1. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY WPCP
Welcome!
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
25 April 2005
East Luther Grand Valley, Ontario
Please Sign the Attendance Sheet
Your Comments Are Important To Us! Please Fill In the
Comment Sheet Provided and Leave It Here, or Submit it
to the Address Indicated on the Sheet by
9 May 2005

2. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY WPCP
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process
for the Township of East Luther Grand Valley WPCP
PHASE 1
Identify problem or opportunity
PHASE 2 Alternative Solutions
$ Identify Planning Solutions
$ Assess the natural environmental, socio/political and economical
factors
$ Evaluate Planning Solutions while considering environmental,
technical and economical impacts
$ Identify preferred Planning Solution
Problem Statement
Preferred Planning Solution
Preferred Design Alternative
PHASE 3 Alternative Design Concepts for
Preferred Solution
$ Identify and develop Design Alternatives for the preferred
P lanning Solution
$ Assess the natural environmental, socio/political and
economical factors
$ Evaluate Design Alternatives while considering
environmental, technical and economical impacts
$ Identify a preferred Design Alternative
PHASE 4 Environmental Study Report (ESR)
$ Complete ESR outlining all activities from Phase 1, 2 and 3
$ Place ESR on public record for 30 day review period
$ Notify agencies of completion of the ESR and of the
provision of the Part II Order provision of the EA Act
PHASE 5 Implementation
$ Complete final design, contract drawings and tender documents
$ Construction
$ Monitor for environmental provisions and commitments
Formalize Problem Statement
- Council Meeting – 7 November 2001
Public Information Centre #1
22 October 2002
- Provided Background Information
- Identified Planning Alternatives
Preparation of Phase 1 / 2 Report
November 2002
Completed & Submitted
Assimilative Capacity Report
January 2005
- Developed Effluent Criteria
Construction of
New WPCP at Site B
Public Information Centre #2
- Study Update
- Present Preferred Design Alternative
ESR & Notice of Completion
- 30 Day Public and Agency Review

3. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLREY WPCP
Problem Statement
The community of Grand Valley is currently serviced by a Wastewater Treatment
Facility that is reaching its design capacity and lacks appropriate biosolids
treatment capability. Grand Valley needs to determine a preferred wastewater
treatment alternative to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for future growth
and that the current design standards can be satisfied.
The objectives of this study are:
• Identify one, or more, preferred wastewater treatment alternative(s) to meet
the long-term growth requirements of Grand Valley
• Ensure that the preferred alternative(s) provides appropriate biosolids
treatment
• Ensure that the preferred wastewater treatment plant alternative(s) meets
current design standards
Critical issues to be considered in meeting the objectives are:
• Identifying and evaluating suitable sites for the wastewater treatment plant
expansion
• Addressing problems associated with excessive sewer infiltration and inflow in
the collection network
SITE B
SITE A
EXISTING
WWTP
SITE

4. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY WPCP
EVALUATION CRITERIA
ALTERNATIVE 1
Do Nothing
ALTERNATIVE 2
Reduce Wastewater Flows
ALTERNATIVE 3
Modify Operational Practices
ALTERNATIVE 4
Expansion or Upgrading of the Existing Treatment Facility
ALTERNATIVE 5
Construct a New Treatment Facility
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Potential effects to the natural environment including:
• Impact on vegetation, fish and wildlife
• Impact on surface drainage and groundwater
• Displacement or disruption of topographic features
• Impact on Areas of Natural and Scientific Inter-
est (ANSI’s) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA’s)
• Impact on soil and geology
The effluent criteria stated in the C of A for the current
wastewater treatment does not meet the new discharge stan-
dards, therefore the total phosphorus loadings and perhaps
the ammonia loadings will have a negative impact on veg-
etation, fish, wildlife and water quality of the Grand River.
The biosolids treatment is inadequate and therefore will
have negative impacts on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, and
potential to impact surface drainage and groundwater.
The optimization study has shown that the plant cannot
process the peak flows, therefore there is potential for poor
quality water being discharged, which would negatively af-
fect vegetation, fish, wildlife and water quality in the Grand
River.
The existing plant is located partially in the floodplain of
the Grand River. Therefore, the potential for reduced wa-
ter quality, sewage back-up into homes and flooding of the
plant exists.
Reducing flows would place less strain on wastewater treat-
ment plant, which should improve treatment capability and
should reduce impacts on the environment.
The effluent criteria stated in the C of A for the current
wastewater treatment does not meet the new discharge stan-
dards, therefore the total phosphorus loadings and perhaps
the ammonia loadings will have a negative impact on veg-
etation, fish wildlife and water quality of the Grand River.
The biosolids treatment is inadequate and therefore will
negatively impact the soil, vegetation, wildlife, and poten-
tial to negatively impact surface drainage and groundwater.
The existing plant is located partially in the floodplain of
the Grand River. Therefore, the potential for reduced wa-
ter quality, sewage back-up into homes and flooding of the
plant exists.
The modification of operational practices may not affect
the existing C of A. The effluent criteria stated in the C of A
for the current wastewater treatment does not meet the new
discharge standards, therefore the total phosphorus load-
ings and perhaps the ammonia loadings will have a negative
impact on vegetation, fish wildlife and water quality of the
Grand River.
However, if the plant were operated more efficiently this
may have a positive impact on vegetation, fish wildlife and
water quality of the Grand River.
The biosolids treatment is inadequate and therefore will
negatively impact the soil, vegetation, wildlife, and poten-
tial to negatively impact surface drainage and groundwater.
The existing plant is located partially in the floodplain of
the Grand River. Therefore, the potential for reduced water
quality and flooding of the plant exists.
Potential natural environmental impacts are associated with
the construction to expand or upgrade this facility. How-
ever following proper construction techniques the impacts
should be minimized.
The expansion or upgrade of the facility will result in a new
C of A, and therefore new effluent criteria to meet current
discharge standards. There will be a reduction in total phos-
phorus loadings, ammonia loadings and chlorine residuals,
which will have a positive impact on vegetation, fish and
wildlife.
The biosolids treatment would be upgraded to current stan-
dards and therefore will have a positive impact on the soil,
vegetation, wildlife, and would reduce the impact on surface
drainage and groundwater.
The existing plant is located partially in the floodplain of
the Grand River. Therefore, the potential for reduced wa-
ter quality, sewage back-up into homes and flooding of the
plant exists.
Potential natural environmental impacts are associated with
the construction of a new plant. However following proper
construction techniques the impacts should be minimized.
The construction of a new facility will result in a new C of
A, and therefore new effluent criteria to meet current dis-
charge standards. There will be a reduction in total phos-
phorus loadings, ammonia loadings and chlorine residuals,
which will have a positive impact on vegetation, fish and
wildlife.
The biosolids treatment would be upgraded to current stan-
dards and therefore will have a positive impact on the soil,
vegetation, wildlife, and would reduce the impact on surface
drainage and groundwater.
The new plant would be located at a suitable site to ensure
no impacts from the floodplain.
Constructing a new facility will require upgrades to the ex-
isting collection system to reroute flow to the new location.
SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/CULTURAL FACTORS
• Impact on existing and proposed developments
• Impact on archaeological and historic sites
• Impact on recreational areas
Future development, both residential and commercial,
would be constrained. The existing plant cannot process
peak flows and biosolids treatment would remain inad-
equate.
Current plant located in a residential area, and this leads to
odour complaints. In addition, the plant does not satisfy the
100m setback rule from residences.
Could potentially reduce water demands and free up ad-
ditional available capability in the wastewater plant. The
existing plant peak flows may be reduced, but the biosolids
treatment would remain inadequate.
This activity alone would not accommodate the planned
future growth.
Current plant located in a residential area, and this leads to
odour complaints. In addition, the plant does not satisfy the
100m setback rule from residences.
Could potentially free up additional available capability in
the wastewater plant. However, future development, both
residential and commercial, would be constrained and the
biosolids treatment would remain inadequate.
Current plant located in a residential area, and this leads to
odour complaints. In addition, the plant does not satisfy the
100m setback rule from residences.
This alternative would satisfy the treatment requirements to
meet the long term servicing requirements.
Current plant located in a residential area, and this leads to
odour complaints. In addition, the plant does not satisfy the
100m setback rule from residences.
This alternative would satisfy the treatment requirements to
meet the long term servicing requirements.
New plant could be relocated to reduce odour complaints
and ensure the 100m setback rule from residences.
FINANCIAL FACTORS
• Economic
• Estimated Capital Costs
Shortage of wastewater treatment capacity will restrict
future economic growth and the plant will still experience
problems during peak flows.
No cost.
The expansion of the plant could be delayed if sewage flows
were reduced, but shortage of wastewater treatment capacity
may constrain economic growth in the future.
Low capital cost.
The expansion of the plant could be delayed if the plant
were optimized, but shortage of wastewater treatment ca-
pacity may constrain economic growth in the future.
Low capital cost.
The ability to meet the servicing needs of the long-term
growth will allow future economic growth.
Taxes would increase, but the tax base would also expand to
pay for these upgrades.
Moderate to High capital cost.
The ability to meet the servicing needs of the long-term
growth will be allow future economic growth.
Taxes would increase, but the tax base would also expand to
pay for these upgrades.
High capital cost.
TECHNICAL FACTORS
• Effectiveness in dealing with wastewater servicing
requirements in short and long term
• Technical practicability
Long term wastewater treatment needs cannot be met with
this alternative.
This alternative will free up some additional treatment ca-
pacity, but not enough to meet the long term demands.
The Village has already implemented by-laws to reduce il-
legal connections to the sewers, completed a sanitary sewer
system investigation to reduce I&I and implemented a water
conservation program. These actions have had limited ef-
fect and as such this alternative does not seem to have re-
sulted in extra capacity in the system.
Not practical since this alternative does not provide ad-
equate wastewater treatment capacity to meet the future
demands.
The optimization study has already concluded that the exist-
ing facility cannot be optimized since it is not hydraulically
capable of handling peak flows.
Not practical since optimization study found no cost ef-
fective manner to operate or expand components of the
plant. In addition, this alternative does not provide adequate
wastewater treatment capacity to meet the future demands.
Long term wastewater servicing needs could be met with
this alternative.
Upgrading or expanding the existing facility is feasible, but
there will still be issues with odour, proximity to flood plain
and setback from residences. In addition, the available land
on the site could be an issue that may prevent implementa-
tion of this solution.
Long term wastewater servicing needs could be met with
this alternative.
The construction of a new facility at a new site is feasible.
The issues pertaining to odour, flood plain and setback
form residences could be mitigated.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION

5. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY WPCP
EXTENDED AERATION ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PROCESS CONCEPT
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR TREATMENT PROCESS CONCEPT
Treatment Process Concept
Raw
Sewage
Influent Works
Screen, Grit Removal
Flow
Meter
Flow
Splitting
Box
Clarified Effluent
Flow
Meter
UV
DisinfectionOutfall to
Grand River
Aeration
Tank
WAS
Sludge DigestionSludge StorageLand
Application
Alum
Filters
Aeration
Tank
Aeration
Tank
Secondary
Clarifiers
RAS RAS
Treatment Process Concept
Raw
Sewage
Influent Works
Screen, Grit Removal
Flow
Meter
Flow
Splitting
Box
Equalization Tank
Clarified Effluent
Flow
Meter
UV
DisinfectionOutfall to
Grand River
Aeration
Tank
WAS
Sludge DigestionSludge StorageLand
Application
Alum
Filters
Aeration
Tank
PPpPPREFERRED OPTION
Capital Cost -- $11M
Capital Cost -- $11.6M

6. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY WPCP
What’s Next?
1. Confirm / modify preferred design option considering public input / comments
2. Assisting Township in Securing COMRIF funding
3. Completion of Environment Study Report and Publish Notice of Completion
4. 30 day Public and Agency Review Period
opportunity for Part II Order Request
5. Detailed Design Process
obtain relevant approvals and permits
6. Tender & Construction
approximately Spring 2006

7. CLASS MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY WPCP
Potential Project Effect Proposed Mitigation Measures
Residential, Institutional, Commercial and Industrial properties - Township of East Luther Grand Valley to keep sewer/
forcemain works, wherever possible, within Right of Way
road widths set out in Official Plan and will compensate
landowners, at market value, where property is required.
- Inclusion of a 100m buffer zone around subject property
to ensure adequate separation distances to neighbouring
properties and mitigate noise and odour issues
- Selected site located in future industrial zone, well away
from residential property
Surface Drainage Systems - Effect on Grand River water quality to be reduced by
recommendation for more stringent effluent criteria and
designing new plant to minimize bypass events
Fish, Aquatic Wildlife and Vegetation - Construction effects on Grand River and Boyne Creek to be
reduced by construction timing and erosion/sediment controls.
Outdoor Recreation: Grand Valley – Waldemar Rail Trail - Effects on Grand Valley – Waldemar Rail Trail to be reduced
by fencing along rail trail boundary
Operational and Construction Noise - site selection, provision of 100m buffer zone and site fencing
will help mitigate operational and construction noise