Black & Veatch

Township of Springwater
Midhurst Master Plan

Phase 1 and 2 Report
APPENDIX ‘H’
Effluent Discharge Correspondence
File 208017 July 2009

Ministry Ministere
I"'~
t
of the de
Environment l'Environnement ;>
5775 Yonge Street
8th Floor
5775, rue Yonge
So etage
To Ontario
North York ON M2M 4J1 North York ON M2M 4J1
Technical Support appui technique Tel: (416) 326-6700

Central Region Region du Centre Fax: (416) 325-6345
October 30, 2008
Bryan MacKeli
Director of Planning & Development
Planning Department
County of Simcoe
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1XO
RE: Class EA for Wastewater Servicing

Environment Assessment Requirements for the Proposed Communal
Sewage System with Subsurface Effluent Disposal
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has finished its regional boundaries alignment. The MOE
jurisdiction over the County of Simcoe (including the City of Barrie and the City of Orillia) and the
District of Muskoka has been transferred from Southwestem Region to Central Region.
Several very larger projects transferred from Southwestern Region have proposed a communal
sewage system with subsurface effluent disposal as preferred alternative for wastewater
serviCing either through planning applications, or through an environmental planning process in
conjunction with the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (Class EA) (October 2000, as amended in 2007), such as the Hillsdale Village
proposal and the Hamlet of Colgan Master Servicing Plan.
For clarification and consistency, MOE Central Region would like to request a meeting with the
County of Simcoe and relevant local municipalities to address and discuss the issues related to
subsurface effluent disposal together rather than to resolve them separately. On the basis of the
information we have collaborated, there is the "problem" lack of experience with these large
systems and hence a heighten level of risk due to imperfect knowledge. We are inviting staffs
from Environmental Assessment and Approval Branch, Barrie District Office, and Southwestern
Region to attend this meeting.
As we understanding, the similar existing systems in the local municipalities are generally quite
smaller and still have certain problems at specific locations. The environmental impacts from
these proposed communal systems are uncertain and generally unpredictable in terms of their
long-term effects and cumulative impacts on the watershed system. We also know that some of
local municipalities already have issues related to water quality, such as the Hamlet of Colgan in
the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio. In this case, if the Township is still proposing a communal
sewage system for its wastewater servicing, how can we ensure that this system will not make
things even worse. It is highly possible that we are not going to support the proposals if the
feasibility of these large systems can not be established during the Class EA process.
1
The proper date for the meeting will be arranging through our email and/or phone conversation
after this letter is delivered to your attention. If clarification needs regarding the above, please
feel free to contact either myself Ernie Hartt, or Chunmei Liu, the EA and Planning Coordinator
of our office directly at (416) 326-4886 or via email: [email protected].
Yours truly,
- -.-.- -.---- ---
originally singed by
Ernie Hartt
SuperVisor
Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning
Technical Support Section
Central Region
Ministry of the Environment
Tel: 416-326-4835
Fax: 416-325-6347
Email: [email protected]
c. C. Hood, District Manager, Barrie District Office, MOE

D. Lyons, Senior Planner, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
J. Hosick, Director of Growth and Development, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
A. Leigh, Director of Development Services, Township of Oro-Medonte
A. Fyfe, Director of Planning and Development, Township of Springwater
M. Mahmood, Supervisor, Water & Wastewater Unit of EMB, MOE
M. Harrison, Supervisor, Project Review Unit of EMB, MOE
G. Rocoski, Director (Acting), Central Region, MOE
D. Orr, Manager, Central Region, MOE
E. Schmarje, Supervisor, Central Region, MOE
Central Region EA File
A& P File
From: Liu, Chunmei (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, October 31,2008 11:02 AM
To: MacKell, Bryan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fyfe, Andrew; Sokach, Brad •
Cc: Hartt, Ernie (ENE); Schmarje, Ellen (ENE); Mahmood, Mansoor (ENE); Harrison2, Michael (ENE); Hyde, Chris (ENE);
Lyons, Darryl (MAH); Manowski, Bozena (ENE); Armstrong, Bill (ENE); Froese, Paul (ENE)
Subject: Re: Proposed Communal Sewage System with Subsurface Effluent Disposal in the County of Simcoe
Importance: High
Several large projects have proposed or are proposing a communal sewage system with subsurface effluent disposal as
preferred alternative for sewage serving in the County of Simcoe. These large proposals have a similar issue/concern as there
is the "problem" lack of experience with these large systems and hence a heighten level of risk due to imperfect knowledge. To
be consistent with our process and the whole EA and Planning procedure, Central Region office is planning to arrange a
meeting at the late of November to resolve the above-noted issue together with the County of Simcoe and the relevant
TownlTownship.
The attached letter indicates our concerns and requests a meeting with the County of Simcoe and relevant TownlTownship to
discuss issues related to these larger systems. We are calling this meeting because all project proposals are very larger size of
developments (around 200 to 500 or more units) and some areas already have the water quality problem, such as the Colgan
Master Servicing Class EA. It is highly possible that we are not going to support the proposals if the feasibility of this proposed
subsurface disposal can not be established during the Class EA process. The Central Region office has also asked staff
support from MMAH, EMB, Barrie District office and Southwestern Region office to attend this meeting.
With approval from my supervisor, the Central Region office requests this meeting and would like to know if you or staff from
your sections can attend this meeting to discuss the issues related to these larger systems. Would you mind to kindly identify
available staff to attend this meeting at your early convince? If possible, we would like to arrange this meeting around the week
of November 24. Please provide your available date for that week as early as possible. That would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
ChunmeiLiu
EA and Planning Coordinator
5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M2M 4J1
31110/2008
Please refer to: John M. A/at!
e-mail: [email protected]
Da vie s
Novembei7,2008
e
J.-l 0 w
Partners
Mr. Ernie Hartt

Lawyers Supervisor
Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning
The fifth Floor
99 Spildini:l Ave
Technical Support Section
TOfonto,Ontario Ministry of the Environment
M5V )P8 5775 Yonge Street, 8 'h Floor
North York, ON M2M 4Jl
T 416.977.7088
r 416.977.8931
Dear Mr. Hartt:
d<1vit~showe.<om
He: Comments on Proposed Communal Sewage System with

Subsurface Effluent Disposal
We are writing on behalf of Geranium Corporation in response to a letter which

you wrote to Bryan MacKell, Director of Planning, Simcoe County, dated October
30,2008,
Introduction
[n your letter you raise concerns related to proposed communal sewage systems
with subsUlface effluent disposal in Simcoe County which are now within the
purview of MOE Central Region ~ffice as a result of the MOE's recent regional
boundaries alignment adjustment.
The purpose of this letter is to express our concerns with the one size fits all
approach MOE Central Region appears to be taking in respect of these proposals
and also the apparent suggestion that all of these types of projects should be
subjected to a formal Class EAprocess. We would caution the MOE that setting up
a process which requires a formal Class EA is a, costly and in our view,
unnecessary step,
Based on our review of your letter to Mr. MacKell it appears that Central Region
staff do not share Southwestern Region's comfort in processing those applications
it had previously received in the manner that it has. As a starting point we would
recommend that before any meeting is established with other stakeholders, such as
the County and the local municipalities, Central Region should meet with staff from
Page 2
D ("j \, i L' 0:; Southwestern Region. We believe that much can be learned from Southwestern
"Region'Sacceplance-;;{ thetedlnologyarldthe approachIt has Tollowed leading~--'-~
··theapproval of similar systems.· - .- ------
MOE's Concern about imperfect knowledge
It appears that one of the reasons that Central Region is expressing misgivings
about these systems relates to what it calls a "lack of experience" with these systems
and imperfect knowledge related to the technology.
In an effort to assist and provide some gUidance to the MOE Central Region on
these items we point out the following facts:
1. The design of recharge beds is based upon proven hydrogeological

principals that are provided in the Ministry of the Environment "Manual of
Policy and Procedures and Guidelines" (MOE 1984). MOE (1984) provides
criteria for assessing the rise of groundwater table under a recharge bed due
to hydraulic loading.
2. The basic design process for a single bed, as described in MOE (1984) does
not change when multiple beds are used in the construction of a recharge
bed.
3. The MOE has previously approved in-ground disposal of treated effluent at

residential subdivisions at Snow Valley and Everett in Simcoe County, as
well as at Ballantrae in York Region. There are also further examples of
beds reported in New Jersey with application rates of treated effluent of
750 m3/day, and in Maine with rates of 250 m3/day.
4. Geranium's consultant, Golder Associates Ltd., has undertaken water level

monitoring analysis from two 100,000 Uday beds constructed at the Snow
Valley Highlands subdivision and the two New Horizon subdivisions in
Everett that indicates mounding under a recharge bed is predictable based
on the methods outlined in MOE (1984). We are advised that the
operators, Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) collects data on this issue
and it can be made available to MOE upon request for verification. Golder
Associates Ltd. is not aware of any operational issues associated with these
facilities.
I]
'\'1[dll'"
~~~! Page 4
.
.. _.______);,..;,..v.;.,.,.);.._. ____ 2,__ ._Ihere are tQr.!l.e municigal wells in Colgan that are 50 to 70 meters deep.
H () v' (. These wells are not known to be impacted by nitrate from septic waste or
I ' i I i_ 11 C - . application of agricultural fertilizer, or by contaminants from other
subsurface activities. The highest vielding well has elevated chloride, iron,
and sodium concentrations, none of which are attributed to subsurface
disposal of treated effluent.
3. The community is reliant upon a total well supply of 130 Umin, with the
largest well being 90Umin. The water supply at Colgan is marginal and if
the largest well fails there is not enough water for the community. This
constraint does not exist in the Midhurst area.
4. Private water supplies in Colgan are either deep drilled (in excess of 50 m)
or are shallow bored wells. Shallow bored wells are particularly vulnerable
to impact from private domestic sewage systems.
Other alleged problems
The letter to Mr. MacKell goes on to reference certain problems at specific

locations. In the absence of the provision of more detail on these alleged problems
it is hard to speculate as to what the precise cause of such problems and
appropriate solutions, might be. We would, however, be prepared to provide
additional insights as we have done for the Hamlet of Colgan area if further details
on these specific problems are more clearly articulated. We also note that, in our
experience, most of the documented problems with subsurface relate to cases
where they are used as the primary method of treatment and disposal (ie,. septic
systems). The systems proposed by Geranium Corporation in Simcoe County are
proposed for effluent disposal only. In every case, a sewage treatment facility
(sequencing batch reactor plus tertialY treatment) is proposed to treat effluent to a
very high standard (i.e. <6 mg/L nitrate, < 0.5 mg/L phosphorus) prior to
discharge to subsurface. Further effluent polishing will occur after disposal.
Other examples of subsurface disposal from North America
Two of Geranium's projects in Simcoe County involve the proposed use of

"Vertical Tile Field Injection", the use of a deep well for effluent disposal instead of
a large horizontal tile field. This procedure provides for safe disposal of well
treated effluent without the need to tie up large blocks of land for a tile field, this
allowing greater densities and more efficient land use.
·.
PageS
.~~_._,. __ .~\-,,-+-<c.;:_ _ _ _ _ ~RosQLof treated sewa.fje b!Lunderground injection is a very well establish§d__ ~
l' " ','J (' practice in the USA.' There are approximately 1675 documented (>1739 total)
!, ,; , ,; sewage treatment wells in the USA. More than 95% of the total are in five states:
Florida (830) Hawaii (378), California 12051. Massachusetts (lOS) and Arizona
(79), Many of these inject treated effluent into' non-potablegroul1dwater but wells
in Florida, Arizona and other states are used for aquifer recharge and "may be
injecting into aquifers of drinking water quality" (USEPA, 1999). As such, any
issues with groundwater contamination would stem from not treating the injected
water to a high enough standard, or by not securing the well head properly such
that surface water gained entry to the groundwater. These requirements are well
understood, and will be adhered to by Geranium and can be assured in MOE's
regulatory process.
The safety of subsurface disposal of well treated effluent is documented in Arizona

and Califomia, where treated effluent is recharged to drinking water aquifers. The
Arizona injection program is not aware of any contamination of drinking water
resulting from operation of sewage treatment effluent wells in Arizona. There have
been occasional short term violations of sewage treatment effluent well injection
quality standards at the discharge point but, to their knowledge, none has affected
the groundwater quality at the groundwater monitoring point. (p. 78 USEPA,
1999).
In California a multipart epidemiological study done in the Los Angeles area tried
to determine if there was any detrimental effect from consuming recovered
secondary treated wastewater effluent that had been used for basin recharge
beginning 30 years earlier. The study found no statistically significant detrimental
effect from consumption of the recovered water. Another study concluded that
there were no negative short term effects from the consumption of treated
wastewater in the study area. Other studies, however found that a number of
hepatitis outbreaks can be traced to contaminated groundwater supplies resulting
from wastewater effluent injection. The studies indicated that virus contaminated
water traveled several hundred feet through soil and affected both deep and
shallow drinking water wells. Although these results were the result of migration of
effluent through a substandard groundwater environment of fissures and fractures,
" USEPA. The Class V Underground Injection Control Study. Volume 7 Sewage
Treatment Effluent Wells. Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water (4601)
September 1999. EPN816-R-99-014g
Page 6
.it .is also dearthat the results reflected poorly Jreated effluent to start with. In
H '.J Simcoe County, Geranium's hydrogeological studiesco~fj;:m"that-the subsurface-
~ ..,
i 1 (
j".' ,( :
environment is suitable. In addition, any program of Vertical Tile Field Injection
________________________~Wdoll!ulldQJlr~ealeBfueotrodr~~w~a~t~e~r~g~awn~d~a~rd~s~.________________________________
Rural residential developments completed with communal sewage treatment plants

are relatively new in Ontario, primarily because of the high upfront cost of
constructing the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant
manufacturers have developed the technology to produce high quality treated
effluent with low nitrate concentrations that is suitable for in-ground disposal. The
availability of these plants makes it feasible for the_development of lands adjacent
to rural municipalities that are currently serviCed by private on-site waste disposal
systems. In Simcoe County, Golder partiCipated in three currently operating
subdivisions built with communal sewage treatment plants and in-ground disposal
at Snow Valley Landing, Snow Valley Highlands, and New Horizions subdivision
in Everett.
The Planning rationale in support of subsurface disposal
The population in the County of Simcoe is projected to grow to 439,500 people in

2031. This is an increase of 61 % from the 2006 Census Canada population of
272,200 which excludes the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia. This growth
forecast is outlined in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
In order to achieve these growth targets, population has been directed to

settlement areas, where their development is antiCipated to be completed on full
services. Intensification targets have also been established for development,
ensuring efficient and long term sustainable growth in accordance with the
principles and policies articulated in the Growth Plan, the Greenbeh Plan and the
Planning Act.
Given the lack of assimilative capacity of many surface water receivers in Simcoe
County, attaining any of the designated greenfield density targets or the
intensification targets in Simcoe County may well require the implementation of
these types of subsurface effluent disposal systems.
I --
·]f~'~ t~L. Page 7
_.. Request to participate in any meetings

i-i :.., '!-! ..
'. I: : If the Ministry still is of the view that a meeting with representatives of the County
and the local municipalities is necessary on an urgent and expedited basis then
Geranium would be pleased to participate in any such meeting and make its own
expert consultants available to assist.
We look forward to hearing from you further on these matters.
Yours truly,
DAVIES HOWE PARTNERS
l~z rz. ~
~nM.Alati
Copy: Client
Chris Hyde, District Manager, Barrie District Office, MOE
Chunmei Liu, EA and Planning Coordinator, Central Region, MOE
Carol Trainor, Township of Springwater
Doug Irwin, Township of Oro-Medonte
Joe Mullan, Ainley & Associates
Bryan Mackell, County of Simcoe
COVHTYOF~
County of Simcoe Main Una {70S} 726 9300
Planning Toll Free 1 866 893 9300
SIMCOEa\
m
1110 Highway 26,
Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1XO
Fax {70S} 727 4276
Web: simcoe.ca
•
January 6, 2008
RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2009
Cindy Hood
District Manager
Centra I Region - Barrie District Office
54 Cedar Point Drive, Unit 1203
Barrie, ON
L4N 5R7
Dear Ms. Hood:
RE: Large Communal Sewage Systems in Simcoe County of simcoe
Further to the meeting of December 2, 2008 held at the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio at which two
County Planning staff attended, namely Bruce Hoppe and Kathy Suggitt, this letter is intended as a
follow-up to inquire about when a subsequent meeting will take place and stress to you the urgency of
this matter from the County's perspective.
As you are aware there are a number of major development applications in the approvals process
within the County of Simcoe that propose the use of large communal sewage systems. County staff is
anxious to determine the Ministry's position on these in order to determine if we can or should continue
to process these applications through to approval. Under the Planning Act requirements for processing
applications the County may be faced with Ontario Municipal Board appeals on non-decisions if we are
left in a position of uncertainty for some time, unclear of the possible support of these proposed
systems by the Ministry. As such, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible to
understand your position and to be invited to any upcoming meetings on this matter.
I would be pleased to discuss further and can be reached at (705) 726-9300 ext. 1004.
Yours truly,
Corporation of the County of Simcoe
2EAA~KceP
Bryan MacKell, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning and Development
Cc: Gerry Caterer, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio

Andria Leigh, Township of Oro-Medonte
Rick Hunter, Township of Springwater
PLD-OO3-CO1
"inl~.Y
Ainley & Associates Limited
CONSULTING 550 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8Z7
ENGINEERS Tel: (7051 726-3371 • Fax: (7051 726-4391
PLANNERS E-mail [email protected]
january 26, 2009 File #20801 7

"By E-Mail"
Ministry ofthe Environment

Central Region - Barrie District Office
54 Cedar Pointe, Un it 1203
Barrie, Ontario
L4N 5R7
Attn: Ms. Cindy Hood
District Manager
Ref: Township of Springwater
Midhurst Master Plan for Water, Wastewater & Transportation
Dear Ms. Hood:
Further to the january 6, 2009 letter from Bryan MacKell with the County of Simcoe to your office
regarding the large communal sewage systems in the County of Simcoe, we wish to provide an update to
all parties on the status of the Master Plan (Water, Wastewater & Transportation) that we are currently
completing for the Township of Springwater in relation to the Midhurst Secondary Plan.
In the spring of 2008 the Township of Springwater retained the Ainley Group to complete a Phase 1 & 2
Class Environmental Assessment (Master Plan) for Water, Wastewater and Transportation associated with
the Midhurst Secondary Plan. This Master Plan Study will follow the planfling process as described in the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document (October 2000 as amended in 2007), published by
the Municipal Engineer's Association. Further the Study is being conducted in accordance with the
requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, which is an approved
process under the Environmental Assessment Act. The purpose of this Master Plan Study is to identify
servicing solutions to facilitate the development of the Midhurst Secondary Plan.
At the initiation of the project in june 2008 a "Notice of Study Commencement" was published in local
newspapers, on the Township'S website and mailed to an extensive list of interested parties and
applicable regulatory agencies. After reviewing and responding to the few comment letters that were
received in response to the aforementioned Notice, it was determined that the Phase 1 of the Class EA
process was complete. Subsequently, the project proceeded in Phase 2 of the Class EA process and we
starting documenting various solutions that could provide the required water, wastewater and
transportation services to the proposed development associated the Midhurst Secondary Plan Area.
Concurrent with this a "Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC)" was published and distributed similar
to aforementioned Notice.
. ,
At the PIC which was held on August 28, 2008 a total of 58 individuals attended. At the PIC various
solutions for water, wastewater and transportation were presented and the attendees were requested to
provide comments on the various solutions for our review prior to the selection of the Recommended
Solution(s). It should be noted that the various regulatory agencies including MOE, & MMAH were
Creating Quality Solutions Together Page 1 of 1

Township of Springwater
Midhurst Master Plan
circulated regarding the PIC, however, no one attended the meeting and no comments were ever
received.
After the issuance of the October 30, 2008 letter from Ernie Hartt with MOE Central Region to the County
of Simcoe regarding the Sewage Systems with Subsurface Effluent Disposal in Simcoe County, a meeting
was held on December 2, 2008 at the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio office which was attended by the
undersigned and representatives of the Township of Springwater. At this meeting we informed all parties
that we are currently completing a Phase 1 & 2 Class EA (Master Plan) for Water, Wastewater &
Transportation associated with the Midhurst Secondary Plan. Among the many comments made at this
meeting, MOE Central Region staff noted the design of sewage systems with subsurface effluent disposal
must use the latest MOE "Design Guidelines for Sewage Works." Therefore, subsequent to this meeting
we have had several informal technical discussions and an informal technical meeting with Ted Belayneh
and Myron Zurawsky from MOE Central Region. The purpose of the these informal discussions with
MOE Central Region staff is to ensure that we fully understand the MOE's new "Design Guidelines for
Sewage Works" dated December 2008 and in particular Chapter 22 "Large Subsurface Sewage Disposal
Systems" of the guidelines.
Based on the aforementioned informal discussions along with the extensive engineering work that has
been completed to date, we are confident that we can document and present, in the coming weeks,
servicing solution(s) that will show that the servicing of the Midhurst Secondary Plan is viable whilst
protecting the Environment and complying with the MOE's new "Design Guidelines for Sewage Works"
dated December 2008.
Therefore, it is our opinion that any decision or Policy made against the use of Sewage Systems with
Subsurface Effluent Disposal in Simcoe County and in particular Midhurst at this time, would be
premature as we are currently in the middle of comprehensive Class EA (Master Plan) which will present
viable solutions that comply with the Ministry's latest Design Guidelines.
Should you have any questions regarding this information please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Yours truly,
J. A. Mullan,P.Eng.
President & CEO
5:\2080 J71CorrespondencelLellerlMidlJUrs! Master Plan - MOE Coumy Update (jan 26 2009).doc
cc: D. Orr - Ministry of the Environment Central Region (By E-mail)

C. Liu - Ministry of the Environment Central Region (By E-mail)
G. Rocoski - Ministry of the Environment Central Region (By E-mail)
T. Haldenby - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (By E-mail)
D. Lyons - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (By E-mail)
B. MacKeil - County of Simcoe (By E-mail)
W. Grant - Township of Springwater (By E-mail)
B. Sokach - Township of Springwater (By E-mail)
R. Hunter - Planscape (By E-mail)
January 26, 2009 Page 2 of 2

Ii".. BLACK & VEATCH
Building a world of difference:
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Geranium Corporation B&V Project 164145

Midhurst Wastewater Treatment Plant B&VFile D1.1
Issued: February 13, 2009
Title: Liquid-Stream Treatment Process Selection

Primary Author(s): S. Levesque, R. Waite
1.0 Introduction
The Town of Midhurst (the Town) is currently undergoing a Class Environmental Assessment
(CEA) to accommodate future population growth. A new municipal wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) will be designed and constructed to service the expected wastewater volume, between
10 and 15 million liters per day (MI,D) annual average flow. The suggested location for the new
WWTP is near the intersection of Wilson Drive and Snow Valley Road on the west side of the
Town. The proposed Midhurst Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) will serve existing and
proposed residential, commercial, and light industrial development in the Midhurst area.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum (TM) is to investigate the feasibility of the
MWWTP by looking at liquid-stream treatment processes that could be used to achieve the
required effluent quality.
This memo assumes that effluent will be pumped or flow by gravity through a new pipeline to
nearby surface water for disposal. Willow Creek, Matheson Creek, and Minesing Swamp are
being investigated, along with corresponding effluent requirements. Further assumptions include
the following nutrient limits for the effluent from the MWWTP:
• Nitrate-nitrogen 3.0 mg/L monthly average ofweekly samples

• Total phosphorus 0.03 mg/L monthly average ofweekly samples
There is some uncertainty with respect to the MOE interpretation of the nitrate requirement (i.e.,
whether to include nitrite, ammonia, and organic nitrogen). This document is based on producing
effluent with less than 3.0-mg/L total nitrogen (TN), a conservative assumption.
I Alternatively, two WWTPs with the same total capacity could be constructed on separate sites. However,
. ----~ -Geranium is-suggesting through the CEAprocessto-construct one plant, in order to reduce- capital, operating, and---------·------
maintenance costs.
Geranium Corporation February 2009
Midhurst WWTP - Liguid-Stream Treatment Process Selection
3.0 Liquid-Stream Treatment Processes Selection
There are a number of treatment processes and technologies that could be used to meet these
stringent effluent requirements. All of them would use a biological nutrient removal (BNR)
process followed by a tertiary physical/chemical treatment step for additional phosphorus
removal. Lastly, to minimize the concentration of particulate phosphorus in treated effluent, an
effective solids/liquid separation process would be needed.
3.1 Biological Treatment
__ .._.BNRprocesses that could be used fall into. two _grg1J.P.s, with distinct treatment zones, as shown
below:
• Four-stage BardenphoTM (pre-anoxic ~ oxic ~ post-anoxic ~ re-aeration)

• Modified Ludzak-Ettinger (anoxic ~ oxic)
In either case, there would be a pumped mixed liquor recycle (MLR) stream from the end of the
oxic zone to the upstream anoxic zone. The purpose of MLR is to bring nitrates produced in the
oxic zone (by nitrification) to the anoxic zone, where they can be converted to nitrogen gas (by
denitrification). In the four-stage BardenphoTM process (Figure 1), a post-anoxic zone is included
to denitrify the portion of flow that does not get recycled. Methanol or other external carbon
source would be fed to the anoxic zone(s) to increase denitrification rate.
A four-stage BardenphoTM followed by filtration can produce effluent having nitrate-nitrogen.

(N03-N) less than 1 mg/L and TN less than 3 mg/L.
Mixed Liquor Recycle
Primary
Effluent
----r--.. Anoxic Oxic Anoxic Oxic
Return Activated Sludge

Waste
Activated
Sludge
Figure 1 - Four-stage Bardenpho TM Process

Midhurst WWTP - Liquid-Stream Treatment Process Selection
A Modified Ludzak-Ettinger (MLE) process is shown in Figure 2. An MLE process followed by

filtration can produce effluent having N03-N less than 3 mg/L and TN less than 5 mg/L. To meet
the TN target, an MLE process would be followed by denitrifying filters to remove additional
nitrate. The denitrifying filters could produce effluent having N03-N less than 1 mg/L and TN
less than 3 mg/L. Methanol or other external carbon source would be fed to the anoxic zone in
the MLE process and to the denitrifying filters.
Mixed Liquor Recycle
Influent Effluent
---x--" Anoxic Oxic
Return Activated Sludge Waste

Activated
Sludge
Figure 2 - Modified Ludzak-Ettinger (MLE) Process
During the winter, it would be advantageous to use an external carbon source other than
methanol (e.g., sugar wastes, molasses, or ethanol), in order to avoid very slow kinetics and the
need for larger process volume.
Some phosphorus removal is achieved in any BNR process, and either of the BNR processes
described above could be modified through inclusion of an anaerobic zone to achieve enhanced
biological phosphorus removal (EBPR). Regardless of whether this is done, biological
phosphorus removal alone would be insufficient to meet the effluent TP requirement. Some form
of chemical phosphorus removal would also be required.
Although a few BNR processes have been operated with direct chemical addition to achieve
effluent TP concentrations around 0.03 mg/L (notably membrane bioreactor [MBR] processes),
this is not recommended for the MWWTP. For the MWWTP, the BNR process will need to
denitrifY effectively in winter conditions where the raw wastewater temperatures are as low as
7°C. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for growth, and extremely low orthophosphate
phosphorus (P04 -P) concentrations within the BNR process could interfere with denitrification.
Nevertheless, some chemical phosphorus removal should be practiced within the BNR process to
improve controllability of the downstream chemical P removal process. A target of 0.5 mg/L
soluble phosphorus leaving the BNR process is suggested. In many plants, aluminum sulphate
(alum) is added to the BNR process for chemical P removal.

A four-stage BardenphoTM or MLE process could be implemented in any of the following

process variations:
• Conventional (flow-through process using clarifiers)

• Membrane bioreactor (flow-through process using membranes)
• Sequencing batch reactor (batch process)
For the expected low process temperatures during winter operations, it would be difficult to
achieve 3-mg/L effluent 1N using the MBR version of a four-stage BardenphoTM process. Cell
decay and nitrogen release within the aerated membrane tanks would result in soluble organic
nitrogen that is easily ammonified (to ammonia) and nitrified (to nitrate), but not denitrified (to
nitrogen gas)priOi tOlllembrane filtration. This would make it difficult to-a~hieve -low enough
effluent nitrate concentrations to meet the proposed effluent 1N limit.
For an MBR process to be used at the MWWTP, the MLE alternative followed by denitrifying
filters would be preferable. However, use of granular media filters after membranes works
against two advantages of an MBR process - elimination of effluent suspended solids and small
footprint. For these reasons, and because cost is usually higher for an MBR process than a
conventional, flow-through BNR process, an MBR process is not recommended for the
MWWTP.
Above approximately 4 MLD capacity, SBRs tend to cost more than flow-through processes. An
SBR is not recommended for MWWTP.
For purposes of demonstrating that the MWWTP will be ability to meet the proposed discharge
limits, a four-stage BardenphoTM process in a flow-through configuration with secondary
clarifiers is recommended.
3.2 Chemical Phosphorus Removal
As indicated above, the BNR process should be followed by a tertiary chemical P removal
process. Several processes fall under this heading:
• Chemical Clarification followed by Filtration

o DensaDeg® (Degremont Technologies)
o Actiflo™ (Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies)
o CoMag™ (Cambridge Water Technology)
o Trident® HS (Siemens)
o Non-proprietary solids contact clarifiers
o Other non-proprietary clarifiers (after rapid mix and flocculation)
• Filtration following Chemical Clarification
o Non-proprietary granular media filters
o Proprietary continuous backwash granular media filters
o Microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UP) membranes
--- ------------.----Filtration Alone - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
o Blue PRO® (Blue Water Technologies)
o DynaSand® D2 (Parkson)

All of these processes have shown potential to achieve low effluent TP concentrations and would
be considered for MWWTP in subsequent evaluation. For the purposes of this TM, we will
provide a description of the DensaDeg® process. Further investigation is, however, required to
confirm the most suitable technology.
The DensaDeg® process consists of four basic operations, as shown in Figure 3:
• Rapid Mixing - The wastewater and a coagulant (e.g., alum) are combined in a rapid mix
zone to promote good coagulant dispersion.
• Flocculation - The coagulated wastewater is passed to a flocculation zone, also called a

reactor,where.itis further mixed with polymer and recycled sludge. The gentle mixing in
this zone promotes floc formation around the recycled solids.
• Clarification - The flocculated solids pass though a transition zone to a lamella clarifier
for solidslliquid separation. Clarified effluent leaves the process through effluent
collection troughs.
• Sludge Thickening, Recycle, and Wastage - Suspended solids settle to the bottom of the
clarifier, where they thicken. Some thickened sludge is recycled to the reactor to promote
floc formation. Thickened sludge is wasted as necessary to maintain an appropriate solids
inventory within the system.
Figure 3: DensaDeg® Process Schematic (courtesy "Degremont Technologies)
The DensaDeg® process relies on the use of recycled, previously settled sludge to assist with
floc formation and to increase the mass of the settling flocs. The resulting flocs are heavier than
those formed without solids recycling and allow for much higher clarifier design rise rates
"~c;;ommon1y _~5 DJ,3/DJ,2/bror higher),Tbi~ __rec.l!tc~.s_Jhe footprint and constructiQn uCQst of the
process.
Waste sludge concentrations produced in the DensaDeg® process are higher than those used in
other tertiary clarification processes due to sludge thickening within the clarifier bottom. Waste
sludge concentrations ranging from 3 to 5 percent are typically achieved, avoiding the need for a
separate chemical sludge thickening process.
Total phosphorus (TP) consists of soluble and particulate forms. Tertiary chemical P removal
processes such as DensaDeg® convert soluble forms to particulate forms (i.e., chemical solids).
Following this conversion, a solidslliquid separation process must be used to remove the
particulate forms from the wastewater. (For Blue PRO® and DynaSand® D2, conversion from
soluble to particulate phosphorus, and separation of the resulting particulate phosphorus, occur in
the same general location, that is, within the filters;)
The DensaDeg® process is very effective at removing orthophosphate-phosphorus (P04-P) down

to its solubility limit, as low as 0.01 mg/L depending on pH. However, secondary effluent may
contain soluble phosphorus, in forms other than orthophosphate, which a tertiary chemical P
removal process would have difficulty converting to particulate form. The documented success
of some WWTPs achieving very low effluent TP concentrations, suggest that for domestic
wastewater, the concentration of this non-orthophosphate soluble phosphorus is approximately
0.01 mg/L.
Allowing for 0.02 mg/L of soluble phosphorus in plant effluent, the effluent particulate
phosphorus concentration must be less than 0.01 mg/L in order to meet the proposed 0.03 mg/L
TP limit. This establishes the required efficiency of the fmal solidslliquid separation process, as
described below.
3.3 Final SolidslLiquid Separation
Meeting a 0.03 mg/L effluent TP limit will require an effective final solidslliquid separation step.
Using membranes instead of granular media filters would eliminate some risk by producing
effluent with zero total suspended solids (TSS) and zero particulate phosphorus. Membranes are
available from several suppliers, in both immersed and encased configurations. For a plant of the
capacity being considered, immersed membranes would probably be used. An added benefit
would be the ability to feed alum upstream ofthe membranes, making this a contingency barrier
to effluent orthophosphate.
4.0 Summary
It will be possible to design, construct, and operate a WWTP that consistently meets the
proposed 3.0 mg/L TN limit and the proposed 0.03 mg/L TP limit.
This TM discussed a number of alternative biological and physical/chemical processes that could
be used to meet the required limitLQJLa consistent basis. However, for the .pyn'-Q~~s oC..
demonstrating ability to meet the proposed effluent requirements, as well as estimating layout
requirements, the following liquid-stream treatment processes are proposed. for further

development. Further investigation is, however, required to confum the preferred process
technology.
• Screening
• Grit removal
• Four-stage BardenphoTM process with external carbon and alum addition
o Pre-anoxic zone
o Oxic zone
o Post-anoxic zone
oRe-aeration zone
• Circular clarifiers
• DensaDeg® process
o Rapid mixing with alum addition
o Flocculation with polymer addition
o Lamella settling with chemical sludge thickening
• Immersed membranes
• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
• Effluent pumping
Midhurst Development Corporation

Interim Assimilation Analysis: Discharge of Treated Sewage
Effluent from the Proposed Midhurst WWTP to Willow Creek
Prepared by:
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Project Number:
108163
Date:
June, 2009
I n t e r i m As s i m i l a t i o n A n a l y s i s :
Discharge of Treated Sewage Effluent from the Proposed Midhurst WWTP to Willow Creek
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

© 2009 AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS
DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND TRADE SECRET LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER,
EXCEPT BY CLIENT FOR ITS OWN USE, OR WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF
COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT).
The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client
(“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the
“Agreement”).
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report:
• are subject to the budgetary, time, scope, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the
qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);
• represent Consultants’ professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the
preparation of similar reports;
• may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;
• have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and
circumstances in which they were collected, processed, made or issued;
• must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;
• were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement;
• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the
assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:
• shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the
Report was prepared or for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant;
• makes no representations whatsoever with respect to the Report or any part thereof, other than that the Report
represents Consultant’s professional judgement as described above, and is intended only for the specific purpose
described in the Report and the Agreement;
• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such
conditions geographically or over time.
Except as required by law or otherwise agreed by Consultant and Client, the Report:
• is to be treated as confidential;
• may not be used or relied upon by third parties.
Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use
of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use.
This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report.
(108163_3ra_jun10_09_midhurst_dev.doc)
June 5, 2009 Project Number: 180163
Ms. Shauna Dudding

Project Manager, Development Engineering
Geranium Corporation
3190 Steeles Avenue East, Suite 300
Markham, ON L3R 1G9
Dear Ms. Dudding:
Re: Interim Assimilation Analysis for Midhurst WWTP
This report focuses on the assessment of the effects of the discharge of treated municipal effluent
from the proposed Midhurst Settlement Area to Willow Creek in the vicinity of Highway 26. A
previous version of this report assessed discharge of treated municipal effluent to other locations in
the watershed and subsequently identified Willow Creek at Highway 26 as the preferred location for
discharge. This report provides additional analysis of this location based on information provided up
to April 30, 2009 and is intended to inform the Class Environmental Assessment (Phase 2) that is
currently underway.
The stringent effluent limits proposed for the Midhurst WWTP will not threaten existing water quality in
Willow Creek. Nitrate and phosphorus, the key parameters of concern, will be maintained below their
respective guideline values for protection of aquatic life in the creek. Water temperatures will be
maintained at temperatures sufficient to support the aquatic communities presently existing in the
creeks. Increased flows to Willow Creek will remain within historic levels and no significant adverse
effects are anticipated. The need for additional, more detailed analysis of water quality, the aquatic
community and habitat and the effects of increased flows on geomorphology of the creek is identified
and will be completed this year to inform subsequent phases of the Environmental Assessment process.
Overall, our preliminary analysis supports Willow Creek at Highway 26 as the preferred location for
the discharge and does not predict adverse environmental effects.
Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Bev Clark, Senior Aquatic Scientist

[email protected]
BC:pc Attach.
Distribution List
# of Hard
Association / Company Name PDF
Copies Copy
1 Midhurst Development Corporation x 2
1 AECOM Canada Ltd. x 1
Revision Log
Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description
1 Bev Clark May 08, 2009 First Draft
2 Neil Hutchinson May 12, 2009 Edits to Draft Report
3 Bev Clark May 15, 2009 Final version of draft
4 Bev Clark May 22, 2009 Update STP flows, include 7Q20 Flows
5 Bev Clark June 5, 2009 Flows back to 14,853, address comments from legal
6 Neil Hutchinson June 5, 2009 Final edit check
7 Bev Clark June 10, 2009 Address comments from Week of June 10
Signature Page
Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:
Bev J. Clark Neil J. Hutchinson, Ph.D.

Senior Aquatic Scientist Senior Aquatic Scientist
National Practice Lead, Water and Natural Resources
Table of Contents
page
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
2. Data Sources and Methods ............................................................................ 2
3. Midhurst Settlement Area Effluent Discharge to Willow Creek near
Hwy 26 .............................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Effect of adding effluent on flow in Willow Creek near Hwy 26 ...................................... 4
3.2 Effect of adding effluent on erosion in Willow Creek at Hwy 26 ..................................... 8
3.3 Effect on Phosphorus Concentrations in Willow Creek near Hwy 26 ........................... 11
3.4 Effect on Phosphorus Loads in Willow Creek............................................................... 14
3.4.1 Effect of decommissioning private septic systems in Midhurst ......................................15
3.5 Effect on Nitrogen in Willow Creek near Hwy 26.......................................................... 16
3.5.1 Ammonia.........................................................................................................................18
3.6 Effect on Temperature in Willow Creek near Hwy 26................................................... 19
4. Summary ........................................................................................................ 22
5. References ..................................................................................................... 24
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of the proposed Midhurst WWTP discharge location at Highway 26. Watershed
boundaries are shown in purple......................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Willow Creek at Hwy 26. Left is view upstream, right is view downstream. ..................................4
Figure 3. Mean daily discharges (2006-08) for Willow Creek near Hwy 26 (red line) compared to
average flows in Willow Creek near Midhurst (1974-1998 blue line), showing similarity of
hydrographs. ...................................................................................................................................5
Figure 4. Lower quartile flow for Willow Creek near Midhurst (1974-1998) and prorated lower
quartile flows for the Hwy 26 location using the Midhurst 25 year record. Watershed
area ratio is 1.78:1. .........................................................................................................................6
Figure 5. Mean daily flow at Hwy 26 prorated from the Midhurst gauging station (blue line)
compared to mean measured discharge at Hwy 26 from 2006 to 2008 (red line)..........................6
Figure 6. Willow Creek at Vespra Valley Road, approx 1.5 km downstream of Hwy 26. ..............................7
Figure 7. Willow Creek prorated lower quartile flows at Hwy 26 (blue line) and the combined flow
with the addition of 172 L/sec effluent discharge (red line).............................................................7
Figure 8. Willow Creek near the town of Midhurst. ......................................................................................10
Figure 9. Willow Creek immediately upstream of George Johnson Road ...................................................10
Figure 10. Willow Creek at George Johnson Road approximately 2.5 kilometres downstream from
the Hwy 26 location.......................................................................................................................11
Figure 11. Mean measured discharge (m3/sec x10) for Willow Creek at Hwy 26 (2006 to 2008)
shown with total phosphorus concentrations (μg/L) measured during the same period at
the George Johnson Road ( all dates set to Julian day)...............................................................12
Figure 12. Mean measured discharge (m3/sec x 10) for Willow Creek at Hwy 26 (2006 to 2008)
shown with total phosphorus concentrations (μg/L) measured during the same period
(set to Julian day) to illustrate the low flow portion of the year. ....................................................12
Figure 13. Long term mean daily phosphorus concentrations in Willow Creek at George Johnson
Rd. (blue line) shown with the concentrations that would result with the addition of the
effluent from the proposed Midhurst treatment plant (red line).....................................................13
Figure 14. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network total phosphorus data for Willow Creek at
George Johnson Road between 2002 and 2008. All dates set to Julian day and fitted
with an exponent function regression (equation shown on graph). Missing data for the
first 93 days of the year was interpolated with a straight line (shown in red). ..............................14
Figure 15. Phosphorus loads for Willow Creek at Hwy 26 with current land use (blue line) and with
the addition of effluent at 0.030 mg/L (red line). ...........................................................................15
Figure 16. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network nitrate data for Willow Creek at George
Johnson road between 2003 and 2009. All dates set to Julian day.............................................16
Figure 17. Effects of adding effluent to Willow Creek at Hwy 26 assuming no cooling in the force
main. Effluent temperatures are from Snow Valley WWTP and baseline creek
temperatures are assumed to be the same in both creeks...........................................................20
Figure 18. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network instantaneous temperature measurements
collected between 2002 and 2007 set to Julian day (green circles) at George Johnson
Road and the mean daily water temperatures for 2006 to 2008 for Willow Creek at Hwy
26. .................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 19. Mean daily water temperatures and mean daily air temperatures for Willow Creek near
Hwy 26. Mean daily data from day 100 through day 300 from 2006-2008 was fit with a
polynomial regression to estimate the average difference in temperatures. ................................21
Figure 20. Estimated effluent, air, ground and stream temperatures for Willow Creek. ................................22
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Midhurst Sanitary Flow Calculations
Appendix 2. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data for Willow Creek at George Johnson Rd.
Appendix 3. Private septic systems within 100m of Willow Creek or its tributaries.
Appendix 4. Sewage effluent temperatures at the Snow Valley Wastewater facility for 2007 and 2008
Discharge of Treated Sewage Effluent from the proposed Midhurst WWTP to Willow Creek
1. Introduction
In March 2008, Gartner Lee Limited (GLL, now AECOM) was retained by Midhurst Development Doran Road
Inc. (MDDRI) and Midhurst Development Carson Road Development Inc. (CRDI) to conduct screening level
assessments of the potential impacts of wastewater effluent and stormwater discharge to surface waters
adjacent to lands owned by them in Midhurst, Springwater Township, Ontario. Screening reports were
prepared (GLL, May 2008), detailed investigations conducted in 2008 and assimilation reports prepared in
January of 2009 (AECOM 2009a and 2009b). The locations of these two proposed development
neighbourhoods are shown in Figure 1.
The proposed Carson Road Neighbourhood (Neighbourhood 1) is generally bounded by Snow Valley Road
to the north, a wooded area and existing estate residential development to the east, the Midhurst Settlement
Area boundary to the south, and a tributary of Black Creek to the west. It lies within the Willow Creek
subwatershed of the Nottawasaga River watershed and contains the headwaters of Black Creek, a tributary
of Willow Creek. The size of the development is approximately 234 hectares and is to contain a mixture of
housing units and densities and associated services. The development will include approximately 3,200
residential units housing ~ 9,600 people.
The proposed Doran Road Neighbourhood (Neighbourhoods 2 & 3) is located in the northeastern quadrant
of the Midhurst Settlement Area and is generally bounded by Craig Road and Walt Road to the north, the
Midhurst Settlement Area boundary to the east, environmental lands to the south and the existing residential
development and Russell Road to the west. It lies within the Willow Creek subwatershed of the Nottawasaga
watershed and contains a tributary of Willow Creek that drains into Little Lake. The development is
approximately 459 hectares in size and is to contain a mixture of housing units and densities and associated
services. The developments will include approximately 5,400 residential units to house ~ 16,200 people.
In each neighbourhood drinking water will be provided by municipal wells. A Class Environmental
Assessment for sewage servicing in the Town of Midhurst is currently being carried out by the Township of
Springwater, through their consultant, Ainley & Associates. MDDRI & CRDI have assembled a study team to
further review options for municipal sewage servicing for the Midhurst Settlement Area, and requested that
this preliminary report be prepared as input to the Class EA process. In February 2009 AECOM (2009c)
submitted a report to MDDRI & CRDI that assessed two alternative locations on Willow Creek for discharge
of treated effluent from the proposed Midhurst WWTP. Elements of that report were included in an Executive
Summary on servicing for Midhurst that was prepared by Black and Veatch in May of 2009 and which
recommended Willow Creek at Highway 26 as a preferred outfall location. On April 28, 2009, representatives
of Ainley & Associates, AECOM, Black and Veatch, MDDRI & CRDI and Springwater Township presented
preliminary conclusions to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA). The NVCA provided
preliminary comments on the proposal that have, in part, informed this report.
This report focuses on discharge of treated wastewater from the proposed Midhurst developments and the
existing community of Midhurst into Willow Creek at Highway 26. Average daily effluent flows of 14,853
m3/day (~172 L/sec) were provided by SCS Consulting Group (SCS, 2009) and effluent quality by Black and
Veatch (Canada) Limited. These calculations include projected flows from the proposed new developments,
(108163_3ra_jun10_09_midhurst_dev.doc) -1-
and from the proposed Employment/Administration/Commercial Lands within the Midhurst Settlement Area,
together with flows from servicing the existing Community of Midhurst (Appendix 1) and are based on the
assumption that there are 3 people per unit at 340 L/cap/day with a 90 L/cap/day infiltration. Calculations are
based on effluent concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) of 0.03 mg/L and nitrate nitrogen (NO3 -N) of 5-10
mg/L, based on preliminary consultations with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The treatment
plant is assumed to be located within Neighbourhood 1, though the actual location has no bearing on the
conclusions presented herein.
2. Data Sources and Methods
Discharge data was obtained from a discontinued HYDAT Environment Canada gauging station on Willow
Creek in Midhurst (02ED010). The period of record for this station was from 1974 to 1998. Data were used
to prorate flows for the Willow Creek at Hwy 26 location. Additional discharge data are available from a
recently commissioned HYDAT Environment Canada gauging station on Willow Creek at Hwy 26 (Willow
Creek near Minesing 02ED032). The period of record for this station began in 2005. These data were used
to describe temperatures and flow rates for Willow Creek near Hwy 26 but could not be used to establish
reliable lower quartile flows or 7Q20 flows due to the short period of record. The historic data at Midhurst
was used to calculate 7Q20 flows by several different methods. The Gumbel Extreme Values method which
had the highest r2 for these data (also the recommended method for describing extreme flows) was used to
derive 7Q20 flow for the Midhurst Willow Creek location. These flows were then prorated based on
watershed area ratios to derive 7Q20 flows at the Hwy 26 location.
Water quality data were obtained from the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network location on Willow
Creek at the George Johnson Road Station (03005703002) downstream of Highway 26. Data are available
for a full suite of parameters between 2003 and 2008. Coordinates for this station are Latitude:
44.42213888950, Longitude: -79.82357035690.
Figure 1. Location of the proposed Midhurst WWTP discharge location at Highway 26. Watershed boundaries are shown in purple.
3. Midhurst Settlement Area Effluent Discharge to

Willow Creek near Hwy 26
3.1 Effect of adding effluent on flow in Willow Creek near Hwy 26
The preferred location for discharging effluent into Willow Creek would be at a location north of the Minesing
Swamp near Hwy 26 (Location 2 in Figure 1, also see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Willow Creek at Hwy 26. Left is view upstream, right is view downstream.
Discharge has been measured continuously at the Hwy 26 location since 2006 (Environment Canada
02ED032). Willow Creek was monitored at the Midhurst town location (02ED010) between 1974 and 1998.
The flows at Hwy 26 are higher than at Midhurst due to an approximate doubling (x 1.78) of the watershed
area with the addition of water from Matheson Creek. The minimum flows observed at Hwy 26 between 2006
and 2008 approached 1 m3/sec which is approximately 5 times higher than the average minimum flows
observed at the Midhurst station between 1974 and 1998 (Figure 3). The period of record at the Hwy 26
location is not long enough, however, to evaluate lower quartile or 7Q20 flows.
The Willow Creek at Midhurst dataset was used to evaluate 7Q20 flows. For the low flow period (day 200 to
day 250) the 7Q20 flow was estimated to be 130 m3/sec (r2=098) at Midhurst. This is an average between
the linear method using the Gumbel Extreme values approach (120 L/sec) and the analytical method
(140L/sec). The Gumbel 7Q20 estimation method is recommended for describing extremes in flow. This
would prorate to a 7Q20 flow of 130x1.78 = 231.5 L/sec at the Hwy 26 location. The 7Q20 flow rate is used
in this report as an instantaneous minimum flow for effluent dilution calculations.
To describe the effects of adding effluent flows on the hydrograph (i.e. to show seasonal data) daily lower
quartile flows at Hwy 26 were derived by prorating the lower quartile flows measured using the 25 year
-4-
historic record at Midhurst (02ED010). The watershed area for Willow Creek at the Midhurst station is 128.6
km2 compared to 229.1 km2 for the Willow Creek watershed measured at Hwy 26. Lower quartile flows for
the 25 year record at Midhurst and prorated lower quartile flows for the Hwy 26 location (watershed area at
Hwy 26 = 229 km2) are shown in Figure 4. Note that the lower quartile flows during the low flow period are
generally lower than the 7Q20 flow.
Several years of recent measured data at the Hwy 26 location can be used to assess the validity of prorating
flows between the two locations by comparing the measured flows with the estimated prorated flows (note
that the periods of record do not overlap). The mean prorated flows at Hwy 26 are compared to mean
measured flows (2006-08) in Figure 5. Measured flows in 2006 to 2008 are in general agreement with the
prorated flows but are higher in some parts of the year including low flow periods. This may indicate that:
• the period of record for the Hwy 26 location (02ED032) reflects wetter than average years,
• there may be different runoff coefficients for the Matheson Creek portion of the watershed,
• Little Lake (in the Willow Creek watershed) may reduce low-flow runoff through evaporative losses
or
• Matheson Creek may have a relatively higher groundwater contribution to maintain flows during the
low flow period.
For the purposes of describing seasonal low flow conditions however, the prorated flows from the Midhurst
location would appear to be conservative estimates. The more precise description of minimum flows i.e.
7Q20 flows at Hwy 26 (231.5 m3/sec) prorated from 7Q20 flows at Midhurst (130 m3/sec x 1.78) are used for
the detailed assimilation and dilution estimates in subsequent sections of this report.
14.0
12.0
Mean Discharge (m /sec)
10.0
3
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Julian Day
Mean Midhurst discharge 1974-1998 Mean Hwy 26 discharge 2006-2008
Figure 3. Mean daily discharges (2006-08) for Willow Creek near Hwy 26 (red line) compared to
average flows in Willow Creek near Midhurst (1974-1998 blue line), showing similarity of
hydrographs.
-5-
8.0
Lower Quartile Discharge (m /sec)

7.0
3
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Julian Day
Lower quartile flows Midhurst 1974-1998 Prorated lower quartile flows Hwy 26
Figure 4. Lower quartile flow for Willow Creek near Midhurst (1974-1998) and prorated lower
quartile flows for the Hwy 26 location using the Midhurst 25 year record. Watershed area
ratio is 1.78:1.
14.0
12.0
Mean Discharge (m3/sec)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Prorated mean flow Measured mean flow
Figure 5. Mean daily flow at Hwy 26 prorated from the Midhurst gauging station (blue line)
compared to mean measured discharge at Hwy 26 from 2006 to 2008 (red line).
Willow Creek near Hwy 26 has a larger watershed area and consequently higher flows than Willow Creek near
Midhurst (Matheson Creek contributes to Willow Creek upstream of the Minesing Swamp – see Figure 1). At
this location the total effluent discharge from the new plant (172 L/sec) would be less than the prorated 7Q20
flow (day 200 to day 250) of 231.5 L/sec. The addition of the effluent therefore represents no change in the
shape of the annual hydrograph and a small additional increment of flow during high flow periods (Figure 7).
-6-
Figure 6. Willow Creek at Vespra Valley Road, approx 1.5 km downstream of Hwy 26.
8.0
7.0
6.0
Discharge (m 3/sec)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Julian Day
Hwy 26 prorated lower quartile flow Hwy 26 lower quartile flow plus effluent
Figure 7. Willow Creek prorated lower quartile flows at Hwy 26 (blue line) and the combined flow
with the addition of 172 L/sec effluent discharge (red line).
-7-
3.2 Effect of adding effluent on erosion in Willow Creek at Hwy 26
Erosion is a natural fluvial process. Under a particular hydrologic regime, a stream channel is in a constant
state of adjustment. An increase in stream flow can therefore lead to erosion of a stream’s bed and banks.
Over prolonged periods, increased erosion can lead to changes in channel form and may cause negative
impacts to aquatic habitat and erosion hazards such as damage to property.
The susceptibility of a stream channel to erosion depends on its capacity to convey flow. This capacity is
governed largely by the channel geometry and substrate characteristics and varies from reach to reach.
These factors determine the resistance to flow within the channel, and thus the energy available for
transporting sediment. Of particular importance is the size of sediment making up riffles. As riffles play an
important role in dissipating stream flow energy, they provide stability to channel configuration and gradient.
Thus, if stream flow increases to the point where riffle material is displaced, there is a possibility of
morphologic change. If this takes place at an increased frequency and/or duration over time it can lead to
significant changes in channel form and ecologic function.
It is not possible at this time to determine the precise effects that increased flows as a result of the addition of
effluent will have on the channel characteristics Willow Creek. However, changes in the average flows
(Figure 7) indicate that the greatest relative change will occur in the low flow portions of the hydrograph and
there are a few generalizations that can be stated at this point:
1. The channel-forming (bankfull) flow in streams occurs, on average, every 1.5 years (i.e., the
1.5-yr return flow). Two year flow is often mentioned because surface water engineers
commonly utilize this (close to 2-yr return) flow information. Labelling a particular flow as
channel-forming does not imply that this is the only flow responsible for observed channel
morphology (pattern, dimensions, pool-riffles, etc.). It simply means that flows of this
frequency (i.e., 1.5-yr), over time, exert the greatest influence on channel morphology.
Flows in excess of the bankfull value may result in greater instantaneous change, but they
are not frequent enough to control the overall channel form. Flows below the bankfull value,
which are comparatively frequent, may alter components of channel morphology, but they do
not have enough energy to govern the overall channel form.
2. Most alluvial stream channels in Ontario are “threshold channels”, meaning that their beds
are mobilized at some proportion of bankfull (channel-forming) flow. Therefore, bed and
bank erosion typically do occur during flows less than bankfull. Thus, the potential effect on
channel morphology of increasing baseflow in a stream is highly dependent on the erosion
threshold of the bed and banks. This threshold can only be determined based on field
measurements.
3. The increased duration of a higher flow could lead to morphologic change. If the proposed
increase is only periodic, the potential effect is likely much lower. Sustained flows that
exceed the erosion threshold are likely more of a concern.
-8-
The mean annual flood flow peak in Willow Creek is 7000 L/s (Figure 7).The addition of 172 L/s of treated
effluent is thus insignificant in the context of bankfull and flood flows. Nevertheless, the characteristics of the
channel bed and banks need to be considered in the analysis. Qualitatively: clayey or cobble-paved beds
are most resistant to erosion and could likely withstand modest additions of flow without eroding. Sandy to
gravelly beds, however, are more susceptible to erosion and thus are more susceptible to impact. At this
point of the analysis, our experience with watercourses with a similar range in flow suggests that the
proposed increases would not result in significant changes in erosion or channel morphometry. Further
analysis is required, in the following phases of the EA, supported by field work including an assessment of:
• Regional surficial geology, topography, drainage, and land use mapping; aerial photographs to
determine historic changes in channel morphology
• Historic stream velocity, flow and flood frequency and magnitude data
• Proposed effluent discharge rates
• The channel’s present stability and areas potentially susceptible to erosion through a site visit to
distinguish morphologically distinct channel reaches from the proposed discharge point
downstream to Minesing Wetlands Conservation Area.
• Field characteristics including valley characteristics, meander geometry, channel cross section
and energy gradient (slope), channel roughness, bed material composition, stream velocity, and
riparian vegetation for each channel reach through field data collection.
• Any floodplain mapping and associated hydraulic modelling data available from Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority and/or Ministry of Natural Resources
With this information, and using empirical relations, it is possible to determine the following:
• The maximum fraction of bed material that can be mobilized without initiating a significant
change in channel morphology, as defined on a reach by reach basis
• The discharge at which this fraction of bed material is mobile (threshold flow)
• Whether the proposed effluent discharge would cause stream flow to exceed this rate in
respective channel reaches
Through this process erosion sensitivity would be identified. This information would be useful to assess the
likelihood of erosion and changes in channel form and would assist in planning any mitigation that may be
required should negative impacts be identified. It should be noted that general stream characteristics are
quite different in reaches upstream of Hwy 26 (Figure 8) compared to those downstream (Figure 9).
We will consult further with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority in connection with further field
investigations that might be required relating to the physical properties of Willow Creek.
-9-
Figure 8. Willow Creek near the town of Midhurst.
Figure 9. Willow Creek immediately upstream of George Johnson Road
- 10 -
Figure 10. Willow Creek at George Johnson Road approximately 2.5 kilometres downstream
from the Hwy 26 location.
3.3 Effect on Phosphorus Concentrations in Willow Creek near Hwy 26
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) water quality data have been collected since 2003 at
the Willow Creek PWQMN station (03005703002) on George Johnston Road (Figure 9 and 10). The data
are provided in Appendix 2. The “Watershed Report Card” for Willow (Matheson) Creek (NVCA, 2007) states
that Willow Creek stream health is considered “fair” downstream of the confluence with Matheson Creek as it
enters an agricultural plain with livestock access and sparse riparian cover. Phosphorus concentrations
average 0.019 mg/L during baseflow and maximum concentrations are 0.286 mg/L. Median annual
phosphorus concentrations are 0.024 mg/L and the 75th percentile concentration is 0.039 mg/L. The 75th
percentile concentration should be considered for assimilation studies and in Willow Creek it exceeds the
PWQO for phosphorus in streams. This means that the creek would be classified as a “Policy 2” receiver for
total phosphorus by the MOE, using existing data.
There is a general relationship in Willow Creek between phosphorus concentrations and discharge with the
lowest concentrations measured during periods of low flow and higher concentrations associated with higher
flows (Figure 11). Total phosphorus concentrations at low flow are mostly below 0.03 mg/L and are often at
or below 0.01 mg/L (Figure 12). This is likely an influence of groundwater inputs during low flows and the
absence of nutrient rich surface runoff that is normally associated with higher flows.
- 11 -
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400
Julian Day
Mean Flow (m3/sec*10) 2006-2008 TP (ug/L) 2003 - 2007
Figure 11. Mean measured discharge (m3/sec x10) for Willow Creek at Hwy 26 (2006 to 2008) shown
with total phosphorus concentrations (μg/L) measured during the same period at the
George Johnson Road ( all dates set to Julian day).
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
200 220 240 260 280 300
Julian Day
Mean Flow (m3/sec*10) 2006-2008 TP (ug/L) 2003 - 2007
Figure 12. Mean measured discharge (m3/sec x 10) for Willow Creek at Hwy 26 (2006 to 2008) shown
with total phosphorus concentrations (μg/L) measured during the same period (set to
Julian day) to illustrate the low flow portion of the year.
- 12 -
If effluent total phosphorus concentrations are at the PWQO (0.030 mg/L) then the effluent discharge would
decrease the background in-stream concentrations at those times when they are above 0.03 mg/L and
increase them when concentrations are below 0.03 mg/L (Figure 13). Concentrations in the stream however
would never be driven above the PWQO by the effluent. Addition of effluent at 0.03 mg/L would decrease the
75th percentile phosphorus concentrations in the creek from 0.039 mg/L to 0.035 mg/L.
0.080
0.070
Total Phosphorus (ug/L)
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Julian day
Mean TP at Hw y 26 Mean TP at Hw y 26 + Effluent
Figure 13. Long term mean daily phosphorus concentrations in Willow Creek at George Johnson Rd.
(blue line) shown with the concentrations that would result with the addition of the
effluent from the proposed Midhurst treatment plant (red line).
The PWQMN phosphorus data for the 2005-2008 period were combined for Julian dates and regressed
using a power function to produce a long term mean phosphorus concentration for each day of the year
(Figure 14). Missing data during ice cover when no samples are taken was interpolated with a straight line
between known values (red line figure 14). These data can be compared to the concentrations that would
result with the addition of the proposed Midhurst effluent discharge. These are shown for lower 25th
percentile flows in Figure 13. With effluent phosphorus concentrations of 0.03 mg/L (the Provincial Water
Quality Objective) the concentrations in Willow Creek are diluted for those times of the year when the
background concentrations are higher than 0.03 mg/L and increased when background concentrations are
below 0.03 mg/L. It is not possible for the effluent to raise the concentrations in the creek to above the
PWQO.
- 13 -
Total phosphorus at George Johnson Road

0.350
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.300

y = 32.174x -1.3361
0.250
R2 = 0.3179
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0 100 200 300 400
Julian Day
Figure 14. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network total phosphorus data for Willow Creek at
George Johnson Road between 2002 and 2008. All dates set to Julian day and fitted with
an exponent function regression (equation shown on graph). Missing data for the first 93
days of the year was interpolated with a straight line (shown in red).
3.4 Effect on Phosphorus Loads in Willow Creek
The present phosphorus load from Willow Creek at Hwy 26 was estimated as 3114 kg/yr using average daily
flows at Midhurst prorated to Hwy 26 and the measured TP data (TP equation in Figure 13). Daily loads are
presented in Figure 15.
The TP load projected for discharge of treated Midhurst effluent at 0.03 mg/L is 163 kg/yr. The load
calculated for Willow Creek together with the effluent load (Figure 15) shows minimal incremental load from
the effluent. Any implications of increased load must take into consideration the fact that effluent phosphorus
concentrations would be below those in the creek for much of the year (Figure 14). The opportunity that
servicing the existing Midhurst community provides for decommissioning septic systems that contribute
phosphorus to the creek should also be considered.
- 14 -
70.0
60.0
50.0
Load (kg/day)
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Julian Day
Willow creek TP load at mean flow Willow Creek load plus effluent load
Figure 15. Phosphorus loads for Willow Creek at Hwy 26 with current land use (blue line) and with
the addition of effluent at 0.030 mg/L (red line).
3.4.1 Effect of decommissioning private septic systems in Midhurst
The construction of the Midhurst WWTP would allow for extension of full sewage service to the existing
Midhurst community and provide for the potential decommissioning of private septic systems within the
community, at the discretion of Council. This would reduce the phosphorus loading to Willow Creek from
existing levels. The mobility of septic system phosphorus in groundwater depends on the geochemical and
hydrogeological environment and there is considerable technical debate as to its mobility. The Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (Scott et al. 2006) considers that all phosphorus from septic systems within
100m of the shoreline of Lake Simcoe contributes to the phosphorus budget of the lake. It is reasonable to
assume the same mobility for septic systems in the Town of Midhurst. A preliminary count shows that ~140
septic systems currently lie within 100m of Willow Creek or tributaries that drain directly to Willow Creek
within the Town of Midhurst (Appendix 3). With an average contribution for each lot of 1.98 kg/yr (assuming
3 persons/residence (SCS, 2009) x 0.66 kg/capita/yr for a permanent residence (Paterson et al, 2006)),
these 140 systems presently add 277 kg/yr1 of phosphorus loads to Willow Creek. This is 114 kg more than
the estimated effluent contribution (163 kg) from the waste water treatment plant. Extension of sanitary
service to Midhurst could therefore represent a net improvement of 114 kg/yr of phosphorus to water quality
should existing residents connect to the proposed sewage system.
1
It is important to note that the Ministry of the Environment also considers that septic systems will contribute phosphorus
if they are within 300m of a water body. This would encompass many more residential lots serviced by private septic
systems within the community of Midhurst and provide for even greater reductions than predicted here.
- 15 -
3.5 Effect on Nitrogen in Willow Creek near Hwy 26
Water quality data for nitrogen has been collected at the George Johnson Road since 2003. Generally, there
are poorly defined seasonal trends for nitrate concentrations in Willow Creek with data ranging from
approximately 0.4 mg/L to 1 mg/L (Figure 16). The 75th percentile concentration for nitrate for the period of
record is 0.87 mg/L.
There are two guidelines that can be used to assess the implications of nitrate discharge to Willow Creek.
The first, and more frequently used, is the CCME nitrate guideline for protection of aquatic life of 13mg/L
NO3 (= 2.93 mg/L NO3-N). An effluent quality of 5.6 mg/L would maintain nitrate concentrations below
2.93 mg/L in Willow Creek at the 7Q20 flow.
• For effluent limit of 5.6 mg/L nitrate
[(232 L/sec * 0.87mg/L) + (172 L/sec*5.6mg/L)] / 404L = 2.92 mg/L
Calculations are based on:

• 232 L/sec = 7Q20 flow in Willow Creek at Hwy 26
• 0.87 mg/L = mean nitrate concentration in Willow Creek
• 172 L/sec = total discharge from Midhurst WWTP
• 5.6 mg/L = STP effluent nitrogen concentration
• 404 L = total flow in L/sec
PWQMN data for Nitrate at Midhurst
1.200
1.000
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L)
0.800
0.600
0.400
y = -2E-07x 3 + 0.0002x 2 - 0.0325x + 2.7014
R2 = 0.2435
0.200
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Julian Day
Figure 16. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network nitrate data for Willow Creek at George
Johnson road between 2003 and 2009. All dates set to Julian day.
- 16 -
A second, and more recently derived guideline, is Environment Canada’s (2008) Ideal Performance
Standard (IPS) of 4.7 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen which is, in our opinion, a more valid threshold for
protection of aquatic life in Willow Creek. The following calculations show the effluent limits (9.8 mg/L)
required to maintain 4.7 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen in Willow Creek at Highway 26.
• For effluent limit of 9.8 mg/L nitrate
[(232 L/sec * 0.87mg/L) + (172 L/sec* 9.8mg/L)] / 404L = 4.68 mg/L
The following rationale for use of the IPS is summarized from Environment Canada (2008):
The CCME Guideline of 2.93 mg/L of NO3 -N was derived as an interim guideline in 2003, using
CCME’s 1991 protocol for guideline development. It recognized that the toxicity data set used in the
derivation was incomplete because, at that time the database of nitrate toxicity to freshwater species
was much smaller – fewer species had been tested to provide a range of sensitivities and many
important freshwater species had not yet been tested. CCME therefore took the lowest number in the
database – the most sensitive response of the most sensitive species tested, and multiplied it by an
arbitrary safety factor of 0.1 to protect the most sensitive untested species. This was a common
practice at the time to account for uncertainty. This resulted in guidelines that were “frequently
considered too conservative” (Environment Canada, 2008) as there was no evidence that more
sensitive species requiring this extra protection existed in the environment. The interim guideline was
also weakened by the fact that it was based on only one study (the most sensitive), one species and
one response. It did not consider any other studies on the toxicity of nitrate to freshwater life.
At the time, the need for the following studies of nitrate toxicity in fresh water was noted, in order to
provide a more complete database of species sensitivity (p. 4 in Environment Canada 2008)
• 1 more long-term fish study, preferably on a temperate species,
• Additional toxicity data for highly sensitive fish and invertebrate species such as mayflies,
stoneflies and brook trout,
• In particular, data on the effects of nitrate on fish eggs was required as this life stage was viewed
as particularly sensitive
Since 2003, the following actions were taken to address the need for additional studies (p. 9 in
Environment Canada, 2008):
• Tests on the amphipod Hyalella azteca and rainbow trout (embryo/alevin/fry) were
commissioned and showed that growth was the most sensitive endpoint and eggs were not, as
previously thought, the most sensitive life stage.
• All new published literature (post 2001) was reviewed and 7 studies (fish, invertebrate and
amphibian) were found that were not included in the original CCME derivation.
As a result there is a more substantial toxicity database now than there was when the CCME
guideline was developed.
- 17 -
In 2007, CCME published a new protocol for derivation of water quality objectives. Environment Canada
used this new protocol to develop the IPS for nitrate in 2008. A species sensitivity distribution was
derived from the toxicity database used in the 2003 interim guideline derivation, supplemented with data
from the commissioned studies and the review of more recent published literature. The 5th percentile of
the species sensitivity distribution represents the IPS value – a guideline that is judged to protect 95% of
the species living in fresh waters. The 5th percentile value from the species sensitivity distribution was
20.9 mg/L of NO3, with 5th and 95th fiducial limits of 12.7 and 34.4 mg/L NO3. The concentration of 20.9
mg/L of NO3 is expressed as 4.7 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen (=20.9/4.44).
The derivation of Environment Canada’s (2008) IPS value is procedurally sound, and is based on a
more thorough data set than that used for the CCME interim (2003) guideline. We recommend that it be
used as the basis for considering effects of nitrate discharge to Willow Creek.
We therefore recommend that an effluent limit of 9.8 mg/L of nitrate-N will protect aquatic life in Willow
Creek.
3.5.1 Ammonia
There are two toxicity considerations related to ammonia in the discharged effluent.
The first is the need for the undiluted “end of pipe” effluent to be non-acutely lethal to aquatic life. The un-
ionized portion of ammonia is the toxic form and the portion of total ammonia in the un-ionized form
increases as temperature and pH increase. A useful screening tool for potential effluent toxicity is an un-
ionized ammonia concentration below the approximate lethal threshold of 0.15 mg/L. The maximum recorded
effluent temperature recorded at the Snow Valley WWTP is 23o C (Appendix 4) and the maximum summer
pH recorded in Willow Creek is pH 8.49 (Appendix 2). A conservative combination of pH 8.5 and temperature
of 25o C was used to calculate that a total ammonia concentration of 1 mg/L or less is required to maintain
non-lethal effluent. We note that temperature is conservative as the force main will be buried over a distance
of 5 km between the WWTP and the discharge point and so effluent temperature will be cooler. At a
temperature of 20o C, for example, the total ammonia concentration would need to be < 1.4 mg/L.
We therefore recommend that the WWTP be designed with a summer effluent limit of 1 mg/L of total
ammonia or less to ensure a non-acutely lethal effluent at end-of-pipe. 75th percentile concentrations for NH4
in Willow Creek is slightly less than 0.02 mg/L.
The second concern is the effect of discharged ammonia on aquatic life in Willow Creek. This assessment
requires comparison of Willow Creek water quality against the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO,
MOE 1994) of 0.02 mg/L of un-ionized ammonia. At maximum stream temperatures of 25 degrees and a pH
of 8.5 total ammonia concentrations would need to be maintained below 0.130 mg/L to maintain unionized
ammonia concentrations below the PWQO at 0.02 mg/L in Willow Creek. The dilution ratio for a total effluent
flow of 172 L/sec and the estimated 7Q20 flow for Willow Creek of 232 L/sec is 1.35:1. This available
dilution requires an effluent limit of 0.28 mg/L of total ammonia to maintain in-stream concentrations of 0.130
mg/L total ammonia and < 0.02 mg/L of un-ionized ammonia at 7Q20 flows.
- 18 -
MOE water quality management policy, however, recognizes that it is not practical to discharge treated
effluent at PWQO or ambient concentrations and so allows for a mixing zone in which water quality does not
meet the PWQO. The mixing zone must not be used as a substitute for reasonable and practical treatment,
and cannot maintain conditions which are toxic or result in irreparable environmental damage. These
requirements are met for the proposed Midhurst WWTP discharge. Determination of the dimensions and
characteristics of the mixing zone requires a near-field mixing model of the discharge constructed using site
specific data. This will be determined in subsequent phases of the EA and approvals process.
In summary:
• Total ammonia concentrations must be maintained below 1 mg/L in the effluent from the
plant in order to maintain the effluent as non-lethal.
• Total ammonia concentrations would need to maintained below 0.28 mg/L in the effluent
from the plant in order to maintain un-ionized ammonia concentrations in Willow Creek
below the PWQO of 0.02 mg/L.
• It is not practical to produce an effluent limit of 0.28 mg/L and so there will be a mixing zone
downstream of the discharge in Willow Creek in which un-ionized ammonia concentrations
will exceed the PWQO during low-flow periods. This is allowed under MOE water
management policy. The dimensions of the mixing zone will be established in subsequent
analyses at later stages of the EA.
3.6 Effect on Temperature in Willow Creek near Hwy 26
Willow Creek is a cool water/cold water system and so the temperature implications of effluent discharge
must be considered as part of the screening process. The mid summer average daily stream water
temperature in Willow Creek at Hwy 26 is approximately 2.4 degrees cooler than the average daily air
temperature (Figure 17, Figure 18). Estimates of the effects of effluent addition on temperature in Willow
Creek are shown in Figure 17 as a worst case scenario where there was no cooling in the force main. These
estimates are based on effluent temperatures from the Snow Valley WWTP (Appendix 4) and are calculated
as monthly averages. Snow Valley effluent temperatures, Willow Creek average temperatures at Hwy 26
and spot temperatures observed downstream for Willow Creek at George Johnson Road are shown together
in Figure 18.
During those times of year when temperatures are at their maximum the measured temperatures for the
three sources mentioned above generally overlap. The PWQMN data are instantaneous measurements
which will make them higher than the mean daily temperatures shown at Hwy 26. The mean daily water
temperatures at the Hwy 26 location are only slightly lower than mean daily air temperatures (Figure 19)
such that stream temperatures will be a few degrees less than ambient. Maximum observed daily water
temperatures are about 2.4 degrees cooler than the mean air temperatures at ~ day 200 (mid July) when the
difference is greatest. This suggests that effluent temperatures that are near to ambient or slightly cooler
would not impact the temperature regime in Willow Creek.
- 19 -
Sewage effluent that has been pumped several kilometres through a force main will approach ground
temperatures, warming effluent slightly in winter and cooling it slightly in the summer. This will minimize any
temperature change in the creek due to effluent discharge. Estimates of effluent temperatures relative to
ground temperatures are shown with estimated creek and air temperatures in Figure 20. Effluent
temperatures measured in 2007 and 2008 at the Snow Valley Wastewater Plant were close to the average
ambient temperatures shown in Figure 20 when leaving the plant except for the late summer period when
effluent temperatures were higher (Appendix 4).
To summarize, the effects of adding effluent at the temperatures measured at Snow Valley (assuming no
cooling with ground contact) are shown in Figure 17 (red line) with contributing temperatures from effluent
and stream combined as a proportion of the total flow represented by each. This is assuming no cooling in
the force main although it is likely that effluent temperatures would be reduced after exposure to ground
temperatures in the force main. The maximum temperature increase of 2oC is predicted for Willow Creek in
September and maximum predicted creek temperature is estimated to increase from 18 to 19o C in July
(Figure 17).
Addition of treated effluent will not, therefore, have any significant impact on the temperature in Willow
Creek.
20
18
16
Water Temperature
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Month
Willow Creek mean monthly temp Willow Creek plus effluent mean monthly temp
Figure 17. Effects of adding effluent to Willow Creek at Hwy 26 assuming no cooling in the force
main. Effluent temperatures are from Snow Valley WWTP and baseline creek
temperatures are assumed to be the same in both creeks.
- 20 -
Water Temp compare Minesing / Midhurst

30.0
25.0
20.0
Temperature ( C)
o
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-5.0
-10.0
Julian Day
Hwy 26 Mean Daily water temp Willow Creek Spot temps Snow Valley Effluent temp
Figure 18. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network instantaneous temperature measurements
collected between 2002 and 2007 set to Julian day (green circles) at George Johnson
Road and the mean daily water temperatures for 2006 to 2008 for Willow Creek at Hwy 26.
Mean Daily Air and Water Temp (Day 100 to Day 300)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Tem p ( o C )
10.0
y = -0.0013x2 + 0.5221x - 33.985
R2 = 0.7904
5.0
y = -0.0012x2 + 0.4666x - 29.319
R2 = 0.9035
0.0
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Day
Air Temp Water Temp Poly. (Water Temp) Poly. (Air Temp)
Figure 19. Mean daily water temperatures and mean daily air temperatures for Willow Creek near
Hwy 26. Mean daily data from day 100 through day 300 from 2006-2008 was fit with a
polynomial regression to estimate the average difference in temperatures.
- 21 -
Figure 20. Estimated effluent, air, ground and stream temperatures for Willow Creek.
4. Summary
Our analyses show that the low effluent limits proposed for the Midhurst WWTP will not threaten water
quality in the receiver.
• Nitrate and phosphorus, the key parameters of concern, will be maintained below their respective
guideline values for protection of aquatic life. This assumes effluent concentrations of 0.030 mg/L for
total phosphorus and less than 9.8 mg/L for nitrate nitrogen.
• Provision of servicing to the existing community of Midhurst provides the potential to decommission
existing private septic systems in Midhurst which, if implemented, would decrease total phosphorus
loads into Willow Creek from present-day levels.
• Total ammonia concentrations should be maintained below 1 mg/L in the effluent to provide for non-
acutely lethal effluent.
• Un-ionized ammonia concentrations will exceed the PWQO in a mixing zone in Willow Creek
downstream of the discharge. The mixing zone characteristics will have to be determined by way of a
near-field mixing model in subsequent stages of the EA.
• Water temperature in Willow Creek will not be significantly increased as a result of the effluent
discharge, and Willow Creek will be maintained as a cool water/cold water system.
- 22 -
• Any impact of increased base flow to the creek channel characteristics are not likely to be significant
as flows will remain well within historic average and flood flow levels. Further analysis will be
undertaken during future phases of the class EA.
Field programs are underway for 2009 that will continue with water quality monitoring above and below the
Hwy 26 site in Willow Creek. Additional studies to characterize benthos, fish communities and habitat and
hydrological characteristics including effluent diffusion are also under way.
- 23 -
5. References
AECOM 2009a:
Final Surface Water Receiving Assessment for Carson Neighbourhood Development, Midhurst,
Ontario. Prepared for Midhurst Development Carson Road Incorporated, January 2009
AECOM 2009b:
Final Surface Water Receiving Assessment for Doran Neighbourhood Development, Midhurst,
Ontario. Prepared for Midhurst Development Doran Road Incorporated, January 2009
AECOM 2009c:
Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of Sewage Effluent Discharge Scenarios from the proposed
Midhurst Development Projects to Alternative Ground and Surface Receiving Waters. Prepared for
Midhurst Development Incorporated, March 2009
Black and Veatch, 2009:

Executive Summary of Submissions to the Township of Springwater for Input to the Midhurst
Wastewater Servicing Concept.- Draft Without Prejudice. Prepared for Midhurst Development
Incorporated, March 2009
Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment. 1991:

Appendix IX – A Protocol for the Derivation of Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic
Life (April 1991). In: Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Resource and
Environment Ministers, 1987. Prepared by the Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines. (Updated
and Printed with Minor Revisions and Editorial Changes in Canadian Environmental Quality
Guidelines, Chapter 4, CCME, 1999, Winnipeg).
Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment. 2003:

Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Nitrate Ion. In: Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, CCME, 1999, Winnipeg).
Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment. Approved Draft 2007:

A Protocol for the Derivation of Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. To be
published in: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, CCME, 1999, Winnipeg).
Environment Canada, 2008:

National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI). Ideal Performance Standards for the
Nitrate Ion. Technical Series 2008. Report No. 4-54. 73p.
Louis Berger Group and Greenland International, Inc. 2006.

Assimilation Capacity Studies – Final Report, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.
Paterson, A.M., P.J. Dillon, N.J. Hutchinson, M.N. Futter, B.J. Clark, R.B. Mills, R.A. Reid and W.A.
Scheider. 2006. A review of the components, coefficients and technical assumptions of Ontario’s
Lakeshore Capacity Model. Lake and Reservoir Management 22(1): 7 – 18.
- 24 -
Appendix 1
Appendix 1 14
Harmon' sPeakingFactor = 1 + 1
4+ P 2
Midhurst Sanitary Flow Calculations
WWTP Design Assumptions: Equations:

Infiltration = 90 L/cap/day Average Daily Flow = Infiltration + Sewage
Sewage = 340 L/cap/day Peak Daily Flow = Infiltration + (PF)*Sewage
Unit = 3 People ; where P is the population in thousands
Peak Average
Average Harmon's
Infiltration Sewage Daily Daily
Units Population Daily Flow Peaking
(L/day) (L/day) 3 Flow Flow
(m /day) Factor
(L/s) (L/s)
Doran
Bell, Rusdor, Coutts 1,364 4,092 368,280 1,391,280 1,760 3.32 57.8
Coutts, Jones 778 2,334 210,060 793,560 1,004 3.53 34.9
Wright 314 942 84,780 320,280 405 3.82 15.1
subtotal 2,456 7,368 663,120 2,505,120 3,168 3.09 97.1
Alliance 2,279 6,837 615,330 2,324,580 2,940 3.12 91.0
Others 654 1,962 176,580 667,080 844 3.59 29.8
Total 5,389 16,167 1,455,030 5,496,780 6,952 2.75 191.5
Carson
D. Hickling 946 2,838 255,420 964,920 1,220 3.46 41.6
Micks 310 930 83,700 316,200 400 3.82 14.9
A&R Hickling 888 2,664 239,760 905,760 1,146 3.49 39.3
Rome 537 1,611 144,990 547,740 693 3.66 24.9
subtotal 2,681 8,043 723,870 2,734,620 3,458 3.05 104.8
Others 486 1,458 131,220 495,720 627 3.69 22.7
Total 3,167 9,501 855,090 3,230,340 4,085 2.98 121.2
Existing 1,167 3,500 315,000 1,190,000 1,505 3.38 50.3
OVERALL RESIDENTIAL 9,723 29,168 2,625,120 9,917,120 12,542 2.49 316.1 145.2
1-1-
Appendix 1
Midhurst Sanitary Flow Calculations

14
Harmon' sPeakingFactor = 1 + 1
4+ P 2
WWTP Design Assumptions: Equations:

Infiltration = 90 L/cap/day Average Daily Flow = Infiltration + Sewage
Sewage = 340 L/cap/day Peak Daily Flow = Infiltration + (PF)*Sewage
Unit = 3 People ; where P is the population in thousands
Peak Average
Average Harmon's
Equivalent Infiltration Sewage Daily Daily
Daily Flow Peaking
Population (L/day) (L/day) 3 Flow Flow
(m /day) Factor
(L/s) (L/s)
Employment Lands 2,981 268,290 1,013,540 1,282 3.44 43.5
Commercial/Admin Lands 2,393 215,370 813,620 1,029 3.52 35.7
TOTAL OVERALL 34,542 3,108,780 11,744,280 14,853 2.42 364.6 171.9
Excluding Existing 31,042 2,793,780 10,554,280 13,348 2.46 333.2 154.5
Assimilitive Capacity Analysis

Sewage = 225 L/cap/day
Average
Infiltration Sewage
Units Population Daily Flow
(L/day) (L/day) 3
(m /day)
Doran 5,389 16,167 1,455,030 3,637,575 5,093
Carson 3,167 9,501 855,090 2,137,725 2,993
Existing 1,167 3,500 315,000 787,500 1,103
Employ/Admin/Comm Lands 5,374 483,660 1,209,150 1,693
TOTAL OVERALL 34,542 3,108,780 7,771,950 10,881
Excluding Existing 31,042 2,793,780 6,984,450 9,778
1-2-
Appendix 2
Appendix 2
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data for Willow Creek
at George Johnson Road.
Alkti AL Ca DIC DOC Cl Cond DO Hard Fe Mg Mn NH4 NO3 NO2 TKN pH TP K Resid SiO2 Na Turb
DATE mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L uS mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
5-May-03 175 90 61.4 60.4 533 10.8 196 166 10.5 36.3 0.019 0.637 0.011 0.44 8.18 0.039 1.75 16.5 34.1 6.2
10-Jun-03 176 138 60.3 70.4 567 10.2 192 295 10.0 56.8 0.018 0.454 0.009 0.53 8.28 0.055 1.25 21.1 42.1 12.4
8-Jul-03 185 74 58.0 36.6 479 9.7 195 133 12.3 25.6 0.012 0.872 0.011 0.38 8.37 0.023 1.42 10.6 21.3 6.1
13-Aug-03 204 70 62.7 38.1 519 11.1 209 162 12.8 26.7 0.02 0.674 0.007 0.39 8.36 0.021 1.58 6.5 22.7 6.2
9-Sep-03 203 69 51.6 29 480 11.0 181 86 12.6 16.0 0.014 0.871 0.014 0.24 8.41 0.010 1.54 5.4 16.9 5.2
1-Oct-03 206 51 64.2 29.5 474 13.0 214 96 13.1 17.0 0.002 0.762 0.004 0.23 8.35 0.010 1.49 3.2 17.9 2.7
5-Nov-03 164 97 55.5 49.4 468 181 217 10.2 40.7 0.007 0.453 0.005 0.51 8.22 0.037 1.8 15.2 29.3 9.4
31-Mar-04 119 727 43.6 32.6 335 4.9 132 1270 5.5 114.0 0.036 0.891 0.017 0.86 8.18 0.286 2 146 18.3 111.0
25-May-04 141 441 48.6 43.6 415 12.5 150 531 7.0 85.2 0.021 0.219 0.012 0.78 8.18 0.113 1.46 79 27.1 50.2
7-Jun-04 175 44 58.0 41 455 12.3 184 79 9.4 23.8 0.012 0.541 0.007 0.51 8.23 0.024 1.56 21.3 25.1 6.7
8-Jul-04 153 538 49.9 32.7 401 11.4 158 610 8.0 152.0 0.008 0.419 0.010 1.04 8.28 0.176 1.37 126 21.2 65.1
24-Aug-04 202 66 62.0 29.5 483 13.7 211 102 13.7 16.0 0.004 1.030 0.006 0.19 8.41 0.012 1.51 2.8 17.6 2.0
27-Oct-04 202 63 67.2 31.6 475 15.0 222 119 13.2 15.3 0.008 0.894 0.002 0.24 8.15 0.014 1.67 4.9 18.1 2.9
15-Nov-04 187 33 91.9 39.1 486 306 89 18.7 13.7 0.003 0.823 0.004 0.26 8.44 0.013 1.53 4 27.2 3.3
8-Dec-04 169 120 53.8 50.7 505 18.8 175 230 10.0 32.0 0.029 0.618 0.005 0.47 8.4 0.029 1.85 14.4 31.4 10.6
6-Apr-05 677 49.5 44 409 13.3 150 693 6.5 91.0 0.034 0.951 0.013 0.81 8.11 0.152 2.15 126 25.5 69.1
9-May-05 72 59.6 61.6 526 188 122 9.6 29.2 0.015 0.558 0.009 0.44 8.49 0.024 1.71 5.3 36.7 3.8
6-Jun-05 80 64.6 34.8 477 9.3 213 148 12.5 37.5 0.011 0.926 0.009 0.33 8.28 0.026 1.41 9.5 20.5 6.7
14-Jun-05 228 53.6 48.5 483 8.0 175 408 9.9 128.0 0.039 0.453 0.012 0.68 8.35 0.104 1.62 58 29.4 24.3
16-Nov-05 298 52.3 34.6 452 12.1 177 653 11.2 129.0 0.011 0.867 0.003 0.63 8.14 0.096 2.27 59.5 21.4 36.7
13-May-05 100 55.2 40.4 6.2 59.1 518 11.7 181 288 10.5 34.0 0.002 0.472 0.005 0.55 8.42 0.053 16.2 4.16
13-Jul-06 182 100 56.1 40.4 6.2 59.1 518 11.7 181 288 10.5 34.0 0.002 0.472 0.005 0.55 8.42 0.053 16.2 4.16
14-Aug-06 194 36 58.2 44.5 3.7 39.1 484 7.6 193 115 12.4 17.4 0.002 0.851 0.005 0.29 8.49 0.010 6.3 4.36
19-Sep-06 203 62 60.6 46.1 3.4 29.8 460 11.9 205 165 12.4 26.2 0.011 0.841 0.006 0.32 8.27 0.017 8.4 5.42
12-Oct-06 202 55 60.4 45.6 3.9 33.2 470 10.8 201 149 11.9 19.9 0.007 0.762 0.004 0.29 8.49 0.010 7.5 5
23-Nov-06 181 70 56.3 40.4 6.2 47 501 172 159 9.5 27.3 0.002 0.809 0.006 0.89 8.38 0.039 9.1 3.34
12-Dec-06 184 108 62.6 42.3 6.1 45.8 507 195 225 9.5 36.2 0.023 0.908 0.007 0.56 8.19 0.037 16.6 3.86
2-1-
Appendix 2
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data for Willow Creek

at George Johnson Road.
DATE Alkti AL Ca DIC DOC Cl Cond DO Hard Fe Mg Mn NH4 NO3 NO2 TKN pH TP K Resid SiO2 Na Turb
mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L uS mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
3-Apr-07 153 273 51.3 34.2 4.7 30.5 395 14.4 151 463 7.0 45.3 0.017 0.941 0.007 0.62 8.28 0.081 53.3 2.86
7-May-07 188 51 57.4 41.9 4 49.7 521 13.8 185 102 10.4 26.7 0.023 0.701 0.012 0.36 8.48 0.013 4.8 2.74
11-Jul-07 40.8 10.9 0.026 0.804 0.009 0.46 0.026 9.9
14-Aug-07 204 65 60.3 47.3 2.1 32.8 488 10.5 206 111 13.8 23.1 0.002 1.010 0.006 0.2 8.49 0.011 5.6 5.32
29-Aug-07 34.1 11.5 0.002 0.864 0.005 0.32 0.022 9.6
11-Sep-07 194 165 59.2 45.6 2.5 32 460 12.4 196 358 12.7 44.4 0.002 0.978 0.006 0.34 8.34 0.033 22.3 5.24
26-Sep-07 34.5 11.5 0.002 0.951 0.003 0.18 0.009 4.8
9-Oct-07 189 107 60.6 44.3 6.7 45.1 507 9.4 208 262 11.3 35.8 0.01 0.562 0.004 0.45 8.36 0.022 13.9 5.4
12-Nov-07 49.4 0.002 0.757 0.004 0.37 0.007 2.5
20-Nov-07 191 40 56.3 43.4 4.3 45.5 506 189 138 12.2 21.4 0.014 0.871 0.003 0.34 7.83 0.008 4.8 4.5
29-Apr-08 169 126 53.9 40.5 6.2 64.1 535 13.4 167 232 8.4 38.4 0.021 0.485 0.007 0.47 8.28 0.030 12.3 2.96
29-May-08 188 52 58.4 42.8 4.6 50.4 523 11.2 202 132 10.4 28.2 0.004 0.665 0.006 0.41 8.28 0.019 6.1 3.34
11-Jun-08 49.1 8.8 0.015 0.527 0.007 0.52 0.035 13
21-Jul-08 197 142 64.2 45.1 5.5 42.7 509 10.4 212 346 11.7 47.8 0.007 0.605 0.007 0.41 8.31 0.028 18.4 5.08
21-Aug-08 195 33 62.4 45.2 3.8 44.5 518 10.5 214 104 12.7 19.5 0.002 0.783 0.003 0.35 8.39 0.008 2.8 4.68
9-Sep-08 43.3 11.2 0.016 0.978 0.005 0.22 0.011 4.5
22-Oct-08 43 14.9 0.01 0.778 0.003 0.33 0.008 3.8
27-Oct-08 196 59 62.4 47.1 4.3 47.2 521 13.9 216 122 12.3 17.7 0.01 0.748 0.004 0.34 8.6 0.012 3.2 4.92
6-Nov-08 196 36 60.8 46.2 4.4 48.7 538 13.9 207 116 11.7 18.9 0.01 0.613 0.004 0.37 8.2 0.011 3 4.76
24-Nov-08 63 17.0 0.032 0.547 0.007 0.55 0.023 5.1
2-2-
Appendix 3
Appendix 3
Private septic systems within 100m of Willow Creek or its tributaries.
3-1-
Appendix 4
Appendix 4
Sewage effluent temperatures at the Snow Valley Wastewater facility
for 2007 and 2008
4-1-
~ --.....
Geranium" CO • • ORATfO"
May 27, 2009
Joe Mullan
550 Welham Road
Barrie, ON
L4N 8Z7
Dear Joe:
Reference: Infrastructure to Service the Midhurst Settlement Area
Further to our previous discussions, Geranium Corporation has been working to assist in implementing the principles
outlined in the Township adopted OPA No. 38, Midhurst Secondary Plan. In particular, Geranium Corporation,
through the Township, has been working to implement the policies associated with the provision of infrastructure In a
ti mely and cost effective manner, which is integral to the progression of development, irrespective of Neighbourhood.
In order to ensure that the growth management strategies outlined in the Official Plan Amendment are implemented,
Geranium Corporation is com mitting to convey directly to the Township of Springwater, two parcels of property, for
the placement and siting of the wastewater and water treatment faci lities . These two properties are shown on the
enclosed Schedules B1 & 82. Should this critical infra stru cture be maintained within private landh oldings, the
municipality runs the ri sk of having no development proceed in the Midhurst settlement, should one landowner
choose to hold their development plans in abeyance.
Through this direct conveyance, no one Neighbourhood will be given an advantage, and this allows for the
development of multiple Neighbou rhood s concurrently, should it be the will of Council.
Wastewater Treatment Facility Site
As agreed to by the Landowners' Group, the most appropriate location for the IfIJIN TP was to be in the western
portion of the settlement area. Geranium Corporation has the property under contract as shown on the enclosed
Schedule B1 , which separates the WWTP from the proposed residential community, and places it within a future
employment area and previous aggregate extraction area, on the north side of Snow Valley Road . Carson Road
Development Inc. is prepa red to convey the appropriate portion of this parcel to the Township for the purposes of
locating a wastewater treatment plant to service the Midhurst Settlement Area.
Water Treatment Facility Site
Much time and effort has been made to review the potential placement of faci lities in locations which best service the
existing and proposed neighbourhoods of Midhurst. In doing so, the proposed and surrounding land uses have
been assessed, access to facilities has been reviewed, as well as other items of technical merit, which support the
placement of the appropriate facilities. It is on this basis, that Geranium Corporation subm its that the WTP located
3190 Steeles Avenue E., Surte 300

Markham, Ontario L3R 1G9
Telephone: 905.477.1177 x251
Cell: 647-202-4 111
Fax: 905.477.7733
shaunad@gerani umcorporation.com
May 27, 2009
on the Midhurst Development Doran Road Inc. land as shown on the enclosed Schedule B2, is the most appropriate
location for these purposes .
lh
Further to the EA Advisory Committee meeting of April20 , 2009, Geranium Corporation requested that
consideration be given to siting the water treatment plant within the Doran Road South area. As per the attached
Schedule A from the Townsh ip adopted OPA 38, this site is well situated given its direct frontage onto Poo!es Road ,
and buffer from proposed and existing residents.
The proposed land use for a municipal WTP on the subject lands ensures that there is no land use conflict given the
site's separation distance from residential homes, and natural buffer. As shown on Schedule B2, the site is bound
on the west and north by lands deSignated as EP1 and 2, respectively, while on the south side, it is bounded by a
hydro corridor. Should the WTP be located as suggested on the Doran North lands, it wilt be in the middle of a
residential community. OPA No. 38 recommends a school campus, for that site, as shown on Schedule A to the
OPA.
The proposed location on the Doran Road South lands would minimize construction traffic which would otherwise
occur through the middle of the Doran North lands where the facility is currently proposed; during both the initial, and
future phases of construction of the WTP. Furthermore, while noted by Ainley that it is not of great concem , the
delivery of chemicals to our proposed WTP site would be directly from a municipal road, rather than through an
eXisting community resulting in less disruption to the residents . The direct access to the property from the municipal
road network is ideal in order to ensure the most efficient and safe construction and operational traffic pattems
emerge.
The proposed site can accommoda te an undergroun d storage facility, a well site, the water treatment plant, and
other ancillary uses as may be required for the ongoing operation of the WTP. This will address the Municipality's
requirement for the WTP location to become a centralized fa cility, housing all required infrastructure in one location .
Geranium and our consultants are confident, that this is the appropriate site for the water treatment which will service
the Midhurst community.
In the interests of maintaining the development of the infrastructure in a fair and equitable manner, and consistent
with the policies of Official Plan Amendment No. 38, this letter serves to confirm that Geranium is prepared to convey
the lands to the Township of Springwater (as shown on Schedules B1 &B2) enclosed, for the purposes of
accommodating the wastewater and water treatment plants.
Best regards,
GERANIUM CORPORATION
Shauna Dudding, P.Eng.
Sr. Project Manager, Land Development
Ene!.
c. Brad Sokach, P.Eng. , Director of Public Works Township of Springwater
Winanne Grant, CAO, Township of Springwater
Nancy Tuckett, Director of Plann ing , Township of Springwater
Mario Giampietri, Geranium Corporation
Kim Beckman, Davies Howe Partners
Greg Gemmell, Gemmell Project and Construction Management
Alex Troop, Alliance Homes
• Page 2
M IDHURST SETILEMENT A REA
SECONDARY PLAN
TOWNSHIP OF S PRINGWATER
October 29, 2008
Schedule A land Use

_ Commercial/Mixed Use
_ Administrotion / Governmen t
_ Emplayment
_ Environmenta l Prote c tion Areo I
En vironmen tal Protection Area II

,.
/><
, -';
Midhurst Villoge
Midhurst Transition Residential
Midhurs t Low Density Residentia l
Midhurst Medium Density Residentiol
_ Midhurst High Density Residentiol /
Mixed Use
rt:;r-t Future Developmen t Pote ntia l
• Park
• School/Ins titut ional
_ Provinciol Highway
Primary Road
Po ten tial Primary Rood
Settlement Area Boundary
_ Environmental Connectians /
Potential Tra ils
C)
Future Intersection Improvemen ts
~...
o 250
i
500 750 1000m
Block 541
Water
Treatment
Plant
. 3.98 ha.
SCHEDULE 82
(j n
Ainley & Associates limited
[email protected] CONSUlTING
ENGINEERS
PlANNERS
280 Pretty River Parkway, Collingwood, ON, L9Y 4J5
Tel: (705) 445-3451 • Fax: (705) 445-0968
E~mail [email protected]
June 2, 2009 . File No. 207018

"By E-Mail"
Geran i um Corporation
3190 Steeles Ave, East, Suite 300
Markham, ON
l3R 1G9
Attn: Ms. Shauna Dudding, P. Eng.
Sr. Project Manager, Land Development
Ref: Township of Springwater
Midhurst Water, Wastewater and Transportation Master Plan
Location of Water and Wastewater Treatment facilities
Dear Shauna:
Further to our review of your May 27, 2009 letter to the undersigned regarding Geranium's
proposal to convey two parcels of property to the Township of Springwater for the construction of
the future Water and Wastewater Treatment facilities associated with the Midhurst Master Plan, we
provide the following comments with respect to the engineering assessment of Water and
Wastewater Servicing:
The current Preferred Solution which was circulated to all parties in late April and subsequently
presented to Planning Committee on May 25 2009, identified the location of the future Water
Treatment facility in the proposed residential subdivision north of Doran Road and west of Russell
Road with the future Wastewater Treatment facility being located in the proposed residential
subdivision south of Snow Valley Road and east of Wilson Drive. Therefore, any change to the
aforementioned locations to comply with your May 27, 2009 letter would require "back-tracking"
of the Master Plan process and would delay the proposed filing of the Master Plan document.
Therefore, as discussed and agreed at the May 27 EA Advisory Committee Meeting we propose to
complete an engineering assessment in Phase 3 of the future EA process by thoroughly investigating
the aforementioned submission and in particular the proposed properties in comparison to other
locations, including the locations that are currently identified as part of the Preferred Solution in the
Master Plan. The evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate the various locations will include:
• Estimated construction costs to extend the services to the proposed parcel, i.e. proximity
to other proposed infrastructure;
• Environmental constraints (high level only);
• Proposed land uses and adjacent land uses;
• Proximity to existing municipal rights of way;
• Ease of servicing the overall Master Plan from the proposed sites;
• Potential Phasing of the Secondary Plan,
If it is determined, after the completion of the aforementioned engineering assessment in Phase 3

that the Preferred Solution identified in Phase 2 of the Master Plan should be changed, then this can
be accommodated in conjunction with one of the mandatory Public Notices in Phase 3.
Creating Quality Solutions Together Page 1 of 2

() (')
•
Should you have any questions regarding this information please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Yours truly,
AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
. J.A. Mullan, P.Eng.

President & CEO
S:120B017ICorrespondenceILeuerIMidhursr Master Plan - Response to Geranium (jun 2 2009).doc
Cc W. Grant - Township of Springwater

B. Sokach - Township of Springwater
N. Tuckett - Township of Springwater
R. Hunter - Planscape
K. Beckman - Davies Howe Partners
M. Giampietri - Geranium Corporation
A. Troop - Alliance Homes
N. Mather - Stonybrook Consulting Inc.
G. Gemmell - Gemmell Project and Construction Management
June 2,2009 Page 2 of 2

Page 1 of 1
(j n
Reid Mitchell
From: Michelle Tremblay [[email protected]

Sent: . June 3, 2009 5:36 PM
To: [email protected]; 'Reid Milchell'
Cc: 'Alex Troop'; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ira Kagan; Shauna
Dudding; 'Kim Beckman'; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; 'Gregory Gemmell'
Subject: Midhursl Master Plan and Class EA WfP Response
Hi Joe, Reid,
Please see attached correspondence.
Regards,
Michelle Tremblay, B.Sc.,Eng., E.I.T.
Richardson Foster (Barrie)
Tel: 705-728-0009 ext 288

Fax: 705-727-7774
[email protected]
A Division of Trow Associales Inc.
Information transmitted Is Intended only for the person or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, retransmission. dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action In reliance upon this informalion by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this In error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
04/06/2009
n (j
GEMMELL
E:}\;G IN El~:HtNG
09· C()lljr;:l" Street. :~:uH,(' 1(;1. Ut\lTiE'. ON Lt.l;:l 11I:';;
Ph,)n(~. C;;{)~\) 13E: 1C}--I-~1 1·'0::.<.: (7':'}:~,) t'·l:;: ~\7i.),.
Ainley and Associates Limited

2S0 Pretty River Parkway
Collingwood, ON
L9Y 4J5
Attention: Mr. Joe Mullan, P.Eng
RE: Midhurst Master Plan - Class Environmental Assessment

Township of Springwater, County of Simcoe
Infrastructure to Service the Midurst Settlement Area
Further to the submission of Geranium Corporation on May 271h , 2009 regarding the above noted
matter and discussions at the Midhurst Master Plan and Class EA Advisory Committee Meeting
No.9, on behalf of Midhurst Rose Alliance Corp. et aI., we confIrm the following:
• Our client is committed to the advancement of the Midhurst Settlement Area and its orderly
development. As such, they are willing to provide any necessary dedications and / or
easements for the proposed Midhurst Water Treatment Plant (MWTP), municipal grade
production well, access roads and raw water / treated water servicing corridors within their
lands. These dedications would be provided to the Township at the appropriate time. This
commitment is given regardless of if their lands are included within the initial phase of
development the Secondary Plan.
• Our client has commissioned ABCOM Canada Ltd. to complete a ''facility fif' evaluation
report for the MWTP based on the location on their lands in the ''preferred recommendation"
for Water Servicing of the Midhurst Master Plan as presented by you to Planning Committee
on May 25 1h , 2009. Sizing of water storage will be as per the Black and Veatch submission
of May 27Ih , 2009 and revised as per their e-mail of May 2S Ih , 2009 in response to our
cOniments. This report will be submitted early in the week of June SIh, 2009 in support of the
fInalized Master Plan and Class EA.
40 Peacock Lane, Harrie, ON, L4N 3Rf:I
Phone: (705)812 - 1043 Fax: (705) 812·1562
[email protected]
n n
• We have no objection to the future review of the ''preferred site" of the Sewage Treatment
Plant location in the Phase 3 & 4 of the EA 1 process for the "Midhurst Sanitary Sewage
Treatment Plant and Collection System" and support revising the Midhurst Wastewater
Treatment Plant (MWWTP) to the location proposed within the Employment Lands. 2
• We disagree with the statement by Geranium Corporation that the proposed site located in
the Pooles Road and Russell Road area is the "most appropriate location". We see no
technical merits to future evaluation at this site based on this submission.
The submission in by Geranium Corporation has indicated technical arguments for their site.
Our review of these items provides the following comments:
1) Land use compatibility and buffering requirements
There is no associated buffering requirement for water facilities by the MOE, although
we anticipate that a level of landscaping treatment and buffering will be provided that
respects the urban desigu principles that have been established for the area. Our client's
plan provides greater opportunity for buffering when compared to the site proposed by
Geranium which in fact is located closer to lands proposed for residential use than the site
presented in the ''preferred recommendation".
The MOE has buffering requirements for Sewage Treatment Plants due to related
concerns with odor and adjacent residential use.
1 We refer to our correspondence of December 3rd, 2008 whereby we offered the opinion that the selection of a specific
"sile location' for the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) was beyond the Scope of this Phase 1&2 EA based on the "Problem
Statement" and requirements outlined in OPA 38.
2 This location is contrary to the opinion offered by SCS Consulting Group Ltd. on behalf of Geranium Corp. on
February 13 th, 2009 whereby they concluded that the MWWTP would be "idealfy located in the CarsolJ Road Neighborhood".
Our response letter of March 12th, 2009 provided supported for the principles used to locate the facility in the Snow
Valley Rd. and Wilson Dr. area, however offered the opinion that the site location should consider sites within the
Employment Lands. Geranium Corp. has now completed such review and concluded this location as "prefirretl'.
Review of the ''preftrred join/ion" presented to Pla.nJ}ing Committee for Sanitary Servicing appears that this location can
eliminate two (2) sewage pump station (pS 8 & 10). Further benefits of this site include that associated reduction /
elimination to buffering required for M\X1WfP to industrial uses. The M\X1WfP would need to be located on the
eastern quadrant of this property to provide buffering as per MOE guidelines to the existing residential lots on Wl.lson
Drive.
n n
2) Minimize Construction Traffic
Construction traffic will use primarily the Forbes I HWY 400 interchange to access the
MWTP construction site. As such, the proposed relocation of the MWTP by Geranium
increases traffic disturbance during the initial phase of construction by extending travel
time spent on the existing Township road (Russell Road).
It is anticipated that phases of development within our client's lands would require a west
to east progression (from Gill Road to Russell Road) to avoid leap frog development. As
such, development of the lands closest to the Forbes I HWY 400 interchange will occur
near the latter stages and provide construction traffic access that minimizes disturbance to
the new and existing residents of Midhurst.
3) Safe I Operational Traffic Patterns
Geranium makes a claim to the above advantage and offers no technical merit for the
opinion.
Our review of the contour information provided within their submission raises concerns
with respect to the site and its ability to provide site access in accordance with
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines for sightlines distances. The site
and adjacent roads appear to have topographical constraints which could increase risk of
a potential accident.
We are of the opinion that the central location of the MWTP will minimize costs related to raw
water supply piping and reduce overall servicing costs in the Secondary Plan area. We are also
of the opinion that there are several other benefits to this location and summarize as follows:
n n
1) Saving to Front Ending Costs to the Landowners Group
The proposed location on our client's lands will provide saving related to front-ending
costs with the initial stage of development for the Secondary Plan area. A municipal
grade ''production'' well has already been advanced, by our client at considerable
expense, in support of the Master Plan and Class EA. This well is in close proximity to
the proposed MWTP and will minimize external raw water piping costs.
We note that Geranium Corporation had additional test wells installed at the Story Road
and Pooles Road site; however the size of casing installed is insufficient for future use as
municipal grade ''production'' wells and as such these costs will be throwaway costs or
require multiple smaller wells to provide similar yields. Use of these raw water sites
would require external piping and new ''production'' well front-ending costs.
Additional front-ending costs saving would be realized with the development of our
client's lands in the initial phase of development as portions of the raw water and
transmission mains would be included in our clients internal subdivision lands.
2) Community Benefit
The requirement for the water transmission main along Finlay Mill Road as well as the
upgrade / urbanization of this road as outlined in the ''preferred recommendation" for
Water Servicing and Transportation Servicing of the Midhurst Master Plan will provide
for the gravity sanitary sewer to be installed in conjunction of these works.
This will provide an opportunity for Springwater residents to connect to the new
municipal sewage system as their septic beds near the end of their life expectancy.
, . (j
3) Common Trench Savings
We are of the opinion that the ''preferred recommendation" for Sanitary Servicing should
be revised as per our comments of June I, 2009. This revision also provides an
opportunity to install both the high pressure water transmission main and sewage pump
station PS No.1 along the Finaly Mill Road alignment.
The use of polyethylene pipe that is continuous welded would provide reduced separation
requirements as per MOE guidelines and allow for common trench construction. This
construction practice would significantly reduce the cost of installing this infrastructure
as trench costs could be spread against both pipe installation costs..
We trust the above is satisfactory with providing the Township with the assurance that they need
. that our client is committed to the timely development of the Secondary Plan infrastructure and
its continued support of the Master Plan and Class EA process.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gemmell, P.Eng
HGG/hgg
cc: Alex Troop Alliance Homes
Ira Kagan Kagan Shastri
Ryan Guetter Weston Consulting
Rick Groves AECOM/TSH
Michelle Tremblay Richardson Foster Ltd.
Kim Beckman Landowners Trustee
Mario Giampietri Geranium Corp.
Shauna Dudding Geranium Corp.
Winanne Grant Township of Springwater
Brad Sokach Township of Springwater
Nancy Tuckett Township of Springwater
Page I of2
Reid Mitchell
From: Dudding, Shauna [[email protected]

Sent: June 4, 2009 11 :.55 AM
To: Michelle Tremblay; [email protected]; Reid Mitchell
Cc: Alex Troop; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ira Kagan; Kim Beckman;
Giampietri, Mario; [email protected]; [email protected]; Gregory
Gemmell
Subject: RE: Midhurst Master Plan and Class EA WTP Response
Good afternoon Joe,
Further to your letter of June 2, 2009 in response to our correspondence of May 27, 2009, we support the
recommendation and direction outlined therein. We have received a copy of the letter from Gemmell Engineering
to Ainley & Associates (Joe Mullan) dated June 3, 2009. Geranium Corporation supports the commitment made
by Gemmell's clients where he states "Our client. .. are willing to provide any necessary dedications and I or
easements for the proposed Midhurst Water Treatment Plant (MWTP), municipal grade production well, access
roads and raw water I treated water servicing corridors within their lands. These dedications would be provided to
the Township at the appropriate time. This commitment is given regardless of if their lands are included within the
initial phase of development (of) the Secondary Plan." Further to your letter, Joe, it is confirmed that through
Phase 3 of the EA process, the Preferred Solution for both water and wastewater will be confirmed, and can be
accommodated in conjunction with one of the mandatory Public Notices in Phase 3.
Geranium Corporation agrees to this principle, and further submits that the appropriate time to convey the lands
required for the Preferred Solutions, is on completion of Phase 3 of the Class EA. In addition, it will be necessary
to include that the particular landowner(s) shall post appropriate security to ensure that construction costs are
covered in the event that it is necessary to construct internal works, andlor an internal roadway to connect the
proposed site(s) to an existing municipal street, andlor, to connect municipal services tolfrom the site(s) of such
proposed plant(s).
We trust the above confirms our previous discussions, and requirements, and we respectfully request
confirmation that these principles are acknowledged, and will be mandated through Phase 3 of the Environmental
Assessment process.
Best regards,
Shauna Dudding
Geranium Corporation
3190 Steeles Avenue East, Suite 300
Markham, Ontario L3R 1G9
Direct: 905.413.7169
Fax: 905.477.7733
Email: [email protected]
The information contained in this email and any attachments is strictly confidential and is for the use of the intended recipient. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction afany part of this email or any attachment is prohibited. Iryou are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete all
copies including attachments.
From: Michelle Tremblay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM
To: [email protected]; 'Reid Mitchell'
Cc: 'Alex Troop'; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ira Kagan; Dudding, Shauna; 'Kim'
Beckman'; Giampietri, Mario; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Gregory Gemmell'
Subject: Midhurst Master Plan and Class EA WTP Response
(\I; I{)~ /''If\()O

AECOM
MIDHURST ROSE ALLIANCE CORP.
MIDHURST WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FACILITY FIT EVALUATION

BLOCK 1142- ENVIRONM ENTAL CENTRE
Prepared by :
AECOM Canada Ltd.
10 Checkley Street. Barrie. ON, Canada L4N 1W1
T 705.721.9222 F 705 .734.0764 www.aecom .com
Project Number:
109715
Date:
June 2009
© 2009 AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS
DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND TRADE SECRET LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER,
EXCEPT BY CLIENT FOR ITS OWN USE, OR WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISS ION OF AECOM CANADA LTD . OR CLIENT (IF
COPYRIGHT ASS IGNED TO CLIENT).
The attached Roport (tho "Report") has been prepared by AECQM Ca nada Ltd. ("Consultant"') for tile benefit of the client
("Client") in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Cl ien t, in cluding the scope of work detailed therein (the
"Agreomont"').
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contain ed in the Report:
are subjoct to the budgetary, time, scope, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the
qualifications conta ined in the Report (the "Limitations");
• represent Consu ltants' professiona l judgement in li gl1t of the Limitations and industry stanciards for the
preparation of simil ar reports;
may be based on information provided to Consultant whic h has 110t been independently verified;
• have not been upd ated sin ce the date of iss uance of the Report and their accu racy is limited to the time period and
ci rcum sta nces in w hich they were collected, processed, made or iss ued;
• must be road as a whole and sections the reof sllou ld not be read out of slI ch context;
were prepared for the specific purposes described ;n the Report and the Agreement;
in the case of subsurface, environmenta l or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the
ass umption that slic h conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:
sha ll not be responsi ble for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the
Repo rt was prepared or for any in accLl racies conta ined ;n i nformation that was provided to Consultant;
• makes no representations whatsoever with respect to the Report or any part thereof, other than that the Report
represents Consu ltant's professional judgement as described above, and is intended only for the specific purpose
described in the Report and the Agreement;
• in tI,e case of su bsurface, ellvironm enta l or geotechni ca l conditions, is not responsible for variabil ity in such
cond itions geographically or over t im e.
Except as required by law or otherwise agreed by Consultant and Client, the Report:
is to be treated as confidentia l;
may not be lIsed or relied upon by third parties.
Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qua lifi cations and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper lise
of the Report or parts thereof shal l be borne by the party making such use.
Th is Statement of Qua lifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of tho Report.
AECOM
AECOM
10 ChecJdey Street. Barrie, ON , Canada L4N 1W1
T 705.721.9222 F 705.734 .0764 www.aecom .com
June 5, 2009 Project Number: 109715
Mr Greg Gemmell , P. Eng.

Gemmell Engineering
89 Collier St. , Suite 101
Barrie, ON L4M 1H2
Dear Mr. Gemmell:
Re: Midhurst Rose Alliance Corp.

Midhurst Water Treatment Plant
Facility Fit Evaluation
Please find enclosed a copy of the Midhurst Water Treatment Plant Facility (MWTP) Fit Evaluation. This
report presents a preliminary layout and brief description of the proposed MWTP, based on its anticipated
location and on sizing requirements provided to AECOM by Black and Veatch Holding Company.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Rick F. Groves
Senior Project Manager, Water and Wastewater
RFG :ld
Enel.
cc: File
Mld//lIrs! Rose Af/lc?lJce Corp.
M idhur st Water Treatmont Plant Facility Fit Eva lu at i on AECOM
Distribution List
~ .-# OF · ;1. ""'~~T""q 1':~·."Jt.,-""""'~~"'·'·.' ~~'''''':' -::·('I:~"'i ': t. ""HARDTt

~'COPIE~
~
,~t'l',,\~ft~·d~l
~k!t~- _'
ASSOCIATION/COMPANY, NAMiJ;;'
,'...[.~
: ~~' ~. '1'~i~Yrii
J._.....-A.~i, ; .
1 GREG GEMMELL, GEMMELL ENGINEERING Ii':! Ii':!

1 FILE, AECOM Ii':! Ii':!
(k:1OO30697'mldhurst waler traalm ent fadt:t y 'a ci~ty fit eva:uallonlmldhur5t water treatment Pla nt fa dlity fit eva luatiOl'l.doc)
Mldlwrst Rose AIII;wce Corp.
Midlltl f st Water Tr eatmen t P l a nt Facil i ty Fit Eva l uati o n AECOM
Revision Log
; REVISION ' ;"REVISED BY ', DA;-E ~.:_ , ,-, -:[,'-. -'':;';- ISSUE /REVISIONDEscRiP'n o N' , •,
,
' , l
. # ';' ....... 'f, ' ','-''>'\..';'~'1.':': \ .,~ . w· ~ '\ . ~ . •
. ":..".l.. 7""_""..~, ... ei..~ ."J.t... &i.:Wt..... ~ •... t~~~,. ",;!,~~ ~\ ~ .-,~.~
I /'. :",
... .t.. _~ of~, ~"-,, JIItt b".fL' II ... : . " .... I
1 KES/RFG JUNE 4, 2009 DRAFT ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR REVIEW
2 KES/RFG JUNE 5, 2009 ISSUED TO CLIENT
(k:1D03()697lmld hu~1 wa!er Ueatmenl fa ci~!y fa cilily (.1 e va:uallon1(n:<lhurst waler treatment p'anl (8 cilily r.t e v at\Ja~lon .doc)
J,Urffwf'sl Rose Alliance Corp,
M i dhurst Water Treatment Plant Fac ili ty Fit Eva lu at i on AECOM
Signature Page
Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:
Keith Shular, B.Sc., B.E.Sc. Doug Timms, P. Eng.

Civil Engineering Intern Branch Manager
Rick Groves, C.E.T.

Senior Project Manager
(k:1OO306971mId~ursl waler Irealln enl faQ-'-lr f. dli1 y r~ eva:uallon'mid~ulSl waler heatment pI~nl lao" ly f.l eva:ua~on doe)
Mi d/lIlrs ! Rose Alliance Corp.
M i d hllr st Wato r Trea tm e n t Pl a nt Fac ili ty F i t Eva lu atio n AECOM
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal
Distribution List
page
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......... .................................................. 1
2. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND .......... ........................ .......... .... .... ............ ...... 1
3. PROPOSED MIDHURST WATER TREATMENT PLANT ...... .... .. .. .... .............. 3
3. 1 Supply ...... ............... ... .... .... ...... ..... .. . ........ ...... . ...... 3
3.2 Storage .. ... ........... ...... ..... ... .... ....... .... .... .... .......... ..... ..... ..... .. .... .... .... .. .... ..... ...... .... ....... 4
3.3 Pumphou se Facility ................ .... ... .... ..... .... ... .... ....... .. .......... .... ........ ... ... .. ........ .. .... ...... 5
4. RECOMMENDATIONS .... ... .......... ....... ... ..... ............................... .. ....... .............. 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Projected Water Demand
List of Figures
Figure 1. General Site Plan
Figure 2. Site Layout
Figure 3. Building Layout
(k.:1,(}()30697\mldhu,st waler treatmen t faciUy facl!~y frt eva:ualjonlm:dhul'$\ waler treatment plant faei:",y r,\ e va:ua~on .doc)
Mldlwrst Rose Allhwce Corp.
Midhurst Water Treatment Plant Facility Fit Eva lu at ion AECOM
1. INTRODUCTION
AECOM has been commissioned by Midhurst Rose Alliance Corp. to perform a Facility Fit Evaluation for the
proposed Midhurst Water Treatment Plant (MWTP), based on a proposed location identified in the Draft
Midhurst Master Plan and Class Environmental Assessment issued in support of the Midhurst Secondary
Plan (OPA No. 38). The MWTP is to be sized based on water demand calculations performed by Black and
Veatch Holding Company (Black and Veatch). This report will assess the feasibility of constructing the
MWTP at the proposed site location, and present a preliminary conceptual design and description of
potential site layouts.
2. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
Conceptual design and sizing of the MWTP is based on the anticipated water demand of the serviced
development, as projected by Black and Veatch in a document submitted to Gemmell Engineering on June
4, 2009. The projection includes anticipated flow rates, as well as a detailed analysis of fire flow and treated
water storage requirements for the new development and Community of Angus. Although an assessment
and detailed description of the projected water demand is beyond the scope of this report, the projected
flows and storage requirements for the MWTP provided by Black and Veatch are summarized in Table 1.
According to Table 1, the MWTP would be designed for an ultimate peak hour demand of 192 Lis, a
maximum day demand plus fire flow of 261 Lis, and a treated water storage requirement of approximately
7,500 m'. It is proposed to construct the MWTP in three phases to match the pace of new development in its
service area. A pumphouse facility and a reservoir with a capacity of 2,500 m' would be constructed in
Phase 1. An additional reservoir with a capacity of 2,500 m' would be constructed in each of Phases 2 and
3. Detailed design of the MWTP would include all necessary allowances for expansion in each phase.
It should be noted that the fire storage requirement calculated by Black and Veatch does not consider that
the municipal wells constituting the raw water supply can be operated during a fire event. This can
effectively reduce the volume of fire storage required at the facility, possibly eliminating the need for the third
reservoir.
Reduced storage capacity is advantageous from an operations and maintenance perspective. From an
operations perspective, the residence time within storage is reduced which can improve chlorine residual
stability and reduce precipitation and settling associated with iron and manganese sequestration . The
reduced storage capacity would also offer time and cost savings associated with maintenance activities.
This option should be carefully considered during final design and upon approval of the municipal water
supply capacity .
(k :1OO30597'1n idhu rst water treatment facility (acit~y r~ evafu allon'm ;dhufst wate r tfeatm ent plant (aci~ty r.t evaluatlon.dOC)
-1
Midl/llrs( Rosa Alliance Corp.
M idllur st Water Treatm e nt Plan t Fac ilit y F i t Eva lu atio n AECOM
TABLE 1: PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
EQUIVALENT POPULATION 16,167
AVERAGE PER CAPITA FLOW

(Ucap/day) 380
MAXIMUM DAY
FACTOR
1.80
FLOW FACTORS
PEAK HOUR FACTOR 2.70
FLOW (Lis) 133.3

FIRE FLOW
DURATION (hrs) 3
AVERAGE DAY DEMAND 71
WATER MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND 128

DEMAND
(Us)
PEAK HOUR DEMAND 192
MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND

PLUS FIRE FLOW
261
FIRE 1,440
TREATED WATER STORAGE

EQUALIZATION 2,856
REQUIRMENTS
(m ' )
EMERGENCY 3, 153
TOTAL 7,448
(k:IO030697midhursl wateltrealm enl facility l aQlny fit eva;ualionvrudhUJSI waler Irealm ent planllacimy fil eva:uation,doc)
·2·
fo1ldhurst Rose Alliance Corp.
M i dhurst Wa t o r Tr ea t mo n t P l a nt F ac i li ty Fit Eva lu at i o n AECOM
3. PROPOSED MIDHURST WATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Class Environmental Assessment has identified Block 1142 as an Environmental Centre for the
development, and as the preferred loca tion for a water treatment facility. Block 1142 is located within Block
1133, which has been allocated for parkland in the Draft Plan . Blocks 1142 and 1133 constitute a large
expanse of land central to the Doran Road North development. The location and layout of the MWTP can be
adapted to integrate with the surrounding land use, which may include parkland and/or recreational activities,
without posing any safety concerns to the public. The proposed loca tion of the MWTP in , along with two
alternative locations, is shown as Sites 1 through 3 in Figure 1.
The proposed and alternate locations offer the following advantages:
• convenient road access for operations and maintenance, as well as construction during all
phases of expansion;
• central location for proposed water supply and distribution connections;
• an inconspicuous location and integration with surrounding land use; and,
• passive security within the residential development.
The size of the proposed Environmental Centre must be large enough to accommodate a pumphouse
facility, valve chamber, and three in-ground reinforced concrete storage reservoirs. The pumphouse would
overlie a two-celled reinforced concrete wet well from which high lift pumps would pump treated water to
distribution. The site would include an access driveway and parking to facilitate delivery of chemicals and
generator fuel as required , and to allow for the installation and removal of large pieces of process equipment.
The site would contain allowances for sanitary and hydro service to the pumphouse and water mains
carrying raw water from the municipal well sites.
Although the layout of the pumphouse and reservoirs can be configured to integrate with almost any
surrounding land usage, three alternative layouts are shown in Figures 2a through 2c. The alternatives
include a central layout with the reservoirs grouped around the pumphouse, as well as elongated layouts
with the reservoirs lined up behind the pumphouse and with the reservoirs lined up beside the pumphouse
across the frontage of the lot. Typically, a central layout is preferred in order to simplify operation and
optimize the associated yard piping .
3,1 Supp ly
The Midhurst Master Plan has proposed that the MWTP will be supplied with raw water from six municipal
wells along Russell Road, each with a capacity of approximately 40 Lis. Hydrogeological investigations have
suggested an underlying aquifer of suitable capacity and water quality that meets all requirements of the
Ontario Drinking Water Standards. Raw water would be pumped from the municipal wells to the pumphouse
facility via transmission force mains. Design and sizing of the force mains would be completed upon
(k:\OOl06971m idhuI'$I ,,'atel treatmenl fa cili ty facll~y rrt ev a:uatlon'midhurst waler treatmenl plan t faciMy ~I evaTuaUon .doc) -3
J,
r-
J,
5~
9 r-
J,
I
W
-125 126 w 5~
0::::
I 5.
503 C/)
5'
502 5
7C 171 BLI< . 1142 501 5 i
ENVIRONMENTA L BlK. 114 4

C ENTRE
au<. 1160
SITE 1
PROPOSED lOCA liON BLI<. 1149
or t,lIDHURST WATER
TREA Ul [ NT PLANT c:
500
c:
499
"" 498 5
BLI< . 1133 "i
"i -0
PARK 497 'b
SITE 2 SITE 3
ALTERNATIVE LOCATION AlTERNA Tlvt: lOCATION
OF tuOHURST WATER Of I,lIOHURST WATER
TREATl.l [ NT PLANT TREATM ENT PLANT
4(
Oll<. 1155 6m FINAL [,FWEN T DISPOSAL BED
BlK. 1166 om WALKI NG TRAIL
BlK. 1155 6m FINAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL BED
LI< 10 C 0 BL~ 1 89
4 UN IT UN1
I --'--'---'
411 B 1<1 09
4 ur !ITS
-::1-::2;--t--·---J/I "" ~
I
13 W
W
01 II" 1r'10c:, ~I I( 1 nOQ -~
PROJECT:
MI DH URST PROPERTIES
COMMUNITY PLAN No. DATE BY ISSUES f REVISIONS
ORA\oVN BY; CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. :
EL KES 109715
DRAVIIING: DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: DRAWING No.
RFG RFG
GENERAL SITE PLAN
AECOM SCALE" DATE" FIG.1
N.T.S. JUNE 2009
6SM
rr------------,-r-------4 rr----------,-r-------,
II
11
II
" II
11 $ 1 1 1 1 1 1
II PHASE 1
"
II
II
II
II
II
n
$ II
PHASE 2
II
II
II
II II II II II II
II II II II II II II II
II II II II II II II
II U II JL_...,lI~ , U II I II
~ = :::!.L:.-= _ ~L, = H! I l!::-=-~I:: = = = ~,=d.i=!l
I , r= =~~j= ~~~ ::: ====f i
L ___ L_.J. __, --=====t:=.:.--------..., ::
T\'i()-c:ElL.ED -c:'i-;-____ [j9=-"=iF = = = =1I=t.j:::""~
II II n II I I I
1111 $ 11
II II PHASEJII
II II II
II II II II
II II II II
II II II II
II II II II
II u II
_L_~-_-_
lb-_-_-_-_--l _.:!J
ACCESS
DRIVE WAY
PROJECT:
MIDHURST PROPERTIES
COMMUN ITY PLAN No. DATE BY ISSUES f REVISIONS
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. :
EL KES 109715
DRAWING· DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: DRAVv1NG No.
RFG RFG
SITE LAYOUT 1
AECOM CENTRAL LAYOUT
SCALE: DATE: FIG.2a
N.T.S. JUNE 2009
(l)
I
TV;O-CELLEO
~~;:~C~~
CO:-':CRETE
~
"'"''
PUMPH OUSE
VALvr 2500 MJ
fACILITY
(SEE fiGURE J)
co'l:CO'::
-;:::::\::::::::::CO
r~ ~ ~ ----~ r- - - -~ ~~~ r - ~~ ~~ - - ~
:r - - ~ ~ ~--
II 1PHASE 11
:1 ~ ~~~ ~~~l:
JI: f:L~ ~ ___ _~ JI:
21 IPH ASE
:1 ~~ ~~~ ~~l:
:r- - - ~~ ~~
II IPHASEJI
:1 ~~~ ~~ ~~l:
JI: I I;l;
~
r+-~~~ - --I f ~ m~- - I r--~ ~~- - I I

~~~~~~~~ L __ __ ~ ~~j ~ _ ~~ ~~ __ j
- - t - -
PROJECT:
MIDHU RST PROPERTIES
COMMUNITY PLAN No. DATE BY ISSUES f REVISIONS
DRAVVN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT No.:
EL KES 109715
DRAVY'ING: DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: DRAlAr1NG No.
S ITE LAYOUT 2 RFG RFG
RESERVOIRS BEHIND
AECOM PUMPHOUSE
SCALE: DATE: FIG .2b
N.T.S. JUNE 2009
"
>-1:"
<',
.',
.',
.',
~i:@
w
.,'
~I:
I',
"
"
~ ~
@
" IJOM
W
~
2500 f,!J
!
~~~~BER
oj_ "CESS
HATCH AND
LADDER
IN- GROUND
RE INFORCED
CONCRET E
RES ERVOIR
W ~
~--- - ----7-<----
L+ __ __
r-,r-~~ ~ ~~-~
~~_ :1
~-~~~
:r--- ~ ~~- I:
!. --~ ~ ~ --Jj
- - ---<-------
PROJECT:
MIDHURST PROPERTIES
COMMUN ITY PLAN No. DATE BY ISSUES I REVISIONS
DRA'/vN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. :
EL KES 109715
ORAWlNG: DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: DRAVv'lNG No.
SITE LAYOUT 3 RFG RFG
RESERVOIRS ACROSS
AECOM FRONTAGE
SCALE: DATE: FIG.2c
N.T.S. JUNE 2009
Mld/1IJrst Rosa AlIllwc(J Corp.
Mldhurst Water Treatment P l ant Fac ilit y Fit Eva l uat i o n AECOM
finalization and approval of the municipal well locations. It has been assumed that the municipal well supply
will be of sufficient capacity to meet the projected water demand.
Preliminary hydrogeological investigations have not suggested that the proposed water supply is under the
direct influence of surface water. Typically such water supplies require only disinfection. However, the
hydrogeological investigations have identified slightly elevated concentrations of manganese. Although a
detailed water chemistry analysis is beyond the scope of this report, allowances have been made in sizing of
the pumphouse facility to permit additional chemical treatment, such as iron and/or manganese
sequestration, if required .
Disinfection of the raw water supply would include primary disinfection to remove pathogens, and secondary
disinfection to maintain a chlorine residual throughout the distribution system, inhibiting the potential re
growth of pathogens. Given the preliminary stage of the MWTP, it is proposed to achieve primary and
secondary disinfection of the raw water by sodium hypochlorite injection at the pumphouse facility. The
required contact time for disinfection would be achieved in the treated water storage reservoirs. The dosage
would be sufficient to maintain the required chlorine residual in the distribution system following its residence
time in the treated water storage.
Facilities with large volumes of treated water storage such as the MWTP, however, require careful design
and operation to maintain the required chlorine residual. Alternate methods of disinfection may be explored
during detailed design, pending a more detailed chemical analysis of the municipal water supply.
3.2 Storage
The treated water storage requirement at the MWTP would be met with in-ground reinforced concrete
reservoirs measuring approximately 25 x 25 m. The reservoirs would be constructed in three phases as
discussed in Section 2. Operation of the municipal well sites would be controlled by the level within the
reservoirs, as measured by ultra-sonic sensors and/or float swtiches. Well pumps would operate as required
to maintain an adequate water level in the reservoirs. The reservoirs would operate with a small dead band
to maximize storage capacity.
Each reservoir would be of water-tight design and construction to prevent infiltration and preclude
microbiological or chemical contamination from the environment. Water tight fill and discharge line
penetrations would provide connections between the pumphouse and reservoirs, and between reservoirs.
Galvanized steel vent lines with vandal proof bird and insect screen would also be provided .
Each reservoir would be equipped with a galvanized aluminum lockable, drip-proof access hatch and
aluminum ladder for access to the reservoir and internal piping. A potable water connection to the
pumphouse would provide water for cleaning. Sumps located in each reservoir would be used to direct the
cleaning water to a sanitary drain for disposal.
The reservoirs would be constructed with four serpentine passes each running the length of the reservoir.
Inlet and outlet pipes at opposite ends of the serpentine passes would eliminate short-circuiting of treated
(k:1OO30697'mldhurst water trea:ment fa ciL1 y facltity fa ~ va:ualion'midhursl wa:er treatment plant facility rot eva:uatio r'l.doc)
-4
1'.1Idllllrs t Rosa AII/ance Corp.
Midhur s t W a t e r Tr ea tm e nt P l a nt F ac ility Fit E v a l u a ti o n AECOM
water and maximize chlorine contact time. The outlet of each reservoir would be connected by a large
diameter pipe to the inlet of the next reservoir according to their hydraulic grade line. Under normal
operation , treated water would flow by gravity through each reservoir sequentially, with the outlet of the final
reservoir flowing to the wet well underlying the pumphouse facility.
The yard piping layout and valve chamber would be configured for maximum flexibility in operation and
maintenance during each phase of construction. A manifold on the treated water discharge header in the
pumphouse would allow water to be pumped to each individual reservoir. Likewise, the yard piping and
valve chamber configuration would allow for water to be directed to the wet well from each individual
reservoir (see Figure 2a). In this configuration, water which would normally flow through each reservoir
sequentially can be re-directed as required to allow anyone of the three reservoirs to be taken out of service
for cleaning and maintenance.
3_3 Pumphouse Facility
A pumphouse facility measuring approximately 15.6 x 20.6 m would house electrical equipment, raw water
supply header, chemical storage and metering equipment, high lift and fire pumps, discharge header, and
standby generator, and all necessary appurtenances for the safe and reliable operation of facility. The
facility would also include amenities such as a garage, washroom, workstation, and laboratory. The
pumphouse would overlie a two-celled reinforced concrete wet well from which high lift pumps would pump
treated water to distribution. Water would be directed from the reservoirs to the wet well via yard piping, and
valved accordingly in the valve chamber. A simplified preliminary layout of the pumphouse is shown in
Figure 3.
Measures can be taken to integrate the MWTP with the surrounding residential development. For example,
the site can be set back from the main road and shielded with tree cover and/or berms. In addition , the
architectural envelope of the pumphouse can be designed and constructed to resemble a typical residential
dwelling. An example of a high-capacity pumphouse designed by AECOM with a residential facade is shown
with the pumphouse layout in Figure 3. The pumphouse employs chlorine gas disinfection and a diesel
fuelled standby generator. Both chemicals are safely delivered to the pumphouse on a routine basis.
Hydro service to the pumphouse would be provided from the hydro grid of the residential development with a
pad-mounted transformer. In addition , a natural gas or diesel-powered standby generator would be installed
in the pumphouse to provide power during utility power outages. Potable water would be provided from the
treated discharge header in the pumphouse for maintenance and cleaning activities, and for an emergency
eye wash station given the use of sodium hypochlorite for disinfection.
The pumphouse facility would include a chemical storage area housing chemical storage tanks, chemical
metering equipment, and all necessary appurtenances. Spill containment would be provided by a water-tight
reinforced concrete retaining wall enclosing the tanks. Both spill containment areas would be constructed
with drainage sumps for use during maintenance and cleaning activities.
(k:\OO30097Vnidhu.~t walef l",a~enl faoUy faci l1y fa eva:uallonlm:dhtlrsl wa~ef Ifea!ine nl ~anl fa O£ly r.1eva:ua~on.doc) -5
1M SPILL
CONTAINMENT
DIVIDER
TREATED \'/ATER \
r EYE
\'/ASH
DISCHARGE STATION
rr= ======B CHEMICAL

II
Ii ====6
INSTRUMENTATION FEED
II PANEL STORAGE
TANKS
II I
II
II EXH AUST
STACK WITH
II ARCHITECTURAL
II BLOCK CHI MNEY
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II GENERATOR ¢=> <1=> GENERA~bR
EXHAU ST INTAKEII
II
II
II
GENERATOR II
II
II
II
II :1'- SANITARY
SERVICE
RAW WATER-4+--J: :
SUPPLY
II II
II 'j
II II
PROJECT:
MIDHURST PROPERTIES
COMMUNITY PLAN No. DATE BY ISSUES I REVISIONS
DRAVIM BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. :
EL KES 109715
DRAVv1NG: DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: ORAVVING No.
RFG RFG
PUMPHOUSE
AECOM LAYOUT
SCALE: DATE: FIG.3
N.T.S. JUNE 2009
l'.1/dhllrst Rose AII/,7IJce Corp.
Midl ltJr s t Water Troatmont P l ant Facility Fit Eva lu atio n AECOM
Ultimately, water would be pumped from the wet well to distribution by three vertical turbine high lift pumps
and a fire pump. Similar to the treated water storage capacity, the high lift and fire pumping capacity would
be installed and expanded in three phases to match the water demand of the new development. Based on
the ultimate water demand projected by Black and Veatch, each high lift pump would have a capacity of
approximately 96 Lis and the fire pump would have a capacity of approximately 133 Lis. This configuration
of high lift pumps would satisfy peak hour demand andlor maximum day demand plus fire flow with either
one high lift pump or one fire pump out of service.
Optimization of the pumps and control scheme would be evaluated during detailed design and upon
finalization of the hydraulic grade line of the water storage and distribution system. It is, however, anticipated
that the high lift pumps would be equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs) that would modulate the
speed of the pumps to maintain a constant pressure in the distribution system, while meeting the
instantaneous water demand at all times. A PLC control loop would modulate the operation and speed of the
pumps based on a signal from a pressure transducer located on the discharge header.
The MWTP would include comprehensive monitoring and alarm systems to ensure its safe and reliable
operation . Major alarms would be logged and transmitted to an on-call Operator for immediate attention . In
addition, the laboratory would include analytical equipment for routine water sampling and monitoring to aid
in trouble-shooting and operation of the plant.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The size of Environmental Centre (Block 1142) identified in the Class Environmental Assessment is more
than sufficient to accommodate any of the three potential site layouts. It is recommended that the MWTP be
located at Site 1 within Block 1142, as seen in Figure 1. This location provides convenient access for
operations and construction, a central location for water supply and distribution connections, and passive
security within a residential development. The layout of the proposed MWTP can be easily adapted to
integrate with the surrounding land use without posing any safety concerns to the public.
The site would include a pumphouse facility overlying a two-celled reinforced concrete wet well, a valve
chamber, and three in-ground reinforced concrete storage reservoirs. The pumphouse facility would house
electrical equipment, raw water supply header, chemical storage and metering equipment, high lift and fire
pumps, discharge header, standby generator, garage, washroom , workstation, laboratory, and all necessary
appurtenances for the safe and reliable operation of facility.
It has been assumed that the municipal well supply, which has yet to be finalized and approved, will be of
sufficient capacity to meet the projected water demand. An allowance for chemical treatment in addition to
disinfection has been made in the sizing and layout of the facility. The reservoirs would be designed and
constructed to minimize any potential for microbiological or chemical contamination , and would be configured
to allow for the maintenance and cleaning of anyone reservoir without disrupting service. The pumphouse
facility would house three vertical turbine high lift pumps and one vertical turbine fire pump sized to satisfy
the peak hour demand andlor maximum day demand and fire flow with anyone of the pumps out of service.
(k;\o030697\midhUf51 waitt I,eatmenllaci -Iy laci,ly f~ eva:uat1onmidhul'lil water Ireatmenl planllaciUy (,I eva:ua~on.doc) · 6·

Black & Veatch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Black & Veatch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Black & Veatch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the document?

What is the purpose of the document?

What recommendations are made regarding the location of the MWTP?

What recommendations are made regarding the location of the MWTP?

Township of Springwater

Midhurst Master Plan

Effluent Discharge Correspondence

File 208017 July 2009

Technical Support appui technique Tel: (416) 326-6700

October 30, 2008

RE: Class EA for Wastewater Servicing

c. C. Hood, District Manager, Barrie District Office, MOE

Central Region EA File

From: Liu, Chunmei (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]]

Mr. Ernie Hartt

He: Comments on Proposed Communal Sewage System with

We are writing on behalf of Geranium Corporation in response to a letter which

MOE's Concern about imperfect knowledge

1. The design of recharge beds is based upon proven hydrogeological

3. The MOE has previously approved in-ground disposal of treated effluent at

4. Geranium's consultant, Golder Associates Ltd., has undertaken water level

Other alleged problems

The letter to Mr. MacKell goes on to reference certain problems at specific

Other examples of subsurface disposal from North America

Two of Geranium's projects in Simcoe County involve the proposed use of

The safety of subsurface disposal of well treated effluent is documented in Arizona

Rural residential developments completed with communal sewage treatment plants

The Planning rationale in support of subsurface disposal

The population in the County of Simcoe is projected to grow to 439,500 people in

In order to achieve these growth targets, population has been directed to

_.. Request to participate in any meetings

We look forward to hearing from you further on these matters.

DAVIES HOWE PARTNERS

Chris Hyde, District Manager, Barrie District Office, MOE

Chunmei Liu, EA and Planning Coordinator, Central Region, MOE

Carol Trainor, Township of Springwater

Doug Irwin, Township of Oro-Medonte

Joe Mullan, Ainley & Associates

Bryan Mackell, County of Simcoe

Centra I Region - Barrie District Office

Ministry of the Environment

54 Cedar Point Drive, Unit 1203

Dear Ms. Hood:

RE: Large Communal Sewage Systems in Simcoe County of simcoe

Corporation of the County of Simcoe

Cc: Gerry Caterer, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio

january 26, 2009 File #20801 7

Ministry ofthe Environment

Attn: Ms. Cindy Hood

Ref: Township of Springwater

Midhurst Master Plan for Water, Wastewater & Transportation

Dear Ms. Hood:

Creating Quality Solutions Together Page 1 of 1

cc: D. Orr - Ministry of the Environment Central Region (By E-mail)

January 26, 2009 Page 2 of 2

Geranium Corporation B&V Project 164145

Title: Liquid-Stream Treatment Process Selection

• Nitrate-nitrogen 3.0 mg/L monthly average ofweekly samples

3.0 Liquid-Stream Treatment Processes Selection

3.1 Biological Treatment