would specifically like to understand if this project will create an opportunity for more permanent residential lots/homes.

Comment noted.

Aboriginal 14-Mar-2011 AANDC Litigation The specific and comprehensive claims office should be contacted and active litigation within the

vicinity of the property includes: ‘Alderville Indian Band, Beausoleil Indian Band, Chippewas of Georgina Island Indian Band, Chippewas of Rama Indian Band, Curve Lake Indian Band, Hiawatha Indian Band, Mississaugas of Scugog Indian Band v. HMTQ and Ontario (Third Party), Federal Court of Canada, filed in Montreal, Court file reference # T-195-92’ and ‘Moose deer Point First nation, Chief Edward Williams suiing on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of Moose Deer Point First Nation v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Superior Court of Justice File #01-CV-220612CM’.

Comment noted. Specific Claims office was circulated.

3-Mar-2011 AANDC Specific Claims

First Nations in the vicinity of the study area should be contacted. They also provided information sources to identify first nations and reserves in the vicinity of the study area.

Comment noted.

7-Mar-2011 AANDC Métis and The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) have asserted a Métis right to harvest in a large section of the Comment noted.



Non-status Indians province including in the project area. Advised that the Metis Nation should be contacted regarding project specifics when available.

3-Mar-2011 Beausoleil First Nation The notice has been forwarded to Ms. Karry Sandy-McKenzie, Barrister & Solicitor, Coordinator of the Williams Treaties First Nations for further review.

Comment noted.

17-Mar-2011 Chippewas of Georgina Island

No significant comments or concerns at this time, but would like to remain on the circulation list for the project.

Comment noted.

7-Mar-2011 Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (Rama)

The notice has been forwarded to Ms. Karry Sandy-McKenzie, Barrister & Solicitor, Coordinator of the Williams Treaties First Nations for further review. It was also expressed that all future correspondences, with a copy to Rama First Nation, be forwarded to Ms. Karry Sandy-McKenzie.

Comment noted.

6-Jul-2011 Curve Lake First Nation

The notice has been sent to Karry Sandy-McKenzie, Barrister & Solicitor, coordinator for the Williams Treaties First Nations for further review. They also indicated that they are not aware of any issues that would cause concern with respect to Traditional, Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and that they would like to be kept informed on the project in the event that any unforeseen environmental issues arise or if any archaeological finds or remains are uncovered during construction

Comment noted.

Utilities 18-May-2011 Hydro One Networks

Inc. There are hydro facilities within the Township of Tiny. Allow appropriate lead-time within the project schedule in the event that hydro facilities may be impacted by the project and provide any detailed project information at a later date.

Comment noted.

74-Jul-2011 Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.

Would like to be kept informed on the project as they have buried plants in various locations throughout the Township.

Comment noted.

1-Mar-2011 BLINK Communications Inc.

No concerns and wish to be removed from the study circulation list. Comment noted. Removed from study contact list.

3-Mar-2011 Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc.

Would like to be removed from the circulation list as they have no facilities within the study area. Comment noted. Removed from study contact list.

Stakeholders 16-Mar-2011 Federation of Tiny

Township Shoreline Associations

No comments to provide at this time but would like to remain on the circulation list. Advised of MOE’s comments pertaining to a sewage lagoon being an acceptable solution for a small area such as Tiny Township, and identified concerns related to sewage treatment plants and unplanned releases into waterways.

Comments noted.



8.3 Project Advisory Committee

A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to provide comments and advice pertaining to decisions to be made by the Township of Tiny and the Study Team with regard to septage management within the Township. The membership of the PAC consisted of: Township of Tiny Council (2 members of Council: 1 to chair, 1 alternate) Ministry of the Environment – Barrie District Office (1 representative) Severn Sound Environmental Association (1 representative) Citizens at large (3 representatives at Township’s discretion) Beausoleil First Nation (1 representative) Township of Tiny staff (3 representatives) Four PAC meetings were held during the study process. The meetings provided a forum for more in-depth discussion of key study issues, concerns or solutions, and advice for the Study Team. The proceedings of the PAC meetings were recorded and are presented in the form of Meeting Minutes included in Appendix F.

8.4 Public Information Centres

Three Public Information Centres (PICs) were held during the study. PICs provided the public with an opportunity to review the project including the study process, existing conditions, alternative solutions considered, the recommended solution and next steps in the study. For each of the four PICs, a Notice of Public Information Centre was sent to all those on the study mailing list and advertised in the Midland Mirror, as well as posted on the Township of Tiny website. Summary Reports were prepared for each PIC and are included in Appendix G. The PIC Summary Reports include a copy of the Notice of PIC, display boards, and comments received from the PIC. 8.4.1 Public Information Centre #1

PIC #1 was held on June 25, 2011 in the Township of Tiny Council Chambers. A total of 28 people attended the PIC. Township staff and consulting team representatives were in attendance. Six (6) members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) were also in attendance. Information was provided on the study purpose, Class EA process, and problem statement.



A total of six (6) completed comment forms were received. Key issues raised in the comments included: Sewage water pollution (potential for Farlain Lake to be polluted). Environmental impacts (e.g. eutrophication). Treatment and disposal of pharmaceuticals from raw sewage. Provision of a community engagement plan. 8.4.2 Public Information Centre #2

The second PIC (PIC #2) was held on October 15, 2011 from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm in the Township of Tiny Council Chambers. A total of 34 people attended the PIC. Township staff and consulting team representatives were in attendance, as well as five (5) members of the PAC. Information was presented on septage quantities, current disposal practices, and proposed alternative solutions. A total of eight (8) comment forms were received. Key issues raised in the comments included: Partnership with other municipalities including cities, townships and the County of

Simcoe. Alternative septage treatment options. Provision of detailed information on the criterion for evaluating the alternatives . Development of a comprehensive septage management plan. 8.4.3 Public Information Centre #3

PIC #3 was held on April 21, 2012 from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm in the Township of Tiny Council Chambers. A total of 28 people attended the PIC. Township staff and consulting team representatives were in attendance. Five (5) members of the PAC were also in attendance. Information was provided on criteria used to evaluate the alternative solutions, the proposed recommended alternative, and next steps in the study process. A total of six (6) comment forms were received. Key issues raised in the comments included: Partnership with other municipalities including neighbouring municipalities and the

County of Simcoe. Consider additional alternatives before proceeding with a facility within the Township. Costs are high relative to number of units serviced. Concerns with respect lagoons as the treatment method.



10.0 References

Bird studies Canada, n.d. Canadian Important Bird Areas Mapping, http://www.bsc-eoc.org/iba/mapviewer.jsp Bird Studies Canada, n.d. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp?lang=en City of Surrey, Local Area Service (LAS) Program (2010) accessed on August 16, 2011 from [http://www.surrey.ca/plans-strategies/754.aspx] Collection Systems Technology Fact Sheet, Sewers, Lift Station (2000) accessed on August 16, 2011 from [http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/sewers-lift_station.pdf] Conservation Authority,n.d. Conservation Ontario Public Web Interactive Mapping Site, http://www.camaps.ca/Geocortex/Essentials/Web/Viewer.aspx?Site=ONRegulationLimit County of Simcoe, 2007. County of Simcoe Official Plan. Retrieved from http://www.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/media/media/planning%20files/OP%20Consolidation%20August%202007%20-%20TEXT%20FINAL.pdf County of Simcoe Interactive Mapping, n.d. Interactive Mapping Site, https://maps.simcoe.ca/Advanced/General/viewer.aspx?Site=SC_General&ReloadKey=True&MapResource=BaseCacheWithoutRoads&LayerName=Municipal%20Border&FieldName=MUNI&FieldValues=TINY Environment Canada, n.d. Species at Risk Act. Retrieved from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm Kinsley, C., Kennedy, K., Crolla, A. Reed Bed Treatment of Septage at High Solids Loading Rate in a Cold Climate, Proceedings of the IWA 12th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Venice, Italy, October 4-8 2010. Metcalf and Eddy Inc, Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, 4th Edition Ministry of the Environment, 2008. Design Guidelines for Sewage Works. Ministry of Natural Resources, n.d. Natural Heritage Information Centre Mapping, https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/main.jsp Ministry of Natural Resources, n.d. Species at Risk in Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html.



Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010 http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276503.html Township of Tiny, 2001. Township of Tiny Official Plan. Retrieved from http://www.township.tiny.on.ca/ws_par/groups/public/@pub/@tiny/documents/web_content/wspar_031489.pdf Severn Sound Environmental Association, Severn Sound Source Protection Area Updated Assessment Report, 2010. http://ourwatershed.ca/assets/files/assessmentreport/severnsound_ch2_watershedcharacterization.pdf Severn Sound Environmental Association, Wetland Evaluation of Thunder Bay Swamp – Township of Tiny, October, 2005. http://calendar.county.simcoe.on.ca/partners/midland/media/files/TBSreportFINAL23Nov05sec.pdf Statistics Canada. (N.D.). 2006 Census Data. Downloaded June 30, 2011 from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3543068&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=TINY&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= Statistics Canada. (N.D.). 2001 Census Data. Downloaded June 30, 2011 from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3543068&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=TINY&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= Statistics Canada. (N.D.). 2011 Census Data. Downloaded September 2012 from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang =E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3543068&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Tiny&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=3543068&TABID=1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet, In-Vessel Composting of Biosolids.

township of tiny septage management class environmental ... documents/septage... · a project...

Documents