MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL

Transcription

MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICING
FOR THE COMMUNITY OF INVERHURON
SCREENING REPORT
FOR EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICING
SCREENING REPORT
January 22, 2014
B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Engineers and Planners
62 North Street
Goderich, ON N7A 2T4
Phone: 519-524-2641
Fax: 519-524-4403
File No. 08175
Z:\08175-Kincardine-Inverhuron_Water-Sewage\WP\Screening Report-2014\08175-14Jan17-Inverhuron Servicing.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Purpose of the Report........................................................................................................1
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Process ....................................1
Classification of Project Schedules ...................................................................................4
Mechanism to Request a Higher Level of Environmental Assessment ............................4
Study Co-ordination ..........................................................................................................4
2.0
CLASS EA FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
General Approach .............................................................................................................5
Background Review ..........................................................................................................6
Study Area Description .....................................................................................................6
Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................8
Background Reports and Previous Studies .....................................................................15
Existing Servicing Arrangement .....................................................................................17
Preliminary Problem Identification.................................................................................19
3.0
PHASE 1 INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................21
3.1
3.2
3.3
General ............................................................................................................................21
Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................21
Conclusions .....................................................................................................................26
4.0
CLASS EA PROCESS..................................................................................................27
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Phase 1: Identification of Problem/Opportunity .............................................................27
Class EA Schedule ..........................................................................................................28
Phase 2: Identification of Alternative Solutions .............................................................28
Assessment Methodology ...............................................................................................29
Public Consultation Program ..........................................................................................29
Identification of Environmental Components and Sub-Components .............................30
Evaluation of Alternative Solutions ................................................................................32
Preliminary Assessment of Alternatives .........................................................................33
5.0
CONSULTATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................38
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
General ............................................................................................................................38
Notice of Study Commencement ....................................................................................38
Review Agency Circulation ............................................................................................38
Aboriginal Consultation – Initial Consultation Phase ....................................................39
First Public Information Meeting....................................................................................40
Second Public Information Meeting ...............................................................................42
Web Site Presence...........................................................................................................43
6.0
SANITARY SERVICING ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................44
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
General ............................................................................................................................44
Identification of a Preliminary Preferred Alternative .....................................................44
Sanitary Servicing Alternatives ......................................................................................44
Bruce Energy Centre Sewage Treatment Facility ...........................................................45
Additional Investigations ................................................................................................47
Additional Public & Stakeholder Consultation...............................................................53
Additional Agency Consultation.....................................................................................62
Additional Aboriginal Consultation ................................................................................63
Meetings with Stakeholders ............................................................................................63
Summary of Public Consultation ....................................................................................66
Environmental Effects Analysis .....................................................................................66
Identification of a Preferred Sanitary Servicing Solution ...............................................72
Estimated Project Costs ..................................................................................................72
7.0
PROJECT SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS ....................................................................74
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
Archaeological Assessments ...........................................................................................74
Stage 1 Inverhuron Class EA ..........................................................................................74
Previous Archaeological Assessments Completed in Inverhuron ..................................75
Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment – Inverhuron Class EA..........................................76
Hydrogeologic Evaluation ..............................................................................................77
8.0
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...........................79
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
General ............................................................................................................................79
Social Environment .........................................................................................................79
Economic Environment ..................................................................................................81
Natural Environment .......................................................................................................83
Cultural Environment......................................................................................................83
9.0
CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.......................................84
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
Inverhuron Steering Committee ......................................................................................84
Selection of a Preferred Alternative ................................................................................84
Class EA Project Schedule..............................................................................................84
Agency Review of Draft Screening Report ....................................................................84
Final Public Consultation................................................................................................87
Class EA Finalization .....................................................................................................87
Project Implementation ...................................................................................................87
10.0
APPROVALS ................................................................................................................88
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
General ............................................................................................................................88
Conservation Authorities Act .........................................................................................88
Ontario Water Resources Act .........................................................................................88
Safe Drinking Water Act ................................................................................................88
11.0
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ...................................................................89
12.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................90
13.0
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................91
References ......................................................................................................................................92
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 9.1
Possible Species at Risk within the Project Area...................................................14
Drinking Water Sampling Results .........................................................................22
Lot Size Analysis: Inverhuron Study Area ............................................................26
Evaluation of Alternatives: Identification of Environmental Components ...........31
Criteria for Impact Determination .........................................................................32
Primary Components of the Identified Alternatives ..............................................33
Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................34
Summary of Agency Comments ............................................................................39
Summary of June 27, 2009 Public Meeting Comments ........................................41
Summary of July 17, 2010 Public Meeting Comments .........................................42
Existing and Anticipated Flows: BEC Sewage Treatment Facility .......................45
Estimated Capital Costs: Sanitary Sewage Alternatives ........................................52
Summary of July 9, 2011 Public Meeting Comments ...........................................55
Summary of Agency Comments ............................................................................62
Sanitary Servicing Alternatives: Environmental Effects Analysis ........................67
Summary of Agency Comments: Review of Draft Screening Report ...................86
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 8.1
Figure 9.1
Class EA Process .....................................................................................................3
Class EA Schedule B Screening Process and Related Tasks ...................................5
General Location Plan..............................................................................................7
Study Area Boundary...............................................................................................9
Significant Natural Features ..................................................................................11
ELC Mapping.........................................................................................................13
Existing Sewage and Water Servicing in Inverhuron ............................................18
Septic System Information .....................................................................................23
Private Well Supply Information ...........................................................................24
Drinking Water Sampling Results .........................................................................25
Bruce Energy Centre Sewage Treatment Facility ..................................................46
Borehole Locations ................................................................................................48
Proposed Sewage Pumping Station Locations .......................................................49
McIntyre Park Sewage Pumping Station ...............................................................51
Private Road Allowances and Right of Ways ........................................................82
Watermain Extensions and Low Pressure Collection System ...............................85
APPENDICES
Appendix ‘A’
Appendix ‘B’
Appendix ‘C’
Appendix ‘D’
Appendix ‘E’
Appendix ‘F’
Appendix ‘G’
Appendix ‘H’
Appendix ‘I’
Steering Committee Meeting Notes
Species at Risk Monitoring Report
Phase 1 Investigation
Agency Consultation
Public Consultation
Aboriginal Consultation
Archaeological Assessments
Geotechnical & Hydrogeologic Investigations
Preliminary Drainage Report
Engineers and Planners
62 North Street, Goderich, ON N7A 2T4
p. (519) 524-2641  f. (519) 524-4403
www.bmross.net
File No. 08175
FOR EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICING
SCREENING REPORT
1.0
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1
Purpose of the Report
The Municipality of Kincardine initiated a Class Environmental Assessment process in May
2009, to consider the extension of water and sanitary sewer servicing to the Community of
Inverhuron, following receipt of a Building Canada Fund Communities Component (BCF-CC)
grant in the amount of $6,076,400. The study process followed the procedures set out in the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document, dated October 2000, as
amended in 2007, for sewage and water projects. The project, which involves the extension of
municipal water and sewage facilities, is considered a Schedule B activity under the terms of the
MEA Class EA document. The Class EA process involved an evaluation of impacts associated
with the provision of full municipal servicing to the community with an estimated permanent and
seasonal population of approximately 1,100 residents and included a detailed review of various
servicing alternatives.
The purpose of this report is to document the planning and design process followed during the
Class EA process. The report includes the following major components:


A description of the project area and environmental setting.
A discussion of previous studies and investigations pertaining to the project.
A description of the existing private servicing and the identified deficiencies.
A description of the alternative solutions considered to resolve the identified problems.
A synopsis of the public consultation and decision making process conducted to select a
preferred alternative.
A detailed description of the preferred alternative.
1.2
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Process




Municipalities must adhere to the Environmental Assessment Act of Ontario (EA Act) when
completing road, sewer or waterworks activities. The Act allows the use of Class Environmental
Assessments for most municipal projects. A Class EA is an approved planning document which
describes the process that proponents must follow in order to meet the requirements of the EA
Act.
Municipality of Kincardine
Class Environmental Assessment for Extension of Municipal Water and Sanitary Sewer Servicing
For the Community of Inverhuron
Page 2
The Class EA approach allows for the evaluation of alternatives to a project, and alternative
methods of carrying out a project, and identifies potential environmental impacts. The process
involves mandatory requirements for public input. Class EA's are a method of dealing with
projects which have the following important characteristics in common:





They are recurring;
They are usually similar in nature;
They are usually limited in scale;
They have a predictable range of environmental effects; and
They are responsive to mitigating measures.
If a Class EA planning process is followed, a proponent does not have to apply for formal
approval under the EA Act. The development of this study has followed the procedures set out
in the Class EA. Figure 1.1 presents a graphical outline of the procedures.
The Class EA planning process is divided into the following phases:

Phase 1 - Problem identification.

Phase 2 - Evaluation of alternative solutions to the defined problems and selection of a
preferred solution.

Phase 3 - Identification and evaluation of alternative design concepts in selection of a
preferred design concept.

Phase 4 - Preparation and submission of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public
and government agency review.

Phase 5 - Implementation of the preferred alternative and monitoring of any impacts.
Throughout the Class EA process, proponents are responsible for having regard for these
principles of environmental planning:





Consultation with affected parties during the process.
Examination of a reasonable range of alternatives.
Consideration of effects on all aspects of the environment.
Application of a systematic methodology for evaluating alternatives.
Clear documentation of the process to permit traceability of decision-making.
CLASS EA FOR WATER AND SANITARY
SEWER SERVICING
(COMMUNITY OF INVERHURON)
CLASS EA PROCESS
DATE: DEC 4, 2013
PROJECT
No. 08175
FIGURE
No. 1.1
1.3
Page 4
Classification of Project Schedules
Projects are classified to different project schedules according to the potential complexity and the
degree of environmental impacts that could be associated with the project. There are three levels
of schedules:

Schedule A – Projects that are approved with no need to follow the Class EA process.

Schedule A+ – Projects that are pre-approved but require some form of public notification.

Schedule B – Projects that are approved following the completion of a screening process
that incorporates Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process, as a minimum.

Schedule C – Projects that are approved subject to following the full Class EA process.
The Class EA process is self-regulatory and municipalities are expected to identify the
appropriate level of environmental assessment based upon the project they are considering.
1.4
Mechanism to Request a Higher Level of Environmental Assessment
Under the terms of the Class EA, the requirement to prepare an individual environmental
assessment for approval is waived. However, if it is found that a project going through the Class
EA process has associated with it significant environmental impacts, a person/party may request
that the Municipality of Kincardine voluntarily elevate the project to a higher level of
environmental assessment. If the Municipality declines, or if it is believed that the concerns are
not property dealt with, any individual or organization has the right to request that the Minister
of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental
Assessment Act which addresses individual environmental assessments. This request must be
submitted to the Minister within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Completion of the
Class EA process.
1.5
Study Co-ordination
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited (BMROSS) conducted the Class EA planning process on
behalf of the proponent, the Municipality of Kincardine. A Steering Committee (SC) was also
formed to provide direction to study investigations. The Committee consisted of municipal
councillors, municipal staff and seven residents of Inverhuron (4 seasonal and 3 year-round),
who applied for membership on the committee. Project information was presented to the SC for
input at all major stages in the process and prior to presentation to the general public. The
Committee reported directly to Municipal Council, providing recommendations on study
investigations and results. Meeting notes from the Steering Committee Meetings can be found
within Appendix ‘A’.
2.0
CLASS EA FRAMEWORK
2.1
General Approach
Page 5
The Municipality initiated a formal Class EA process in May 2009 to define and evaluate
impacts associated with the extension of municipal water and sanitary servicing to the
community of Inverhuron. The associated investigations followed the environmental screening
process prescribed for Schedule B projects under the MEA Class EA document. In general, the
screening process required to conduct a Class EA incorporates these primary components:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Background Review and Problem Definition.
Identification of Practical Solutions.
Evaluation of Alternatives.
Project Recommendations and Implementation.
The following sections of this report document the findings for each stage of the Class EA.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the general tasks associated with the Schedule B screening process.
Figure 2.1
Class EA Schedule B Screening Process and Related Tasks
2.2
Page 6
Background Review
A background review was carried out to characterize the project area and to identify those factors
that could influence the selection of alternative solutions to the defined problems.
The background review for this Class EA process incorporated these activities:




Development of a general description of the study area and the Municipality of Kincardine.
Assembly of information on the environmental setting and existing servicing.
Review of previous studies and reports pertaining to the community of Inverhuron.
Preliminary assessment of the identified deficiencies and potential remediation.
A desktop analysis of the project setting was completed as part of the background review. The
following represents the key sources of information for this analysis:





B. M. Ross and Associates – files, engineering drawings, and related studies.
Grey Bruce Health Unit - files and related information.
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority - Website and Mapping Services.
Ministry of Natural Resources - Natural Heritage Information Centre (website).
Municipality of Kincardine - Files and discussions with staff.
2.3
Study Area Description
(a)
General Description of the Study Area
The Municipality of Kincardine is situated near the southwestern boundary of the County of
Bruce, in a predominately rural region of Midwestern Ontario. The Municipality, which was
formed through amalgamation in January 1999, has a population of more than 12,000 permanent
residents and a land base of approximately 580 km². In general, Kincardine is comprised of two
large urban centres (Kincardine and Tiverton), a considerable amount of development along the
Lake Huron shoreline, and a number of small settlements dispersed throughout the
predominately agricultural landscape.
(b)
Community of Inverhuron
The shoreline community of Inverhuron is one of the largest settlement areas in the Municipality,
with an estimated permanent and seasonal population of approximately 1,100 residents.
Inverhuron, which is located approximately 12 km north of Kincardine near the intersection of
Bruce Roads 15 and 23, is predominately a low-density residential community that incorporates
a large seasonal population and a limited amount of commercial development in the village core.
Inverhuron is currently serviced by a combination of private and municipal water and sanitary
sewage facilities, with the bulk of residents serviced by private well supplies and private sewage
disposal (septic) systems. Growth in Inverhuron is minimal due, in part, to established land use
planning policies which promote growth in larger urban settlements with full municipal servicing
(e.g., Kincardine, Tiverton). Figure 2.2 illustrates the general location of the Municipality of
Kincardine and the settlement of Inverhuron.
±
GEORGIAN
BAY
LAKE
HURON
±
SAUGEEN
SHORES
ARRANELDERSLIE
MUNICIPALITY
OF KINCARDINE
_
^
_
^
TIVERTON
_
^
MUNICIPALITY OF
KINCARDINE
LAKE
HURON
KINCARDINE
INVERHURON
_
^
BROCKTON
CLASS EA FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICING
GENERAL LOCATION PLAN
DATE
DEC. 4, 2013
PROJECT No.
08175
SCALE
1:150,000
FIGURE No.
2.2
Page 8
The community of Inverhuron benefits from two key recreational amenities; the Inverhuron
Provincial park located immediately north of the settlement, and the Inverhuron Main Beach
situated near the mouth of the Little Sauble River. A considerable amount of residential
development is also prevalent immediately south of Inverhuron along the Lake Huron shoreline.
Collectively, the Inverhuron settlement area and the adjacent shoreline district form the
‘Inverhuron urban area’.
(c)
Defined Study Area Boundary
The project study area boundary encompasses the historic urban settlement area of Inverhuron
located north of Bruce Road 15 as well as properties abutting Victoria Street south of Bruce
County Road 15 to the gate. The study area boundary associated with this project was defined
initially, in conjunction with the Build Canada Fund-Communities Component (BCF-CC) grant
application, which was submitted in November 2008. During the course of the Class EA process
the boundary was modified slightly to conform more closely to urban areas identified within
municipal planning documents, to exclude portions of the Inverhuron Provincial Park, which is
already serviced, and to follow parcel boundaries more closely. Figure 2.3 illustrates the original
and revised study area boundaries.
2.4
Environmental Setting
(a)
Physiography and Soils
The main geographic features of the study area are the Lake Huron shoreline, which forms the
western boundary of the settlement, and a remnant bluff that runs north to south approximately
parallel to the shoreline. The bluff is a remnant shore cliff of glacial Lake Algonquin and divides
the study area into two physiographic regions. The area below the bluff is part of the Huron
Fringe, which is a narrow fringe of land found along the Lake Huron shoreline from Sarnia to
Tobermory. Soils within the fringe area are composed mainly of sand and gravel. The area
located above the bluff forms part of the Huron Slope. This is essentially a till plain, with
different soils than those found within the shore area. The bluff gradually becomes less defined
and encroaches closer on the shoreline as you move north from Point Clark towards Kincardine
and Inverhuron. This corresponds with decreasing amounts of available land below the shore
cliff feature.
Another unique physiographic feature associated with the Inverhuron settlement area is the
karstic nature of the bedrock layer, which is found very close to the surface throughout much of
the study area. The bedrock layer, which is part of the Lucas formation, is fractured near the
surface due to dissolution of the limestone bedrock caused by the downward movement of water
through the rock layer. These fractures are called ‘grikes’ and allow the rapid movement of
water throughout the bedrock aquifer. This feature, in combination with the very shallow
overburden layer and high permeability of the soil layer, makes the aquifer very vulnerable to
potential contamination from surface water sources. Recent studies completed by the Saugeen,
Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula Source Protection Region, which is charged with
developing policies associated with the Clean Water Act, 2006, have identified this aquifer as
high risk, due to the combination of factors noted above.
(b)
Page 10
Sensitive Natural Features in the Vicinity of the Project Site
The community of Inverhuron is located within the Little Sauble River sub-watershed, which is
managed by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA). The study area is located
within a recreational residential settlement area surrounded on the north and southeast
boundaries by forested areas. The northeast boundary is bounded by active farmland while Lake
Huron forms the west boundary of the development. A review of sensitive natural heritage
features located in the vicinity of the project area was carried out though the course of the Class
EA process. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Information Centre
(NHIC) database was consulted to verify the current status of significant natural areas in the
general vicinity of Inverhuron. Utilizing a jurisdictional search method, four significant features
were identified within a 10 km radius. Figure 2.4 illustrates the location of these sensitive
natural features in relation to the project study area boundaries.
i.
Inverhuron Provincial Park
Inverhuron Provincial Park, which is classified as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
(ANSI): Life Science, is located immediately north of Inverhuron, forming the northwest
boundary of the study area. The ANSI extends over 288 ha and incorporates several physiologic
and natural features, including the following:


Extensive second-growth forest (White Cedar, Balsam Fir, Apsens)
Sand dune succession systems consisting of young dunes, open grasslands, second dunes
with tree cover (White Cedar, Poplar)
Exposed sedimentary rocks of the Middle Devonian Detroit River Formation
ii.
Baie Du Dore – Provincially Significant Wetland

The Baie Du Dore wetland is a provincially significant coastal wetland located approximately
6 km north of Inverhuron, immediately adjacent to the Bruce Nuclear Power Facility. The
wetland is composed of three types; 48% fen, 4% swamp, and 50% marsh.
iii.
Lorne Beach Swamp – Locally Significant Wetland
The Lorne Beach wetland is a locally significant coastal wetland complex located approximately
4 km south of Inverhuron adjacent to Lorne Beach Road. It is comprised of three individual
wetlands and two wetland types: 18.6% fen and 81.4% swamp.
iv.
Little Sauble River – Cold Water Fishery
The Little Sauble River is located immediately north of the study area, forming the northwest
boundary between the Inverhuron settlement area and Inverhuron Provincial Park. The MNR’s
fisheries management plan identifies the Little Sauble River is a coldwater fishery containing
rainbow trout, brook trout and brown trout all of which are common native or introduced species.
(K. Dodge 2010, pers. comm.with NRSI).
±
LAKE HURON
Lorne
Text
Text
Beach Swamp
Little Sauble River
Baie du Dore PSW
Tiverton
Legend
Roads
Wooded Areas
Study Area Boundary
0
0.375
0.75
SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES
1.5
2.25
3
Kilometres
DATE
DEC. 4, 2013
PROJECT No.
08175
SCALE
1:36,000
FIGURE No.
2.4
(c)
Page 12
Species at Risk (SAR) Assessment – Natural Resource Solutions Inc.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained by BMROSS to conduct Species at Risk
monitoring for the Inverhuron Class EA. A background review was conducted which indicated
that a number of SAR were potentially present within the study area and immediate vicinity.
These species and their habitats are protected under Provincial Legislation, the Endangered
Species Act, 2007 or Federal Legislation, the Species at Risk Act, 2002. As a result, habitat
mapping and surveys for these species were conducted within the study area in 2010 to
determine the presence of any SAR or their habitats.
i.
Methodology
A study team consisting of specialists in terrestrial and aquatic habitats were gathered to
characterize habitats located within and immediately adjacent to the Inverhuron settlement area.
Field investigations were conducted during the spring, summer and fall of 2010 and included
near shore habitats along the Lake Huron shoreline. The study consisted of three primary
components in order to characterize all habitats potentially impacted by the proposed works.
They are as follows:



ii.
Background Review
Terrestrial Habitat Assessment
Species at Risk Surveys
Background Review
Background information on significant natural areas and species at risk associated with the study
area was gathered from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR Owen Sound Area
Office), the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, and the Natural Heritage Information
Centre Database (NHIC 2010). Significant species are tracked by the MNR and are documented
on the NHIC web site. To protect the exact location of an identified species, range maps are
utilized for identification purposes, which provide a large buffer around the actual species
location. Table 2.2 indicates species at risk potentially present within the study area, which
were identified as a result of this review.
iii.
Terrestrial Habitat Assessment
The Terrestrial Assessment examined vegetation communities located within or immediately
adjacent to the study area. Vegetation communities were classified and mapped using the
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System (Lee et al. 1998, 2008). All incidental wildlife
observations including evidence were documented during field visits. Nine distinct natural
vegetation communities were mapped throughout the study area. They are illustrated on Figure
2.5 attached.
Page 14
Table 2.1
Possible Species at Risk within the Project Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Type
COSEWIC
S-Rank
Dwarf Lake Iris
Iris lacustris
Plant
THR
S3
Pitcher’s Thistle
Cirsium pitcheri
Plant
END
S2
Milksnake
Lampropeltis triangulum
Reptile
SC
S3
Queensnake
Regina septemvittata
Reptile
END
S2
Reptile
SC
S3
Tree
END
S3
Butternut
Thamnophis sauritus
septentrionalis
Juglans cinerea
Eastern Whip-poor-will
Caprimulgus vociferus
Bird
THR
S4B
Chimney Swift
Chaetura pelagic
Bird
THR
S4B
Common Nighthawk
Chordeiles minor
Bird
THR
S4B
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Contopus cooperi
Bird
THR
S4B
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Bird
THR
S4B
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrines
Bird
SC
S3B
Least Bittern
Ixobrychus exilis
Bird
THR
S4B
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Bird
END
S2B
Red-headed Woodpecker
Melanerpes
erythrocephalus
Bird
THR
S4B
Golden-winged Warbler
Vermivora chrysoptera
Bird
THR
S4B
Canada Warbler
Wilsonia canadensis
Bird
THR
S4B
Eastern Ribbonsnake
One rare vegetation community, the Cottonwood Dune Savannah Type, was identified as being
present within the study area. This community is considered S1 or Critically Imperiled by the
MNR. This community has seen significant alteration due to the presence of cottages which
would limit opportunities for succession and vegetation establishment within the community. A
second vegetation community, the naturalized Scotch pine Treed Sand Dune Ecosite, would also
be considered significant as the rare vegetation species, long-leaved reed grass, was identified
immediately north of Cayley Street. Both of these treed dune habitats should be considered
significant wildlife habitats. As well, both vegetation communities could be directly impacted
by the proposed sewer and watermain installations. Site specific mitigation measures including
ecological restoration and monitoring should be undertaken to ensure these communities and
their ecological functions are not affected in the long term.
iv.
Page 15
Species at Risk Surveys
Targeted surveys were conducted for dwarf lake iris, pitcher’s thistle and butternut, during their
flowering periods, which occur during late May to July. The surveys did not result in the
identification of these species within the study area. Snake cover board surveys, which are a
recognized method to survey for snake species, did not result in the identification of any snake
species at risk. No bird SAR were identified during any surveys conducted within the study area,
including those conducted during the breeding season. A complete copy of the Species at Risk
Monitoring Report is included within Appendix ‘B’.
2.5
Background Reports and Previous Studies
(a)
Lake Street Sanitary Sewage System
A sanitary sewage collection system was constructed in 1993 to service shoreline development
along Lake Street South (south of Bruce Road 15). The system consists of 200 mm diameter
(dia.) gravity sanitary sewers, a central sewage pumping station and a 75 mm dia. sanitary
sewage forcemain. The forcemain discharges into an existing 200 mm dia. sanitary sewage
forcemain located at the intersection of Bruce Road 15 and Albert Road. This forcemain
conveys flows from the community of Tiverton to the Bruce Energy Centre (BEC) sewage
treatment plant situated immediately north of the Inverhuron Provincial Park.
The Lake Street Sanitary Sewage project was initiated as a result of private sewage disposal
concerns associated with the traditional cottage properties situated on the west side of Lake
Street. The parcels are very small with limited area for sewage disposal leaching beds. The
system was originally designed to accommodate 86 single detached units. Approximately 41
properties along the Lake Street South corridor are currently connected to the system.
(b)
Shoreline/Tiverton Water Supply Class EA and Master Plan
In 2002, following the release of more stringent drinking water protection regulations introduced
as a result of the Walkterton tragedy, the Municipality undertook a Class EA process to evaluate
long term water quality and supply needs for the shoreline area north of Kincardine. The study
evaluated options to service a number of municipal and private well supplies along the shoreline
as well as Inverhuron Provincial Park and the community of Tiverton. The project study team
included a Technical Steering Committee (TSC) comprised of Municipal staff, councillors and
consultants as well as a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) which included members of the
public from communities within the study area. The study identified and examined four primary
alternatives as well as an additional 9 sub-options associated with the primary alternatives. At
the conclusion of the study, Alternative 4D: Municipal Well System Replacement (Except
Tiverton), Inverhuron, Lorne Beach and Inverhuron Provincial Park Service Area was selected
as the preferred servicing solution. This alternative involved the extension of municipal water
north from Kincardine through Lorne Beach and Inverhuron to Inverhuron Provincial Park, but
excluded the community of Tiverton. All municipal water system users as well as all residents
along the main pipeline route, including those in Inverhuron and Lorne Beach, were to be
serviced under this Alternative.
(c)
Page 16
Shoreline Water Supply
Following completion of the Water Supply Master Plan Kincardine undertook construction of a
communal piped-water system along the shoreline north of Kincardine connecting several
settlement areas along the shoreline with the Kincardine Water Treatment Plant. This project
implemented recommendations set out in the Water Supply Master Plan, completed in 2002. In
the vicinity of Inverhuron, the project involved the extension of a 300 mm diameter distribution
watermain along Victoria Street and Albert Road to Inverhuron Provincial Park. The work
represented the first phase of the Master Plan program to extend water distribution facilities
throughout the community. Approximately 53% (209) of all properties within the Inverhuron
urban area have connected or can be serviced by the Shoreline Water Supply.
(d)
Lake Street North Servicing
In 2007 the Municipality initiated a project to extend municipal water and sanitary sewage
servicing to 15 dwellings situated along Lake Street North. The project was initiated in response
to a formal petition submitted by affected property owners. A Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (Class EA) was also carried out to facilitate project implementation.
The following represents the key components of the Lake Street North Servicing project:
-
(e)
Installation of a distribution watermain within the Lake Street North road allowance to
connect the project area to the Kincardine Water Supply;
Construction of a low pressure sanitary sewage forcemain within the Lake Street North road
allowance to connect the project area to the Lake Street Sanitary Sewage System;
Decommissioning of all private water supplies and septic systems in accordance with
applicable regulations.
BCF-CC Grant Application
In September 2008, a joint Federal and Provincial Grant Funding Program was announced
entitled the Building Canada Fund - Communities Component (BCF-CC). The grant program
was designed to stimulate local economies through the funding of local municipal infrastructure
projects. Applications for the initial intake of the program were submitted in November 2008.
Aware of ongoing servicing issues associated with the Inverhuron settlement area, as identified
through previous infrastructure projects undertaken in the community, the Municipality of
Kincardine submitted an application to service the remainder of Inverhuron with both sewage
and water servicing at an estimated cost of $9,114,600. In March 2009, the Municipality was
advised that two thirds grant funding had been awarded, based upon the grant application
submission, to a maximum of $6,076,400.
Receipt of the two thirds grant funding presented the Municipality with the opportunity to
address ongoing servicing issues within the community of Inverhuron and to provide a
significant cost savings to residents. Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process to
service Inverhuron was initiated shortly after receipt of the grant.
(f)
Page 17
Official Plan Policies
The Bruce County Official Plan, which serves as the parent document for local Official Plans,
promotes a hierarchy of water and sewage servicing systems for the County and identifies full
municipal services as the preferred form of servicing in all Primary and Secondary Urban
Communities. In addition, the plan states that full municipal water and sewage services are the
preferred form of servicing and that partial services are generally discouraged, but may be used
as an interim measure until full or communal services become available. These policies are
consistent with Provincial Guidelines laid out in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.
The Inverhuron service area is located within an area designated as ‘Shoreline’ within the
Kincardine Official Plan, which was approved in 2006. The Shoreline designation includes
recreational residential areas situated along the Lake Huron shoreline north of the Town of
Kincardine, generally located west of Bruce Road 23. Goals outlined within the plan “promote
the establishment of a resort community that will satisfy, to some degree, the Provincial and
local demand for recreational development and encourage an orderly and efficient pattern of land
use”, and to “establish a basis of permitting the development and redevelopment of the area as a
permanent residential settlement on the basis of full municipal services”.
2.6
Existing Servicing Arrangement
As discussed above, the current servicing arrangement in Inverhuron consists of a mix of private
and municipal sewage and water facilities. Municipal components of the system have been
installed through a series of area specific projects over the past 20 years, with the most recent
completed in 2008 on Lake Street North. Figure 2.6 delineates the extent of existing municipal
sewage and water servicing infrastructure in Inverhuron.
(a)
Water Supply
The municipal water supply to Inverhuron currently consists of a 300 mm dia. watermain which
extends along Victoria Street to John Street, and then east on John to Albert Street where it
continues north to service the Inverhuron Provincial Park. Residents with property fronting on
the watermain were supplied with a water service connection to the municipal supply when the
pipeline was constructed in 2004. Connection to the water pipeline was not made mandatory
following construction. Instead an incentive program was devised which encouraged early
connections by increasing the capital cost of connection each year following construction. To
date approximately 30% of pipeline customers have connected to the municipal water supply.
The balance of the project area is serviced by either communal or individual private wells. Data
is not available on the specific number of private wells in operation in the Inverhuron urban area,
or the number of users served by shared well supplies. It is estimated, however, that there are at
least 150 private well supplies in the project area.
±
LAKE HURON
ET
KE
LA
R
ST
T
EE
WOOD STREET
VICTORIA STREET
VICTORIA STREET
WELLINGTON STREET
CAYLEY STREET
S TRE
LA KE
Existing SPS
ROBBIE LANE
ALBERT ROAD
Legend
Existing Watermains
Existing Sanitary Forcemain
Existing Sanitary Sewer
Study Area Boundary
0
0.125
0.25
EXISTING WATER AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
RICHARDS DRIVE
WHISPERING WOOD
MCPHERSON
ROAD
JOHN STREET
BRUCE ROAD 15
RUFF ROAD
0.5
0.75
DATE
DEC. 4, 2013
SCALE
1:10,000
1
Kilometres
PROJECT No.
08175
FIGURE No.
2.6
(b)
Page 19
Sanitary Sewage Treatment
As discussed, sanitary sewage is currently treated throughout most of the Inverhuron urban area
via individual septic systems. Approximately 333 seasonal and permanent residences are
currently serviced by septic systems. For the balance of the project area, approximately 57
properties, are serviced by the Lake Street Sanitary Sewage System, including the 16 properties
serviced by a low pressure collection system along Lake Street north of County Road 15.
Approval authority for private sewage disposal systems was assigned to the Grey Bruce Health
Unit (GBHU) by the Municipality of Kincardine for the period 1983 - 2011. The GBHU
maintains installation records for septic systems that were approved during this time period. A
review of the Health Unit records was carried out as part of the Class EA assessment. The
following general statistics and information on local septic systems was noted:
-
A total of 46 septic system permits have been issued by the Health Unit since 1983. In
addition, the Municipality of Kincardine advised that for the period 1974 to 1983, a total of
11 permits were issued. The balance of the project area can be considered to be older or nonconforming systems under the Ontario Building Code (OBC).
-
Smaller properties along the shoreline do not have adequate space to accommodate sewage
systems approved under the OBC. These systems are served by holding tanks or unknown
systems;
-
The Health Unit has previously responded to complaints of greywater discharging into beach
sands. Property owners have on occasion attempted to divert greywater away from holding
tanks to avoid routine pump-outs;
-
Replacement of older or malfunctioning septic systems will be difficult to achieve given the
number of well supplies in the area and OBC requirements for setbacks from the well heads,
property limits and water bodies.
2.7
Preliminary Problem Identification
(a)
Water Supply
The completion of the Shoreline Water Supply significantly upgraded the water supply available
to properties in Inverhuron. The Municipality recognized at that time, however, that the
extension of the Shoreline Water System throughout the balance of the project area would be
required in the foreseeable future to address these concerns:

Service Inequalities. Approximately half of the community now benefits from access to a
modern water supply, constructed and operated in accordance with all applicable provincial
regulations. Private well supplies in the community do not achieve these standards and, as a
result, there is a serious inequality in the level of service provided to properties outside of the
current municipal service area. Accordingly, the Municipality has received several requests
from local residents to extend the Shoreline Water System throughout the community;

Page 20
Drinking Water Quality. Information provided by the Grey Bruce Health Unit (GBHU)
indicates that, according to recent surveys, more than 20% of private wells have adverse
water quality. These findings are consistent with water quality data gathered by GBHU over
the past years. Moreover, the Health Unit has expressed concern that several local wells are
developed into the same supply aquifer. This increases the potential for source
contamination, particularly when multiple septic systems and flooding are also evident in the
immediate area;
(b)
Sanitary Sewage Treatment
The Inverhuron settlement area is the largest community in the Municipality of Kincardine not
currently serviced by a municipal sanitary sewage system. Several significant public health and
environmental concerns are evident with the ongoing use of individual septic systems within this
lakeshore community. The nature of these concerns is described below:

Age of Septic Systems. Most septic systems, even with proper maintenance, will only
function effectively for 20 to 30 years. In this respect, systems eventually become unusable
as soils around the leaching bed become clogged with organic material. Older leaching tiles
are also typically broken or blocked by tree and bush roots. Moreover, poorly maintained
systems which are not pumped out on a regular basis can be problematic, as sludge materials
build up in the tank and ultimately are discharged into the leaching bed resulting in tile
blockages. Based upon information provided by the GBHU, it can therefore be assumed that
approximately 70% (276) of all developed properties in the project area are serviced by
septic systems that have been in use for more than 25 years and are considered substandard.

Public Health. In correspondence, dated November 3, 2008, the GBHU provided comments
on the condition of septic systems in Inverhuron and the potential public health threats posed
by these systems. These comments are provided in Appendix B and are summarized below:
-
Multiple septic systems are difficult to monitor to ensure compliance with discharge
standards (particularly seasonal discharges);
-
There are a number of older systems in Inverhuron which are not in compliance with
present sizing and setback regulations. These systems are also subject to overloading and
inadequate maintenance. Replacement of older or malfunctioning septic systems will be
difficult to achieve in the project area given the number of local wells and OBC
requirements for setbacks from these water supplies; and
-
Given the location of Inverhuron, a large septic ‘spill’ or smaller steady discharges can
introduce sewage contamination into the Little Sauble River and Lake Huron. These
types of scenarios have the potential to adversely impact upon the drinking water quality
of several local communities maintaining surface-water based water supplies.
3.0
PHASE 1 INVESTIGATION
3.1
General
Page 21
Given historic problems with private servicing within the Inverhuron settlement area, as
evidenced by previous municipal servicing initiatives within the community and the preliminary
problem identification discussed above, a study was initiated at the start of the Class EA process
to investigate more fully problems associated with existing private water and sewage servicing
in Inverhuron. The study process involved the completion of a questionnaire, 125 on-site septic
system inspections and a review of historical permit records provided by the local Health Unit.
3.2
Questionnaire
(a)
General
In June 2009, a questionnaire was developed by BMROSS to gather background information
from local property owners on the status of their private sewage disposal systems and sources
of drinking water. The survey was mailed to 385 property owners located within the study area
limits and included general questions about the age and condition of their existing water and
sewage service. Of the 385 initial surveys mailed, 191 (50%) were completed and returned. At
the end of the initial questionnaire property owners were invited to participate in a more
detailed on-site survey of their property. The site visit included a review of the septic system
layout, lot drainage patterns and more detailed information regarding the maintenance and
operation of private sewage and well supplies. Homeowners were also given an opportunity to
provide comments on the proposed servicing project. Willing property owners were also given
the opportunity to have their private water supply sampled for potential bacteriological
contamination. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the results of the on-site surveys. Copies of all
correspondence associated with the Phase 1 Investigation are included within Appendix ‘C’.
(b)
Drinking Water Quality Analysis
Water from Inverhuron wells comes from groundwater which is a shared resource that crosses
property lines. Contamination from one well can put other wells at risk as they draw water from
the same aquifer. When surface water travels down through soil to groundwater, it can take
harmful pathogens (bacteria, viruses and parasites) with it. The presence of Total Coliform acts
as an early warning signal, the presence of E. coli indicates there is animal and/or human waste
contamination. These two parameters tell you that there is a health risk associated with well
water.
Water samples taken in 2009 and 2010 were during dry weather periods. The single samples
were taken under the guidance of the GBHU and a Canadian certified Public Health Inspector.
Samples were taken in the presence of the property owner, placed in coolers containing ice
packs, maintained at 4 degrees Celsius or lower and transported the same day to the Kincardine
hospital laboratory which is a provincially authorized lab for submitting drinking water samples.
Samples were analyzed by the Ontario Ministry of Health Laboratory in London. Property
owners were advised that in order to determine the stability of a well, a minimum of three
Page 22
samples taken in a row, one to three weeks apart are required. The well water in Inverhuron
comes from an aquifer considered to be highly vulnerable to contamination, largely as a result of
the geology of the area, which is made up of Karstic bedrock with little to no overburden layer
(soil) to provide a protective cover. In the spring of 2010 all Inverhuron property owners were
sent a letter inviting them to participate in the water well sampling survey which included a
brochure on well water testing and well maintenance. Twenty five private wells were sampled
in 2009 and an additional 15 sampled in 2010 for a total of 40 wells. The results are summarized
in Table 3.1 below and are illustrated on Figure 3.3.
Table 3.1
Drinking Water Sampling Results
-
38 properties sampled;
of these 12 properties (32%) had poor water quality;
3 of the wells had E.coli (unsafe to drink);
1 well had >5 Total Coliform (unsafe to drink);
7 wells had between 1-5 Total Coliform (may be unsafe to drink);
26 private; 8 communal; 2 private dug; 2 private sand point;
only 1 property owner of the 11 with poor water quality had installed a water treatment system (UV light)
Organism (per 100 ml of water)
Total Coliform
5 or less
Interpretation
 no significant evidence of
bacterial contamination
 aim for 0 Total Coliform
& 0 E. coli


E. Coli
0
Total Coliform
E. Coli
More than 5
0
 significant evidence of
bacterial contamination


E. Coli
>0
 unsafe to drink – animal
or human contamination



Reason
may be unsafe to drink
3 samples in a row, taken 1 to 3
weeks apart, with this designation
are needed to determine the
stability of the water supply
may be unsafe to drink
consult local public health for
information as soon as possible
unsafe to drink
evidence of animal or human
waste contamination
consult local public health
immediately
The survey also demonstrated that property owners lacked knowledge about how often to sample
their water supply. The following were some of the reoccurring comments:
 never sample the well water;
 take one sample and if it is OK, don’t take any more samples;
 used to take one sample a year but since the samples were always OK, stopped sampling.
The recommended public health practice is to sample private well water as follows:
 each change of season;
 after periods of heavy flooding;
 prior to opening seasonal properties;
 3 samples in a row taken 1 to 3 weeks apart each are needed to determine the stability of
the water supply.
Figure 3.1:
Septic System Information
Page 23
Figure 3.2: Private Well Information
Page 24
(c)
Page 26
Lot Size Analysis
Utilizing parcel fabric data provided by the Municipality of Kincardine and minimum separation
distances as outlined within the Ontario Building Code, a lot size assessment was completed for
the study area to determine the relative capability of individual parcels to support both a
traditional sewage disposal system and a private well supply. Table 3.2 summarizes the criteria
utilized in the assessment.
Table 3.2
Lot Size Analysis:
Inverhuron Study Area
Lot Size
< 15,000 sq. Feet
15,000 – 30,000 sq. Feet
> 30,000 sq. Feet
Total
Criteria
Insufficient lot area for septic
Insufficient lot area for both septic and well
Sufficient lot area
Results
275 (61%)
100 (22%)
79 (17%)
454 (100%)
The results of the assessment indicate that, under the current standards of the OBC, more than
60% of parcels located within the study area limits are too small to support a traditional sewage
disposal system and an additional 22% cannot support both a septic system and well. Only 17%
of parcels are of sufficient size to support both a private well and sewage disposal system .
3.3
Conclusions
Based upon the results of the detailed on-site interviews and other analysis conducted during
Phase 1 of the Class Environmental Assessment process, the following conclusions have been
reached:

The bedrock aquifer which services many private well supplies within the Inverhuron study
area has been identified as high risk by the local Source Water Protection Region due to a
combination of factors including; 1) thin protective overburden layer, 2) high density of
wells, and 3) fractured (karstic) nature of the bedrock which allows for rapid movement of
water between the surface and aquifer;

Bacteriological sampling of private well supplies within the Inverhuron settlement area
indicates that contamination is occurring and is fairly evenly distributed throughout the
community. This is an indication that multiple sources of contamination are present and
are potentially affecting the current population;

The results of the lot size assessment completed for the study area indicate that over 60%
of parcels within the study area are too small to support a traditional sewage disposal
system and an additional 22% of properties are too small to support both a well and septic
system. Only 17% of properties reviewed were of sufficient size to support both a septic
system and private well supply;
Page 27

The results of the detailed on-site surveys indicate that over 50 % of septic systems serving
the surveyed properties are 30 years in age or older. Many of the systems were also
determined to be substandard and poorly maintained (some systems were shared between
more than one property). This situation contributes to the bacteriological contamination of
local watercourses and beach areas, as well as an increased public health risk; and

The community of Inverhuron is the largest settlement area in the Municipality of
Kincardine not fully serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewer facilities. Regional
and Provincial planning documents promote full municipal servicing as the preferred form
of servicing for larger settlement areas and discourage partial servicing, except as a
termporary measure until full municipal servicing can be provided.
4.0
CLASS EA PROCESS
4.1
Phase 1 - Identification of Problem/Opportunity
Based on the results of the Phase 1 investigation which is summarized below, and the
preliminary problem identification which was understood at the start of the Class EA process,
the following problem/opportunity has been identified for this project:
a)






b)
Problem and Opportunity Identification
bedrock geology (high risk)
aging, poorly maintained septic systems
undersized lots – unable to support current provincial regulatory standards for replacement
septic systems (61%)
close proximity of wells (both dug & drilled) and onsite septic sytems
water quality concerns (ground & surface)
Building Canada Fund – Communities Component Grant
Problem/Opportunity Statement
Given current servicing standards, existing sewage and water infrastructure associated
with the Inverhuron settlement area is insufficient to service the current population. The age and
condition of existing services pose a potential health risk to the community based on the density
of development and factors associated with the current environmental setting.
Receipt of two thirds grant funding presented the Municipality with the opportunity to address
ongoing servicing issues within the community of Inverhuron and to provide a significant cost
savings to residents.
4.2
Page 28
Class EA Schedule
In order to provide full municipal servicing to the community of Inverhuron, the Municipality is
investigating alternatives to extend municipal water and sewage services to those properties not
fully serviced by either water or sewage servicing. The alternatives being considered would
potentially involve the extension of an existing sewage collection system outside of existing road
allowances and utility corridors. From a Class EA perspective, these types of activities are
considered Schedule B activities, approved subject to the completion of a screening process
(incorporating Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process). This involves screening the project for
environmental impacts and developing mitigation strategies. Public and government agency
consultation is also a component of the screening process.
4.3
Phase 2 - Identification of Alternative Solutions
(a)
General
The second phase of the Class EA process involves the identification and evaluation of
alternative solutions to resolve the identified problem or opportunity. The evaluation of
alternatives is conducted by examining the technical, economic, and environmental
considerations associated with implementing any alternative. Mitigation measures that could
lessen environmental impacts are also defined. A preferred solution or solutions is then selected.
(b)
Identification of Practical Alternatives
The purpose of the second stage of the investigation was to define alternative solutions to the
identified problems in a manner that minimizes potential environmental impacts. A limited
number of practical solutions to the defined problems were identified at the outset of this Class
EA process. The alternatives, stated below, build upon the findings of the engineering review
discussed previously in this report.
Alternative 1 – Extend only municipal water to Inverhuron. This option would involve the
extension of the Kincardine pipeline water supply to areas of the community not already
serviced.
Alternative 2 – Extend only municipal sanitary servicing to Inverhuron. This option would
involve the construction of a sewage collection system within those areas of Inverhuron not
already serviced by municipal sewage servicing.
Alternative 3 – Extend both water and sanitary sewer servicing to Inverhuron. This option
would involve the extension of both water and sanitary sewage servicing within those areas of
Inverhuron not already serviced by either municipal water or sewage servicing.
Alternative 4 – Do nothing. This means that the extension of municipal sanitary servicing to
the community of Inverhuron would not occur. The Do Nothing alternative may be implemented
at any time in the design process prior to construction. This decision is typically made when the
costs of all alternatives, both financial and environmental, significantly outweigh the benefits.
4.4
Assessment Methodology
(a)
Evaluation Method and Procedures
Page 29
The evaluation of alternatives process was carried out using a comparative assessment method
designed to predict the nature and magnitude of environmental impacts resulting from each
defined option and to assess the relative merits of each alternative solution being considered.
The evaluation method involves these principal tasks:







4.5
Identification of existing environmental conditions (baseline conditions, inventories)
Assessment of existing land use, infrastructure, natural features and socio-economic
characteristics (i.e., environmental scoping).
Review of proposed alternatives and related works.
Identification of environmental components and sub-components that may be affected by
the defined alternatives (i.e., define evaluation criteria).
Prediction of environmental impacts (positive, negative) resulting from the construction
and implementation of the preferred alternative.
Identification and evaluation of measures to mitigate adverse effects
Selection of a preferred alternative following a comparative analysis of the relative merits
of each option.
Public Consultation Program
Public consultation is an integral component of the Class EA process. Public consultation allows
for an exchange of information, which assists the proponent in making informed decisions during
the evaluation of alternative solutions. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has established
protocols for the design of Class EA public consultation programs in order to facilitate effective,
two-way communication during the process. In this respect, the Ministry prescribes that to
achieve meaningful participation, Class EA consultation plans should adhere to these key
principles:








Initiate consultation early in the process to promote dialogue and information sharing.
Ensure project information is disseminated adequately and effectively to affected
property owners, stakeholders, review agencies and Aboriginal Communities.
Create multiple opportunities to engage interested parties and to solicit input.
Present the assessment process and the project in an open and transparent manner.
Establish a systematic method to record, review and consider input received.
Promptly acknowledge, and attempt to address, concerns raised.
Clearly document input received through consultation.
Identify outstanding concerns at the conclusion of the process.
At the outset of the Class EA process, a consultation program was developed that was considered
to be appropriate for the local environmental context and suitable for the nature of the problem
and the scale of the proposed alternatives. The specific elements of the program are as follows:

Page 30

Circulation of Public Meeting/Notice of Study Commencement to all residents of
Inverhuron located within the study area boundary.
Distribution of background information to government review agencies.
Compilation and review of comments received.
Acknowledgement and response to comments received via an appropriate method.
Arrange for 3 public meetings to present project information and to solicit input, to
address concerns from stakeholders and/ or the general public.
Circulation of a Notice of Study Completion to interested parties and review agencies.
Preparation of a Screening Report documenting the findings of the screening process
during the Notice of Completion stage. Making the report available for public review.
Documentation of input received and outstanding concerns within the Screening Report.
Attempt to address any outstanding issues.
4.6
Identification of Environmental Components and Sub-Components
(a)
Environmental Features







Section 4.3 of this report listed the alternative solutions that were identified in conjunction with
the Class EA process. As part of the evaluation procedure, it is necessary to assess what effect
each option may have on the environment and what measures can be taken to mitigate the
identified impacts. The two main purposes of this exercise are to:


Minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects associated with a project.
Incorporate environmental factors into the decision-making process.
By definition, the EA Act generally separates the “environment” into five general elements:





Natural environment
Social environment
Cultural environment
Economic environment
Technical environment
The identified environmental components can be further subdivided into specific elements which
have the potential to be affected by the implementation of the alternative solutions. Table 4.1
provides an overview of the Specific Environmental Components considered of relevance to this
investigation. These components were identified following the initial round of public and
agency input, and a preliminary review of each alternative with respect to technical
considerations and the existing environmental setting of the project area.
Page 31
Table 4.1
Evaluation of Alternatives:
Identification of Environmental Components
Environmental
Components
Sub-Components
Specific Components
-
Aquatic Environment
-
Natural Environment
-
Terrestrial Habitat
-
Geology
Social Environment
Community
Cultural Environment
Heritage
Municipal
Economic Environment
Community
-
-
Technical Environment
Infrastructure
-
(b)
Aquatic habitat
Water Quality
Resident fish species
Vegetation Communities
Significant Natural Features
Species at Risk (SAR)
Bedrock Geology
Hydrogeology
Disruption during construction
Quality of Life
Historical/Cultural Resources
Buried archaeological resources
Capital costs
Tax Rate
Property Values
Capital Costs
Carrying Costs
System Capacity
System Design Alternatives
Construction methods
Impact Analysis
The environmental effects of each study alternative on the identified environmental features are
determined through an assessment of the following impact predictors (i.e., impact criteria):








Nature (direct, indirect, cumulative).
Magnitude (level of effect, loss of function).
Location/ Extent (where effect occurs, number/ volume affected).
Scale (localized or regional effects).
Timing (seasonality of effects, immediate or delayed impacts).
Frequency (intermittent or continuous).
Reversibility (extent of recovery, recovery time).
Socio-economic and cultural context (characteristics of affected community, implications
for recovery).
Page 32
For the purposes of this Class EA, impact determination criteria developed by Natural Resources
Canada has been applied to predict the magnitude of environmental effects resulting from the
implementation of a project. Table 4.2 summarizes the impact criteria.
Table 4.2
Criteria for Impact Determination
Level of Effect
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal/ Nil
General Criteria
Implementation of the project could threaten sustainability of features and
should be considered a management concern. Additional remediation,
monitoring and research may be required to reduce impact potential.
Implementation of the project could result in a resource decline below
baseline, but impact levels should stabilize following project completion and
into the foreseeable future. Additional management actions may be required
for mitigation purposes.
Implementation of the project could have a limited impact upon the resource
during the lifespan of the project. Research, monitoring and/or recovery
initiatives may be required for mitigation purposes.
Implementation of the project could impact upon the resource during the
construction phase of the project but would have a negligible impact on the
resource during the operational phase.
Given the criteria defined above, the significance of adverse effects is predicated on these
considerations:

Impacts from a proposed alternative assessed as having a Moderate or High level of
effect on a given feature would be considered significant.

Impacts from a proposed alternative assessed as having a Minimal/ Nil to Low level of
effect on a given feature would not be considered significant.
4.7
Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
The second component of Phase 2 of the Class EA process, being the evaluation of the defined
alternatives, is conducted by examining the technical, economic, and environmental
considerations associated with the implementation of any alternative. Mitigation measures that
could lessen environmental impacts are also defined. A preferred solution or solutions is then
selected.
Several activities were incorporated into the assessment process, including a detailed review of
each alternative with the Steering Committee, input from distributors of the collection
alternatives being considered and extensive consultation with municipal staff and the general
public.
4.8
Preliminary Assessment of Alternatives
(a)
Overview of Alternatives
Page 33
A preliminary engineering analysis was conducted to determine the works required to implement
each of the identified project alternatives. Table 4.3 summarizes the findings of that assessment.
Figures 4.1 to 4.3 illustrate the works associated with Alternatives 1 to 4.
Table 4.3
Primary Components of the Identified Alternatives
Alternative
Related Works
Alternative 1 –
Extend Water
Only
 Install 150 mm dia. watermains within those areas of Inverhuron not
currently serviced with municipal water.
 Install fire hydrants at appropriate intervals throughout the community.
 Negotiate easements on private land, if required, to service properties
fronting on privately owned roadways.
Alternative 2 –
Extend Sewers
Only
 Install sewage collection system within municipal and private road
allowances throughout the Inverhuron service area.
 Install service connections adjacent to each parcel.
Alternative 3 –
Extend both
Sewage and
Water
 Install sewage collection system within municipal and private road
allowances throughout the Inverhuron service area.
 Install service connections adjacent to each parcel.
 Install 150 mm dia. watermains within those areas of Inverhuron not
currently serviced with municipal water.
 Install fire hydrants at appropriate intervals throughout the community.
Alternative 4 –
Do Nothing
 No new works planned
(b)
Comparative Analysis
Table 4.4 provides a summary of the key considerations for each option with respect to the
environmental components described in Table 4.1. The table identifies benefits and impacts that
were identified as significant during the initial evaluation of alternatives. Potential mitigation
measures for the identified impacts are also presented.
Page 34
Table 4.4
Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
Study Alternative
Alternative 1
(Extend only
municipal water to
Inverhuron)
Benefits
- Provides a safe and abundant
supply of drinking water to
residents of Inverhuron.
-
Implements the final phase of
the Water Supply Master Plan
completed by the Municipality
of Kincardine in 2002.
- Addresses some of the risks
associated with the groundwater
aquifer related to the geology of
the study area and the current
environmental setting.
-
Minimizes potential impacts to
natural and cultural
environments, as works would
be limited to those areas not
currently serviced by municipal
water.
- Results in minimal impacts to
air quality, noise levels and
local aesthetics, once
construction of the works is
completed.
Potential Impacts
- Fails to address deficiencies with
existing private sewage disposal
systems.
- Fails to resolve the identified
problems.
- May result in long term impacts to the
natural environment and public health
resulting from contamination related to
the high risk groundwater aquifer and
inadequate septic systems.
- May result in economic impacts to
municipal residents due to capital and
operating costs associated with project.
Terrestrial features within the existing
road allowance could be impacted by
construction activities (e.g. tree
removal).
- Construction related impacts such as
noise and vibration could disrupt
residents use of their seasonal
properties.
- May result in some impacts to traffic
movement due to the installation of
services within the travelled portion of
the roadway.
-
Initial Remediation
- Work closely with Grey Bruce Health Unit
(GBHU) to identify alternative sewage
disposal systems that would function
adequately on undersized lots.
- Work with GBHU and Public Works staff
to identify all potentially failing or
inadequate systems.
BCF-CC grant will significantly reduce
economic burden to residents, assuming
grant can be utilized for a water-only
option.
- Amortization options will be offered to
residents to minimize impact of capital
charges.
- Tree and vegetation removal will be
minimized as much as possible.
-
Construction within primarily seasonal
areas of the community will be deferred
until after peak summer periods to
minimize impacts to seasonal property
uses.
- Implement traffic control measures to
limit construction-related impacts (lane
restrictions may be required).
-
Study Alternative
Alternative 2
(Extend only
municipal sanitary
sewers to
Inverhuron)
Benefits
-
Provides full municipal sewage
servicing to all residents of
Inverhuron.
-
Addresses environmental
problems presented by existing
private sewage disposal
systems.
- Should result in some
improvements to water quality
within the defined study area.
- Results in minimal impacts to
air quality, noise levels and
local aesthetics, once
construction of the works is
completed.
Page 35
Potential Impacts
- Construction across watercourses and
within sensitive areas such as the sand
beach area, could disturb sensitive
terrestrial and aquatic habitat.
Initial Remediation
- Promote the use of trench-less technology
to minimize impact to natural features.
- Consult with local Conservation Authority
regarding additional mitigation measures
required to limit construction-related
impacts.
Fails to address risks associated with
the groundwater aquifer servicing the
Inverhuorn study area.
problems.
- May result in long term impacts to
public health resulting from potential
contamination associated with the at
risk groundwater aquifer.
-
-
-
removal).
-
Construction related impacts such as
properties.
Work with GBHU and Public Works staff
to identify inadequate or contaminated
private well supplies.
- Encourage local residents to sample
private water supplies on a regular basis
and to undertake maintenance of private
well supplies.
BCF-CC grant will significantly reduce
economic burden to residents, assuming
grant can be utilized for a sewer-only
option.
charges.
- Tree and vegetation removal will be
-
-
uses.
Study Alternative
Benefits
Potential Impacts
- May result in some impacts to traffic
services within boulevards.
Initial Remediation
- Implement traffic control measures to
Fails to implement final phase of the
Water Supply Master Plan completed
in 2002.
-
-
Alternative 3
(Extend both water
and sanitary sewer
services to
Inverhuron)
-
Provides full municipal water
and sewage servicing to all
residents of Inverhuron.
-
Addresses potential risks to
private water supplies presented
by the existing high risk
groundwater aquifer.
-
-
-
Will result in minimal
disruption to natural areas
within the study area limits due
to construction primarily within
existing road allowances.
Allows for continued growth
and development within the
community.
Page 36
Identified impact cannot be mitigated.
Promote the use of trenchless technology
construction techniques to minimize
impact to environmental features.
(SVCA) regarding additional mitigation
measures required to limit constructionrelated impacts.
- BCF-CC grant obtained by Municipality
will significantly reduce economic burden
to residents.
charges.
removal).
- Construction related impacts such as
properties.
-
Tree and vegetation removal will be
-
uses.
May result in some impacts to traffic
services within boulevards.
-
Implement traffic control measures to
-
Study Alternative
Alternative 4
(Do Nothing)
Benefits
-
Represents the least expensive
option.
Page 37
Potential Impacts
Initial Remediation
- Promote the use of trenchless technology
construction techniques to minimize
impact to environmental features.
(SVCA) regarding additional mitigation
measures required to limit constructionrelated impacts.
Fails to address deficiencies with
existing private water supplies and
sewage disposal systems.
problems.
- May result in long term impacts to the
natural environment and public health
resulting from contamination related to
the high risk groundwater aquifer and
inadequate septic systems.
- Fails to utilize grant funding
opportunity.
- Identified impacts cannot be mitigated.
-
Class Environmental Assessment for Extension of Municipal Water and Sanitary Sewage Servicing
5.0
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROGRAM
5.1
General
Page 38
The components of the public consultation program outlined in section 4.5 of this report are
described in more detail below and documented in Appendix ‘E’. Comments received through
the program and related correspondence are also summarized below and documented in the same
appendix.
5.2
Notice of Commencement
The Municipality of Kincardine issued a Notice of Study Commencement and Public
Information Meeting for Phase 1 of the Class EA process on June 10, 2009. The Notice
outlined:





The scope of the proposed project;
The extent of the project study area;
That a Building Canada Fund, Communities Component grant had been received;
That on-site interviews would be conducted;
That an information meeting was scheduled for Saturday, June 27, 2009.
The Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Meeting were advertised in the
June, 10, 2009 and June 17, 2009 issues of the community newspapers; the Kincardine Times
and the Kincardine Independent. The notice was also circulated to all property owners within the
project study area. Individuals were given the opportunity to provide initial comments on the
project on or before July 22, 2009.
5.3
Review Agency Circulation
Input into the Class EA process was solicited from government review agencies and stakeholder
groups by way of direct mail correspondence. Agencies and stakeholders that might have an
interest in the project were sent an information package detailing the nature of the project and an
outline of the assessment process being undertaken for the project. The information was
circulated to six review agencies and stakeholder groups on June 4, 2009. Appendix ‘D’
contains a copy of the information circulated to review agencies and a list of the agencies and
stakeholder groups requested to comment on this project. Table 5.1 summarizes the comments
received.
Page 39
Table 5.1
Summary of Review Agency Comments:
Notice of Commencement Phase
Review Agency
Bruce County
Highways Dept.
June 12, 2009
(via email)
Comments/ Concerns
- Supportive of project.
- County recently paved C.R. 15 but willing to work
with Municipality on current servicing project.
- Wondered if drainage improvements could be
incorporated into project.
Ontario Realty Corp.
July 3, 2009
(via email)
Saugeen Valley
Conservation Authority
Aug. 31, 2009
(via mail)
- No record of ORC managed properties within Study
Area Limits.
- Asked to be removed from circulation list.
- Advised of historic flooding problems and report
completed by Paragon Engineering Ltd. in 1993.
- Concerned with intensification of development that
may result from project & impact on flooding issues.
- Advised of existing flood control project south of C.R.
15 completed for Township of Kincardine.
- Unaware of specific problems with wells or septics,
agree that water quality will likely improve as a result
of project.
- Portions of study are subject to SVCA regulations.
- Beach area of Inverhuron is very sensitive.
- Groundwater seeps should be protected if encountered
during construction.
- Will advise on potential impact to fish habitat later in
project once detailed information is available.
5.4
Action Taken
- Comments
forwarded to
Kincardine
Public Works
for their
information.
- Copied to file.
- Letter copied to
Municipality and
summarized for
Steering
Committee.
Aboriginal Consultation – Initial Consultation Phase
As directed by the MOE in their correspondence dated December 5, 2006, a number of federal and
provincial agencies were contacted at the start of the Class EA process to determine if there was
an aboriginal interest in the project study area. Responses were received from three branches of
Indian & Northern Affairs Canada advising of new consultation procedures for the department.
As a result a number of First Nations communities located in the general vicinity of the project
study area were circulated additional project information. Copies of correspondence associated
with the initial consultation phase are included within Appendix ‘F’.
Responses were received from two Aboriginal Communities, the Historic Saugeen Métis and the
Saugeen Ojibwa Nation (SON). Information packages detailing study investigations were
prepared and circulated to both communities for review and comment. Following receipt of the
information package, a response was received from the Historic Saugeen Métis. They indicated
that they would like to receive copies of any archaeological reports completed in conjunction with
the project, they wanted to ensure that the sensitive dune habitats were protected during
construction, and they generally concurred with the EA process completed to date.
Page 40
A response was also received from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) requesting to meet with
representatives from the Muncipality of Kincardine in order to discuss the project in more detail.
In advance of the meeting, a draft consultation agreement was forwarded to the Municipality of
Kincardine for their review.
5.5
First Public Information Meeting
A Public Information Meeting was held on June 27, 2009 in the Municipality of Kincardine
Administration Centre. The meeting was arranged to provide local residents and other
stakeholders with details on the first phase of the Class EA and to receive input from interested
persons. The meeting included an open house component, a formal presentation, and a question
and answer session. The following information was presented:





A review of project background.
A summary of the Class EA process.
Development of a project Liaison Committee
A general description of the initial property owner questionnaire and on-site surveys.
A summary of future actions needed to complete the Class EA process.
Approximately 100 residents and stakeholders attended the meeting. There was a lively
discussion during the course of the formal presentation, which elicited many comments from
those residents in attendance. Notes from the meeting are found in Appendix ‘E’ along with
copies of the presentation material. Table 5.2 summarizes comments recorded during the
question and answer period. All questions were documented and compiled into a Q & A
document which was posted on the municipal website following the meeting.
Page 41
Table 5.2
Summary of Public Comments:
June 27, 2009 Public Meeting
Stakeholder
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Public Meeting
Attendee
Inverhuron
Resident
Sept 1, 2009
(via email)
Comments/ Concerns
- Questioned whether the Municipality would contribute
toward the capital costs of the project and if not, where
the funding would come from?
- Questioned the benefit of the project and whether
permanent residents would benefit more than seasonal.
- Questioned who would be designing the project and how
input into the design could be submitted.
- Questioned whether pumping stations could be used
rather than grinder pumps in some areas.
- Questioned whether Lake Street residents who are
already connected will have to pay to replace sewer.
- Questioned why water is being provided when the
existing water supply is fine.
- Once connected to Municipal water, will existing wells
need to be decommissioned or can they be kept for nonpotable uses?
- If services are installed along un-maintained private
roads, will the road then become maintained by the
Municipality?
- Has inflation been considered in the cost estimate
prepared in 2009 for the grant application?
- Will a new road need to be constructed along Lake
Street North in the sand beach area?
- Has anyone studied water quality within Inverhuron to
see if this project is really necessary?
- Taxes paid by Inverhuron residents help all residents of
Kincardine. Why shouldn’t they help Inverhuron?
- Will residents who have recently installed new septic
systems be forced to connect to sewers?
- Can residents involved in the Lake Street North project
abandon that project and join this one?
- When was the last time a public works project came in
on time and on budget?
- Are costs expected to grow during the process?
- How will people be selected for the steering committee
and who will choose the members?
- Wondered what servicing options were being considered
in addition to low pressure sewers
- Many questions about grinder pumps & their operation.
- Concerned about road in sand beach area.
- Questioned operation of water system during winter.
- Wondered where sewage would be treated.
Response
- Response via Q & A
- Response sent via
email.
5.6
Page 42
Second Public Information Meeting
A second Public Information Meeting was held on July 17, 2010 in the Municipality of
Kincardine Administration Centre. The meeting was arranged to provide local residents and
other stakeholders with an update on the Class EA process and to receive input from interested
parties. The meeting included an open house component, a formal presentation, and a question
and answer session. The general purpose of the meeting was to provide audience members with
information pertaining to the following:
-
Inverhuron Hydrogeology
Project Scope
Results of 2009 On-Site Surveys
Water Sampling Results 2009 & 2010
Status of Class EA Process
A summary of future actions needed to complete the Class EA process
Approximately 130 residents and stakeholders attended the meeting. There was a formal
presentation followed by a question and answer period. Notes from the meeting are found in
Appendix ‘E’ along with a copy of the presentation material. Table 5.3 summarizes comments
that were received as a result of the second public meeting and other public notification
components of the EA process.
Table 5.3
July 17, 2010 Public Meeting
Agency/Individual
Lake St. resident
July 14, 2010
(via email)
Victoria St. resident
July 16, 2010
(via email)
Lake St. North
resident
July 23, 2010
(comment sheet)
Lake St. North
resident
July 23, 2010
(comment sheet)
Comments/ Concerns
- Have both municipal water and sewer
- Would object if this would cost me any additional funds or
cause disruption to existing services or access to my
home/property
- Who do I contact to discuss potential impacts?
- Very interested to find out if lot(s) I own will be included in the
study area. Was not able to tell from the map on your Meeting
Notice.
- Cannot attend public meeting. Please advise if my property is
located in the proposed construction area?
- Main concern is that the dune environment of Lake St. N. be
preserved
- Understand that a temporary road will be required and will be
removed when the installation is complete.
- I trust that this temporary road will be successfully removed
and the area restored to it’s original condition
- Meeting was very informative. Thank you for including
residents and listening to concerns.
- Trust project will minimize impact to environment and
cost to residents.
Response/Action
- Responded via
email
- Responded via
email
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
Agency/Individual
John St. resident
August 3, 2010
(comment sheet)
Wood St. resident
August 13, 2010
(comment sheet)
-
John St. resident
August 23, 2010
(comment sheet)
-
John St. resident
Sept. 13, 2010
(comment sheet)
Inverhuron resident
Sept 24, 2010
(via letter)
-
5.7
Comments/ Concerns
- Good meeting – informative & controlled.
- The municipality and the EA Team obviously did their
homework and presented the hard facts as to why sewers are
absolutely necessary in the community.
- We are one of the properties who are in need of a new
well & septic system but cannot replace them as the old ones
are on municipal property – if sewer & water is not installed –
what is the solution?
Support concept of sewers at Inverhuron. Strongly opposed to
the grinder system.
Do not think I should pay for replacing existing sewers.
Sewers should take priorty over water if there are money
concerns.
Hook up to the sewers should be phased in and provide
alternative methods of payment (up front, over 10 or 20 years).
SE corner of Albert & John St. possible site for SPS.
Many users are part-time residents & seniors – system must be
one that can be managed without hiring a plumber every spring
& fall.
What happens when grinders become buried by sand?
Is the existing sewage treatment facilitity at the Bruce Energy
Park adequate?
Will the system be able to handle change from almost no useage
to almost full usage around May 24th?
Have grave doubts about how the grinder pumps will work and
the idea of sewage being under pressure
Much more in favour of the gravity system and would definitely
like this method to be put in place
Concerns with future infrastructure needs in Inverhuron.
Design of Lake St. South made no provision for growth.
Inverhuron is attractive lakeside community with significant
potential for growth.
Represents closest residential option for employees of the
largest employer within a seventy-five radius.
Inverhuron has several hundred acres of available
developable land if equipped with adequate infrastrcture
Inverhuron’s basic geography provides significant
future growth potential for marine and tourism facilities.
Page 43
Response/Action
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Comments
noted and
filed.
Web Site Presence
It was determined, at the beginning of the Class EA process for this project, that a strong website
presence would be required to allow seasonal residents an opportunity to access project
information on a year round basis. Accordingly, project information was routinely posted on the
Kincardine Municipal website. Public meeting presentation material, meeting notes and Q & A
documents were made available for members of the public. In addition, information associated
with the Inverhuron Steering Committee was also posted on the municipal website.
6.0
ANALYSIS OF SERVICING ALTERNATIVES
6.1
General
Page 44
Phase three of the Municipal Class EA process involves the consideration and review of design
alternatives associated with the preferred solution. Although the Inverhuron Class EA process
was determined to be a Schedule B undertaking, which is only required to complete Phases 1 & 2
of the Class EA process, potential impacts associated with the various servicing alternatives
being considered, and significant concerns expressed by the public related to these alternatives,
led the Inverhuron Steering Committee to recommend that the Environmental Assessment
process for this project include a consideration of various servicing alternatives associated with
the preliminary preferred alternative.
6.2
Identification of a Preliminary Preferred Alternative
Based upon a detailed review of the problem/opportunity statement established for this project,
and potential impacts and benefits associated with each option (refer to Table 4.4), the Steering
Committee formed in conjunction with this project indicated a preference for Alternative 3,
extension of both municipal sewage and water servicing to Inverhuron.
The following are the key attributes associated with this alternative, which justified its selection
as the preliminary servicing plan preferred by the Steering Committee (SC):





6.3
Addresses impacts associated with deficient or failing private sewage disposal systems;
Provides a safe and secure domestic water supply, constructed and operated in accordance
with all applicable provincial legislation;
Provides full municipal servicing to the majority of residents of Inverhuron;
Addresses potential risks associated with the groundwater aquifer which services private
well supplies within Inverhuron;
Completes the final component of the Lakeshore Water Supply Master Plan completed by
the Municipality in 2002.
Sanitary Servicing Alternatives
The preliminary preferred solution associated with this project, to extend both municipal sewage
and water servicing to Inverhuron, provides few alternatives in regards to water servicing.
However, a number of sanitary sewage servicing alternatives are available which could be
considered in conjunction with this project. Accordingly, the consideration of design alternatives
focussed on various sanitary servicing alternatives which could be utilized to service those areas
of Inverhuron not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewers.
Based upon the results of preliminary engineering investigations and input received from the
Steering Committee members, three sanitary servicing alternatives were identified for additional
consideration.
Page 45
Sanitary Servicing Alternative 1 – Hybrid: This option would involve the extension of
municipal sanitary servicing to the remainder of Inverhuron using a combination of gravity
sewers and low pressure sewers. Construction of a sewage pumping station (SPS) would be
required in conjunction with this option, to convey sewage north to the BEC (Bruce Energy
Centre) sewage treatment facility.
Sanitary Servicing Alternative 2 – Gravity: This option would involve the extension of
municipal sanitary servicing to the remainder of Inverhuron using a traditional gravity collection
system. Construction of two secondary and one main sewage pumping station would be
required with this option, to convey sewage to the main SPS and then north to the BEC facility.
Some low lying properties would still be serviced by grinder pumps with this option.
Sanitary Servicing Alternative 3 – Low Pressure: This option would involve the installation
of a low pressure collection system and individual grinder pump units at each home within the
study area. No sewage pumping station would be required in conjunction with this option.
Sanitary sewage flows generated in parts of Inverhuron and the Inverhuron Provincial Park are
currently conveyed, via forcemain, to the Bruce Energy Center Sewage Treatment Facility,
located north of Inverhuron. A portion of the available capacity at the facility has been allocated
to the Municipality of Kincardine.
6.4
Bruce Energy Center Sewage Treatment Facility
The Bruce Energy Centre (BEC) sewage treatment facility is located approximately 1.5 kms
northeast of Inverhuron at the intersection of Albert Road and Concession 2. The facility is a
four cell aerated lagoon which discharges to an existing wastewater discharge channel at the
Bruce Power facility and currently accepts waste from the communities of Tiverton and
Inverhuron, Inverhuron Provincial Park, and the Bruce Energy Centre. It was determined at the
start of the Class EA process that sufficient capacity was available at the facility to accept
anticipated flows resulting from the servicing of Inverhuron. Figure 6.1 illustrates the location of
the BEC STP in relation to the community of Inverhuron. The facility is currently rated for
2200 m³/day with capacity at the plant allocated as per Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Existing and Anticipated Flows:
BEC Sewage Treatment Facility
Bruce Energy Center
Tiverton
Inverhuron (current)
Inverhuron EA
Bruce Power Reserve
Total
Reserve Capacity
Current
Allocation
1230 m³/day
700 m³/day
270 m³/day
56%
32%
12%
2200 m³/day
100%
%
Current
Flows
630 m³/day
325 m³/day
40 m³/day
29%
15%
2%
995 m³/day
1205 m³/day
55%
45%
%
Anticipated
Flows
630 m³/day
325 m³/day
40 m³/day
506 m³/day
200 m³/day
1701 m³/day
499 m³/day
%
29%
15%
2%
23%
9%
78%
22%
Page 47
The Municipality of Kincardine purchased the BEC facility in 2012. The proposed allocation of
capacity at the plant, following completion of the Inverhuron Servicing EA, would see
approximately 38% of the capacity utilized by Bruce Power and the Bruce Energy Centre, 15%
of the capacity utilized by Tiverton and 25% of capacity utilized by the settlement of Inverhuron
and Inverhuron Provincial Park. A reserve capacity of 22% would remain to accommodate
future growth.
6.5
Additional Investigations
To estimate costs associated with the three primary servicing alternatives being considered,
several additional engineering investigations were undertaken by BMROSS.
(a)
Geotchnical Investigation
Based upon previous servicing projects completed in Inverhuron, bedrock is located at very
shallow depths through much of the study area. Excavation into the bedrock layer to install deep
gravity sewers can substantially increase costs associated with a servicing alternative. To
estimate the location and depth of bedrock in areas not previously examined, a geotechnical
consulting firm was retained to complete additional borehole analyses within areas of Inverhuron
not previously reviewed. Figure 6.2 illustrates the location of additional boreholes drilled in
conjunction with this project as well as a number of previous boreholes completed during the
Tiverton Servicing Project and the Kincardine Pipeline Project. A copy of the Geotechnical
Analysis is contained within Appendix ‘H’.
(b)
Sewage Pumping Station Investigation
Both the full gravity and hybrid servicing alternatives, which contain a significant gravity
collection component, would require construction of a main sewage pumping station (SPS) to
collect flows and convey them northward to the Bruce Energy Centre (BEC) sewage treatment
facility. A preliminary location for this facility was identified during the completion of the
BCF-CC grant application. However, detailed site investigations were not completed at that
time. Upon further analysis it was determined that the initial site, which was situated within the
unopened road allowance at the west end of John Street, was not large enough to accommodate
the proposed facility and also allow for required setbacks from adjacent lot lines or residences.
Several additional sites were then examined including a number of vacant parcels and lands
located within Inverhuron Provincial Park. Many of these sites were abandoned when the
property owners were approached and the proposal was rejected. Two locations were eventually
identified that warranted further assessment. The first was located near the intersection of Lake
Street and Bruce Road 15, within McIntyre Park, while the second was located at the westerly
extend of Cayley Street, adjacent to the mouth of the Little Sauble River. Figure 6.3 illustrates
the location of the two sites identified for further investigation.
±
LAKE HURON
101
VICTORIA
19
STREET
20
21
102
103
K
LA
LAKE S
TR
EET
104
T
EE
WOOD STREET 106
105
22
VICTORIA STREET
23
24
107
CAYLEY STREET
100
TR
ES
WELLINGTON STREET
ROBBIE LANE
111
25
25
^
^
26
112
26
114
113
ALBERT ROAD
115
108
109
RUFF ROAD
116
110
^
0
Borehole and Project No. 02207 (Kincardine Lakeshore Water Sytem)
Borehole and Project No. 74026 (Tiverton Sewage Works)
Borehole and Project No. 08175 (Inverhuron Sewage and Water Project)
Study Area Boundary
0.125
0.25
0.5
PLAN OF EXISTING BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
RICHARDS DRIVE
WHISPERING WOOD
BRUCE ROAD 15
^
Legend
MCPHERSON
ROAD
JOHN STREET
27
0.75
DATE
DEC. 4, 2013
SCALE
1:10,000
1
Kilometres
PROJECT No.
08175
FIGURE No.
6.2
(c)
Page 50
Lake Street South Servicing
As discussed within Section 2.5 (a) of this report, a portion of Lake Street located south of Bruce
County Road 15, was serviced by a municipal sanitary collection system in 1993. The system
was designed initially to service properties located on the west side of Lake Street, but has
sufficient capacity to accept flows from properties situated on the east side of the road allowance
as well. Approximately 41 properties are currently connected to the gravity collection sewer. In
2002, during construction of the Lakeshore water system, a portion of Lake Street South was
serviced by the municipal water supply via an easement located at the south end of the Lime Kiln
property. These water connections were installed at the request of residents and were intended as
a tempory measure until a permanent distribution watermain could be installed along the entire
length of Lake Street.
During the completion of preliminary engineering for the Inverhuron servicing project initially
conducted during preparation of the BCF-CC grant application, replacement of the existing
gravity sewer on Lake Street with a pressure-rated pipe, was identified as a possible outcome due
to the narrow width of the Lake Street road allowance (20 feet) and existing MOE separation
requirements for water and sanitary services. The existing sewer was installed near the middle of
the Lake Street road allowance and it would be very difficult to achieve the required MOE
setbacks (2.5 meters horizontally, or 0.5 metres vertically) for the proposed watermain without
significant impacts to existing vegetation and private properties. Replacement of the gravity
sewer with a pressure-rated pipe would allow the new watermain to be laid in the same trench as
the sewer.
Residents along Lake Street South expressed concerns over the proposed work and additional
costs associated with replacement of the sewer. An engineering investigation was undertaken to
examine other possible construction methods which could be utilized to install the watermain
and retain the existing sewer. The investigation considered installation of the watermain above
and/or beside the existing sewer as well as the possibility of multiple service lines within private
easements from Victoria Street. At its conclusion, the investigation determined that although it
may be possible to install a watermain along portions of Lake Street without replacing the
existing sewer, existing site limitations may require its replacement in many locations in order to
provide a municipal piped water supply to all residents, with the least amount of disturbance to
the existing Lake Street road allowance.
(d)
Agency Consultation
As both potential SPS locations were situated in close proximity to the Lake Huron shoreline,
input was sought from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) regarding possible
concerns associated with either location. The SVCA had significant concerns with the Cayley
Street site due to it’s proximity to the mouth of the Little Sauble River and the dynamic beach
zone, but had few concerns with the McIntyre Park location. Based on this input and feedback
received from Municipal Recreation staff who maintain the McIntyre Park property, the
Municipality decided to proceed with this location as the preferred site for the proposed sewage
pumping station. Figure 6.4 illustrates a proposed site plan for the Main Sewage Pumping
Station proposed for McIntyre Park.
(d)
Page 52
Estimated Costs
Based upon the results of the additional investigations described above, preliminary cost
estimates associated with each of the sanitary servicing options being considered were compiled
for presentation to the steering committee and project stakeholders.
Table 6.2
Estimated Capital Costs:1
Sanitary Sewage Alternatives
Option 1
(Hybrid)
Option 2
(Gravity)
Option 3
(Grinders)
Sewage
8,904,000
11,792,000
5,700,000
Water
2,060,000
2,060,000
2,060,000
Other
1,881,000
2,198,000
1,485,000
Total
12,845,000
16,050,000
9,245,000
Less BCF Grant (2/3)
6,076,400
6,076,400
6,076,400
Municipal Portion
6,769,000
9,974,000
3,169,000
Per Property Sewage
13,800
22,200
4,500
Plus Capital & Reserve Contribution ($1775)
15,575
23,975
6,275
Per Property Water
7,400
7,400
7,400
Plus Reserve Contribution ($300)
7,700
7,700
7,700
23,275
31,675
13,975
Total Cost for Both Sewage and Water
1. Estimated project costs were updated in 2014 to reflect additional costs incurred since completion of the original
Class EA report and increased construction costs due to inflation.
(e)
Kincardine Municipal Council Updates
Ensuring that Municipal Council members were advised of study progress during the Class EA
process is one component of a successful consultation program. Municipal staff and two
members of council attended each of the Steering Committee meetings throughout the EA
process undertaken for this project. In addition BMROSS staff presented an update to council
prior to the final public meeting to obtain feedback on key guiding principles associated with the
project, prior to formal presentation to the general public. The guiding principles endorsed by
council were as follows:
Page 53
i) Base water rate:
Establishment of a base water rate for all Inverhuron water customers to create equity
between residents serviced by the former pipeline project and new water customers to be
serviced in conjunction with the current project.
ii) Mandatory connection policies:
Endorsement of the concept of mandatory connection policies for all Inverhuron sewage
and water customers, including those serviced by the previous water pipeline project.
iii) Capital and reserve contributions:
Inclusion of capital and reserve contributions to project costs for both sewage and water
components of the project.
iv) Ownership and maintenance of grinder pumps:
Endorsement of the concept of municipal ownership and maintenance of grinder pumps
as a component of the low pressure collection system, if selected as the preferred
alternative for servicing of Inverhuron.
The guiding principles outlined above were presented to, and endorsed by, council prior to the
final public meeting held on July 9, 2011. These concepts were then presented to the public as
part of project information and incorporated into cost estimates associated with the various
servicing alternatives being presented.
6.6
Additional Public and Stakeholder Consultation
To permit the review of the sanitary servicing alternatives, an additional public meeting was held
to present the information to the public. Although the Class EA document indicates that Phase 3
consultation is to be directed to review agencies and previously interested stakeholders and
members of the public, it was felt that the general public should be provided with an opportunity
to review conceptual designs and costs associated with the three servicing options being
considered. A Public Notice was therefore placed in local papers and directly circulated to all
residents of Inverhuron located within the study area limits. A copy of the presentation material
is included in Appendix ‘E’. Details of the public meeting are outlined below.
(a)
Public Meeting Notice
Contents:
Issued:
Placed In:
Circulated To:
Input Period:
Description of preferred servicing alternative selected by Steering Committee.
June 29, 2011
Kincardine News, Kincardine Independent (June 29; July 6, 2011)
458 Property Owners, 7 Review Agencies/Organizations
Concluded August 19, 2011
(b)
Page 54
Third Public Information Meeting
A third Public Information Meeting was held on July 9, 2011 at the Municipality of Kincardine
Administration Centre. The meeting was arranged to provide local residents and other
stakeholders with details on the three sanitary servicing alternatives being considered to extend
municipal sanitary sewers throughout Inverhuron. The meeting included an open house
component, a formal presentation, and a question and answer session.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to provide audience members with details on the three
sanitary servicing alternatives being considered including the proposed costs associated with
each. Information pertaining to a number of Municipal Council policies such as mandatory
connection, a base water rate, capital and reserve charges, and ownership and maintenance of the
grinder pumps was also presented.
The meeting was very well attended with approximately 160 residents and stakeholders in
attendance. There was a lively discussion following the formal presentation, which elicited
many comments from those residents in attendance. Notes from the meeting are found in
Appendix ‘E’ along with a copy of the presentation material. Table 6.1 summarizes comments
that were received as a result of the public meeting and other public notification components of
the EA process.
Page 55
Table 6.3
July 9, 2011 Public Meeting
Agency/Individual
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Inverhuron resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Comments/ Concerns
-
Sell this building and put the money into sewer/water line.
Most in Inverhuron do not have water or sewage issues.
Why is Council forcing this on people who don’t want it and can’t afford it?
The original water line was a voluntary hook up and now you have stranded debt.
No feedback last time. Will you be sending any this time and if so, how will we receive it?
If 15% has land capacity to support water and septic, and it is maintained and meeting code, then
why include those properties?
Response/Action
Taken
- Comments
noted and filed.
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
- Impressed with process and presentation. Like option 3.
- Once tender for project initiated, will building permits for extensions be approved (prior to
completion)?
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Albert St. resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
- Have double chamber septic system, sitting on solid rock.
- The system is very safe.
- No name or
address
provided.
- No response
sent.
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Response
mailed
- Comments
noted and filed
- Comments
noted and filed.
-
- Answers sent by
mail
- Comments
noted and filed
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Please send a copy of the costs involved.
Option 3 seems to be the most cost efficient for the cottage owners as these are seasonal residences.
Is Municipality planning new development in Inverhuron? This will ruin our beautiful retreat!
Main goal is to develop Inverhuron, to prepare the sewers and water for housing and development.
Help!
- If I can’t afford $28,000 upgrade for this service, which member of council will give me the money?
- Comments
noted and filed.
John St. resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Inverhuron resident
July 9, 2011
(letter hand delivered)
- In favour of option 3. Many people on Lake, John & Wood St, would like project to move forward
quickly, and because they assume it will, did not attend the meeting.
- Many people spoke against project, however, guess that many are in favour and want it to get done.
- If option 1 or 2 is chosen, need to address issue of whether those on grinders would have to pay a
full share.
- There is no difference between the 3 options for them. In each case they are on a grinder, except for
the cost. Not fair to make them pay full share of option 1 or 2 if they would get the same result with
option 3, at a lower cost?
- What depth does sewer pipe have to be?
- What distance apart?
- Concerned with present and future effects on Little Sauble River and natural habitat in Provincial
Park & sand beach.
- Concerned with construction effects and future development within study area.
- Could impact Little Sauble River and fish habitat as completely as spring creek at south end of
Victoria Street.
- Limit storm or groundwater discharges down Robbie Lane road allowance into the Little Sauble
River.
- Seasonal owner, yearly usage is approximately 40 days.
July 9, 2011
- New septic tank. Water tested twice/season, always good.
(Comment Sheet)
- Why should they be forced to pay out huge dollars for un-wanted and unneeded water and sewage
systems?
John St. resident
- Thank you for informative presentation on July 9, 2011.
July 9, 2011
- Agree that option 3 is the best alternative. Unlike those who object to project, understand present
(Comment Sheet)
and future impact on the environment if project is not completed.
- Appreciate positive impact it will have on property values.
- Extremely short-sighted to not take advantage of grant.
- Look forward to project being completed ASAP.
Lorne Beach Rd. Resident Planned project does not impact my property at this time
July 9, 2011
Displays used are very useful in presenting the project.
(Comment Sheet)
Questions answered as requested.
Page 56
- Answers sent by
mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Answers mailed
- Comments
noted and filed
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
Comments noted
and filed.
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Archie St. resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Bruce Rd.15 resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Albert Rd. Resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Inverhuron Resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
John St. resident
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Project should be done now because of aging septic systems and septic systems along Lake St.
Grant $ is available now, won’t be available after 2016.
Positive that water samples along Lake and Victoria St, if done for every property, would fail water
testing.
Cost to replace septic systems would be significantly more than what they have to pay now for water
and sewer. Cost of a new septic system is approaching $20,000.
- Prefer option 3. Need to think of future generations.
- No water or sewer at cottage. Indoor plumbing and sewer might increase use of cottage.
- Always turn off hydro when they leave.
- Great idea! Let’s do it!
- Prefer option 3. Think mandatory hook up is a good thing.
- People should look at the beach the “little rivers” of green slimy water that come out of sand near
water’s edge.
- Look forward to town water and sewer.
- Home in Mississauga has had eavestrough and down spouts disconnected from storm sewers due to
lack of capacity. Stormwater should be looked at - cottage was purchased for $60,000 more than
flooded neighbours. You get what you pay for. Those properties were probably dirt cheap because
of flooding problems.
- Town water is only safe means of providing drinking water. This project has to happen.
- Buyers beware in regards to flooding and groundwater.
- Cost over runs will be phenomenal because subterranean bedrock is so close to the surface.
- Residents want flood water problem fixed first.
- Should not be mandatory hook up if present water and septic systems are not a problem.
Page 57
Response sent by
mail
Comments noted
and filed
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Comment noted
and filed.
- Comment noted
and filed.
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Select option 3.
- Extend amortization schedule 15-20 years.
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Want water and sewers. Hopefully go with the grinder pump system.
- Start putting in the systems as soon as possible.
- Comments
noted and filed.
July 9, 2011
(Comment Sheet)
Inverhuron resident
July 12, 2011
(via email)
Inverhuron resident
July 12, 2011
(via phone)
Inverhuron resident
July 13, 2011
(via email)
Lake St. North
July 14, 2011
(via phone)
Inverhuron resident
July 18, 2011
(via email)
- Environmental Impact Study should have included stormwater issues! This study should be redone
comprehending this.
- Would like to understand why a “water only” option was not proposed (i.e.installation of water line
only).
- Option 3 best as long as municipality takes ownership of grinders and have plumber on call 24
hours.
- A lot of maintenance would increase monthly costs over time so want to make sure units are
dependable.
- Putting in storm sewers at the same time for entire study area would be ideal – would prevent
flooding issues and stop run off over Victoria St during heavy rainfall.
- Don’t want to see Victoria dug up third time.
- Support sewers in theory but septic only 10 years old and not used much. Support phasing for newer
septic systems.
- Hope Kincardine water system can support new customers and get rid of problems that caused boil
water alerts in past. Want assurances of good water/sewer systems.
- Owns vacant lot in Inverhuron – plans to build permanent home shortly.
- Asked for information on presentation material, servicing alternatives, base water rate and project
timing.
- Inverhuron property owner -eager to see project go ahead.
- Given age and condition of many septic systems, believes that the environmental risks are
significant for both the lake and quality of drinking water on many properties.
- Although well water has been tested and found to be safe, not convinced this is true for everyone.
Bruce County does not need another Walkerton.
- Unable to attend meeting. Concerned with impact of sand on grinders. Discussed servicing options
and municipality’s willingness to assume ownership and maintenance of grinders.
- Discussed existing well on site. Thinks project is OK, not against it. Asked if cottage could be
expanded once servicing is installed. Advised that other criteria, eg. Bldg. Dept., SVCA, will still
need to be addressed.
- Thanks for invitation to meeting which arrived 2 days after the date. Par for the course for
Kincardine.
- What provisions are being made for those who don’t want service and expended considerable sums
to have well drilled? If not, explain why they should be forced to replace well water that tests 0/0
for water that has had a boil water warning several times over the last few years?
Page 58
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Replied via
email
- Reponded
during phone
call.
- Replied via
email
- Responded
during phone
call.
- Responded via
email
Wood Street resident
July 18, 2011
(via email)
- Agree with extension of sewers.Believe that sewers would protect lakeshore from being polluted by
human sewage.
- Support use of grinders and pumps, least expensive alternative. (though believe sewers are not
necessary for our property - we have 40 ft of sand overlaying bedrock).
- Believe sewers would protect ground water supply from contamination from human waste, therefore
do not support extension of water. Water tested 3 times/year. No issues.
- Will not drink chlorinated lake water from Kincardine when we have excellent natural ground water.
- Why remove existing sewers to supply water – there is no environmental necessity to add water to
properties already serviced by sewers.
- Cost of inferior Kincardine water is too high. Municipality covering off deficits from previous water
project. Why are costs based on last project hook-up plus CPI increases.
- Charges should be based on new costs.
- Grant was for sewers only. Why is there no alternative to supply sewers only to Inverhuron? Cost of
doing this is reasonable based on a grinders and pumps option – $3400 per property. With water
costs become prohibitive.
- Consider a sewer only option. Ground water would be well protected with sewers and costs more
reasonable.
- Surprised that council cancelled decision from previous term regarding connection to watermain on
July 18, 2011
Victoria St.
(letter to the Municipality) - Forcing Kincardine water on Inverhuron homeowners.
- How can council declare decision on voluntary connection null and void without public input?
Question the legality of this. Water tested by BMROSS and was clear of any bacteria and health
concerns. Septic and water system work fine and will keep working. I will maintain both.
- Health concerns associated with Kincardine water – chlorine in water can lead to bowel cancer. This
established in early 80s. Kincardine intake is shallow and contains bacteria requiring higher
chlorine levels, therefore higher chance to face bowel cancer.
- Water and sewer servicing has low priority, few homeowners have drinking water problems not due
to sewer systems. Problems with stormwater contaminating wells. Why has nothing been done about
this?
- Priorities not the same as tax-paying community.
- Solution should be optional with same arrangement for connection later at a higher cost for
homeowner.
Page 59
- Response sent
via email
- Comments
noted and filed.
Lake St. N resident
July 22, 2011
(comment sheet)
- Favour low pressure grinder option with Municipality owning and maintaining them.
- Concerned with potential impact to dunes from construction as well as restoration of area after.
Wood St. resident
July 27, 2011
(via email)
- How will Trailer Park be dealt with? Would HST be charged on project? Are grinder pumps noisy?
- Why are sewer upgrades not charged directly to homeowners in Kincardine/Tiverton.
- Questioned potential impacts to natural features.
Lake St. S resident
July 28, 2011
(via phone)
John Street resident
July 29, 2011
(via phone)
- Concerned with impact to Lake Street from replacement of sewer to install watermain
- Potential impacts to trees, groundwater and aesthetics as a result of the work. Doesn’t believe it is
necessary.
- Fought County to designate lands agricultural for cattle.
- Uses well for cattle and doesn’t want to have to connect to pipeline for residence and then maintain
two systems
- Will fight against having to connect.
- Questioned how Municipality could proceed with water/sewer servicing without a comprehensive
stormwater/groundwater plan for Inverhuron.
- Asked about pavement disruption during construction.
- Asked about grinder pumps installed along Lake Street N.
- Questioned potential impacts to McIntyre Park.
- Are supportive of the initiative/project.
- Asked for more details regarding construction methods
Lake St. N resident
August 8, 2011
(via email)
Whispering Ln resident
August 11, 2011
(comment sheet)
Wood St. resident
August 15, 2011
(via mail)
- Supported installation of a gravity collection system. Low pressure system with grinder pumps
inferior to gravity.
- Questioned components of low pressure system such as location of installation, noise, electricity
costs, venting if buried by sand, what to do during a power failure and maintenance requirements.
- Asked about sewer rates and if council will raise them.
- Asked how properties with multiple serviced structures (bunkies) would be serviced by grinders.
- Thought that a public washroom should be provided in McIntyre Park regardless of whether a
sewage pumping station is constructed there.
Page 60
- Answers sent by
mail
- Comments
noted and filed
- Answers sent by
email
- Questions noted
and filed
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Responded via
email.
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Responded via
email.
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Response sent
by mail
- Comments
noted and filed
Lake St. S resident
August 14, 2011
(via email)
August 15, 2011
(via email)
- Wondered how $7800 flat water rate was determined and whether this was a firm amount
- Asked about research into new construction materials for sewer/water pipes
- Questioned costs for replacement of sewer on Lake St. and whether the design had been utilized
elsewhere
- Concerned about impacts to vegetation on Lake Street
- Asked if we were surprised that health unit had no record of drinking water related illnesses from
the beach area
- Purchased property in last two years. Previous owner said nothing about project.
- Lot of angry property owners at meeting being forced to foot bill for water/sewer lines when 15%
don’t require it.
- Worried about costs and incurring debt. If costs were more reasonable, say $5,000, wouldn’t be
opposed.
- Concerned with change from voluntary to mandatory connection for water. Will move if connection
is made mandatory. If purpose is to provide clean water, why not run only water lines? Are
councillors affected by project.
Page 61
- Responded via
email.
- Comments
noted and filed.
- Comments
noted and filed.
6.7
Page 62
Additional Agency Consultation
Following the third Public Information Centre (PIC) an information package was compiled for
review agencies associated with the project. The package provided an update on the Class EA
process, described the three proposed servicing alternatives, and outlined the servicing
alternative preferred by the Steering Committee. Table 6.4 summarizes the responses received
as a result of the additional notification.
Table 6.4
Summary of Agency Comments
Review Agency
Bruce County
Highways Dept.
August 22, 2011
(via email)
-
Saugeen Valley
Conservation
Authority
August 31, 2011
(via mail)
-
-
-
Ministry of the
Environment
Sept. 1, 2011
(via mail)
Infrastructure Ont.
October 24, 2011
(via mail)
-
Comments/ Concerns
County has jurisdiction over Bruce Rd 15 in study area.
Understands that sewage and water will be installed.
Recent road investments may make future changes
awkward.
Looking forward to working with Municipality on
project.
Supportive of project but concerned that new
development could occur that might aggravate existing
concerns in the area.
Areas of Inverhuron are prone to flooding and drainage
problems. New development could be affected.
Lands located east of Victoria Street are identified as
significant woodlands within Bruce Count Official
Plan. Development may not be permitted within these
areas, even if servicing is provided through this project.
Provided comments on Species at Risk Monitoring
report prepared by NRSI for the Inverhuron settlement
area.
Questions regarding the capacity of the Bruce Energy
Centre STP.
Requested additional information on municipal
ownership and maintenance of grinder pumps.
No properties managed by Inf. Ont. within the study
area.
They have no concerns with the project
Action Taken
- Forwarded to
Public Works
Dept. for
consideration.
- Comments
forwarded to
municipality for
consideration.
- Forwarded to
NRSI for response.
- Forwarded to
Municipality for
consideration.
- Comments noted
and filed.
6.8
Additional Aboriginal Consultation
(a)
Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON)
Page 63
After completion of the Phase 1 & 2 consultation efforts, a meeting was arranged with SON
representatives to identify a process for reaching an agreement with Kincardine to have their
concerns addressed. A draft consultation agreement was prepared by SON and forwarded to the
Municipality of Kincardine for review. The agreement established rates for the review of
various reports completed in conjunction with the Class EA process, by experts to be retained by
SON.
An agreement was reached between Kincardine Municipal Council and the Saugeen Ojibway
Nation which established a protocol for the review of reports and for additional consultation.
The agreement also established a process for SON monitors to be present during completion of
the Stage 2 and Stage 3 archaeological assessments.
Following completion of the project review by SON’s experts, any specific recommendations
were incorporated into Class EA recommendations identified within the Screening Report. A
copy of the review material is included within Appendix ‘F’.
(b)
Historic Saugeen Métis (HSM)
On November 12, 2013 representatives from the Municipality of Kincardine, BMROSS and
Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants (TMHC) travelled to Southampton to meet with the
Historic Saugeen Métis to discuss the status of the project. At the meeting, an archaeologist from
TMHC provided an update on recent archaeological investigations in Inverhuron, which had
resulted in the discovery of a significant archaeological site. BMROSS also explained how
proposed servicing lines, located in the vicinity of the site, were being repositioned to avoid the
site as much as possible.
The HSM provided additional information on the history of their settlement along the Lake
Huron coastline and their particular areas of interest in regards to the Inverhuron Class EA
process. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that additional updates on the project
would be provided to HSM on a regular basis and they would be notified of any additional
archaeological finds. Copies of all correspondence and documentation associated with additional
Aboriginal consultation efforts are included within Appendix ‘F’.
6.9
Meetings with Stakeholders
During public consultation efforts undertaken in conjunction with the Class EA, two stakeholder
groups were identified as having very specific concerns related to the proposed project. Both
groups presented very specific concerns related to aspects of the proposed construction and had
requested an opportunity to meet individually with municipal and engineering staff to discuss
their concerns. Accordingly, a meeting was arranged with homeowners located on Lake Street
South as well as the Inverhuron Watershed Concerned Citizens, to discuss the project and review
their specific concerns.
a)
Page 64
Lake Street South Homeowners
A meeting with representatives of the Lake Street South homeowners was held at the Kincardine
Municipal Office on September 1, 2011. Residents in attendance expressed their concerns
regarding installation of the proposed watermain within the existing Lake Street road allowance.
The road allowance is quite narrow and residents were concerned that damage to existing
vegetation and landscaping would occur during construction. Concern was also expressed over
the additional costs associated with replacement of the existing gravity sewer with a pressure
pipe, which would allow installation of the watermain in the same trench, minimizing
disturbance to surrounding areas as much as possible.
At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that BMROSS staff would investigate additional
approaches which may permit the existing sewer to remain during construction and also explore
construction methods which would minimize disturbance to existing vegetation as much as
possible. It was agreed that members of the Lake Street homeowners group would review the
proposed construction route prior to construction with BMROSS staff, once a contractor was
retained for construction, in order to discuss construction methods and to identify specific areas
of concern. Meeting notes from the stakeholder meeting with the Lakeshore South Homeowners
are included within Appendix ‘E’.
b)
Inverhuron Watershed Concerned Citizens (IWCC)
Kincardine municipal staff, BMROSS and representatives of the IWCC, met at the Underwood
Municipal Office (Former Bruce Township Office) on August 16, 2013. The concerned citizens
expressed a number of potential impacts associated with the servicing project that they felt had
not been adequately mitigated through the Class EA process. Primary concerns expressed by the
group included:

Concerns associated with the Preliminary Drainage Report completed by Burnside
Associates.

Potential impacts to surface and groundwater systems from installation of the water and
sanitary services;

Lack of a Community Impact Study;

Inadequate and incomplete Health Department Study;

Why septic systems were not pursued as an alternative in conjunction with the study;

Concerns associated with the reliability and use of grinder pumps;
Following the meeting, a response was drafted which addressed the concerns outlined by the
IWCC during the meeting. Some of the key highlights from this correspondence are as follows:
i)
Additional details were provided on the outcome of the proposed Drainage Act process,
which was ultimately not completed by the Municipality due to a lack of support from local
residents. It was confirmed that the Municipality does not intend to pursue the proposed
recommendations association with the Preliminary Engineering report.
Page 65
ii) To address concerns regarding potential impacts to groundwater systems, a hydrogeologist
was retained to review the project study area and the results of previous geotechnical
investigations completed in the area. Based upon this review, a number of recommendations
were provided to minimize potential impacts to the hydrogeologic environment in
Inverhuron, which will be incorporated into the engineering design .
iii) Community impacts expressed during the meeting with the IWCC appeared to be primarily
associated with anticipated project costs. Accordingly, additional details on the anticipated
project costs were reviewed as well as the rationale for selection of the preferred servicing
alternative; A majority of public input received following the final PIC indicated a
preference for the low pressure sanitary collection system, due primarily to the cost
comparison with the other servicing alternatives.
iv) In regards to the lack of a Health Department Study, it was confirmed that a letter of support
was obtained from the Grey-Bruce Health Unit when the Municipality initially sought a
grant for the servicing project. Information was also provided regarding the adverse water
quality results identified during the Phase 1 Class EA investigations, which indicated that
private well supplies within the community showed evidence of contamination. Given this
information, additional investigations were not felt to be warranted.
v) The following details were provided to the IWCC to explain why septic systems were not
pursued as an alternative in conjunction with the servicing project:
a.
Hydrogeologic evidence associated with the nature of the bedrock in Inverhuron
(karstic) which creates a rapid exchange between sub-surface inputs (eg. septic
effluent) and groundwater sources. These conditions led to the Inverhuron area
being identified as a highly vulnerable area (HVA), when reviewed in conjunction
with the Source Water Protection project.
b.
Historical knowledge related to the presence of shallow bedrock throughout much
of Inverhuron which makes the installation of septic systems, in keeping with the
requirements of the Ontario Building Code, very difficult in many locations;
c.
Lot size investigation conducted during Phase 1 of the Class EA process which
indicated that 61% of existing lots in Inverhuron are too small to support a
traditional septic system;
vi) Additional details regarding the use and operation of grinder pumps was provided to address
concerns expressed during the meeting regarding the proposed use of grinder pumps. It was
also reiterated that the Municipality has committed to maintaining the pump units, on behalf
of residents, as part of the project.
A copy of the meeting notes and correspondence with the IWCC are included within
Appendix ‘E’.
6.10
Page 66
Summary of Public Consultation
At the outset of this Class EA process, a public consultation program was devised to determine
the level of consultation required to adequately consult with potential stakeholders affected by
this project. As the project had the potential to directly impact most of the residents of
Inverhuron, it was felt that more than the minimum level of consultation required by the MEA
Class EA document was necessary in order to provide project information to as many residents
as possible. Accordingly project notices and information were directly mailed to all property
owners within the community and three public information meetings were organized to ensure
that all residents had an opportunity to become aware of study investigations and to provide
input into the process. The response from the public was reflective of the level of consultation
undertaken. Each of the public information meetings was well attended by residents, eliciting
lively debates during the question/answer periods. All input received during the consultation
process was forwarded to members of the Steering Committee for review and consideration and
had a direct impact on the outcome and recommendations associated with the Class EA for this
project.
6.11
Environmental Effects Analysis
The potential interactions between the identified servicing alternatives and environmental
features (Table 4.1) were examined as part of the evaluation of servicing alternatives phase. The
purpose of this analysis was to determine, in relative terms, the environmental effects of each
identified servicing alternative on the environmental components and sub-components (using the
impact criteria described in Table 4.2). The level of effect for the environmental interactions
were rated as High, Moderate, Low or Minimal/ Nil. Potential mitigation measures were also
identified as part of this evaluation. Table 6.5 summarizes the outcome of the environmental
effects analysis carried out for the three servicing alternatives and the environmental components
summarized in Table 4.1. This analysis forms the basis for the identification of impacts
discussed later in the report.
Page 67
Table 6.5
Sanitary Servicing Alternatives:
Environmental Effects Analysis
Environmental
Component
Natural
 Aquatic
Alternative
Solution
(1) Hybrid
Level of
Effect
Low
Impact Considerations
(Implementation and Operational Activities)


(2) Gravity
Moderate


(3) Low Pressure
Low


Few impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated as a result of constructionrelated activities, as majority of work will occur within road allowances and
watercourse on Victoria Street South to be crossed using directional drilling
technology.
Operation of a municipally owned sanitary sewer system should result in
fewer impacts to the aquatic environment than individual on-site sewage
disposal systems, particularly given the results of the on-site assessment
which showed significant concerns with the condition and age of existing
systems servicing the area.
Some impacts to aquatic habitat may occur as a result of construction of
gravity sewers across watercourse on Victoria Street South. More extensive
excavations for gravity sewers may result in greater potential for runoff.
Fewer impacts to aquatic habitat anticipated due to the ability to directional
drill much of the pressure collection sewers throughout portions of the study
area.
Environmental
Component
 Terrestrial
Alternative
Solution
(1) Hybrid
Level of
Effect
Low to
Moderate


(2) Gravity
Moderate


(3) Low Pressure
Low


 Geology
(1) Hybrid
Moderate


(2) Gravity
High


Page 68
Minor impacts to terrestrial habitat are anticipated as a result of deeper more
extensive excavations to install gravity sewers in north part of service area.
Sensitive habitats have been identified in the sand dune area located in the
northwest portion of the study area. Site specific restoration methods will be
required to ensure that the dune habitat is properly restored following the
completion of construction.
Moderate impacts to terrestrial habitat are anticipated as a result of deeper
and more extensive excavations required to install gravity sewers throughout
entire study area. Potential impact to vegetation on narrow road allowances.
Few impacts to terrestrial habitat are anticipated as a majority of the work
would occur within municipal road allowances and would utilize trenchless
technology in many locations to install low pressure sewers.
Excavation of bedrock and extensive dewatering will be required to install
gravity sewers in north portion of service area.
Results of hydrogeologic investigation indicate that measures can be
incorporated into the engineering design to minimize potential impacts to the
existing hydrogeologic environment.
Significant excavation of bedrock and associated dewatering is anticipated to
install gravity sewers throughout all of Inverhuron.
Results of hydrogeologic investigation indicate that measures can be
Environmental
Component
Social
 Community
Alternative
Solution
(3) Low Pressure
Level of
Effect
Low
 Fewer impacts to the geology of the study area are anticipated as low
pressure sewers are a pressure collection system and do not rely on gravity.
Piping can often be installed above the surface of the bedrock with little
excavation into bedrock required.
 Results of hydrogeologic investigation indicate that measures can be
(1) Hybrid
Moderate


(2) Gravity
High



Moderate

(1) Hybrid
Moderate to
High

(2) Gravity
High
(3) Low Pressure
Cultural
 Heritage
Page 69
North part of service area will have significant disruption due to installation
of deep sewers. Grinder pumps installed in south portion will affect private
property owners.
Impacts are anticipated to McIntyre Park as a result of sewage pumping
station installation.
Significant disruption to traffic is anticipated during installation of deep
sewers throughout the community.
Impacts are anticipated to McIntyre Park as a result of sewage pumping
station installation.
Impacts are anticipated to properties located adjacent to the secondary
pumping station locations along Victoria Street South.
Minor impacts to traffic are anticipated due to directional drilling installation
of low pressure sewers. Impacts anticipated to private property as a result of
grinder pump installation on individual properties.
North part of service area will have significant disruption due to installation
of deep sewers. Given the high potential for buried archaeological material,
this could result in greater impacts.
 A majority of the service area will have significant disruption due to
installation of deep sewers. Given the high potential for buried
archaeological material, this could result in greater impacts.
Environmental
Component



Economic
Municipal
Community
Technical
Infrastructure
Alternative
Solution
(3) Low Pressure
Level of
Effect
Moderate
(1) Hybrid
Low
(2) Gravity
Low
(3) Low Pressure
Low
Page 70
 Impacts to cultural components of the environment are anticipated to be
lower than other alternatives given that the extent of required excavations
are minimized with a pressure collection system. Some impacts are still
anticipated given the high potential for buried archaeological material.

Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed works
will be significantly reduced due to the availability of the BCF grant.
 Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed works
 Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed works
 Capital costs associated with the hybrid option are high, even with
application of the 66% grant. Residents of Inverhuron have indicated a
preference for alternative 3 due to the significantly reduced economic
impact.
(1) Hybrid
Moderate
(2) Gravity
High

Capital costs associated with the full gravity option are high, even with
application of the 66% grant. Residents of Inverhuron have indicated a
preference for alternative 3 due to the significantly reduced economic
impact.
(3) Low Pressure
Low

A majority of residents who commented following the third public meeting,
indicated a preference for Servicing Alternative 3, due to the significantly
reduced capital costs associated with this option and application of the grant.
Moderate

(1) Hybrid
Deep excavations through bedrock would pose challenges during
construction of the gravity collection system in the north portion of the
service area.
 Implementation of this option would pose some difficulties to municipal
public works staff due to maintenance requirements associated with both a
gravity collection system and a low pressure collection system.
Environmental
Component
Alternative
Solution
(2) Gravity
Level of
Effect
Moderate


(3) Low Pressure
Moderate


Page 71
Deep excavations through bedrock would pose some challenges during
construction of the gravity collection system.
Given that gravity sewers are installed throughout much of Kincardine and
are the most common form of municipal sanitary infrastructure, impacts
associated with the operation of this alternative are anticipated to be low.
Installation of a large-scale low pressure collection system may prove to be
technically demanding.
Training of municipal staff may be required to ensure that the system is
maintained effectively.
6.12
Page 72
Identification of a Preferred Sanitary Servicing Solution
Based upon a review of the information noted in Table 6.5 and additional input received from the
general public and manufacturers of the low pressure collection system being considered in
conjunction with the project, the Steering Committee indicated a preference for Alternative 3,
installation of a low pressure collection system. The following are the key attributes associated
with this alternative, which justified its selection as the sanitary servicing alternative preferred by
the Steering Committee (SC). Copies of meeting notes and presentation material from the SC
meetings are included within Appendix ‘A’.







6.13
Addresses impacts associated with deficient or failing private sewage disposal systems;
Provides full municipal servicing to the majority of residents of Inverhuron;
Minimizes impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitats by utilizing directional drilling
technology and limiting construction primarily to existing municipal road allowances;
Allows for continued growth and development within the community of Inverhuron;
Was preferred by most residents who commented following the third public meeting;
No sewage pumping stations would be required with this option;
Was the most cost effective solution considered.
Estimated Project Costs
Estimated construction costs have been calculated for each aspect of the project based upon
previous knowledge of the costs associated with various construction methods as well as actual
construction costs known from former projects undertaken within the Municipality. Final costs
associated with the project will not be known until all construction is completed.
Anticipated project costs were updated in 2014 prior to republication of the Notice of Study
Completion in order to include additional costs incurred since retraction of the original Notice of
Study Completion in April 2012. Additional project costs include the completion of the
preliminary engineering design, Stage 2 archaeological assessments, additional consultation
efforts undertaken in order to address outstanding concerns expressed by objectors following
completion of the original Class EA process and increased construction costs due to inflation.
Revised costs are based upon these updated project costs and the most recent construction
estimates.
(a)
Estimated Construction Costs
Component
1.



Sewage Works
Low Pressure Sewers
Grinder Pumps & Appurtenances
Miscellaneous ²
Sub-Total
Probable Cost ¹
$ 1,400,000
3,300,000
1,000,000
$ 5,700,000
2.




3.



Watermains
Watermains
Services
Lake Street Sewer Replacement
Miscellaneous ²
Sub-Total
Other Costs
Preliminary Engineering, Class EA & Approvals
Engineering & Contract Administration
Environmental Monitoring
Sub-Total
Total Costs
1.
2.
(b)
$ 1,000,000
280,000
500,000
280,000
$ 2,060,000
600,000
850,000
35, 000
$ 1,485,000
$ 9,245,000
Based on 2013 construction costs.
Mobilization, contingency, insurance, bonds etc.
Estimated Per Property Costs
Total Estimated Construction Costs
Less BCF-CC Grant (2/3)
Municipal Portion
$ 9,245,000
$ 6,076,000
$ 3,169,000
Per Property Water1
Reserve Contribution
Sub-Total
$
$
$
7,400
300
7,700
Sub-Total
$
$
$
4,500
1,775
6,275
Total
$
13, 975
Per Property Sewage
Capital and Reserve Contributions
Cost for Both Sewage and Water
1. Base Water Rate as adopted by Council
Page 73
7.0
PROJECT SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS
7.1
Archaeological Assessment
Page 74
The community of Inverhuron is regarded as having a high potential for the discovery of
precontact and historic era archaeological resources, due primarily to the presence of primary
bodies of water and watercourses, ancient strandlines and previously identified registered
archaeological sites. Given this potential, Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants were retained
to conduct a Stage 1 assessment as part of the Class EA process. The purpose of the work was to
evaluate the archaeological potential of the study area; determine if there are known sites
present; and conclude whether a Stage 2 field assessment process is warranted prior to any
proposed construction activity. The goal of the archaeological assessment process is to
determine whether any proposed construction will impact known or potential archaeological
resources and, if so, offer options for the mitigation of construction impacts.
7.2
Stage 1 Assessment - Inverhuron Class EA
A Stage 1 background review and field reconnaissance was conducted in conjunction with this
project by Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment
was carried out in August 2010 for a 230 hectare study area containing approximately five
kilometers of roadway designated as the proposed route for new and upgraded servicing in
Inverhuron.
Timmins Martelle’s background review indicated that much of the area demonstrated potential
for precontact and historic First Peoples sites and historic Euro-Canadian sites. Follow-up
reconnaissance demonstrated that there has been some previous disturbance associated with prior
road construction, laneways and building footprints. However, given the potential for deeply
buried deposits, many of these disturbed areas retain archaeological potential. Lands adjacent to
the disturbed areas display less alteration (e.g. minimal landscaping, manicured lawns), with
large sections of unaltered natural zones that are generally covered by mixed cedar woodlot.
These areas also retain archaeological potential and as such, if construction activities will impact
them, a Stage 2 survey will be required.
The Stage 1 background study included a consideration of soils, topography and drainage for the
study area, as well as a review of historic land use and settlement patterns. A field
reconnaissance was also undertaken in order to document existing conditions. The focus of the
field review was the existing right of way for Victoria Street, Lake Street and Albert Road (north
and south), as well as John Street and several arterial roadways located north of County Road 15
(east and west), as the proposed improvements will be largely restricted to these areas.
Page 75
Although the precise location of the watermain and sewer corridors were not know at the time of
the assessment, it was anticipated that the proposed services would be installed within existing
rights-of-way. Accordingly, Timmins Martelle recommended a Stage 2 assessment along both
corridors, in view of the potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits within the study area
using shovel test pits excavated to a depth of at least one metre and augmented by the excavation
of one metre units at selected high potential locations along the corridors. Stage 3 investigations
may be required if archaeological resources are discovered along the corridor to identify the
extent and significance of archaeological deposits. A copy of the Stage 1 Archaeological
Assessment is contained within Appendix ‘G’.
7.3
Previous Archaeological Assessments completed in Inverhuron
Prior to the initiation of the current Inverhuron Servicing Study, Stage 1 & 2 archaeological
assessments were conducted by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. in 2002 and 2003 for
the Municipality of Kincardine’s Shoreline Water Distribution System to determine if any
heritage resources were present within the proposed construction corridor.
The Stage 1 assessment followed a similar protocol to that conducted by Timmins Martelle
Heritage Consultants, also identifying a high potential for the presence of buried archaeological
resources within the study area. A search of the Ministry of Culture site data files resulted in the
identification of 20 previously registered archaeological sites within 2.2 km of the study area.
The study area for this project extended north from Kincardine to Inverhuron Provincial Park and
also included the community of Tiverton.
A Stage 2 assessment was carried out for all areas identified within the 9 metre wide pipeline
corridor that had a potential for buried archaeological resources. Stage 2 methods included the
excavation of test pits at various intervals along the pipeline route. Four potential sites were
identified as a result of the Stage 2 testing – two of these, the Winters and Harvey Lane sites
were identified for additional Stage 3 testing. Neither of these sites are located within the
current study area boundary.
7.4
Stage 2 Assessment - Inverhuron Class EA
a)
General
A Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted in the fall of 2013 throughout all previously
undisturbed areas within Inverhuron that were anticipated to be impacted by the proposed
construction. The assessment was completed by Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc.,
the same firm that completed the Stage 1 review. Stage 2 field work involved the excavation of
30 cm diameter test pits at 5 metre intervals along all potential service routes. In areas of high
archaeological potential additional one metre test pits were also excavated. Deep test pitting was
also undertaken in the north part of the study area where dune features and/or cobble was
encountered.
b)
Page 76
Methods
Typical test pits measured roughly 30 cm (shovel-width) in diameter and were excavated to 5 cm
below subsoil (where possible). In many instances, subsoil or bedrock could not be reached due
to the presence of thick dense cobble strands, or deep wind-blown beach sands. Excavated test
pit soils were screened through ¼ inch hardware cloth to look for cultural artifacts. Wider (50
cm2) test squares were excavated roughly every 20 metres in the latter areas in order to increase
depth of excavation. A series of one-metre square test units were excavated in areas determined
to have increased archaeological potential based on the presence of physical characteristics
amenable to Precontact settlement (e.g. well-drained sandy soils, naturally higher ground, etc.),
and prior documentation of sites recorded by both avocational and professional archaeologists
beginning in the 1930’s. This included excavation below the asphalt surface within Wood Street
in the northern portion of the project area where archaeologist Fritz Knechtel described and
produced a sketch map of a Woodland period site in 1956 (and later assigned Borden number
BbHj-4 in the Provincial register). In these instances, an asphalt cutter was used and the one
metre square asphalt cap was removed. Roadbed infill was then removed manually until windblown sand was encountered. This was also removed manually for the purpose of exposing any
cultural layers that could potentially be present. In lawn and landscaped areas, test pits were
backfilled and the sod cap was replaced. Test units within Wood Street were backfilled and
packed using a manual tamper every 10 cm. The asphalt cap was replaced and subsequently cold
patched (by the Municipality of Kincardine) when the infill material settled.
c)
Results
The majority of the Stage 2 survey for the project was completed during the fall of 2013. Some
sections, particularly those areas adjacent to more significant roadways such as County Road 15,
Victoria Street and Albert Road, were deemed to have low archaeological potential due to
heavily and deeply disturbed, perpetually wet or low-lying, or steeply sloped. These areas were
photo-documented and excluded from the survey.
Three archaeological locations containing Precontact cultural material have been identified to
date, a brief description of each is provided here.
i) Wood and John Street
A total of 8 one-metre test units were excavated within Wood Street north of John Street in the
vicinity registered site BbHj-4 resulting in the recovery of 310 Precontact artifacts. The Stage 2
results, when considered with a 1950s field sketch of the site, indicate that the site may extend
over a 120 metre (N-S) by 40 metre (E-W) area. Preliminary analysis of the material recovered
from the Stage 2 assessment (comprised predominantly of ceramic fragments and chipping
detritus) suggests that the site dates to the late Middle Woodland period (ca. 700-900 A.D.).
Areas at the south end of the site appear to be well preserved within a buried paleosol underlying
Wood Street. The project has been redesigned to avoid major impacts to the site and will utilize
an existing disturbed water main trench to access properties located in the vicinity.
Page 77
ii) Wood and Cayley Street
Stage 2 testing in the vicinity of Wood Street and Cayley Street resulted in the recovery of 17
Precontact artifacts from 9 positive test pits contained within two loci extending over a roughly
10 metre (N-S) by 45 metre (E-W) area. Test pit depths ranged from a minimum of 63 cm to 160
cm. The majority of the artifact assemblage is comprised of ceramic fragments (n=16) and likely
dates to the late Middle Woodland period (ca. 700-900 A.D.). Stage 3 testing will be required if
the site cannot be avoided.
iii) Lake Street
A single positive test pit containing a Precontact ceramic sherd was recovered during the Stage 2
survey of a proposed tie-in feeder line on private property fronting Lake Street. An intensified
survey in the findspot did not produce additional cultural material. Stage 3 testing will be
required based on Section 2.2 Standard 1.b.i of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists which requires Stage 3 testing for single examples of artifacts of
special interest including Aboriginal ceramics.
d)
Project Completion
As stated previously, the majority of the Stage 2 survey was completed during the summer and
fall of 2013. All remaining survey work will be completed in the spring of 2014 and a final
report summarizing the results and recommendations for the completed survey will be presented
at that time. Reports will be made available on the Kincardine Municipal website upon
completion for interested parties to review. It is understood that the remaining Stage 2 survey
and subsequent Stage 3 testing (where required) will be carried out with continued engagement
and consultation with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation and Historic Saugeen Métis.
7.5
Hydrogeologic Evaluation
Mr. Geoff Rether, P. Geo. of Ian D. Wilson and Associates, Consulting Hydrogeologists, was
retained to complete a review of potential impacts to the hydrogeology of the study area related
to the proposed sewage and water infrastructure installation. A letter report was prepared which
characterized the hydrogeology of the area and identified potential areas of concern. Based upon
an understanding of the project scope, a number of recommendations were provided which will
be incorporated into the detailed design phase of the project as follows:

To minimize the potential for influencing existing groundwater pathways, it is recommended
that native backfill be compacted (if possible to 98% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry
Density), or that the backfill match as best as possible the surrounding soil conditions and
density.



Page 78
To prevent excessive water flow through the east-west trenches, low-permeability plugs are
recommended in the backfill at frequent intervals (ie. approximately each 100 m) along the
east-west trenches, as well as in the north-south trenches in the close vicinity of junctions
with the east-west trenches. It is recommended that the low permeability plugs be
approximately an order of magniture less permeable than the surrounding soils. The use of
swelling clays (eg. Bentonite) should be avoided due to the potential for heaving soils.
As a best management practice, the smaller east-west trenches along the many sidestreets
should also incorporate some form of lower-permeability backfill where possible.
Watermain or low pressure sewer installation through boring or directional drilling would
minimize the disturbance of native soils, thereby reducing the risk of influence to watertable
conditions.
A copy of the hydrogeologic letter report is provided within Appendix ‘H’.
8.0
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION
8.1
General
Page 79
Based upon the findings of the general impact assessment (Tables 4.4), the environmental effects
analysis (Table 6.5), project-specific evaluations, and input from residents and review agencies,
it has been determined that the project has the potential to impact upon a number of specific
environmental components. They are as follows:




Social Environment
Natural Environment
The potential impacts to each identified feature are described in detail within this section of the
report. Measures designed to minimize the impacts are also presented. The determination of
appropriate mitigation measures incorporated an assessment of previous studies and
investigations, site specific requirements and an evaluation of a broad range of alternatives. This
assessment was based on a consideration of three broad approaches to impact mitigation;
avoidance, minimization of adverse effects and compensation.
8.2
Social Environment
(a)
Perception of Water Quality
Since the onset of study investigations it became apparent that many residents of Inverhuron
perceived the Kincardine domestic water supply to be inferior to private well supplies servicing
Inverhuron. Residents cited a dislike of chlorination and concerns related to costs and reliability
as their primary reasons for not wanting municipal water, even when presented with compelling
documentation regarding the risks associated with the current groundwater supply (refer to
Report prepared by Dr. Brian Luinstra found in Appendix ‘C’). The Kincardine water supply was
subject to a boil water advisory in early 2006 due to high turbidity levels in Lake Huron adjacent
to the intake. The plant underwent significant upgrades to address the problem, which were
completed in December of that same year. There have been no water quality issues at the facility
since that time.
Given this perception the Inverhuron Steering Committee felt that, although all residents needed
access to a safe and reliable source of drinking water, those who were strongly opposed to the
Kincardine supply should not be forced to connect. Accordingly, the following recommendation
was presented to Kincardine Municipal Council at their November 16th, 2011 meeting: “That
municipal water be extended to all residents of Inverhuron and that payment of capital charges
associated with the project be mandatory, but that connection to the waterline be optional”. This
recommendation was given serious consideration by Municipal Council when presented for their
consideration at the December 7th, 2011 Council Meeting. However, given the risks associated
with the current groundwater supply, which are discussed in detail within Section 3 of this
report, a mandatory connection policy for all residents was ultimately adopted by council.
(b)
Page 80
Disruption Caused by Construction
Installation of both municipal water and the low pressure collection system may require
disruption to the entire road allowance in some areas where municipal water has yet to be
installed. This may result in the loss of vegetation within narrow right-of-ways or where existing
vegetation encroaches into the road allowance. Measures will be included in the project tender
documents specifying that impacts to existing vegetation be minimized as much as possible. Use
of directional drilling technology will also be encouraged within narrow right of ways and where
vegetation encroaches into the road allowance to further minimize impacts to existing vegetation.
Measures will also be incorporated to limit the impact of the work on traffic movement, however
temporary road closures may be required. Temporary road closures would be of limited duration
and would typically not restrict access to local traffic. If possible, construction will be scheduled
for off-peak periods during the fall and early spring to avoid the peak tourist season and
minimize impacts to resident’s seasonal use of cottages. Once a contractor is selected, a
construction schedule will be established and an estimated timeline for construction activities
within various parts of the community will be developed. Although specific dates cannot be
identified, a general timeframe can usually be established. Once developed, the anticipated
construction schedule will be posted on the Municipal website.
(c)
Grinder Pump Maintenance
Following the first public information session, when grinder pumps were initially introduced as a
possible servicing option associated with Inverhuron, residents expressed concerns over future
maintenance issues associated with the units. As a less familiar technology, grinder pumps
represented a potential concern to residents over future costs associated with the operation of the
units and long-term efficacy of the pumps, especially given the seasonal nature of the settlement.
Based upon this feedback, input was sought from other Municipalities with experience utilizing
large numbers of grinder pumps. Kincardine public works staff reviewed the feedback and came
to the conclusion that costs associated with a municipally-run maintenance program for grinder
pumps was similar in cost to maintenance associated with a gravity collection system. A
recommendation supporting the concept of municipal ownership and maintenance of grinder
pumps was presented to, and adopted by, Municipal Council at a meeting held on December 14th,
2011.
(d)
Servicing Easements
A number of properties located within Inverhuron are located on privately owned road
allowances or right-of-ways. To access properties not located on a municipal road allowance, an
easement must be obtained from the owner of the lands to permit construction of the sewage and
water servicing and to allow access for maintenance of the system in future years. Consultation
with affected landowners has been undertaken by the Municipality to negotiate servicing
easements. If permission is not obtained from the rightful owner(s) and access cannot be
obtained through other means, some properties may not be serviced through this project and will
therefore not be afforded access to the BCF-CC grant which is only eligible for properties being
serviced through the current project.
Page 81
Should properties that are not serviced in conjunction with the current project seek access to
municipal services at some point in the future, servicing will be provided, but at the full cost of
construction determined at the time. Figure 8.1 illustrates the location of existing private road
allowances and right-of-ways in Inverhuron that may be impacted by the proposed project.
(e)
Flooding/Stormwater Management
As part of the public consultation component of the project, residents who reside in the north
portion of the study area, primarily north of Bruce Road 15, expressed concerns over ongoing
flooding and stormwater management issues affecting the service area. Although unrelated to
the current servicing initiative, affected residents felt that these ongoing concerns should be
given the same level of consideration as the servicing deficiencies being addressed through the
sewage and water servicing project. As a result of this input, a drainage petition was initiated by
the Municipality in October 2011 and a motion was passed by Kincardine Municipal Council to
retain the services of R.J. Burnside and Associates to complete a preliminary drainage report
pursuant to the Drainage Act R.S.O 1990. An on-site meeting was held on December 3, 2011
where residents of the study area were afforded the opportunity to ask questions and provide
input.
An investigation was then undertaken, which considered previous reports completed in
Inverhuron (Paragon Engineering Class EA, 1993) and reviewed existing conditions within the
study area. A preliminary report was prepared and presented to council and members of the
public at a meeting held on September 19, 2012. The report included three options to address
localized flooding concerns within the north portion of Inverhuron. These were presented to
affected landowners and the general public at the meeting. Significant concerns were raised by
those in attendance regarding the cost and effectiveness of the proposed options which were
presented. In order to move the project forward and finalize the drainage report, additional
signatures were required to be added to the petition initially signed by the Municipal Road
Superintendent. When no landowners were willing to support the project and add their names to
the petition, Council directed the Director of Public Works to withdraw the signature from the
petition and the process stopped. No additional work is contemplated at this time to address
residents concerns regarding stormwater drainage. A copy of the preliminary drainage report is
included within Appendix ‘ I. ‘.
8.3
(a)
Financial Impacts to Residents
Prior to initiating this project, the Muncipality received a grant through the Building Canada
Fund – Communities Component (BCF-CC), which can be utilized towards 66% of project costs
to a maximum of $6,076,400.00. This will significantly reduce financial impacts to residents
resulting from the project. The preferred alternative selected in conjunction with the project, was
identified in part due to the significantly lower capital costs to residents associated with the low
pressure collection system, compared to the two other types of collection systems which were
examined.
±
LAKE HURON
SOUT
OF P
HERLY
INE
LAK
ES
TN
ET
EE A
RE
TR RE
ST
S
E
A
K
KE H
LA
LA EAC
B
TR
EE
T
WOOD STREET
WELLINGTON STREET
CAYLEY STREET
VICTORIA STREET
LAK
EET E STR
DANIEL STREET
VICTORIA STREET
ROBBIE LANE
SHADY LANE
ALBERT ROAD
0
Legend
Private Roads
Study Area Boundary
0.125
0.25
0.5
PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAYS
RICHARDS DRIVE
WHISPERING WOOD
MCPHERSON
ROAD
JOHN STREET
BRUCE ROAD 15
RUFF ROAD
0.75
DATE
DEC. 4, 2013
SCALE
1:10,000
1
Kilometres
PROJECT No.
08175
FIGURE No.
8.1
Page 83
Even with the provision of the grant and the lower capital costs associated with the low pressure
collection system, costs associated with the project will have a negative impact on some
residents of the community. Therefore, the Municipality has indicated there will be financing
options provided to residents in accordance with Municipal Policy.
8.4
Natural Environment
The Species at Risk Monitoring Report, completed by Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI),
provided a number of site specific recommendations for incorporation into mitigation measures
associated with the project.
Due to the potential for several species at risk (SAR) bird species to be present within the study
area, it is recommended that construction activities not occur within forested areas, shrub
thickets, open dune environments or meadow habitats within the breeding season of May 1 to
July 31. If construction during these time frames cannot be avoided, a biologist will be present
to identify and monitor any bird nests that may be present prior to the removal of vegation.
In regards to SAR snake species potentially present during construction, information will be
included within tender documents advising of the potential presence of significant snake species
and providing recommendations to avoid impacts to their habitat.
Construction activities within the sensitive dune habitat, which was identified by NRSI as a
significant vegetation community, will incorporate specific measures to restore disturbed habitat
with native dune species. As well, construction routing will be designed to avoid vegetated dune
features as much as feasible.
8.5
During completion of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments, a significant archaeological site
was identified in the vicinity of Wood Street and John Street. The site had been previously
identified in the 1950’s by a local archaeologist, Fritz Knechtel. To avoid impacting the site,
proposed sanitary sewer pressure lines, and associated service lines, were rerouted to avoid
encroachment into the site as much as feasible. Additional Stage 2 & 3 testing will also be
conducted on areas where encroachment cannot be avoided.
Based on consultation with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), monitors from the SON
community will be present during the Stage 2 & 3 field work to ensure that any cultural material
that is identified is dealt with appropriately. A supplemental agreement between the
Municipality of Kincardine and SON sets out guidelines for the completion of all additional
archaeological review required in Inverhuron in order to satisfy the requirements of the Ministry
of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
9.0
CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
9.1
Inverhuron Steering Committee
Page 84
As noted in Section 1.5, a Steering Committee was formed at the beginning of the Class EA
process to provide a level of transparency during the Class EA process and to allow for input
from representatives of the community. The committee consisted of 2 members of Municipal
Council, 7 members of the general public representing both seasonal and permanent residents of
Inverhuron, municipal staff and BMROSS. The committee met eight times during the
Environmental Assessment process to review the results of specialized studies and to help guide
study investigations. All major decisions associated with the study were vetted through the
committee before being presented to Municipal Council. A series of recommendations were
identified by the committee for presentation to Municipal Council at the conclusion of the Class
EA process. These recommendations were identified by the committee as measures to help
mitigate potential impacts associated with implementation of the preferred servicing solution.
Although many of the committee’s recommendations were endorsed by council, not all of the
recommendations presented were adopted. Copies of meeting notes from Steering Committee
meetings are provided within Appendix ‘A’.
9.2
Selection of a Preferred Solution
As a result of the above noted assessment, and input received from both the Steering Committee
and members of the general public, Servicing Alternative 3 – Extend both water and sanitary
sewer servicing to Inverhuron, was confirmed as the preferred solution to the identified
problem. In addition, Sanitary Servicing Alternative 3 – Low Pressure Sewers, was also
selected as the preferred sanitary servicing option. This alternative involves the extension of a
piped municipal water supply to those areas of Inverhuron not already serviced by municipal
water and the installation of a low pressure collection system and grinder pumps to those areas of
Inverhuron not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewers. This alternative was presented
to, and supported by, Municipal Council on December 14th, 2011. Figure 9.1 illustrates the
primary components of the preferred servicing alternative.
9.3
Class EA Project Schedule
The recommended solution involves the construction of a low pressure collection system for
sewage and extension of a municipal water distribution network throughout the community of
Inverhuron. Easements may be required to service some properties located on private roads.
These works are Schedule "B" undertakings under the Class EA, as it involves the construction
of a wastewater collection system outside of road allowances and/or servicing easements.
9.4
Agency Review of Draft Screening Report
Prior to formal publication of the Screening Report and issuance of the Notice of Study
Completion, the draft Screening Report was circulated to the Ministry of the Environment and
the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority for review and comment. Table 9.1 summarizes the
feedback received as a result of this review.
±
LAKE HURON
LAK
ES
TR
EE
E
WELLINGTON STREET
WOOD STREET
T
CAYLEY STREET
VICTORIA STREET
K
LA
ET
RE
ST
VICTORIA STREET
ROBBIE LANE
ALBERT ROAD
RICHARDS DRIVE
WHISPERING WOOD
MCPHERSON
ROAD
JOHN STREET
BRUCE ROAD 15
RUFF ROAD
Legend
Proposed Watermain Extensions
Existing Watermains
Low Pressure Sewer System
Existing Serviced Parcels
Study Area Boundary
0
0.125
0.25
PROPOSED WATER AND SANITARY SYSTEM
0.5
0.75
DATE
DEC. 4, 2013
SCALE
1:11,030
1
Kilometres
PROJECT No.
08175
FIGURE No.
9.1
Page 86
Table 9.1
Summary of Agency Comments:
Review of Draft Screening Report
Review Agency
Saugeen Valley
Conservation
Authority
December 19,
2011
(via email)
-
-
-
-
-
Ministry of the
Environment
(MOE)
-
-
-
Comments/ Concerns
Noted that Kincardine had initiated a Drainage
Act review of Kincardine flooding issues.
Concerned that residents might confuse the two
processes and thought a section should be
added to report explaining the difference.
Concerned about process utilized by residents
to abandon wells once connected to municipal
water.
Spring construction timeline may conflict with
timing restrictions identified through NRSI
report. These conflicts should be addressed.
Wondered about connection policies associated
with vacant lots and future development.
Recommended inclusion of Kincardine OP
Policies in addition to Bruce County OP
references.
Noted that comments were issued from the
perspective of a review and regulatory agency,
not a landowner, since SVCA owns lands
within the study area limits.
Questioned whether comments submitted in
September 2011 had been addressed.
Wanted confirmation that municipal
responsibility for grinder pumps had been
formally adopted by Municipal Council.
Questioned capacity available at the the BEC
STP and assurances regarding the future
purchase of the facility by the Municipality of
Kincardine.
Requested confirmation on the status of
Aboriginal consultation associated with the
Class EA process.
Action Taken
- Provided details on the
Drainage Act process within
the report as well as a copy
of the report.
- Information on the proper
decommissioning procedure
for wells will be provided to
residents.
- Construction will be staged
to avoid sensitive timing
windows.
- Connection policies for
vacant lots will be finalized
following completion of
construction when a by-law
is developed by the
Municipality.
- Information pertaining to the
Kincardine Official Plan was
added to the report.
- Confirmed that comments
from the September 2011
letter had been incorporated
into the report.
- Confirmed that Council had
formally agreed to maintain
grinder pumps in conjunction
with the project.
- Report was updated to note
that Kincardine purchased
the BEC STP and that the
facility has sufficient
capacity to service the
Inverhuron service area.
- Additional details regarding
the status of First Nations
consultation efforts were
added to the report.
9.5
Page 87
Final Public Consultation
To finalize the Class EA process, a Notice of Completion will be circulated to local residents,
stakeholders and government review agencies (refer to Appendix D). The notice will identify
the preferred alternative and provide the basis for appeal of the selected servicing plan (i.e., a
Part II Order request to the Minister of the Environment prior to the conclusion of the review
period).
A Notice of Study Completion was initially published on January 25th, 2012 but was withdrawn
following the receipt of two Part II Order Requests which were submitted to the Minister of the
Environment during the mandatory 30 day review period associated with the Notice of Study
Completion publication. Additional consultation and investigations have been completed by the
proponent in order to address the concerns expressed by the two parties who submitted the Part II
Order Requests. This information has been documented within this revised report.
The following summarizes the proposed distribution of the revised Notice of Study Completion.
Contents:
Issued:
Placed In:
Distributed To:
Review Period:
9.6
Identification of preferred solution, key project components
January 22, 2014
Kincardine times and Kincardine Independent, Municipal Website.
6 review organizations, 458 property owners, Aboriginal Communities
Concludes February 21, 2014
Class EA Finalization
The following activities are required in order to complete the formal Class EA process:



9.7
Address outstanding issues resulting from the Notice of Completion.
Finalize the Screening Report following the conclusion of the 30-day review period.
Advise the Municipality of Kincardine and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) when
the study process is complete (assuming no Part II Order requests are filed).
Project Implementation
A general schedule for implementation of the project has been prepared based on the assumption
that all necessary approvals will be obtained within the next 6 - 8 months. Due to the scope of the
project and the desire to avoid conflicts with the peak tourist season, the project will likely be
completed over two construction seasons.





Completion of final design drawings (May 2014)
Tendering of Contracts (May 2014)
Receipt of required approvals (June 2014)
Initiation of works (Summer 2014)
Completion of works (September 2015)
10.0
APPROVALS
10.1
General
Page 88
Implementation of the recommended solution is subject to the receipt of all necessary approvals.
Following a review of the existing framework of legislation, it was determined that three formal
approvals will be required to permit construction of the proposed works. This section of the report
identifies the applicable legislation and summarizes the intent of the associated approvals processes.
10.2
Conservation Authorities Act
Construction of some components of the preferred alternative will involve work within areas
regulated by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority. In accordance with the Conservation
Authorities Act, an application will need to be submitted to obtain approval for this work. The
application will identify methods to protect sensitive lands, such as sand dunes and watercourses,
during construction. As part of the Conservation Authority’s review process, consultation with
the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Federal Fisheries Department (DFO) may take
place.
10.3
Ontario Water Resources Act
The sewage works associated with the preferred alternative are subject to the Ontario Water
Resources Act. Consequently, the project cannot proceed until the Municipality has received the
necessary Environmental Compliance Approvals from the MOE.
10.4
Safe Drinking Water Act
The waterworks associated with the preferred alternative are subject to the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Accordingly, the project cannot proceed until the Municipality has received the necessary
approvals from the Ministry of the Environment. The approvals documentation will define how
these works must be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in order to ensure
compliance with accepted engineering standards.
11.0
Page 89
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
As an outcome of this Class EA planning process, the Municipality is committed to carrying out the
following measures to mitigate the potential environmental impacts of project implementation:

Implementation of mitigation measures identified within the Species at Risk Monitoring
report, specifically those pertaining to threatened and endangered species.

Submission of relevant applications to the SVCA and MOE in conjunction with the
proposed works, as well as implementation of all conditions issued in association with the
subsequent approvals.

Implementation of standard mitigation measures during the construction phase of the
project, to minimize construction related impacts to the natural and social environments.

Completion of the Stage 3 and/or Stage 4 archaeological investigations, as required,
following completion of the Stage 2 assessment.

Utilization of directional drilling technology, where possible, to minimize impacts to the
environment and disruption to roadways and vegetation within the study area.

Timing of construction to off-peak periods of the year, where possible, to avoid impacts
to seasonal cottagers and residents.

That residents be provided with information regarding the proper way to decommission
their existing private well supplies, following connection to the Municipal water supply.

Development of a construction schedule at the start of the project to advise residents of
the general timing of construction for various areas of the community.

Implementation of recommendations outlined within the October 29, 2013 letter report
prepared by Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd. in regards to the hydrogeology of the
Inverhuron area.
12.0
Page 90
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were identified in conjunction with the Class EA process.
a)
That the Municipality adopt the following Guiding Principles in reference to
implementation of the Inverhuron Servicing Project:
i) Adoption of a base water rate in conjunction with the project to establish consistency
between former pipeline customers and new customers to be serviced in conjunction with
the current project;
ii) That a mandatory connection by-law be adopted in conjunction with this project and that
it apply to both sewage and water components of the project;
iii) That the municipality accept the ownership and maintenance of grinder pumps installed
in conjunction with this project;
iv) That a capital and reserve charge be applied to the sewage component of the project and a
reserve charge be applied to the water component of the project.
b)
That the Municipality implement the Environmental Commitments identified during the
Class EA process and summarized within Section No. 11.0.
c)
That connection to the new sanitary collection system be mandatory for all developed
properties in Inverhuron except those properties where a private sewage disposal system
has been installed more recently than the year 2000. Deferral of connection to the sanitary
collection system will be permitted subject to the completion of a septic system inspection,
at the cost of the homeowner, indicating that the system is functioning properly.
d)
That installation of the watermain, required to service properties located on Lake Street
South, be completed in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the existing environment
and sanitary sewer as much as is reasonable.
e)
That in conjunction with a development charges by-law, capital construction costs
associated with any oversizing of the sanitary collection system or water distribution
network, required to facilitate servicing of future development lands within the Inverhuron
settlement area, be paid by the Municipality of Kincardine.
f)
That upon completion of the Stage 2 and 3 archaeological field work, reports documenting
the results be posted on the Kindardine Municipal website so that interested parties can
review the results of the investigation. Reports will also be submitted to the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport for formal review and approval.
13.0
Page 91
SUMMARY
This screening report documents the Class Environmental Assessment process undertaken by the
Municipality of Kincardine to extend municipal water and sanitary servicing to the community
of Inverhuron. The process was initiated following receipt of a Building Canada Fund –
Communities Component grant for the project, which identified a proposed servicing plan and
identified deficiencies with the existing private well supplies and sewage disposal systems
servicing the community. The process incorporated a comprehensive public consultation
program which included three public meetings and the formation of a steering committee to
guide study progress.
The preferred alternative, to extend both water and sanitary sewers to previously unserviced
areas of Inverhuron, utilizing a low pressure collection system, was selected following an
extensive review of various collection system alternatives. Based on feedback received from the
Steering Committee and residents of the community during the consultation process, the
Municipality will implement a number of recommendations aimed at minimizing potential
impacts to the community as a result of implementation.
This report was initially published on January 25th, 2012 but was withdrawn following the
receipt of two Part II Order Requests which were submitted to the Minister of the Environment
during the mandatory 30 day review period associated with the Notice of Study Completion
publication. The report has been revised following the completion of additional consultation and
investigations, completed by the Municipality, to address concerns expressed in the Part II Order
documentation submitted to the Minister. The Municipality is confident that all concerns
initially identified, have been adequately mitigated.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Per _________________________________
Dale Erb, P. Eng.
Per _________________________________
Kelly Vader, RPP, MCIP
Environmental Planner
:hv
Page 92
References
1.
Municipal Engineers Association, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, June 2000,
as amended in 2007.
2.
County of Bruce, Official Plan, September 15, 1998.
3.
Brian Luinstra, Luinstra Earth Sciences, Geology, Hydrogeology and Vulnerability of the
Inverhuron Area, February 11, 2010.
4.
Timmins, Martelle Heritage Consultants, Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Class EA for
Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Community of Inverhuron, January 2011.
5.
Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition.
1984.
6.
Atkinson, Davies Inc. Geotechnical Investigation for a Sanitary Sewer System Inverhuron. (Municipality of Kincardine). April 20, 2011.
7.
Pryde Schropp McComb Inc. Inverhuron Sanitary Sewage System and Public Station
Capacity Review. Prepared for: Municipality of Kincardine Public Works Department.
August 30, 2004.
8.
Pryde Schropp McComb Inc. and Stantec Consulting Ltd. Shoreline/ Tiverton Water
Supply Class Environmental Assessment. Phase 1 & 2 Summary Report and Master Plan.
August 2002.
9.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc., Inverhuron Class EA Species at Risk Monitoring, January
2011.
10. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited and the Municipality of Kincardine, Building Canada
Fund – Communities Component, Grant Program Business Plan for Servicing of the
Community of Inverhuron, November 20, 2008.
11. B. M. Ross and Associates Limited, Class Environmental Assessment for Water and
Sanitary Servicing of Lake Street North, May 14, 2007.
12. Ministry of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Information Centre (website).
13. Official Plan of the Municipality of Kinardine, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., March
23, 2006.
14. R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd. Inverhuron Municipal Drain, Preliminary Engineers Report,
Municipality of Kincardine, August 2012.

MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL

Transcription

Similar documents

For Dog`s Sake - theMarketplacemag.com

The Homestead Hotel and Condominium: Sanitary Drain Stack

Service Plan Avoid large service bills

February 2012

August-September 2014 - Municipalité d`Ormstown

1 Your watch works harder than your car, but you probably wouldn`t

info terrasse - Municipalité Terrasse

MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ADULT

Info Mille-Isles February 2012

kincardine, ontario, canada

Escape to Kincardine