INNISFIL MASTER SERVICING PLAN UPDATE · Innisfil Master Servicing Plan Update Final Draft Report...

INNISFIL MASTER SERVICING PLAN UPDATE

InnServices Utilities Inc.

Final Draft Report

prepared by: prepared for

C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. 115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200 Collingwood, ON L9Y 5A6 Tel: (705) 444-2565 Fax: (705) 444-2327 info@

cctatham.com

InnServices Utilities Inc.

July 13, 2018

CCTA File 117069

Innisfil Master Servicing Plan Update Final Draft Report

Page i July 13, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1Introduction

1

1.1Master Plan Purpose and Objectives

1

1.2Report Organization

1

2Project Approach

3

2.1Master Plan Class EA Process

3

2.2Public and Agency Consultation Program

3

2.3Technical Liaison Committee

4

3Problem

Statement

5

4Regulatory Fram

ework 6

4.1Planning

6

4.2W

ater 7

4.3W

astewater 7

5Study Area Profile

8

5.1Town of Innisfil

8

5.1.1Land Uses

8

5.1.2Natural Environment Features

10

5.1.3Transportation

10

5.1.4W

ater and Wastewater Servicing

10

5.2Area Profiles

14

5.2.1Innisfil North

14


Page ii July 13, 2018

5.2.2Innisfil Central

16

5.2.3Innisfil South

17

5.2.4Cookstown and Highway 400 and 89 Area

19

5.3Projected Residential Growth

19

5.4Serviced Residential Population Projections

20

5.5Employment Growth

22

6W

ater Demands and W

astewater Flows 24

6.1Historical W

ater Demands 24

6.1.1Town of Innisfil

24

6.1.2Town of Bradford W

est Gwillimbury 24

6.2Historical W

astewater Flows 26

6.2.1Lakeshore W

PCP 26

6.2.2Cookstown W

PCP 26

6.3Recommended Design Criteria

28

6.3.1W

ater Criteria 28

6.3.2W

astewater Criteria 31

6.4W

ater Demand and Wastewater Flow Projections

32

7Lakeshore W

ater System

33

7.1Lakeshore W

ater System Description 33

7.1.1Lakeshore W

ater Treatment Plant 33

7.1.2Alcona Reservoir

34

7.1.3Pressure Zones

34

7.1.4Town Campus W

ater Supply System 36


Page iii July 13, 2018

7.1.5Alcona Zone 2 Booster Pumping Station

36

7.1.6Innisfil-BW

G Water Transmission Main and Third Line Booster

Pumping Station 36

7.1.7Goldcrest W

ater System 37

7.1.8Cookstown W

ater System 37

7.1.9Lefroy W

ater System 37

7.1.10Friday Harbour W

ater System 37

7.2Overall Lakeshore W

ater System Needs 38

7.2.1W

ater Storage Requirements 38

7.2.2W

ater Supply and Treatment Capacity 39

8Lakeshore W

astewater System

41

8.1Lakeshore W

astewater System Description 41

8.1.1Sewage Pumping Stations

41

8.1.2Lakeshore W

PCP 43


astewater System Needs 44

8.2.1Lakeshore W

PCP Capacity 44

8.2.2Sewage Collection System Upgrades

45

8.3Recommended Lakeshore W

astewater System Upgrades 46

9Innisfil North W

ater Servicing 47

9.1Alcona and Town Campus

47

9.1.1Existing W

ater Servicing Issues 47

9.1.2Future W

ater Servicing Needs 47

9.1.3Description of Alternative Solutions

48


Page iv July 13, 2018

9.1.4Assessment of Alternative Solutions

52

9.1.5Recommended W

ater Servicing 52

9.2Sandy Cove

53

9.2.1W


9.2.2Recommended W

ater Servicing 54

9.3Big Bay Point

54

9.3.1W


9.3.2Recommended W

ater Servicing 56

9.4Leonards Beach Shoreline

56

9.4.1W


9.4.2Recommended W

ater Servicing 56

9.5Stroud

56

9.5.1W


9.5.2W

ater System Condition 57

9.5.3W



59


60

9.5.6Recommended W

ater Servicing 60

10Innisfil North W

astewater Servicing 62

10.1Alcona

62

10.1.1W

astewater Servicing Needs 62

10.1.2W

astewater Servicing Solutions 62

10.1.3Recommended W



Page v July 13, 2018

10.2Town Campus

65

10.2.1W


10.2.2W


10.3Sandy Cove

65

10.3.1W


10.3.2W


10.3.3Recommended W


10.4Big Bay Point

66

10.4.1W


10.4.2W


10.4.3Recommended W


10.5Leonards Beach

67

10.5.1W


10.5.2W


10.5.3Recommended W


10.6Stroud

68

10.6.1W


10.6.2W


10.6.3Recommended W


11Innisfil Central W

ater Servicing 69

11.1Innisfil Heights

69

11.1.1Innisfil Heights W


11.1.2W



Page vi July 13, 2018


71


76

11.1.5Recommended W

ater Supply Solution 77

11.1.6Campus Node and 6 th Line W

ater Servicing 78

11.2Churchill

78

11.2.1Churchill W


11.2.2W


11.2.3W

ater Servicing Solutions 79

11.2.4Recommended W

ater Servicing 79




81

12.1.1W



81


83

12.1.4Recommended W


12.2Churchill

90

12.2.1W


12.2.2W


12.2.3Recommended W


13Innisfil South W

ater Servicing 92

13.1Lefroy-Belle Ewart and Big Cedar Point

92

13.1.1W


13.1.2W



Page vii July 13, 2018

13.1.3Recommended W

ater Servicing 93

13.2Degrassi Point and Gilford

93

13.2.1W


13.2.2W


13.2.3Recommended W

ater Servicing 95

13.3Fennell’s Corners

95

13.3.1W


13.3.2W


13.3.3Recommended W

ater Servicing 97

14Innisfil South W


14.1Lefroy-Belle-Ewart and Big Cedar Point

98

14.1.1W


14.1.2W


14.1.3Recommended W


14.2Gilford and Degrassi Point

99

14.2.1W


14.2.2W


14.2.3Recommended W



101

14.3.1W


14.3.2W


14.3.3Recommended W


15Cookstown and Highway 400 & 89 Area W

ater Servicing 103


Page viii July 13, 2018

15.1Cookstown

103

15.1.1W


15.1.2W


15.1.3Recommended W

ater Servicing 105

15.2Highway 400 & 89 Area

105

15.2.1W


15.2.2W


15.2.3Recommended W

ater Servicing 106

16Cookstown and Highway 400 & 89 Area W


16.1Cookstown

107

16.1.1Cookstown W

astewater System Description 107

16.1.2W


16.1.3W


16.1.4Recommended W


16.2Highway 400 & 89 Area

109

16.2.1W


16.2.2W

astewater Alternative Solutions 109

16.2.3Recommended W


17Public and Agency Consultation

110

17.1Notice of Study Commencement

110

17.2Phase 1 Public and Agency Consultation

110

17.2.1Meeting with Technical Liaison Committee

110

17.2.2Public Information Centre No. 1

110


Page ix July 13, 2018

17.2.3Comments and Input Received

110


112

17.3.1Meeting with the Technical Liaison Committee

112

17.3.2Meeting with City of Barrie

112

17.3.3Public Information Centre No. 2

112

17.3.4Comments and Input Received

112

17.4Notice of Study Completion

116

18Recom

mended Im

plementation Plan

117

18.1Project Timing and Triggers

117

18.2Estimated Project Costs

117

18.3Recommended W

ater Master Servicing Plan 118

18.3.1Short-Term W

ater Projects 118

18.3.2Mid-Term W

ater Projects 123

18.3.3Long-Term (Post 2031) W

ater Projects 125

18.4Recommended W

astewater Master Servicing Plan 126

18.4.1Short-Term W

astewater Projects 126

18.4.2Mid-Term W


18.4.3Long-Term (Post 2031) W


18.5Innisfil Heights Servicing Plans

134

18.6Overall Summary of Project Costs

135

18.7Further Studies

137

18.7.1Class Environmental Assessment Studies

137

18.7.2Other Recommended Studies

137


Page x July 13, 2018

18.8Other Recommendations

138

18.8.1Town Engineering Standards Update

138

18.8.2Allocated Capacity Updates

139

19References

141

APPENDICES Appendix A: Population Projections, W

ater Demands and Wastewater Flows

Appendix B: Project Cost Estimates

Appendix B1: Water Servicing Cost Estimates

Appendix B2: Wastewater Servicing Cost Estimates

Appendix C: Notice of Study Commencement

Appendix D: Phase 1 Consultation

Appendix D1: Technical Liaison Committee Meeting No. 1

Appendix D2: PIC No. 1

Appendix D3: Comments Received

Appendix E: Phase 2 Consultation

Appendix E1: Technical Liaison Committee Meeting No. 2

Appendix E2: Meeting with City of Barrie

Appendix E3: PIC No. 2

Appendix E4: Comments Received

Appendix E5: Notice of Study Completion


Page xi July 13, 2018

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Estimated Existing and Potential Future Serviced Population by Community

22

Table 2: Historical Per Capita Water Consumption and Max. Day Factors (2012-2017)

25

Table 3: Historical Water Supply to Bradford W

est Gwillimbury (2012-2017) 25

Table 4: Historical Per Capita Wastewater Flows at Lakeshore W

PCP 27

Table 5: Historical Per Capita Wastewater Flows at Cookstown W

PCP 28

Table 6: Water Consumption Criteria

29

Table 7: Wastewater Generation Criteria

32

Table 8: Water Storage in Lakeshore W

ater System 38

Table 9: Water Storage Requirements in Lakeshore W

ater System 39

Table 10: Existing and Projected Water Supply and Treatment Capacity Needs

40

Table 11: Sewage Pumping Stations in the Lakeshore Wastewater System

42

Table 12: Existing and Projected Wastewater Treatment Capacity Needs

44

Table 13: Comparative Assessment of Alcona Growth Areas Water Alternatives

53

Table 14: Stroud Water System Capacity vs Projected Requirements

59

Table 15: Comparative Assessment of Stroud Water Alternatives

61

Table 16: Innisfil Heights Water System Capacity vs Projected Requirements

71

Table 17: Comparative Assessment of Innisfil Heights Water Supply Alternative 3

Options 76

Table 18: Churchill Water System Capacity vs Projected Requirements

79

Table 19: Comparative Assessment of Innisfil Heights Wastewater Alternatives

88

Table 20: Comparative Assessment of Gilford Fire Protection Alternatives 96

Table 21: Goldcrest Water System Capacity vs Projected Requirements

97


Page xii July 13, 2018

Table 22: Comparative Assessment of Servicing Routes to Degrassi Point and Gilford 101

Table 23: Cookstown Water System Capacity vs Projected Requirements

103

Table 24: Summary of Comments Received during Phase 1 111

Table 25: Summary of Comments Received during Phase 2 113

Table 26: Short-Term Water Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA

Requirements and Triggers 120

Table 27: Mid-Term Water Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements

and Triggers 121

Table 28: Long-Term Water Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA


Table 29: Short-Term Wastewater Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA


Table 30: Mid-Term Wastewater Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA


Table 31: Long-Term Wastewater Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA


Table 32: Summary of Estimated Innisfil Heights Water Servicing Costs

135

Table 33: Summary of Estimated Innisfil Heights Wastetwater Servicing Costs

136

Table 34: Summary of Capital Project Costs 136

Table 35: Recommended Water Design Criteria for Town Standards

138

Table 36: Recommended Wastewater Design Criteria for Town Standards

139

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Overall Plan of Innisfil

9

Figure 2: Natural Environment Features 11

Figure 3: Existing Municipal Water Systems

12


Page xiii July 13, 2018

Figure 4: Existing Municipal Wastewater Systems

13

Figure 5: Areas of Future Growth 21

Figure 6: Lakeshore Water System Pressure Zones in Alcona and Lefroy

35

Figure 7: Alcona Growth Water Servicing Alternative 1

50

Figure 8: Alcona Growth Water Servicing Alternative 2

51

Figure 9: Innisfil North Water Servicing

55

Figure 10: Stroud Water System

58

Figure 11: Innisfil North Wastewater Servicing

64

Figure 12: Innisfil Heights Water System

70

Figure 13: Innisfil Heights Water Servicing – Alternative 3 – Option A

73

Figure 14: Innisfil Heights Water Servicing – Alternative 3 – Option B

75

Figure 15: Churchill Water System

80

Figure 16: Innisfil Heights Wastewater Servicing Alternative 4 – 6 th Line Route

84

Figure 17: Innisfil Heights Wastewater Servicing Alternative 5 – Innisfil Beach Road

Route 85

Figure 18: Innisfil Heights Wastewater Servicing Alternative 6A – Innisfil Beach Road/6 th

Line, Cookstown Flows to Innisfil Beach Road 86

Figure 19: Innisfil Heights Wastewater Servicing Alternative 6B – Innisfil Beach Road/6 th

Line, Cookstown Flows to 6 th Line 87

Figure 20: Innisfil South Water Servicing

94

Figure 21: Innisfil South Wastewater Servicing

100

Figure 22: Cookstown Water System

104

Figure 23: Cookstown Sanitary System 108

Figure 24: Recommended Water Servicing Projects

119

Figure 25: Recommended Wastewater Servicing Projects

127


Page 1 July 13, 2018

1Introduction

1.1M

aster Plan Purpose and Objectives

InnServices Utilities Inc. (InnServices) retained C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. to update the Innisfil Town-wide W

ater and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan, which was last updated in March 2012.

The purpose of the Master Servicing Plan Update (MSP Update) is to identify short and long term strategies for water and wastewater servicing to accommodate the population and employment growth outlined in the Official Plan (2018) and OPA No. 1, and to improve servicing to existing residents, all in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Official Plan.

Key objectives of the MSP Update include:

Provide water and wastewater servicing to the planned population and employment growth to the year 2031, and consider an ultimate servicing vision;

Provide opportunities to extend servicing to existing residents in unserviced areas;

Include logical phasing plans and maximize the number of benefitting users, to improve affordability and facilitate implementation;

Achieve environmental protection and public health goals;

Coordinate with the 2018 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to ensure that both studies are fully aligned and infrastructure projects are phased to avoid multiple disruptions to residents and business owners;

Include consideration of major rehabilitation and optimization projects to extend the life and functionality of the existing infrastructure.

1.2Report Organization

The report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 describes the project approach, including the Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment process.

Chapter 3 outlines the general problem statement for the Class EA study.

Chapter 4 presents the current regulatory context in which the MSP Update was undertaken.

Chapter 5 provides a general description of the study area and profiles of Innisfil’s communities, and summarizes the population and employment projections.



Chapter 6 reviews historical water demands and wastewater flows, suggests design criteria, and projects water and wastewater flows that will need to be accommodated.

Chapters 7 and 8 describe the Lakeshore water system and the Lakeshore wastewater system respectively, as these system serve the majority of the serviced population in Innisfil. Overall system needs are presented.

Innisfil’s servicing needs, solutions and recommendations are presented by community in Chapters 9 to 16. The communities are organized in four geographic areas, Innisfil North, Innisfil Central, Innisfil South, and Cookstown, as per the 2012 MSP.

Chapter 17 describes the public, stakeholder and agency consultation process and the comments that were received.

Chapter 18 presents the recommended servicing plans, the estimated infrastructure project costs, and suggests an implementation plan with priorities, triggers and timelines.



2Project Approach

2.1M

aster Plan Class EA Process

The Master Servicing Plan update is developed under the MEA Municipal Class EA process for Master Plans, and following Approach #2. Requirements for Schedule A, A+ and B projects will be fulfilled and a Notice of Completion of the Master Plan EA, including these projects, will be issued upon completion of the study.

The Municipal Class EA is a planning and design process to identify, compare and evaluate alternative solutions to a problem. It applies to all municipal road, water and wastewater projects, and significant private projects. It considers all aspects of the environment: natural, social, cultural and economic, and involves consultation with the public, affected parties and review agencies throughout the process.

Master plans are long-range plans that integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land uses with environmental assessment planning principles.

The Master Servicing Plan update will proceed through the first two phases of the Class EA process:

Phase 1: Problem or opportunity identification

Phase 2: Identification and assessment, at a strategic level, of alternative solutions, then recommendation of the preferred solutions of the Master Plan that can be implemented as separate subsequent projects.

Projects that are considered Schedule A, A+, or B undertakings under the Municipal Class EA process can then move to implementation once the Notice of Completion of the Master Plan Class EA has been issued.

Projects that are considered Schedule C undertakings will proceed with separate and more detailed investigations to fulfill the documentation requirements of the Class EA process, including the completion of Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA.

2.2Public and Agency Consultation Program

Public and agency consultation was an integral part of the development of the MSP Update. The general public, property owners, relevant government agencies, and adjacent municipalities were invited to provide input on the servicing needs and servicing alternatives at two Public Information Centres in November 2017 and March 2018. All comments and input received were taken into consideration for the evaluation of servicing alternatives and the updating of the servicing master plan. The Notice of Study Completion has been issued and the Final Draft MSP Update has been made available for review.



The consultation approach and the input received are presented in more detail in Chapter 17 of this report.

2.3Technical Liaison Com

mittee

The Master Servicing Plan Update was completed with the assistance and valuable input from the following members of the Technical Liaison Committee:

Tom Panak, InnServices Scott MacKenzie, Town of Innisfil Derek W

antuch, Town of Innisfil Tom Reeve, City of BarrieSherry Diemert, City of Barrie Rick Vatri, Town of New Tecumseth Mahesh Ramdeo, Town of Bradford W

est Gwillimbury Debbie Korolnek, County of Simcoe Tom Hogenbirk, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority



3Problem

Statement

The MSP Update Class EA needs to identify the most appropriate water and sanitary servicing approaches to:

increase the municipal water and wastewater systems capacity (trunk mains, pumping stations and treatment) to accommodate the planned residential and employment growth to the year 2031 and beyond, including intensification and green field developments, as well as the connections of existing lots to the municipal systems;

extend servicing to areas that are currently unserviced, with priority to Innisfil’s growth areas, and to shoreline areas to reduce potential impacts on Lake Simcoe water quality; and,

improve the wastewater collection network and the water distribution network to address issues with inadequate flows and pressures.

The servicing approaches need to be coordinated and phased in a manner that maximizes the number of benefitting users to improve affordability and implementation.

The detailed servicing needs and issues are presented by area in Chapters 7 to 16.



4Regulatory Fram

ework

Water and wastewater systems in the Town of Innisfil are governed by a variety of provincial legislation

and policy. This section briefly describes the regulatory framework under which the MSP Update was completed.

4.1Planning

Developed under the authority of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006, Office Consolidation 2013) provides a framework for infrastructure investment, including water and wastewater infrastructure, in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area so that existing and future investments are optimized to serve growth to the year 2031 and beyond. The Growth Plan sets future population and employment targets for each municipality, including the Town of Innisfil, and requires that growth be accommodated through intensification in existing settlement areas.

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) is the statement of the province’s policies on land use planning, made under the Planning Act, 1990. The PPS establishes the Town of Innisfil’s role in planning for growth, intensification and redevelopment through the Town’s Official Plan. The PPS identifies that planning for sewage and water services must accommodate expected growth in a manner that promotes the efficient use of existing municipal and private communal sewage and water services.

The Town of Innisfil Official Plan (OP) is the principal document used to guide long range planning for the Town. In January 2018, Town of Innisfil Council adopted the “Our Place” Official Plan 2018 that guides development to the year 2031. It replaces the previous 2006 OP that was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in May of 2009, March of 2010 and April of 2011. Official Plan Amendment No. 1 (OPA No.1) is the Town of Innisfil’s Growth Management Strategy. OPA No. 1 is a Town-initiated amendment that provides a policy framework for guiding population and employment growth in the Town to the year 2031. OPA No.1 was approved by the County of Simcoe in October 2009. It specifies a population target of 65,000 residents and an employment target of 32,500 by 2031.

Innisfil’s Our Place Official Plan (2018) presents a vision for managing and planning the growth of Innisfil in a manner that is responsible, deliberate and that provides sustainable and timely infrastructure. One of the OP’s goal is that growth be phased in tandem with infrastructure, and that expansion of the existing infrastructure be planned in an efficient and financially sustainable manner.

The Town of Innisfil updated its Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in March 2018. The TMP is a long-term plan to guide the Town towards a future transportation network to the year 2041. It meets the vision of the Town’s strategic plan (Inspiring Innisfil 2020), and builds on Provincial plans, County of Simcoe plans, and Innisfil’s Our Place Official Plan and Trails Master Plan. It considers the proposed Metrolinx Innisfil GO Station. The 2018 TMP update was taken into consideration in the preparation of the MSP



Update to ensure appropriate alignment of the two studies and consideration of the phasing of infrastructure projects to minimize disruptions to residents and business owners.

4.2W

ater

The provision of drinking water is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (SDW

A) and the Drinking W

ater Systems Regulation (O. Reg. 170/03 as amended). The SDWA deals with matters

related to the treatment and distribution of drinking water, including the control and regulation of drinking water systems. The treatment and testing requirements for all the water systems that are or will supply drinking water to the Town of Innisfil are specified under (O. Reg. 170/03).

TheClean Water Act, 2006 (CW

A) mandates the protection of municipal drinking water sources. Under CW

A and its regulations, source water protection plans have been developed to protect the sources of municipal drinking water such as the groundwater wells in Churchill, Stroud and Innisfil Heights, and the surface water intake at the Lakeshore W

TP. Any new municipal intake or groundwater well for the supply of water to Innisfil must meet the requirements of the CW

A and be managed under a source protection plan. Innisfil is governed by the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan, which came into effect July 1, 2015.

4.3W

astewater

The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities in the Lake Simcoe basin are regulated under the Ontario W

ater Resources Act, 1990 (OWRA). The OW

RA sets out requirements for the planning, design, construction and operation of sewage works. The OW

RA specifies requirements that the Town must satisfy in order for the province to grant approval for establishing, altering, extending, or replacing wastewater system components.

TheLake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 (LSPA) provides the framework for the development of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) and sets out its objectives. The LSPP, issued in June 2009, sets objectives to reduce the discharge of pollutants and the loadings of phosphorus and other nutrients of concern to Lake Simcoe and its tributaries. It sets out policies that prohibit the establishment of new municipal sewage treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed. A Phosphorus Reduction Strategy was published in June 2010. It set specific total phosphorus loading caps for each sewage treatment plant discharging to Lake Simcoe. Compliance with the Strategy is enforced through an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for each facility. The ECA for Innisfil’s Lakeshore W

PCP sets the maximum total phosphorus load of 629 kg/year.



5Study Area Profile

The MSP Update considers the entire Town of Innisfil as the Study Area. An overall description of the Town, its communities, and the projected total and serviced population and employment are presented in this Chapter.

5.1Tow

n of Innisfil

The Town of Innisfil is one of sixteen municipalities within the County of Simcoe and is located on the western shore of Lake Simcoe, approximately 80 km north of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Innisfil shares municipal boundaries with the City of Barrie to the north, including recently annexed lands near Stroud and Innisfil Heights, the Township of Essa to the west, the Town of New Tecumseth to the southwest, and the Town of Bradford W

est Gwillimbury to the south.

5.1.1Land Uses

Existing land uses in Innisfil consist of urban, village, hamlet and commercial settlement areas widely spread out within the municipal boundary and intermixed with rural, agricultural and open green space lands. Residential development exists along much of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The Town is comprised of the following nine settlement areas as illustrated on Figure 1:

AlconaLefroy- Belle Ewart Sandy Cove GilfordFennell’s Corner CookstownInnisfil Heights ChurchillStroud

The Town is also comprised of the following communities that are not Settlement Areas:

Big Cedar Point Shoreline Degrassi Point Shoreline Leonards Beach Shoreline Kempenfelt Bay/Big Bay Point Shoreline Highway 400 and 89 employment area

BARRIE

KEMPENFELT BAY(LAKE SIMCOE)

LAKE SIMCOE

ESSA TWP.

NEW TECUMSETH

BRADFORD WEST GWILLIMBURY

CHURCHILL

FENNELL'S CORNERS

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

25 S

ider

oad

COOKSTOWN

LEFROY - BELLE EWART

GILFORD

KEMPENFELT BAY/BIG BAY POINT SHORELINE

LEONARDS BEACH SHORELINE

BIG CEDAR POINTSHORELINE

DEGRASSI POINT SHORELINE

HIGHWAY 400 & 89AREA

INNISFIL TOWN CAMPUS

6TH LINE

3RD LINE

HIGHWAY 89

10TH LINE

LOCKHART RD.

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

4TH LINE

SHORE ACRES DR.

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

GILFORD RD.

13TH LINE

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

2ND LINE

7TH LINE

BIG BAY POINT RD.

9TH LINE

MAPLEVIEW DR.

SHOREVIEW DR.

YON

GE

ST.

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

15TH LINE

5 SI

DER

OA

D

10 S

IDER

OAD

20 S

IDER

OAD

COUNTY RD. 89

5TH LINE

14TH LINE

11TH

LIN

E

FRIDAY DR.

0 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000875Meters

LEGEND

INNISFIL NORTH

INNISFIL CENTRAL

INNISFIL SOUTH

COOKSTOWN &HIGHWAY 400/89

SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 1 OVERALL PLAN OF INNISFIL


Page 10 July 13, 2018

5.1.2Natural Environm

ent Features

Numerous streams and creeks stretch across the Town, many of which drain to Lake Simcoe, including W

ilson Creek just south of Lefroy, Innisfil Creek in the southeast and flowing into Bradford West

Gwillimbury, and Lovers Creek, which flows into Barrie to the north. Natural environment areas exist adjacent to the majority of these water bodies, as well as along much of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. Figure 2 shows the main natural environment features within the Town.

5.1.3Transportation

Innisfil’s transportation network includes provincial, county and local roads, trails, a new on-demand local transit service, and commuter transit service.

The major transportation corridor to Innisfil is Highway 400, which connects to the City of Barrie in the north and the GTA in the south. Access to/from Highway 400 is available at the Highway 89 interchange, connecting to Cookstown, and at the Innisfil Beach Road interchange, providing access to Alcona. Yonge Street (County Road 4) and 20

th Sideroad (County Road 39) are the other major north-south roads in Innisfil.

The GO Transit train line crosses Innisfil but currently doesn’t stop in Innisfil; GO Transit buses stop in Stroud and Churchill. A new GO train station is planned at the 6 th Line and 20 th Sideroad.

An update to Innisfil’s TMP was completed in 2018. It makes recommendations to improve the transportation network to accommodate the planned growth.

5.1.4W

ater and Wastew

ater Servicing

All Innisfil’s settlement areas are serviced by municipal water systems, as shown on Figure 3. The Town’s main water system, the Lakeshore water system (also referred to as the Innisfil Lake Simcoe Drinking W

ater System), is supplied by the Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant (W

TP) on Lake Simcoe. The W

TP services Alcona, Sandy Cove and Friday Harbour Resort, Lefroy-Belle Ewart, Gilford, Fennell’s Corners and Cookstown. It also supplies drinking water to the Town of Bradford W

est Gwillimbury. Three separate municipal groundwater systems serve Stroud, Churchill and Innisfil Heights. The remainder of Innisfil residents have individual private water supplies.

Alcona, Lefroy-Belle-Ewart, Sandy Cove and Friday Harbour Resort, and Cookstown are serviced by municipal sanitary sewer systems, as shown on Figure 4. The Lakeshore W

ater Pollution Control Plant (W

PCP) treats wastewater from Alcona and the shoreline, from Lefroy-Belle-Ewart to Big Bay Point. The Cookstown W

PCP serves Cookstown only. All other Innisfil residents rely on individual systems.

BARRIE


LAKE SIMCOE

ESSA TWP.

NEW TECUMSETH


COOKSTOWN

CHURCHILL

GILFORD

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

25 S

IDER

OAD



FENNELL'S CORNERS





3RD LINE

4TH LINE

HIGHWAY 89

6TH LINE

2ND LINE

7TH LINE

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

9TH LINE

15TH LINE

5TH LINE

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

10 S

IDER

OAD

14TH LINE

11TH

LIN

E

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

10TH LINE

0 1,800 3,600 5,400 7,200900Meters

LEGEND

STREAMS

NATURALENVIRONMENTAL AREA

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

BARRIE


LAKE SIMCOE

ESSA TWP.

NEW TECUMSETH


CHURCHILL

GILFORD

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS RESERVOIR & BPS

INNISFIL HEIGHTS WELL #2

INNISFIL HEIGHTSWELL #3

STROUD RESERVOIR,BPS & WELL #1, 2 & 3

LAKESHORE WTP

ALCONA RESERVOIR

LAKESHORE LOW LIFT PS

ALCONA ZONE 2 BPS

LEFROY RESERVOIR & BPS

THIRD LINE BPS

GOLDCREST STANDPIPE & BPS

COOKSTOWN STANDPIPES

COOKSTOWN

INNISFILHEIGHTS

CHURCHILL RESERVOIR,

BPS & WELL #1

CHURCHILL WELL #2

CHURCHILL WELL #3

TOWN CAMPUS BPS& RESERVOIR

25 S

ider

oad

FENNELL'S CORNERS






FRIDAY HARBOUR STANDPIPE

ALCONA TO BRADFORD WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN


6TH LINE

3RD LINE

HIGHWAY 89

10TH LINE

LOCKHART RD.

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

4TH LINE

SHORE ACRES DR.

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

GILFORD RD.

13TH LINE

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

2ND LINE

7TH LINE

BIG BAY POINT RD.

9TH LINE

20SI

DER

OA

D

MAPLEVIEW DR.

YON

GE

ST.

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

15TH LINE

5 SI

DER

OA

D

10S

IDE

RO

AD

COUNTY RD. 89

5TH LINE

14TH LINE

11TH

LIN

E

FR

IDAYDR

.

0 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000875Meters

LEGEND

!(WATER TREATMENTPLANT

!( SUPPLY WELL

!( PUMPING STATIONS

!( WATER RESERVOIRS

WATERMAINS

ROADS

SETTLEMENT²³

/

²³

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 3EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

SPS #6

SPS #7 SPS #4

LAKESHORE WPCP

SPS #2

SPS #3

SPS #1

SPS #5

COOKSTOWN SPS & WPCP

BARRIE


LAKE SIMCOE

ESSA TWP.

NEWTECUMSETH


COOKSTOWN

CHURCHILL

GILFORD

LEFROY

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

INNISFILHEIGHTS

SPS #8

FENNELL'S CORNERS





SPS #9


6TH LINE

3RD LINE

HIGHWAY 89

10TH LINE

LOCKHART RD.

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

4TH LINE

SHORE ACRES DR.

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

GILFORD RD.

13TH LINE

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

2ND LINE

7TH LINE

BIG BAY POINT RD.

9TH LINE

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

MAPLEVIEW DR.

YON

GE

ST.

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

15TH LINE

5 SI

DER

OA

D

10 S

IDER

OAD

COUNTY RD. 89

5TH LINE

14TH LINE

11TH

LIN

E

FR

IDAY

DR.

0 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000875Meters

LEGEND

²³WATER POLLUTIONCONTROL PLANT

²³SEWAGE PUMPINGSTATIONS

SANITARY SEWERFORCEMAINS

SANITARY SEWERS

SETTLEMENT

²³

/

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 4EXISTING MUNICIPAL

WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

²³

²³

²³


Page 14 July 13, 2018

Ownership and operation of all Town water and wastewater assets were transferred in January 2016 to InnServices Utilities Inc., a municipal services corporation owned by the Town. InnServices is responsible for the long-term planning and construction of expansion of the water and wastewater systems.

5.2Area Profiles

5.2.1Innisfil North

The communities in Innisfil North are: Alcona, Big Bay Point, Leonards Beach, Sandy Cove, and Stroud. The Innisfil North service area is shown on Figure 1.

Alcona

Alcona is the Primary Settlement Area in Innisfil, with an existing residential population of approximately 17,000. Alcona is a major service center for many of the smaller communities within the Town of Innisfil.

The community consists of mainly residential neighbourhoods with community parks and open space areas. The commercial areas are focused heavily along Innisfil Beach Road. Natural environment areas are found along two main streams and a number of smaller creeks within Alcona.

The Town Campus, where the Town’s, InnServices’ and InnPower’s administrative offices, as well as the Multi-use Recreational Facility (MURF), are located, is just outside of Alcona on Innisfil Beach Road.

A future GO Transit Station is planned to be located at the south limit of Alcona, where the railway crosses the 6 th Line. Higher density residential and mixed use developments are planned in proximity to the GO Station.

Alcona is serviced by the Lakeshore water system supplied by the Lakeshore WTP, and by municipal

sewers that flow to the Lakeshore WPCP.

Most of the residential growth in Innisfil is planned for Alcona. A 260 ha area in the south, referred to as South Alcona, and a 204 ha area in the north, referred to as North Alcona, are designated growth areas in OPA No. 1.

Big Bay Point

The Big Bay Point community is located in the north-eastern corner of Innisfil, at the mouth of Kempenfelt Bay, and east of the City of Barrie. Existing homes are primarily located along the shoreline area. There is an estate residential area along Big Bay Point Road and just to the east of Allandale Golf Course. The Kempenfelt Conference Centre grounds are located just north of the golf course on the shore of Kempenfelt Bay.


Page 15 July 13, 2018

A major development, the Friday Harbour Resort, is under construction at Big Bay Point, northeast of the intersection of Big Bay Point Road and the 25

th Sideroad. Friday Harbour Resort will ultimately comprise approximately 2,600 residential units, 400 hotel units and a commercial area. Occupancy started in 2018 in the first phase of the development.

Low wetland areas and agricultural lands cover the currently undeveloped areas, which are intersected by a stream that drains toward the south.

All existing residents in Big Bay Point rely on private wells and septic systems. The Friday Harbour Resort is serviced by the Lakeshore water and wastewater systems.

Sandy Cove

Sandy Cove is designated as an Urban Settlement Area. It is a residential and retirement community located between Big Bay Point and Leonards Beach. The current population is approximately 3,000. A significant portion of the residents live in the Sandy Cove Acres retirement community, located north and south of Lockhart Road and west of 25 th Sideroad. Existing commercial uses are few in Sandy Cove.

Lands surrounding Sandy Cove Acres are designated for future retirement and residential growth with some commercial areas along 25

th Sideroad. InnisVillage, an 800-unit residential subdivision is planned to be ready for occupancy in 2019.

Much of the settlement area is currently open green space and woodlands. Two significant streams flow easterly across the community to Lake Simcoe. A former landfill is located just south of the Sandy Cove settlement area.

Sandy Cove Acres is serviced by a private communal groundwater system and by a private sewer system that discharges to the Lakeshore sewer system. The remainder of the Sandy Cove area is mostly serviced by private individual wells and septic systems. Municipal water servicing is available to properties fronting on 25 th Sideroad and municipal wastewater servicing is available to properties on Lockhart Road.

Leonards Beach

The Leonards Beach Shoreline is a small, residential lakeshore community, located between Sandy Cove and Alcona. Residences are located along the 25

th Sideroad, the 10 th Line and the Lake Simcoe shoreline. Large woodland areas cover the rest of the community. Leonards Beach is serviced by the Lakeshore water and wastewater systems.


Page 16 July 13, 2018

Stroud

The Village of Stroud is centered at the intersection of Yonge Street and 10 th Line. The community consists of mainly single family residential homes within subdivisions that border on Yonge Street. The existing population is approximately 1,600.

Stroud has a commercial area along Yonge Street north of the 10th Line. The community also has a

school, several churches, and community recreational facilities. The GO Transit rail line runs along the northeastern border of Stroud. A small stream crosses through a large, undeveloped area in the southeastern corner of the community.

Stroud is serviced by a municipal groundwater supply and distribution system, and by private septic systems.

5.2.2Innisfil Central

The Innisfil Central service area consists of Innisfil Heights and Churchill, as shown on Figure 1.

Innisfil Heights

Innisfil Heights includes a commercial/industrial area that has been designated a Strategic Settlement Employment Area in the 2017 OP, and a residential community, the Innisbrook subdivision with a residential population of approximately 320. Innisfil Heights is located in the northwest area of Innisfil, and is bisected by Innisfil Beach Road and Highway 400. The existing residential subdivision and the existing businesses and industries are currently located on the eastern side of the Highway 400 corridor. OLG Georgian Downs is located on the west side of Highway 400.

Innisfil Beach Road is a major Highway 400 exit and represents the primary commercial and tourism gateway to Innisfil.

Expansion of the Innisfil Heights employment lands is planned, with the first phase to provide for growth within the boundary of the settlement area to provide approximately 325 ha of commercial/industrial land, and in the future, to add 320 ha for a total of 645 ha. The future expansion, as per OPA1, will extend the south boundary of the economic district from the 7 th Line south to the 5 th Line on both sides of Highway 400, and will include two parcels of land at the northern limit of the economic district. The future expansion of the employment lands is considered to occur post 2031.

Several small tributaries of Lovers Creek are located along the eastern boundary of Innisfil Heights flowing east toward Lovers Creek. W

ooded areas surround these streams and cover much of the lands to the east. An additional stream intersects the western border of the community north of Innisfil Beach Road and ultimately flows into the Nottawasaga River watershed.


Page 17 July 13, 2018

The Innisfil Heights area is currently serviced by the Innisfil Heights municipal groundwater system and by private individual septic systems.

Churchill

The Hamlet of Churchill is centered at the intersection of Yonge Street and 4th Line. As per the Town’s

Official Plan, it is intended that the community retain its current small hamlet character as growth occurs.The existing population is approximately 450.

Churchill consists primarily of single family home subdivisions, with a small commercial area on the north side of the 4 th Line at Yonge Street. The community has a park and community centre, a branch of the Innisfil Public Library, a curling club, and several churches. A small stream is located to the east and south of Churchill. W

oodland areas exist to the northeast and southeast of the community.

The community is serviced by the Churchill municipal groundwater system and by private individual septic systems.

5.2.3Innisfil South

The Innisfil South service area includes the communities south of Alcona: Lefroy-Belle Ewart, Big Cedar Point, Degrassi Point, Gilford and Fennell’s Corners, as shown on Figure 1.

Lefroy-Belle-Ewart

Lefroy-Belle Ewart is a Village Settlement Area on the Lake Simcoe shoreline with an estimated population of approximately 3,000. The community consists mainly of residential neighborhoods interspersed with large wooded greenspace areas. The commercial areas are primarily situated along Killarney Beach Road. Two small streams enter the community from the west and flow to Lake Simcoe, one just north of Killarney Beach Road and the second just north of Belle Aire Beach Road.

The Lakeshore water system has been extended to Lefroy-Belle-Ewart and currently services a residential subdivision in the northwest corner of the community through the Lefroy reservoir and BPS. The remainder of Lefroy is serviced by private water systems.

The majority of Lefroy is serviced by the Lakeshore sewer system. A few existing homes remain on private septic systems.

Gilford

The Hamlet of Gilford is located on the shore of Lake Simcoe at the east end of Highway 89 (Shore Acres Drive) and Gilford Road. The existing population is approximately 500. Gilford is a residential community of single family homes, with a golf course at its northeast boundary, several small parks and


Page 18 July 13, 2018

beach areas along the shoreline. Two streams flow into Gilford from the west that drain to canals connected to Lake Simcoe. Large woodland areas are located to north and south of Gilford.

Gilford is currently serviced by the Lakeshore water system supplied by the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main, and by private septic systems.

Fennell’s Corners

The Hamlet of Fennell’s Corners is a residential community of single family homes, with a small commercial area along Yonge Street, bounded by Highway 89 (Shore Acres Drive) to the north and Gilford Road to the south. The existing population is approximately 200.A small wooded area borders the north side of the community, east of Yonge Street.

Fennell’s Corners is currently serviced by the Lakeshore water system through a connection to the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main and the Goldcrest booster pumping station and reservoir, and by private septic systems.

Big Cedar Point

The Big Cedar Point Shoreline is a residential, lakeshore community, located between Alcona and Lefroy-Belle Ewart. There is a golf course north of the 6th Line, and the Lakeshore W

PCP on St. John’s Road. A large woodland area in the southwest corner of the community extends to Lefroy-Belle Ewart. A small creek flows southeast from the 6th Line and enters Lake Simcoe at the south end of St. John’s Road.

The Big Cedar Point Shoreline is serviced by the Lakeshore water system. Some areas of Big Cedar Point are serviced by the Lakeshore wastewater system, while the remainder is serviced by private septic systems.

Degrassi Point

The Degrassi Point Shoreline is a residential, lakeshore community, located between Lefroy-Belle Ewart and Gilford. Degrassi Point is largely covered by woodlands, with some agricultural lands in the southwest corner. Residential areas consist of estate homes located along the shoreline. The Lefroy Harbour Resort and associated commercial establishments are located in the north end of the community. A small stream flows into the north end of Degrassi Point and drains into the Lefroy Harbour canal system.

The Degrassi Point Shoreline is currently serviced by private water systems and private septic systems.


Page 19 July 13, 2018

5.2.4Cookstow

n and Highway 400 and 89 Area

This service area includes Cookstown and the area east of Highway 400 at Highway 89, as shown on Figure 1.

Cookstown

Cookstown is a Village Settlement Area at the intersection of Highways 27 and 89. It has an estimated population of 1,200 and is expected to grow to over 3,000 persons. This includes development of all available lands within the settlement boundaries and intensification of the downtown commercial area.

Cookstown consists of residential neighborhoods with a downtown commercial area at the intersection of, and along, Highways 27 and 89 that is designated as a Heritage Conservation District. Cookstown has a community centre, park, curling club, library school, and several churches. A tributary of the Nottawasaga River crosses the western Cookstown boundary. A tributary of Innisfil Creek extends across the southern portion of the community just north of the W

PCP.

Cookstown is serviced by municipal water from the Lakeshore water system, and by the Cookstown sanitary sewer system and W

PCP. A Class EA study is ongoing for the expansion of the WPCP.

Highway 400 & 89 Area

The Highway 400 & 89 area, located east of Highway 400, is comprised predominantly of commercial and industrial establishments, including the Cookstown Tanger Outlet Mall. The area includes several residential lots, a campground in the northeast quadrant of the intersection, and a golf course immediately north of the campground. A tributary of the Nottawasaga River passes by the area to the northwest.

The Highway 400 & 89 area is primarily serviced by individual wells and septic systems. The Outlet Mall is serviced by a connection to the municipal watermain to Cookstown and by a private wastewater lagoon system.

5.3Projected Residential Grow

th

From the 2016 census, the total population of the Town of Innisfil is calculated to be 36,566 persons, living in a total of 14,875 private dwellings, with an average household size of 2.7 ppu (Statistics Canada).

The population of Innisfil is expected to grow steadily at a rate of 2% to 3%

over the next 20 years (Long Range Financial Plan, Hemson, 2016), meeting or exceeding the residential population target set in Schedule 7 of the Growth Plan of 56,000 persons by 2031. Population growth will include additional seasonal residents, resulting from the Friday Harbour Resort in particular, which is not included in the Growth Plan targets. The population growth is a result of Innisfil’s location in relative proximity to the


Page 20 July 13, 2018

GTA and along Highway 400, and on the shore of Lake Simcoe. Overall, the population of Innisfil is forecast to almost double in the next 20 years, which is unprecedented in the history of Innisfil.

It is projected that approximately 11,000 new housing units will be built in the 2011-2031 period, the majority of which will be built in Alcona and Lefroy-Belle-Ewart, as shown on Figure 5. Approximately 3,500 new housing units (Innisfil Municipal Residential Land Budget, 2016) will be built within the built-up areas, thus meeting the intensification target of 33%

specified in the Growth Plan. Most of the remainder will be within designated greenfield areas, which are in Innisfil’s settlement areas. The Town’s housing unit forecast exceeds the Growth Plan Schedule 7 forecast, however this is not an issue as the surplus will occur in lands designated for urban use.

Based on the 2011 census, the overall residential unit occupancy was 2.68 ppu in 2011. This occupancy is projected to decrease to 2.57 ppu by 2031 based on the projected housing mix (Innisfil Municipal Residential Land Budget, 2016). An average residential unit occupancy of 2.65 was used for this MSP Update.

5.4Serviced Residential Population Projections

For the purposes of updating the MSP, an estimate of the residential population that could be serviced by municipal water and wastewater systems in each settlement area and adjacent service area, is required. Existing and projected serviced population projections to the year 2031 and beyond were compiled by InnServices with the assistance of Innisfil’s planning department, based on a review of water and wastewater accounts, development plans, and the Town’s GIS information base. Projected serviced populations include existing properties in settlement areas to which water and wastewater infrastructure could be extended, infill lots, and planned developments.

Table 1 summarizes, by community, the estimated existing population that was serviced by municipal water and wastewater systems in June 2017, and the estimated total population that could potentially in the future be municipally-serviced with water and/or wastewater. The latter includes populations within existing settlement areas or in existing communities adjacent to serviced settlement areas. This MSP Update will review if, when, and how these currently unserviced areas should be serviced.

More detailed population projections are included in Appendix A. Table 1 indicates that approximately 58%

of Innisfil’s population currently has municipal water service, and 65% has municipal wastewater

service, assuming a residential population of 36,000.

BARRIE


LAKE SIMCOE

ESSA TWP.

NEW TECUMSETH


CHURCHILL

FENNELL'S CORNERS GILFORD

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

COOKSTOWN






FUTURECAMPUS NODE


6th Line

3rd Line

Highway 89

10th Line

Lockhart Rd.

Innisfil Beach Rd.

4th Line

Shore Acres Dr.

Highw

ay400

30 S

rd.

Gilford Rd.

13th Line

Killarney Beach Rd.

2nd Line

7th Line

Big Bay Point Rd.

9th Line

Mapleview Dr.

Yong

e S

t.

Cou

nty

Rd.

27

15th Line

5 S

ider

oad

10 S

ider

oad

20 S

ider

oad

P ark L

n.

County Rd. 89

5th Line

Rob i nso

nPl.

14th Line

11th

Lin

e

FRIDAY

DR

.

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000Meters

LEGEND

INNISFIL HEIGHTSFUTURE GROWTH

ALCONA FUTUREGROWTH

SETTLEMENT

/

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 5 AREAS OF FUTURE GROWTH


Page 22 July 13, 2018

Table 1: Estimated Existing and Potential Future Serviced Population by Com

munity

Comm

unity

Existing Serviced Populations

Potential Future Serviced Population

1.

Water

Wastewater

2031Beyond

2031Cookstown

988 988

2,017 3,172

Fennell’s Corners 167

0 215

215 Gilford

331 0

1,505 1,505

Lefroy Belle-Ewart & Degrassi Point 193

2,846 7,269

7,269

Big Cedar Point 0

297 334

334 Alcona

16,343 16,072

35,956 41,455

Sandy Cove 419

3,093 7,666

9,476

Big Bay Point & Friday Harbour 0

0 7,950

11,066 Stroud

1,640 0

1,988 1,988

Churchill 448

0 591

591

Innisfil Heights 318

0 321

321

Total20,847

23,296 65,812

77,392 1.

The presentation of potential future serviced populations in this table does not imply these populations are proposed to be serviced.

5.5Em

ployment Grow

th

The Town’s employment is also projected to increase significantly over the next 20 years, from approximately 8,700 jobs in 2014 to 13,800 jobs in 2034 (Long Range Financial Plan, Hemson, 2016), an increase of 5,100 new jobs. The projections indicate Innisfil will meet the Growth Plan Schedule 8 employment target of 13,100 jobs.

Over half of these jobs will be population-related employment. This includes retail, education, health care, municipal government, etc.Development of the Town Campus at Innisfil Beach Road and Yonge Street will contribute to the creation of these jobs. A health campus node is also under consideration at Yonge Street and the 6 th Line (6 th Line Campus Node).

A significant percentage of the forecasted new jobs will be based in the provincially-designated Innisfil Heights Settlement Employment Area, which will eventually encompass an area of 645 ha including its future expansion area, as shown on Figure 5. The number of jobs per hectare in the Innisfil Heights employment lands is expected to increase once the lands are fully serviced.


Page 23 July 13, 2018

For the MSP Update, it was assumed employment growth will occur in the areas of Innisfil Heights, Alcona (including the Town Campus and the potential 6

th Line Campus Node), Big Bay Point and Cookstown.


Page 24 July 13, 2018

6W

ater Demands and W

astewater Flow

s

6.1Historical W

ater Demands

6.1.1Tow

n of Innisfil

Historical water demands for each of the municipal water systems from the years 2012 to 2017 were compiled. Table 2 presents the data for the systems that supply mostly residential areas. Data for the Cookstown water system is not included as this system was connected to the Lakeshore water system in April 2013. Data for the Goldcrest water system is shown, however, Fennel’s Corners was also connected to the Lakeshore system in October 2016.

The data indicates that in general average day demands for the Lakeshore Water System have

increased as the number of connections have increased. Water demands at the Churchill, Goldcrest,

Innisfil Heights and Stroud water systems have remained relatively constant. For all systems, the average and maximum day water demands were lower in 2017, potentially attributed to the wet summer and associated decrease in lawn watering and summer occupancy.

Per capita water consumption in Alcona ranged from 232 L/p/day to 262 L/p/day and averaged 246 L/p/day. W

ater consumption in the smaller Churchill, Goldcrest and Stroud water systems show a wider range, from 211 L/p/day to 298 L/p/day, with an average of 256 L/p/day. Per capita water consumption was lower in 2017 for all communities.

The maximum day factor (MDF) in Alcona ranged from 1.6 to 2.3. In Stroud and Churchill, which serve a much smaller population, the MDF was slightly higher, ranging from 1.9 to 2.5.

6.1.2Tow

n of Bradford West Gw

illimbury

As shown in Table 3, the average daily flow of water supplied by Innisfil to BWG has increased to 4,946

m3/day in 2017. The maximum day flow supplied to BW

G was 8,449 m3/day in 2015. This flow rate is

less than the agreed upon quantity of 10,700 m3/day (7,100 m

3/day + 3,600 m3/day) (W

ater Supply Agreement, 2004 and BW

G/Innisfil Water Supply Second Amending Agreement, 2012) that is available

until the Phase 3 Lakeshore WTP expansion is completed.


Page 25 July 13, 2018

Table 2: Historical Per Capita Water Consumption and Max. Day Factors (2012-2017) Drinking

Water System 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average

AlconaAvg. Water

Consumption (L/p/d) - 244 246 247 262 232 246

Max. Day Factor 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.9

ChurchillAvg. Water

Consumption (L/p/d) 266 262 246 240 253 211 242

Max. Day Factor 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.4

GoldcrestAvg. Water

Consumption (L/p/d) - 298 274 213 281 267

Max. Day Factor 2.3 4.7 - 4.9 4.8 4.2

StroudAvg. Water

Consumption (L/p/d) - 264 251 259 278 237 258

Max. Day Factor 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1

Table 3: Historical Water Supply to Bradford West Gwillimbury (2012-2017)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 6-YearAvg./Max/Total

Average Day Demand (m3/day) 4,445 4,283 4,287 4,879 4,907 4,946 4,624

Maximum Day Demand (m3/day) 6,996 6,971 7,098 8,449 7,540 7,190 8,449

Total Water Demand (m3) 1,628,574 1,565,036 1,300,281 1,484,781 1,496,236 1,805,131 1,546,673


Page 26 July 13, 2018

6.2Historical W

astewater Flow

s

The daily wastewater flows measured at the Lakeshore WPCP from 2007 to 2017, and at the Cookstown

WPCP from 2010 to 2017, were reviewed to determine the per capita wastewater generation rates. The

data was analyzed to separate the average and peak inflow and infiltration (I/I) rates from the domestic wastewater flow rates following the approach used for the Lakeshore W

PCP expansion Class EA study (Innisfil Lakeshore W

PCP Expansion ESR, 2010).

6.2.1Lakeshore W

PCP

As shown in Table 4, considering 9 years of data at the Lakeshore WPCP, the average per capita

wastewater generation rate was 352 L/p/day. Considering the past 5 years only, the average flow was slightly lower at 334 L/p/day. Of this average flow, a portion is considered base domestic flow and the other dry weather infiltration. The domestic wastewater flow averaged 288 L/p/day in the past five years. The 5-year average I/I contribution was 46 L/p/day. However, contribution of I/I to the average flow was higher in 2016 and 2017 than in previous years.

Analysis of the peak daily wastewater flow data shows that the per capita peak flow was lower in the past five years, averaging 716 L/p/day. The estimated wet weather I/I contribution to the peak flow varies: the highest per capita I/I was 560 L/p/day in 2016, less than was estimated based on earlier data.

6.2.2Cookstow

n WPCP

In Cookstown, as shown in Table 5, the historical data indicates an average per capita wastewater generation rate of 339 L/p/day over the last 8 years, and 323 L/p/day over the last 5 years. Domestic flow averaged 263 L/p/day in the past five years.

Peak per capita wastewater flow in Cookstown were higher than in the Lakeshore system. Peak flows averaged 920 L/p/day in the past 5 years. The estimated wet weather I/I contribution to the peak flows ranged from 500 L/p/day to 818 L/p/day.


Page 27 July 13, 2018

Table 4: Historical Per Capita Wastewater Flows at Lakeshore W

PCP

Year Average Per Capita Flows (L/p/d)

Peak Per Capita Flows (L/p/d)

Average Day Average Dry

Day Average I/I

Peak Day Peak I/I

2007 361

295 66

793 499

2008 415

351 64

1022 671

2009 390

318 72

1063 746

2010-2011 N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

2012 335

299 36

633 334

2013 345

304 41

705 401

2014 344

309 36

735 426

2015 299

258 41

510 252

2016 330

280 50

841 560

2017 352

290 62

790 501

9-year Avg. 352

300 52

788 488

9-year Max

1063 746

5-year Avg. 334

288 46

716 428

5-year Max

841 560


Page 28 July 13, 2018

Table 5: Historical Per Capita Wastewater Flows at Cookstown W

PCP

Average Per Capita Flows (L/p/d) Peak Per Capita Flows (L/p/d)

Year Average Day

Average Dry Day

Average I/I Peak Day

Peak I/I

2010 361

319 42

960 641

2011 392

281 111

708 427

2012 348

280 67

767 486

2013 361

305 56

1123 818

2014 386

313 73

898 585

2015 289

245 44

745 500

2016 275

223 53

974 751

2017 303

228 76

861 633

8-year Avg. 339

274 65

880 605

8-year Max

1123 818

5-year Avg. 323

263 60

920 658

5-year Max

1123 818

6.3Recom

mended Design Criteria

6.3.1W

ater Criteria

Residential Water Consum

ption

The 2012 MSP used water design criteria for the urban areas of Alcona, Big Bay Point and Lefroy of 300 L/cap/day for existing residential areas and 275 L/cap/day for future residential areas. For all other communities, design criteria of 325 L/cap/day for existing residential areas and 300 L/cap/day for future residential areas, were used. The rationale for lower future per capita water usage for new developments was based on the tendency for new developments to have a higher density and smaller lots, and therefore water consumption for irrigation purposes is expected to be less.

The Town of Innisfil Engineering Design Standards (revised 2016) requires the use of an average per capita water demand of 325 L/p/day for new developments.


Page 29 July 13, 2018

Based on a review of historical water usage data (see Table 2), the water usage criteria in the 2012 MSP and in the Town Standards are considered too conservative and could be reduced for assessing capacity of existing water infrastructure and planning new infrastructure.

For the Lakeshore water system that serves Alcona, where most of the growth has occurred, water consumption averaged 246 L/p/day over the past 5 years. Accordingly for this MSP Update, a criterion of 250 L/p/day is used for future homes, while a criterion of 275 L/p/day is used for the existing areas, to account for less efficient water fixtures and larger lots.

For the smaller communities and water systems of Churchill, Stroud and Innisfil Heights, per capita water consumption is slightly higher than in the Lakeshore water system. For this MSP Update, a per capita water consumption criterion of 300 L/p/day is used for existing homes and a criterion of 275 L/p/day is used for future homes.

The Lakeshore water system data for the past 5 years indicate that the MDF varied between 1.6 and 1.9, except for a 2.3 MDF in 2016. The 2008 MOE Design Guidelines suggest a MDF of 1.9 for estimating the maximum day demands from residential areas with a population of 10,000 to 25,000, and 1.8 for populations of 25,000 to 50,000. In view of the historical data and of the projected increase in the population serviced by the Lakeshore water system, a MDF of 1.8 is used for this MSP Update.

For Churchill, historical water system data demonstrate a MDF ranging between 1.9 and 2.5 for a connected populations of 450. As no significant growth is anticipated, a MDF of 2.5 is used for planning purposes. Similarly for Stroud, which has a connected population of 1,720, a MDF of 2.3 is used in accordance with historical data.

Industrial and Comm

ercial Water Consum

ption

Industrial/commercial water consumption rates vary widely based on the type of industry. For master planning purposes, a rate of 10 m

3/ha/day is applied for light industrial uses that are limited by on-site septic systems. In the future however, when municipal wastewater servicing is extended to Innisfil Heights, an estimated water consumption of 20 m

3/ha/day could occur and should be planned for.

The above criteria for calculating water demands in Innisfil are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Water Consum

ption Criteria

Planning Criteria Lakeshore

ChurchillStroud

InnisfilHeights

Existing Residential (L/person/day) 275

300 300

300

Future Residential (L/person/day) 250

275 275

275

Industrial (m3/ha/day)

20

Maximum Day Factor 1.8

2.5 2.3

1.8


Page 30 July 13, 2018

Distribution System

The following minimum distribution system pressures are used in the assessment of the water systems, as outlined in the MOE Design Guidelines:

Normal operating pressures ranging from 350 kPa (50 psi) to 550 kPa (80 psi) under average day and maximum day demand.

Maximum pressures should not exceed 620 kPa (90 psi).

Minimum pressure of 275 kPa (40 psi) under peak hour demand.

Minimum pressure of 140 kPa (20 psi) under maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions.

Velocity in all watermains should not exceed 2 m/s under maximum day conditions.

Fire Flows

The Town of Innisfil Engineering Design Standards (revised 2016), require minimum fire flows of 38 L/s in residential areas and 75 L/s in industrial areas. The Town’s Standards also require that the 1999 Guidelines by the Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) entitled: “W

ater Supply for Public Fire Protection” be applied.

The FUS guidelines outline a methodology for estimating the fire flow requirements for municipal fire protection on a building by building basis, based on materials of construction, size, fire protection, proximity to other buildings, etc. Although the required fire flows calculated using the FUS approach can vary significantly, the FUS guidelines include a simplified approach for detached and small two-family dwellings that provide useful guidance for planning for fire flows. FUS suggests that adequate fire flows for small detached and semi-detached homes could range from 33 L/s to 100 L/s, as follows:

Less than 3 m apart: 100 L/s Spaced 3 to 10 m apart: 67 L/s Spaced 10 to 30 m apart: 50 L/s Greater than 30 m apart: 33 L/s

For the purpose of this MSP Update, a range of fire flows of 38 L/s to 100 L/s is used for evaluating the available fire flows within existing and proposed residential areas, depending on the home density. Higher fire flow rates are required for multiple/attached townhomes and apartment buildings and should be calculated using the FUS methodology based on the specific characteristics of the proposed buildings. A fire flow duration of 2 hours, as recommended by FUS for fire flows of 6,000 L/min (100 L/s), is considered the minimum duration to provide adequate fire protection.

For the Lakeshore water system, due to the large population served, the MOECC suggested criterion of 378 L/s for 6 hours for an equivalent population of 40,000 persons, is used in this MSP Update to assess the adequacy of the water storage facilities.


Page 31 July 13, 2018

For the Innisfil Height employment area, the new reservoir and booster pumping station were designed and built to supply a fire flow of 190 L/s for 3 hours.

In summary, the MSP evaluates storage and pumping capacity requirements based on the following criteria:

Lakeshore water system storage: 378 L/s for 6 hours

Innisfil Heights and other employment areas: 190 L/s for 3 hours

Distribution systems in new residential areas: minimum of 100 L/s for 2 hours

Distribution systems in existing residential areas: minimum of 38 L/s for 2 hours

6.3.2W

astewater Criteria

Residential Wastew

ater Flows

Analysis of wastewater flows in the past 5 years indicate that the average daily per capita wastewater flow was similar in the Alcona and the Cookstown systems: 334 L/p/day at the Lakeshore W

PCP and 323 L/p/day at the Cookstown W

PCP. Overall, there is no decrease in per capita average wastewater flows in the past 5 years.

For this MSP Update, based on a review of historical data (Tables 4 and 5), an average per capita wastewater generation rate of 350 L/p/day is used for existing sewered areas. As lower per capita wastewater flows are projected in newly sewered areas, a lower average per capita wastewater criterion of 325 L/p/day is used for future sewered areas. These criteria are more conservative than the values previously used in the 2012 MSP (275 L/p/day to 325 L/p/day), but reflect more closely the historical data.

Inflow and Infiltration

Peak wastewater flows are calculated by applying the Harmon peaking factor to the domestic component (average dry day) of the wastewater flows, and adding a peak I/I flow.

Based on the historical peak I/I rates, a peak I/I of 600 L/p/day is used for the existing areas in the Lakeshore system, and a peak I/I of 800 L/cap/day is used for existing areas in Cookstown.

For future sewered areas, a peak I/I rate of 400 L/p/day is a conservative value that corresponds with MOECC guidelines. A lower peak I/I rate is justified because new infrastructure installed using newer and better construction methods can be expected to result in lower inflow and infiltration contributions.


Page 32 July 13, 2018

Industrial and Comm

ercial Wastew

ater Flows

An average day wastewater flow generation rate for future industrial and commercial area of 20 m

3/ha/day is used in the MSP Update. It is acknowledged that wastewater flow rates can vary significantly depending on the type of commercial or industrial operations. A value of 20 m

3/ha/day is considered conservative and appropriate for planning purposes. A peaking factor of 2 is used to account for peak inflow and infiltration and daily variations in flow rates. These values are consistent with MOECC guidelines and standards in other communities.

Table 7 summarizes the above criteria used for calculating wastewater flows. The peak residential wastewater flows are calculated as follows:

Residential Peak Flow = (Average Domestic Flow x Harmon) + Peak Inflow and Infiltration

Table 7: Wastewater Generation Criteria

Planning Criteria Existing

Sewered Areas Future

Sewered Areas Average Day Flows

Residential incl. average I/I (L/person/day) 350

325

Industrial and Commercial (m3/ha/day)

20 20

Residential Peak Flows

Average Domestic Flow (to be multiplied by Harmon Factor) 300

275

Peak I/I – Lakeshore system (L/person/day) 600

400

Peak I/I – Cookstown (L/person/day) 800

400

Industrial/Comm

ercial Peak Flows

Peak Industrial and Commercial, incl. I/I (m3/ha/day)

40 40

6.4W

ater Demand and W

astewater Flow

Projections

Projected water demands and wastewater flows, using the water consumption and wastewater generation rates outlined in Section 6.3, are compiled in Appendix A, Tables A1 and A2.


Page 33 July 13, 2018

7Lakeshore W

ater System

The Lakeshore water system supplies drinking water to Alcona, the Leonards Beach shoreline, parts of Lefroy, Gilford, Fennel’s Corners and Cookstown, as well as to the Friday Harbour Resort. It also supplies drinking water to the Town of Bradford W

est Gwillimbury. The current extent of the Lakeshore water distribution system is shown on Figure 3. This chapter describes the components of the Lakeshore water system as well as the system needs and issues and recommended upgrades.

7.1Lakeshore W

ater System Description

7.1.1Lakeshore W

ater Treatment Plant

The Lakeshore water system (Innisfil Lake Simcoe Drinking Water System) is supplied by the Lakeshore

WTP, located on the 25 th Sideroad just north of Innisfil Beach Road in Alcona, beside Innisfil Beach

Park.

Phase 3A expansion of the WTP is under construction and expected to be in operation in the fall of 2018.

Two subsequent expansion phases are planned, Phases 3B and 3C. These expansions will increase the W

TP production from its current capacity of 25.8 ML/day as follows:

Phase 3A: 38 ML/day (at 20°C) and 30 ML/day (at 3°C). Phase 3B: 55 ML/day (at 20°C) and 44 ML/day (at 3°C). Phase 3C: 85 ML/day (at 20°C) and 68 ML/day (at 3°C).

The Lakeshore WTP treats water from Lake Simcoe, drawn from a 900 mm intake pipe, approximately

500 m long. A low lift pumping station houses the raw water screens and four pumps. The WTP

expansion will include replacement of the low lift pumps in stages with higher capacity vertical turbine pumps equipped with VFDs.

For the Phase 3 WTP expansion, the existing media filters and flocculation/clarification units will be

removed and replaced with a 2-stage membrane filtration system. The existing five GAC contactors for seasonal taste and odour control will be retained and three new contactors will be added.

The existing WTP uses chlorination and a chlorine contact tank for primary disinfection. Two new UV

units will be added upstream of the new membrane filters for primary inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Chlorine will be added to the high lift pumping station discharge header for maintenance of residual in the distribution system.

The high lift pumping station that pumps treated water from the clear wells to the distribution system has four 110 L/s vertical turbine pumps. A fifth pump, with a capacity of 289 L/s and equipped with a VFD, will be added, increasing the firm high lift pumping capacity to 440 L/s in Phase 3A.


Page 34 July 13, 2018

The existing 600 kW standby generator is to be replaced with a 1250 kW

diesel generator. The new generator will provide 36 hours of standby power to the expanded W

TP.

7.1.2Alcona Reservoir

Water treated at the Lakeshore W

TP is conveyed to the Alcona Reservoir via a 500 mm watermain on Innisfil Beach Road.

The Alcona Reservoir is a two-cell grade level 8,700 m3 water reservoir located on Innisfil Beach Road,

west of the 20 th Sideroad. It provides storage to meet the peak hour demands, to supply fire flow when required, and for other emergencies.

Provision was made during the design for a subsequent expansion with a third cell for a total volume of 13,050 m

3.

7.1.3Pressure Zones

The Lakeshore water system has several pressure zones. Pressure zone boundaries are generally determined based on elevation and the design operating pressures of the pumps and reservoirs that service a particular area. The Lakeshore water system’s pressure zones are as follows:

There are two pressure zones in Alcona, with the boundary between Pressure Zones 1 and 2 at an approximate ground elevation of 250 m. The majority of Alcona’s existing residents and the Leonards Beach shoreline are in the lower Alcona Pressure Zone 1, supplied by the Alcona reservoir and the high lift pumps at the Lakeshore W

TP. The higher elevation areas of Alcona are in Pressure Zone 2 and are supplied by the Alcona Zone 2 BPS.

In Lefroy-Belle-Ewart, areas serviced by the Maple Road/Belle Aire Beach Road trunk watermain east of the rail line are in the Alcona Pressure Zone 1. Higher elevation areas west of the rail line and at an elevation above 230 m are in the Lefroy Pressure Zone 2, which is supplied by the Lefroy BPS and reservoir.

Gilford is in a separate pressure zone, controlled by a pressure reducing valve on the connection to the Innisfil-BW

G water transmission main.

Fennell’s Corners is in a separate pressure zone serviced by the Goldcrest standpipe and BPS.

Cookstown has one pressure zone serviced by the two Cookstown standpipes.

Figure 6 presents the pressure zones in Alcona and Lefroy-Belle Ewart.

LEGEND

PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE

!( PUMPING STATIONS

!( WATER RESERVOIRS

WATER TREATMENT PLANT

WATERMAINS

ALCONA FUTURE GROWTH AREAS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

ALCONA

PRESSURE ZONE 1

PRESSURE ZONE 2

PRESSURE ZONE 3

LEFROY

PRESSURE ZONE 2

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

LAKESHORE WTP


ALCONA RESERVOIR

LAKESHORE LOW LIFT PS

LEFROY RESERVOIR

& BPS

ALCONA TO BRADFORD WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN

THIRD LINE BPS

ALCONA

STROUD

!


ALCONA ZONE 2 BPS


9TH LINE

6TH LINE

7TH LINE

3RD LINE

10TH LINE

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

YON

GE

ST.

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

5TH LINE

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

EWART ST.

J ANS

BLV

D.

PIN

E AV

E.

MAPLE RD.

BELLE AIRE BEACH RD.

HA

RB

OU

R S

T.

CO

RN

ER A

VE

.

JAMES ST.

HOUSTON AV

E.

LEA

RD

.

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

²³

0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375Meters

²³

/

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 6 LAKESHORE WATER SYSTEM PRESSURE ZONES


Page 36 July 13, 2018

7.1.4Tow

n Campus W

ater Supply System

A booster pumping station at the Alcona Reservoir supplies water to the Town Campus at Yonge Street and Innisfil Beach Road, that comprises the Town Hall, the Multi Use Recreational Facility (MURF) and a new private school. The BPS at the Alcona Reservoir has a capacity of 8.7 L/s and pumps via a 150 mm watermain along Innisfil Beach Road to the Town campus water system.

The Town Campus water system consists of a 460 m3 reservoir and a BPS with three vertical turbine

pumps, two with capacities of 15.8 L/s and VFDs and one with a capacity of 47 L/s. This system provides drinking water and fire protection to the existing buildings.

7.1.5Alcona Zone 2 Booster Pum

ping Station

The Alcona Zone 2 BPS, located at the south west corner of Innisfil Beach Road and Webster Boulevard,

supplies Alcona Pressure Zone 2. It houses four in-line vertical turbine pumps, equipped with VFDs (one pump at 31 L/s, two pumps at 62 L/s, and one pump at 90 L/s), providing a firm capacity of 155 L/s. A diesel generator set provides stand-by power.

7.1.6Innisfil-BW

G Water Transm

ission Main and Third Line Booster Pum

ping Station

The 26 km long Innisfil to BWG water transmission main (W

TM) delivers treated water from the Alcona reservoir to the John Fennel grade-level reservoir in BW

G, located on the 10th Sideroad south of the 12 th

Line. Water flows to BW

G are measured at a monitoring station in Fennell’s Corners.

From Alcona to Lefroy, the water transmission main is 600 mm in diameter and is routed along Innisfil Beach Road and the 20 th Sideroad. From Lefroy to the BW

G reservoir, the transmission main is 500 mm in diameter and runs along the 20 th Sideroad, Highway 89 and Yonge Street. Connection points provide water to Lefroy, Gilford, Fennell’s Corners and Cookstown. The W

TM was designed to convey 170 L/s to communities in Innisfil and 180 L/s to BW

G for a total flow of 350 L/s.

The Third Line BPS, located on the 20 th Sideroad at the 3 rd Line, boosts the pressure in the Innisfil-BWG

water transmission main to supply water to BWG, Cookstown, Gilford and Fennell’s Corners. The Third

Line BPS houses four constant speed vertical turbine pumps installed in cans, with a firm capacity of 108 L/s, and a diesel generator set. It is designed for a Phase 2 expansion to increase the firm pumping capacity to 185 L/s.

The design of an expansion of the Third Line BPS and twinning of the water transmission main from the BPS to the BW

G reservoir is currently underway, in order to increase the water supply to BWG from 13

ML/day to 25.4 ML/day.


Page 37 July 13, 2018

7.1.7Goldcrest W

ater System

The Goldcrest water system serves Fennell’s Corners. It was, until 2017, supplied by groundwater wells. The wells have been decommissioned and the groundwater supply has been replaced with a supply from the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main.

The Goldcrest water system consists of a 483 m3 standpipe and a BPS with four constant speed, inline

vertical pumps with capacities of 2.5 L/s, 8.7 L/s (2 pumps), and 38 L/s (fire pump). A standby diesel generator provides emergency power to the entire BPS.

7.1.8Cookstow

n Water System

The Cookstown water distribution system is supplied from the Lakeshore water system via a trunk water main on Highway 89 connected to the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main. Prior to 2013, Cookstown was supplied by a communal groundwater system.

Treated water storage in Cookstown is provided by two standpipes that have a combined capacity of 1,908 m

3 and a usable capacity of 1,466 m3. The original (west) standpipe is a painted steel standpipe

that was constructed in the 1970s. The east standpipe is a glass-fused-to-steel standpipe, constructed in 1990.

7.1.9Lefroy W

ater System

The Lefroy reservoir and BPS facility is located at the southeast corner of the 20 th Sideroad and Belle Aire Beach Road.

The reservoir is supplied from the trunk watermain on Belle Aire Beach Road, and can also be supplied from the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main in an emergency. The Lefroy reservoir is a two-cell grade level tank with a total volume of 2,100 m

3. It is designed for two additional cells to double the storage volume to 4,200 m

3. A second expansion is also possible on the site. The Lefroy reservoir was designed to supplement the Alcona reservoir to provide fire protection, flow equalization and emergency storage for the entire Lakeshore water system.

The Lefroy BPS pumps water from the reservoir into the Lefroy Pressure Zone 2 by four vertical turbine pumps, providing a firm capacity of 217 L/s. This capacity is sufficient to supply a fire flow of 190 L/s. The BPS is designed for a stage 2 expansion that will involve the replacement of one of the pumps to double the capacity to meet the domestic water demands in Lefroy Pressure Zone 2 from an equivalent population of approximately 3,900.

7.1.10Friday Harbour W

ater System

The Lakeshore water system supplies water to the Friday Harbour Resort in Big Bay Point via the trunk watermain on 25 th Sideroad. In Friday Harbour, the system includes a water standpipe with an operating


Page 38 July 13, 2018

volume of 3,306 m3. The standpipe was designed to provide the required storage volume for Friday

Harbour Resort, the golf course and the existing Big Bay Point community, and to supply a fire flow of 166 L/s for 2 hours. It includes a re-chlorination facility.


ater System Needs

The capacity of the Lakeshore WTP to supply the existing and projected water demands, and the

available treated water storage volume in all the reservoirs in the Lakeshore water system, were assessed to determine if there are any existing or projected shortfalls. Detailed calculation tables are included in Appendix A, Table A3.

7.2.1W

ater Storage Requirements

As summarized in Table 8, the Lakeshore water system currently has 16,055 m3 of available storage

volume in five reservoirs (including the newly built standpipe at Friday Harbour Resort), to meet peak water demands and provide fire protection. This storage volume is sufficient to meet the needs of the currently connected population.

With the planned expansions of the reservoirs in Alcona and Lefroy, Innisfil will have a total storage

volume of 22,915 m3. This volume represents 98%

of the calculated storage volume requirement of 23,320 m

3 for the projected serviced populations of 63,000 to the year 2031 in the existing service areas (see Table 9). The planned water storage expansions are therefore adequate for the needs to 2031, and based on current projections, will need to be constructed and commissioned by 2031.

Considering anticipated growth beyond 2031, a water storage shortfall of approximately 3,000 m3 is

forecasted, mainly for Alcona and Cookstown. A review of the water storage needs will be required as the serviced population and serviced industrial/commercial lands reach 75%

of the 2031 projections.

Table 8: Water Storage in Lakeshore W

ater System

Existing Storage Volume

(m3)

Future Storage Volume (m

3)

Alcona Reservoir 8,700

13,050

Lefroy Reservoir 2,100

4,200

Goldcrest Standpipe 483

483

Cookstown Standpipes 1,466

1,466

Friday Harbour Standpipe 3,306

3,716

16,055

22,915


Page 39 July 13, 2018

Table 9: Water Storage Requirem

ents in Lakeshore Water System

Comm

unityMDD

(m3/day)

Fire Storage Equaliz.

.(m3)

Emerg.

(m3)

Total(m

3)Flow(L/s)

Duration(hrs)

Volume

(m3)

2017

Alcona and Lefroy 9,295

290 5

5,220 2,324

1.886 9,430

Fennell’s Corners 83

38 2

274 21

74 368

Cookstown 1,166

100 2

720 292

253 1,264

Total 2017 Required Storage

11,062

2031

Alcona and Lefroy26,574

378 6

8,165 6,664

3,702 18,510

Fennell’s Corners106

38 2

274 27

75 375

Cookstown1,632

100 2

720 408

282 1,410

Big Bay Point 4,895

166 2

1,195 1,224

605 3,024

Total 2031 Required Storage

23,319

7.2.2W

ater Supply and Treatment Capacity

The maximum day demand in the Lakeshore water system’s service areas of Alcona, Sandy Cove, Big Bay Point, Lefroy, Gilford, Fennell’s Corners and Cookstown is projected to increase from the current demands of 7,800 m

3/day (2017 MDD) to 33,200 m3/day in 2031 if all proposed developments are built

and all currently unconnected properties in the current serviced areas connect to the water distribution system. Further, as described in Chapters 9 and 11, other service areas are proposed to be connected to the Lakeshore water system, namely Innisfil Heights and Stroud, both by 2031.

In addition, the Town of BWG is planning to gradually increase its water taking from the Lakeshore water

system from the current maximum rate of 7,200 m3/day (2017 MDD) to 25,400 m

3/day by 2031. It is noted that BW

G is revising its projected water servicing needs and may extend the period by which this water flow will be required.

Table 10 summarizes the current and projected water demands from the Lakeshore WTP and the

proposed WTP Phase 3 expansion capacities. As the Phase 3 expansion utilizes membrane filtration,

the actual treatment capacity varies with the water temperature. The higher treatment capacity is achieved when the raw water is warmest, which is also when the maximum water demands typically occur (in the summer).


Page 40 July 13, 2018

The Phase 3A WTP expansion, which will be commissioned in the fall of 2018 will accommodate a

doubling of the 2017 maximum day water demands. The Phase 3B WTP expansion will include a

twinning of the water intake. The Phase 3C WTP expansion is projected to need to be built by 2031 to

meet the projected 2031 water demands. However, the timing of the Phase 3B and Phase 3C expansions need to be reviewed in the next 5 years because the projected number of new connections and the estimated water usage in the expanded Innisfil Heights employment lands are conservative.

In summary, the planned Lakeshore WTP expansions are projected to provide sufficient treated water

for both Innisfil and BWG’s needs to the year 2031.

The Lakeshore WTP capacity can be increased beyond the currently planned expanded capacity, on

the existing site. A Class EA study for an expansion to a capacity of 99.7 ML/day was completed in 2011.

Table 10: Existing and Projected Water Supply and Treatm

ent Capacity Needs

Serviced Areas 2017 MDD (ML/day)

Projected MDD (ML/day)

ExistingW

TPCapacity(ML/day)

Proposed WTP Expansions

(ML/day)

2031Beyond

2031Phase

3APhase

3BPhase

3CInnisfil Current Service Areas

7.8 33.2

41.8

Innisfil Potential Service Areas (Innisfil Heights, Stroud)

7.3 20.5

BWG

1. 7.2

25.4 TBD

Total 15

65.9 87.7

25.8 30 - 38

44 – 55 68 - 85

Notes:1. BW

G’s projected water demands from Innisfil to 2031 are from discussions with BWG in 2013. BW

G water demands from Innisfil beyond 2041 are not available.


Page 41 July 13, 2018

8Lakeshore W

astewater System

The Lakeshore wastewater system serves Alcona, a portion of Leonard’s Beach and Sandy Cove Acres in Innisfil North, as well as Innisfil South to and including Lefroy-Belle-Ewart. The Lakeshore wastewater system consists of a network of sanitary sewers, seven sewage pumping stations, and the Lakeshore W

PCP, as shown on Figure 4.

8.1Lakeshore W

astewater System

Description

8.1.1Sew

age Pumping Stations

The sewage pumping stations and their service areas are described below. Their current capacity and the projected peak flows resulting from growth in their service area are summarized in Table 11.

SPS #1

SPS #1 receives sewage flows from the serviced areas of Lefroy Belle-Ewart and pumps directly to the Lakeshore W

PCP. A capacity upgrade was completed in 2017 including new pumps and a second forcemain. This upgrade will provide sufficient capacity to convey the projected flows to 2031 from Lefroy, as well as eventually from Degrassi Point, Gilford and Churchill.

SPS #2

SPS #2, located on 6 th Line, receives sewage flows from a small area of the Big Cedar Point Shoreline. Its forcemain discharges to the headworks of the Lakeshore W

PCP. The SPS was upgraded with a new PLC and SCADA system in 2015/2016, and new pumps were installed in 2016.

A new and larger pumping station has been designed to provide sufficient capacity to convey flows from the 6 th Line developments (Sleeping Lion) as well as from the Alcona South growth area and the Innisfil Heights employment area. The new SPS #2 will be located on the 6th Line, and will discharge directly to the Lakeshore W

PCP. The new SPS # 2 will be built in two phases; the first phase will have a capacity of 355 L/s. The existing SPS #2 is expected to be maintained to provide service to its existing service area until a connection is made to the new SPS #2.

SPS #3

SPS #3, located on Cedar Grove Avenue, receives sewage flows from Alcona, including from SPS #4 and SPS #7, as well as from the serviced portions of Leonards Beach and Sandy Cove, and from the new trunk sewer that services Friday Harbour Resort. SPS #3 was upgraded in 2014.


Page 42 July 13, 2018

Table 11: Sewage Pumping Stations in the Lakeshore W

astewater System

Facility Location

No.Pum

ps

Pump

RatedCapacity

(L/s)

TotalRated

Capacity(L/s)

Required Pumping Capacity

(Peak Flows) (L/s) Com

ments

20172031

Beyond2031

SPS #1 Belle Aire Beach Rd

3 86

172 55

114 134

Adequate

Ex. SPS #2 6th Line

2 20.7

20.7 3.3

Adequate

New SPS #2 6 th Line

247 606

DesignComplete

SPS #3 7 th Line

3 223

446 319

584 642

ExpansionRequired

SPS #4 9 th Line

3 115

230 151

417 470

ExpansionRequired

SPS #5 Killarney

Beach Rd 2

61 61

5.5 7.1

7.1 Adequate

SPS #6 Town

Campus 2

10 10

6.5 10

Adequate for

Existing

SPS #7 Alcona

2 2.4

2.4 0.4

Not needed in future

SPS #8 Mapleview

Dr.2

96.4 96.4

96 141

141 ExpansionPlanned

SPS #9 Friday Dr.

2 118

118 94

131 131

ExpansionPlanned

SPS #4

SPS #4, on Crystal Beach Road, services the northeastern portion of Alcona and also receives sewage flows from Leonard’s Beach, Sandy Cove and Friday Harbour. SPS #4 was upgraded with new PLC and SCADA in 2015/2016 and new VFDs in 2016.

SPS #5

SPS #5 services a small area in the south of Lefroy. SPS #5 was upgraded in 2015/2016 with new PLC and SCADA systems.

SPS #6

SPS #6 services the Town Campus, including the Town Hall, the MURF, the OPP building, and the new private school. The SPS controls are located in the MURF water control building.


Page 43 July 13, 2018

SPS #7

SPS #7 serves a small area in Alcona North, and can be eliminated by extending the gravity sewer system through to Spring Street. This will occur once future planned development on Spring Street proceeds.

SPS #8

SPS #8, on Mapleview Drive just west of 25 th Sideroad, was constructed in 2017. It receives wastewater from Friday Harbour Resort and was designed to accommodate flows from the existing Big Bay Point community. It is designed for a second phase expansion as Friday Harbour Resort develops.

SPS #9

SPS #9 is located within Friday Harbour Resort and was recently assumed by InnServices. It conveys wastewater from Friday Harbour Resort to the 25

th Sideroad. It was designed to accommodate flows from the existing Big Bay Point community. It is designed for a second phase expansion as Friday Harbour Resort develops.

8.1.2Lakeshore W

PCP

The Lakeshore WPCP, located on St. John’s Road, just north of the 6 th Line, has an average day rated

capacity of 14,370 m3/day and a peak flow capacity of 39,960 m

3/day. The WPCP is an extended

aeration activated sludge facility, with tertiary filters and UV disinfection. The treated effluent is discharged to an outfall to Lake Simcoe with a capacity of 51,322 m

3/day. The WPCP was last expanded

in 1996. A septage receiving facility was recently added.

In 2017, the WPCP treated an annual average daily flow of 10,700 m

3/day, which corresponds to 74%

of its average day rated capacity. The peak flow was 24,000 m3/day or 60%

of the peak flow capacity. The W

PCP has been performing well and meets its effluent quality compliance criteria consistently, including its total phosphorus effluent limit of 0.3 mg/L

A Municipal Class EA study, including pilot tests of tertiary phosphorus removal technologies, was completed in 2011 for its expansion to an average day capacity of 40,000 m

3/day to accommodate planned growth. The expansion is planned to be completed in two stages: the first expansion stage (Stage 3) will expand the facility to an average day capacity of 25,000 m

3/day and will add membrane filtration for tertiary phosphorus removal. The second expansion stage (Stage 4) will increase the capacity to 40,000 m

3/day and will involve modifying the secondary treatment process to a conventional activated sludge process with biological nutrient removal. The W

PCP must not discharge more than 629 kg/year of phosphorus into Lake Simcoe, now and in the future. As a result, the Stage 3 expansion must meet an effluent phosphorus limit of 0.069 mg/L, and the Stage 4 expansion must achieve an effluent phosphorus limit of 0.043 mg/L.


Page 44 July 13, 2018

InnServices is considering changes to the WPCP’s biosolids management approach to reduce capital

and operating costs that will be assessed in detail during the design of the WPCP expansion.


astewater System

Needs

8.2.1Lakeshore W

PCP Capacity

As the WPCP reached 75%

capacity in 2017, and significant growth is planned by 2031, implementation of the plans to expand the W

PCP need to start in the very short term. Wastewater flows in 2017 were

20% higher than in 2016. Review of the flow data and customer counts indicates this increase can be

attributed to both a significant increase in the number of connections to the municipal sewers and to extraneous flows from I/I into the sewers from the many wet weather events in 2017.

Table 12 summarizes the existing and projected wastewater flows and the planned WPCP expansion

capacities.

Average day wastewater flows to the Lakeshore WPCP are projected to reach 21,300 m

3/day by 2031 from servicing growth and from connections of existing properties in the existing service areas. If the Innisfil Heights economic district is connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system, flows could reach 28,000 m

3/day by 2031, exceeding the planned Stage 3 WPCP expansion capacity of 25,000 m

3/day.However, the Stage 4 W

PCP expansion may not need to be constructed by 2031 as the wastewater generation rate used for projecting flows from the Innisfil Heights employment lands is conservative. Similarly, the Stage 4 W

PCP expansion may be adequate for the currently projected wastewater flows beyond 2031.

When the actual wastewater flows plus the allocated wastewater flows to the W

PCP reach approximately 75%

of the WPCP average day capacity, design of the next expansion stage should be initiated.

Table 12: Existing and Projected Wastewater Treatm

ent Capacity Needs

Serviced Areas 2017 ADF (ML/day)

Projected ADF (ML/day)

ExistingW

PCPCapacity(ML/day)

Proposed WPCP

Expansions (ML/day)

2031Beyond

2031Stage 3

Stage 4

Current Serviced Areas

21.3 24.9

Potential Service Areas:

Innisfil Heights 6.4

12.9

Cookstown 1.1

2.7

Others (Campus Node, Innisfil South)

1.3

Total 10.7

28.8 41.8

14.37 25

40


Page 45 July 13, 2018

The wastewater flow projections are based on historical domestic flows and I/I contributions. Controlling and eliminating sources of I/I into the sewer system is necessary to ensure the W

PCP will continue to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the planned growth in Innisfil. The Stage 4 W

PCP expansion will utilize phosphorus removal technology that is capable of achieving an effluent concentration of 0.04 mg/L in order to meet the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan maximum annual phosphorus load. This effluent compliance concentration is very close to the limit of technology for phosphorus removal. Any further expansion of the W

PCP will need to meet an extremely low effluent phosphorus concentration to stay within the maximum phosphorus load to the lake, and will therefore be very expensive.

An alternate approach to reducing the total phosphorus load to the lake is for the reuse of WPCP effluent

for irrigation or other industrial purposes, thus diverting effluent from Lake Simcoe. The technical and financial feasibility of a ‘Purple Pipe’ from the W

PCP to Innisfil Heights should be evaluated upon development of the Innisfil Heights economic district.

There are no known deficiencies with respect to the Lakeshore WPCP that need to be addressed in the

short term. Any required upgrades will be implemented as part of the WPCP expansion project.

8.2.2Sew

age Collection System Upgrades

All sewage pumping stations have sufficient capacity for current peak wastewater flows, as summarized in Table 11. Two pumping stations, SPS #3 and SPS #4 will need to be expanded for the projected wastewater flows, and the capacity of some sanitary sewers will be exceeded. Further details are presented in Section 10.1.

Operating staff have reported that for all SPS, none of the forcemains and air relief valves have been inspected or maintained within the last 16 years. A condition assessment of all forcemains and ARVs is needed in order to plan for proactive maintenance.

SPS #2

A new SPS #2 has been designed to convey the wastewater flows from proposed developments on the 6 th Line east of 20 th Sideroad, the proposed GO Station, and ultimately from the expansion of the Innisfil Heights employment lands and the potential Campus Node, directly to the Lakeshore W

PCP. Construction of this new SPS #2, to be located near the intersection of Saint John’s Road and 6

th Line, is scheduled for 2019. The new SPS #2 is also intended to replace the existing SPS #2 located at the east end of 6 th Line.

Construction of a new sanitary sewer from the east end of 6 th Line west to Saint John’s Road to convey the flows from the existing SPS#2 to the new SPS #2 is expected to be very difficult due to the resultant deep grades (9 m at Saint John’s Road), construction impacts to existing properties, abandonment of the existing sewer, service connections to a deep sewer, the existing 800 mm diameter W

PCP effluent outfall, and the high groundwater and poor soil conditions in this area. These issues could be eliminated


Page 46 July 13, 2018

by keeping the existing SPS #2 and forcemain in operation, thus avoiding the need to construct a new gravity sewer east of Saint John’s Road. The estimated construction cost of a new gravity sewer on 6 th

Line east of Saint John’s Road is in the order of $1M and would entail significant risk of construction issues. As the annual operating costs of the existing SPS #2 are low ($10,800 per year in 2017) and upgrades were recently completed, costs of maintaining the existing SPS are lower than constructing a new gravity sewer. Maintaining the existing SPS #2 is recommended.

8.3Recom

mended Lakeshore W

astewater System

Upgrades

A Class EA study was completed in 2011 for the expansion of the Lakeshore WPCP. The Class EA

ESR presents the recommended upgrades and expansion to the WPCP. No further consideration is

required for this MSP Update.


Page 47 July 13, 2018

9Innisfil North W

ater Servicing

The water servicing needs in Innisfil North, which includes Alcona, Big Bay Point, Leonards Beach, Sandy Cove, and Stroud, are described in this chapter. Alternative solutions, their assessment and the preferred solutions are outlined, by community.

9.1Alcona and Tow

n Campus

9.1.1Existing W

ater Servicing Issues

The following existing issues with the Lakeshore water system within Alcona have been identified:

Operating Pressures in Alcona Pressure Zone 2

The discharge pressure from the Alcona Zone 2 BPS is limited to 64 psi in order to prevent pressures from exceeding 80 psi at the lower elevations of the pressure zone. As a result, normal operating pressures under MDD conditions in the highest elevation area of Alcona Pressure Zone 2 are as low as 42 psi, which is below the MOECC recommended minimum pressure of 50 psi under MDD conditions.

Available Fire Flows in Alcona

Analysis of the water distribution system using the WaterCAD model indicates that available fire flows

under MDD conditions in Pressure Zones 1 and 2 are mostly at or above 100 L/s. This is acceptable in most situations. However, fire flows as low as 36 L/s are found at some watermain dead ends. These fire flows are low compared to FUS suggested fire flows, however are close to the minimum criteria in the Town’s Engineering Design Standards of 38 L/s in residential areas.

9.1.2Future W

ater Servicing Needs

Considering the water servicing requirements associated with the planned growth in Alcona, the following future needs have been identified:

Growth and Intensification

Future residential and employment growth and intensification in the serviced areas of Alcona and Leonards Beach will be serviced by additional connections to the Lakeshore water distribution system, and by the planned Lakeshore W

TP expansions. This includes the proposed GO Station at the 6 th Line.

However, the planned growth areas in Alcona North and Alcona South will be in Pressure Zone 2 and at elevations beyond the upper limit of Pressure Zone 2. The Alcona Zone 2 BPS has limited capacity for growth in Alcona Pressure Zone 2. Booster pumping capacity into a third pressure zone needs to be considered for the higher elevation areas.


Page 48 July 13, 2018

Intensification in the existing areas of Alcona where fire flows are low may require improved water distribution main looping, and where possible, connection with a PRV to a higher pressure zone.

Innisfil Beach Road Trunk Waterm

ain Capacity

WaterCAD analysis indicates that the trunk watermain on Innisfil Beach Road from the Lakeshore W

TP to the Alcona Reservoir will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the cumulative demands from future growth in Alcona, from growth in BW

G, and from the Innisfil Heights employment area when it is connected to the Lakeshore water system. An additional 600 mm diameter trunk watermain is needed from the Lakeshore W

TP to the Alcona Reservoir.

Town Cam

pus Servicing

New institutional developments at the Town Campus site, such as the new private school and its planned expansion, and the proposed medical offices, require an adequately sized water supply system to replace the current water system that was designed for the Town’s municipal offices and the MURF only. The Town Campus is identified in Innisfil’s Our Plan Official Plan as an area where future major government and cultural facilities shoud be considered and where related commercial developments may occur.


The solutions to the identified water servicing needs and issues in Alcona are closely interrelated.

The need to expand the trunk watermain capacity to supply water from the Lakeshore WTP to the Alcona

Reservoir can be addressed by adding a second 600 mm diameter trunk watermain. The option of twinning the trunk watermain on Innisfil Beach Road is not a viable option as it would result in significant disruption to this major commercial road, which was recent reconstructed. The only viable route from the W

TP through existing municipal roads is north on the 25 th Sideroad, west on the 9 th Line and south on 20 th Sideroad to Innisfil Beach Road. This watermain alignment would cross the rail line at 20

th

Sideroad and Innisfil Beach Road, where a sleeve is planned to be installed for this watermain when the intersection is rebuilt in 2019. This proposed new trunk watermain and alignment are taken into consideration in the development of alternative solutions for water servicing of Alcona’s growth areas, as described below.

The land on the Town Campus and at the intersection of Yonge Street and Innisfil Beach Road is anticipated to continue to develop as it is identified in the Town’s Official Plan as a government/cultural growth area. W

ith the upcoming construction of the IHP Health Hub and the recently built school, a reliable and adequate water supply solution must be provided to the area. Expanding the existing small water supply system and Town Campus reservoir is not a feasible long-term solution because of the physical limitations of the water works site and pumping facilities. The extension of the Lakeshore water distribution system west from the Alcona Reservoir on Innisfil Beach Road to Yonge Street is a viable


Page 49 July 13, 2018

solution that can be designed to meet future needs of the Town Campus as well as of future service areas to the west (Innisfil Heights economic district), north (Stroud) and south (Campus Node). The lands west of 20 th Sideroad, including the Town Campus, are at higher elevations and outside of the Alcona Pressure Zone 1. A BPS is required to supply water at the required operating pressures. The Town’s Alcona Reservoir site has adequate area to accommodate a BPS, therefore this municipally-owned property is the recommended location for a new BPS.

To address the identified water servicing needs in Alcona’s North and South growth areas, the following alternative solutions were considered:.

Alt. 1. Supply the North growth area from the Alcona Zone 2 BPS and from a new Zone 3 BPS; and supply the South growth area from a new BPS at the Alcona Reservoir site.

Alt. 2: Supply the North growth area from a new 9 th Line trunk water main and a new Zone 2 BPS; and supply the South growth area from an expansion of the Lefroy Zone 2 BPS.

Alternative 1 is shown on Figure 7. It would involve utilizing available capacity at the Alcona Zone 2 BPS to supply water to the portion of Alcona North that is in Pressure Zone 2. As the Zone 2 BPS is now operating at a lower discharge pressure than it was designed for, the pumps can operate at a higher discharge rate, which is sufficient to meet the peak hour needs of Alcona North in Pressure Zone 2. The Zone 2 BPS would require upgrades, including: adding a variable frequency drive (VFD) on the high lift pump that is currently used for fire flow so that it can also be used to meet the peak water demands, replacing the emergency generator, and control modifications.

A new in-line Zone 3 BPS would be required in Alcona North to provide the required pressures for the properties at the highest elevations. This new Zone 3 BPS would pump water from the new trunk watermain on the 9 th Line that is proposed to increase the watermain capacity between the Lakeshore W

TP and the Alcona reservoir.

Trunk watermains to the Alcona South growth area, which is also in Pressure Zone 2, would be supplied from dedicated high lift pumps at the new BPS to be located at the Alcona Reservoir site. New 300 mm diameter trunk watermains would be located on 20 th Sideroad and 6 th Line. For the small area in Alcona South that is at higher elevations, individual booster pumps would be recommended.

Alternative 2 is shown on Figure 8. It would involve supplying water to Alcona North from the proposed 9 th Line trunk watermain from the W

TP to the Alcona Reservoir. This would require a new in-line Zone 2 BPS and a new in-line Zone 3 BPS.

For Alcona South, water would be supplied from an expanded BPS and expanded reservoir at the Lefroy reservoir site via 300 mm diameter trunk watermains on 20

th Sideroad and 6 th Line. Similarly to Alternative 1, the water services for the properties in the small area in Alcona South that is at higher elevations would require individual booster pumps to provide the required minimum pressures.

LEGEND

WATERMAINS (2031)

EXISTING WATERMAINS

EXISTING PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE

NEW PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE


SETTLEMENT AREAS

ALCONA

PRESSURE ZONE 1

PRESSURE ZONE 2

PRESSURE ZONE 3

LEFROY

PRESSURE ZONE 2

EXPAND LAKESHORE WTP

LEFROY RESERVOIR

& BPS


ALCONA

STROUD

!


ALCONA RESERVOIR EXPANSION

NEW ALCONA RESERVOIR BPS2 X 400ø

600ø

PRV

300ø

300ø

INDIVIDUAL BOOSTER

PUMPS

300ø

NEW ZONE 3 BPS

UPGRADE ALCONA

ZONE 2 BPS


PRV

9TH LINE

6TH LINE

7TH LINE

YON

GE

ST.

5TH LINE

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

20 S

IDER

OAD

25 S

IDE

RO

AD

SAIN

T JO

HN

'S R

D.

J ANS

BLVD

.

MAPLE RD.


EWART ST.ARNOLD ST.

JAMES ST.

TRINITY ST.

CR

AIG

RD

.SA

INT

PAU

L R

D.

KELL ST.

ROBERTS RD.

SOM

ER

S BL

VD.

HO

UST

ON AVE.

LEA

RD

.

F

OX HILL ST.

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

²³

0 560 1,120 1,680 2,240280Meters

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 7ALCONA GROWTH WATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVE 1

/

LEGEND

WATERMAINS (2031)

EXISTING WATERMAINS

EXISTING PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE

NEW PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE


SETTLEMENT AREAS

ALCONA

PRESSURE ZONE 1

PRESSURE ZONE 2

PRESSURE ZONE 3

LEFROY

PRESSURE ZONE 2

EXPAND LAKESHORE WTP

EXPAND LEFROY RESERVOIR

& BPS


ALCONA

STROUD

!


NEW ALCONA RESERVOIR BPS

ALCONA RESERVOIR EXPANSION

2 X 400ø

600ø

PRV

300ø

INDIVIDUAL BOOSTER

PUMPS

ALCONA ZONE 2 BPS

NEW ZONE 3 BPS

NEW ZONE 2 BPS

300ø


PRV

9TH LINE

6TH LINE

7TH LINE

YON

GE

ST.

5TH LINE

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

20 S

IDER

OAD

25S

IDER

OAD

SAIN

T JO

HN

'S R

D.

MAPLE RD.


EWART ST.ARNOLD ST.

JAMES ST.

TRINITY ST.

SAIN

T PA

UL

RD

.

SOM

ERS

BLV

D.

HO

UST

ON AVE.

F

OX HILL ST.

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

²³

0 560 1,120 1,680 2,240280Meters

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 8ALCONA GROWTH WATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVE 2

/


Page 52 July 13, 2018

For both alternatives, construction of the third cell of the Alcona reservoir will be needed to provide the required equalization and fire protection storage for the planned growth.

Both water servicing alternatives take into consideration the planned upgrade of the intersection of 20th

Sideroad and Innisfil Beach Road.

Improvements to the available fire flows in Alcona can be addressed by looping watermains where dead ends exist. Three locations have been identified where looping of the watermains could be implemented and would benefit the flow of water in the distribution system:

Ralph Street and Wallace Avenue, via Brock Street

Buchanan Street to 9 th Line Park Road to Florence Road

As residential and commercial developments proceed and intensification occurs, the capacity of the local water distribution system will need to be reviewed to determine if replacement of watermains with larger diameter watermains will be required to convey the required fire flows.

9.1.4Assessm

ent of Alternative Solutions

The comparative assessment of Alternatives 1 and 2 for the water servicing of Alcona’s growth is presented in Table 13. In summary, Alternative 1 has the advantage of requiring less capital infrastructure, which results in lower project costs. The proposed infrastructure maximizes the number of benefitting users/service areas. This specifically refers to the proposed Alcona Reservoir BPS, which will supply water to Alcona’s growth areas and the Town Campus, and could supply water to Innisfil Heights and Stroud. The lesser extent of infrastructure also minimizes the potential social and environmental impacts of the construction projects and the long term operational implications.

9.1.5Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

In summary, the recommended water servicing solutions for Alcona and the Town Campus, as shown on Figure 7, are:

New 600 mm diameter trunk watermain from the Lakeshore WTP to the Alcona Reservoir via the

25 th Sideroad, 9 th Line, 20 th Sideroad and Innisfil Beach Road. Addition of the third cell at the Alcona Reservoir. Upgrades to the Zone 2 BPS to supply Alcona North in Pressure Zone 2. The extent of the upgrades will be confirmed during design. New in-line Zone 3 BPS in Alcona North. New BPS at the Alcona Reservoir site to supply Alcona South and the Town Campus. New 300 mm trunk watermains on 20 th Sideroad south of Innisfil Beach Road and on 6 th Line.New 400 mm trunk watermain in Innisfil Beach Road from the Alcona Reservoir west to Yonge St.W

atermain looping in the existing water distribution system.


Page 53 July 13, 2018

Table 13: Comparative Assessm

ent of Alcona Growth Areas Water Alternatives

Criteria Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Impacts on

Servicing

Meets the servicing requirements of growth in Alcona North and Alcona South. The required infrastructure (BPS at Alcona Reservoir) can be utilized to provide water servicing to multiple service areas. Alcona North area in pressure zone 2 can be serviced before the proposed 9

th Line trunk watermain is constructed.

Meets the servicing requirements of growth in Alcona North and Alcona South. Alcona North area in pressure zone 2 cannot be serviced before the proposed 9

th Line trunk watermain is constructed.

Technical and Operational Considerations

Requires upgrades at the Zone 2 BPS. These upgrades will have short term effects on the capacity of the BPS to supply fire flows. Maximizes the use of the existing BPS. Involves two additional BPS to operate and maintain, fewer than for Alternative 2.

Does not affect the operation of the existing Zone 2 BPS. Involves four additional BPS to operate and maintain.

Estimated

Project Costs $24.8 M, including the BPS, trunk watermains, and reservoir expansion

$27 M, including the BPS, trunk watermains, and reservoir expansion

Environmental

Impacts

All potential infrastructure will be within road right of ways and municipal sites, except for the Zone 3 BPS in Alcona North. This BPS can be sited to minimize potential impacts on any significant natural environment features..

All potential infrastructure will be within road right of ways and municipal sites, except for the Zone 2 BPS and Zone 3 BPS in Alcona North. These two BPS can be sited to minimize potential impacts on any significant environmental features.

Social Impacts

Upgrades to the Zone 2 BPS involve work within the station, therefore will have minor impacts on adjacent properties and businesses. New Zone 3 BPS will be built in undeveloped land therefore will have minor impacts on existing residents.

New Zone 2 and Zone 3 BPS will be built in undeveloped land therefore will have minor impacts on existing residents.

9.2Sandy Cove

9.2.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual and communal water supply systems in the Sandy Cove service area. The existing Sandy Cove Acres retirement community has an adequate private groundwater system. Properties facing on 25 th Sideroad have the opportunity to connect to the new municipal watermain and some connections have been made.


Page 54 July 13, 2018

As Sandy Cove is a designated Urban Settlement Area, it is intended that growth be accommodated by full municipal services. Accordingly, proposed developments in Sandy Cove will be serviced by connections to the Lakeshore system’s trunk watermain on 25 th Sideroad.

9.2.2Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

No alternative solutions were considered because:

The existing 25 th Sideroad trunk watermain was designed and built with sufficient capacity to meet the water demands of all existing properties and proposed developments within the Sandy Cove service area as well as the Big Bay Point area. Future connections to the 25 th Sideroad watermain system are possible. W

atermains are proposed in Sandy Cove as required to serve the proposed developments. Connection stubs have been installed along the 25

th Sideroad trunk watermain for future watermains for the future residential developments in Sandy Cove.

The recommended municipal water servicing projects for Sandy Cove, as shown on Figure 9 are:

300 mm diameter watermain on Lockhart west of 25th Sideroad to the limits of the settlement area

boundary.400 mm diameter watermain on Lockhart east of 25 th Sideroad and connecting to the existing watermain at Ireton Street. 300 mm diameter watermain on 10 th Line west of 25 th Sideroad to the limits of the settlement area boundary.

9.3Big Bay Point

9.3.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual wells serving the existing properties in the Big Bay Point area. However, the need may arise in the future to provide municipal water servicing to existing properties on individual wells.

The Friday Harbour Resort is connected to the Lakeshore water distribution system by the 25 th Sideroad trunk watermain. Its planned expansion is proposed to be serviced by the Lakeshore water distribution system and by Friday Harbour’s internal water distribution system.

FRID

AY H

AR

BO

UR

STAN

DPIP

E

KE

MP

EN

FE

LT

BA

Y/B

IG B

AY

P

OIN

T S

HO

RE

LIN

E

EX

PAN

D LA

KE

SH

OR

E W

TP

300ø

ALC

ON

A

SA

ND

Y C

OV

E

300ø

300ø300ø

400ø

600ø

400ø25 SIDEROAD

10TH LIN

E

LOC

KH

AR

T RD

.

1 3T H L IN

E

BIG BAYPO

INT

RD

.

30 SRD.

GUESTR

D.

9TH LI N

E

TR

ILLIUMPL.

20 SIDEROAD

SEAR

AYAVE

.

MAP

LEVIE

WD

R.

WILKIN

SO

NST.

WEST ST.

LEONARD ST.

SHO

REVIE

WD

R.

IRETONST.

FAIRWAY RD.

PARK

L

N.

CH

ESTN

UT S

T.

KALE

DR

.

RIVAAVE.

EAST ST.

GROVEPL.

MARTIN CRES.

LIAH LN.

QU

ANTZ

CRES.

RO

BINS

ON

PL.

DA

LKABC

RES

.

LON

GW

OO

D R

D.

CRESCE

NT

HA

R

BOURRD.

FRIDAY DR.

0500

1,0001,500

2,000250

Meters

LEGEN

D

WATE

RM

AIN

S (2031)

POTE

NTIA

L LOC

AL IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

PR

OJE

CT (N

ON

DC

2018)

EX

ISTIN

G W

ATER

MA

INS

SETTLE

ME

NT A

RE

AS

/

DATE

:MAY 2018

INN

ISFIL MA

STER SER

VICIN

G

PLAN

UPD

ATE

FIGU

RE 9

INN

ISFIL NO

RTH

WATER

SERVIC

ING

²³

FRIDAY DR.


Page 56 July 13, 2018

9.3.2Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

No alternative solutions were considered because the existing 25th Sideroad trunk watermain and the

Friday Harbour internal water system were designed with sufficient capacity to meet the water demands of the proposed Friday Harbour Resort and the existing properties in the Big Bay Point area. Future connections to the municipal water distribution system are possible if there is a need and desire to do so.

If in the future the residents of Big Bay Point wish to abandon their private water supplies and connect to the Lakeshore water system, two connection points are possible:

At Big Bay Point Road and Friday Drive. A 300 mm diameter watermain would be required to connect the north east area of Big Bay Point. South of Big Bay Point, to the municipal watermain at Riva Avenue in Friday Harbour Resort.

As per the current land designations in the Official Plan, these watermains would be local improvement projects (not in the 2018 DC).

9.4Leonards Beach Shoreline

9.4.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual water supplies in the Leonards Beach area. However, the need may arise in the future to provide municipal water servicing to existing properties on individual wells.

9.4.2Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

In the absence of any issues with the existing private water supplies, no alternative water servicing solutions were considered for the Leonards Beach shoreline.

If in the future the Leonards Beach residents wish to abandon their private water supplies and connect to the Lakeshore water system, this will require a connection south through Sandy Cove as a local improvement project.

9.5Stroud

9.5.1W


Stroud is serviced by a municipal groundwater system. The Stroud water system has a rated capacity of 2,622 m

3/day as per the DWW

P. It is supplied by three groundwater wells with a combined permitted capacity of 2,711 m

3/day. Well No. 3 is the main supply well, permitted to supply up to 1,637 m

3/day. W

ells Nos. 1 and 2 are stand-by wells with permitted capacities of 677 m3/day and 397 m

3/day


Page 57 July 13, 2018

respectively. Water treatment consists of green sand filtration for iron and manganese removal, and

chlorine disinfection. Treated water is stored in a 1,263 m3 reservoir, and pumped into the distribution

system by a pumping station with a firm capacity of 51 L/s. There is one pressure zone in Stroud. Figure 10 illustrates the Stroud water system.

9.5.2W

ater System Condition

During well and pump maintenance of the two lower capacity wells in 2016-2017, it was found that:

Well No. 1’s performance appeared to have deteriorated over time and the casing had an obstruction

that prevented the well’s rehabilitation. The well may have to be decommissioned. W

ell No. 2’s performance also appeared to have deteriorated and the well casing was corroded. There was significant mineral precipitate and biofilm. The well was rehabilitated and new pumping equipment was installed but the initial well performance was not restored.

Due to these issues, InnServices is not using Wells Nos. 1 and 2 and relies almost entirely on W

ell No. 3. InnServices is evaluating the groundwater supply to determine the appropriate remedial measures.

The greensand filter system is working well, and there are no longer any iron issues in the distribution system. All greensand filter valves were recently replaced; the valve seals deteriorated likely due to the high chlorine concentration from the use of chlorine for pre-oxidation.

High lift pumps 2 and 3 were replaced in 2016. THMs have started to form in the reservoir. This may require some treatment modifications in the future. The diesel generator set is 20 years old and will need to be replaced over time. The filter backwash holding tank building requires some upgrades as the brick is starting to deteriorate and the roof is leaking at the skylight.

Many watermains throughout Stroud are old cast iron pipe and will need to be replaced over time.

9.5.3W

ater System Needs

As summarized in Table 14, the Stroud water system can supply the existing and projected water demands with W

ell No. 1 only, however the system does not have the required stand-by supply capacity with the reduced capacity of W

ells Nos. 1 and 2.

The Stroud system has sufficient water treatment capacity to meet the projected future needs associated with the community’s limited growth to the year 2031.

!(!(

STROUD

STROUD RESERVOIR,BPS & WELLS #1, 2 & 3

BARRIE

METRO

LINX

GO

TRANSIT

LYNN ST.

VICTORIA ST.

GLENN AVE.

NELSON CRES.

DEM

PSTE

RAV

E.

AGN

ES

ST.

YON

GE

ST.

WEBB ST.

GORDON ST.LAWRENCE AVE .

CH

ANTL

ER

ST.

SUNNYBRAE AVE.SHE R

ING

C

RES.

10TH LINE

9TH LINE

LEGEND

!( BOOSTER PUMPING STATIONS

!( WATER RESERVOIRS

!( SUPPLY WELL

WATERMAINS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

-

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Meters

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 10 STROUD WATER SYSTEM


BARRIE

BIG BAY POINT ROAD

MAPLEVIEW DRIVE

LOCKHART ROAD

10th LINE

9th LINE

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

7th LINE

6th LINE

5th LINE

YON

GE STR

EET

2nd LINE

3rd LINE

20th SIDER

OAD

10th SIDER

OAD

HW

Y. 400

5th SIDER

OAD

KILLARNEY BEACH ROAD

KEMPENFELT BAY (LAKE SIMCOE)

SANDY COVE

ALCONA


GILFORD

FENNELL'S CORNERS

CHURCHILL

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

ESSATWP.

COOKSTOWN

KEY PLAN

/


Page 59 July 13, 2018

Table 14: Stroud Water System

Capacity vs Projected Requirements

Projected Water Dem

ands and Storage Requirem

ents Existing System

Capacity Shortfalls

20172031

ADD (m3/d)

492 588

Supply (m3/d) 1.

1,637 Firm capacity is not available.

MDD (m3/d)

1,132 1,353

Treatment (m3/d)

2,622 None

PHD (L/s) 20

24 High Lift Pumping (Firm) (L/s)

51Sufficient for future PHD. Insufficient to supply MDD + Fire @

100 L/s Storage (m

3),with fire at 100 L/s for 2 hrs

1,254 1,323

Storage (m3)

1,263 95%

of calculated volume

1.W

ith Well No. 3 in operation only.

The Stroud facility was not designed to supply the fire protection flows that are suggested by FUS for higher density residential developments. The fire protection capacity is adequate for low density residential, as currently exists. Since the density of future residential developments will continue to be limited by the absence of sewers (septic systems require large lots and large separation distances between homes), the FUS criteria of 100 L/s is considered too conservative for Stroud.

Overall, the existing Stroud water system needs a reliable water supply for its existing residents and to accommodate the planned growth.


The following alternative solutions were considered for the replacement or upgrade of the Stroud water system:

Alt. 1: Rehabilitate the wells or drill a new stand-by well, and continue to use the existing groundwater system.

Alt. 2: Connect Stroud to the Barrie water system.

Alt. 3: Connect Stroud to the Lakeshore water system.

Based on the Well Nos. 1 and 2 maintenance reports by IW

S, a licensed well specialist, the existing wells cannot be rehabilitated to yield a sufficient water supply to be considered stand-by wells to W

ell No. 3. Therefore, Alternative 1 would require one or more new wells to be built, capable of supplying the projected MDD. The new stand-by wells should be located on the site of the Stroud water system to minimize infrastructure costs.


Page 60 July 13, 2018

Alternative 2, connection to the Barrie water distribution system, was discussed with City of Barrie staff. They indicated Barrie could consider extending a watermain to their south boundary of Lockhart Road once they have completed their planned extensions of watermains on Mapleview Drive and Yonge Street that will supply local distribution mains. The distance from the Stroud water reservoir to the City of Barrie limits at Lockhart Road and Yonge Street is 1.5 km. However, their preliminary review of available capacity will not be completed until their water infrastructure models are updated for their Master Plan update. The City also indicated their need to assess the compatibility of this external servicing with the City’s growth management plan. The timing of a response from the City of Barrie is not expected until mid to late 2018. Servicing costs and terms of an agreement with the City of Barrie for the supply of water, which would be mainly determined by the City of Barrie, are therefore unknown.

Alternative 3, connection to the Lakeshore water system, would involve a new 3.6 km long 200 mm diameter watermain on Yonge Street, connecting the proposed trunk watermain on Innisfil Beach Road to the Stroud water reservoir. The existing Stroud water reservoir and high lift pumps would be maintained. The existing wells and water treatment system would either be entirely decommissioned or one well and the chlorination system would be maintained as an emergency supply.

9.5.5Assessm


Table 15 presents a comparative assessment of the Stroud water servicing alternative solutions. Alternative 3, connecting to the Lakeshore water system, presents the advantage of a reliable water supply and consistent and high water quality obtained from a state-of-the art membrane filtration W

TP. The disadvantages however reside in the project cost and the timeframe required for implementation, which is contingent on the construction and commissioning of the watermain on Innisfil Beach Road and associated BPS.

9.5.6Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

The preferred water servicing solution for Stroud is to abandon the existing groundwater system and connect to the Lakeshore water system once the Innisfil Beach Road watermain and BPS are constructed. It will involve:

New 200 mm diameter watermain on Yonge Street from Innisfil Beach Road to the Stroud reservoir.

In the interim, a water supply investigation should be completed to assess the feasibility of constructing a new stand-by well on the Stroud water system site to provide system reliability to existing residents and enable development projects to proceed.


Page 61 July 13, 2018

Table 15: Comparative Assessment of Stroud Water Alternatives

Criteria Alternative 1 – Refurbish Wells Alternative 2 – Connect to Barrie Water System

Alternative 3 – Connect to Lakeshore Water System

Impacts on Servicing

New well(s) must be built to provide the required firm capacity and meet the existing and future water demands. A groundwater supply investigation and testing program is required to confirm the feasibility of an additional well on site. Upgraded water supply required for servicing new developments. If adequate groundwater supply is found, new well(s) could be implemented within one year.

A connection to Barrie could provide the required water supply capacity if Barrie confirms feasibility. Timing is contingent on reaching a water supply agreement with the City of Barrie.Therefore, timing to a connection that would enable new developments to proceed is unknown.

A connection to the Lakeshore water system could provide the required water supply capacity to meet the existing and future demands. Upgraded water supply required for servicing new developments. Timing of connection requires construction of Innisfil Beach Rd watermain and BPS, approximately 2 years.


Operation and maintenance of the water treatment system for iron and manganese removal remains, in addition to the pumping system and storage tank, which would remain. Upgrades anticipated to be required to address THM formation from chlorination of the groundwater organic content.

Operation and maintenance of a new watermain, in addition to the Stroud pumping system and storage tank, which would remain. Less O&M than for Alternative 1. No source water protection restrictions.

Operation and maintenance of a new watermain, in addition to the Stroud pumping system and storage tank, which would remain. Less O&M than for Alternative 1. No source water protection restrictions.

Estimated Project Costs Approximately $0.25 M Cost unknown $2.7 M

Environmental Impacts

No potential impacts on the natural environment as the well(s) would be drilled on the existing municipal site.

No potential impacts on the natural environment as the new watermain would be installed within an existing municipal road.

No potential impacts on the natural environment as the new watermain would be installed within an existing municipal road.

Social Impacts No improvements to the current water supply and water quality to residents.

Consistently good water quality. Consistently good water quality.


Page 62 July 13, 2018

10Innisfil North W

astewater Servicing

Wastewater servicing needs in Innisfil North (Alcona, Big Bay Point, Leonards Beach, and Sandy Cove)

and the recommended servicing solutions are presented in this chapter.

10.1Alcona

10.1.1W

astewater Servicing Needs

The anticipated growth and associated increase in wastewater flows will bring some of the Lakeshore wastewater system in Alcona over its conveyance capacity.

Due to projected growth in Alcona, Sandy Cove and Big Bay Point, additional pumping capacity and twinning of the forcemains will be required at SPS #3 and SPS #4 by 2031.

Projected increases in wastewater flows resulting from growth and intensification in Alcona and new developments in Innisfil North will exceed the capacity of some sewers near the Alcona lakeshore. Specifically, sewers that are predicted to run at more than 85%

of their capacity are located on:

Leonard Street Crystal Beach Road Lakelands Avenue Adams Road Simcoe Boulevard Cross Street Cedar Grove Avenue Park Road 6th Line just upstream of the W

PCP

Development in the Alcona North growth area will also require a new sanitary sewer on the 9 th line to connect to the existing Lakeshore sewer system in addition to the connection at Spring Street.

10.1.2W

astewater Servicing Solutions

Expansion of SPS #3

The existing capacity of SPS #3 of 446 L/s and its 450 mm diameter forcemain to the Lakeshore WPCP

is insufficient to convey the peak flows from the proposed developments in Sandy Cove and the build-out of the Friday Harbour Resort, which are projected to reach approximately 584 L/s in 2031 and ultimately up to 672 L/s.


Page 63 July 13, 2018

The SPS facility is located in an established residential area. Expansion of the facility needs to be accommodated on the existing site in order to prevent extensive modifications to the sanitary sewer system upstream of the SPS and to maintain the existing forcemain to the W

PCP. As the site has sufficient area for the expansion of the control building and wet well, alternative locations do not need to be considered and evaluated.

The SPS expansion will involve expanding the control building to accommodate the additional MCCs, expansion of the wet well and replacement of the submersible pumps. It is expected that the main and emergency electrical supply, including the transformer and generator, will need to be replaced with larger units for the larger pumps. A second forcemain will be required to maintain velocities within an acceptable range.

Expansion of SPS #4

SPS #4 and its 400 mm diameter forcemain, must be expanded to convey the estimated wastewater flows for the year 2031. The current firm capacity of 230 L/s needs to be increased to approximately 417 L/s by 2031 and ultimately up to 500 L/s.

SPS#4, located within an established residential area, should be expanded on the existing site to minimize the extent of modifications to the upstream and downstream sanitary sewer system. The existing site is compact however, it has sufficient area to accommodate an expanded wet well and control building. Alternative locations and replacement of the SPS were therefore not considered and evaluated.

The SPS expansion will involve expanding the control building to accommodate the additional MCCs, expansion of the wet well and replacement of the submersible pumps. It is expected that the main and emergency electrical supply, including the transformer and generator, will need to be replaced with larger units for the larger pumps. The forcemain will be twinned to maintain velocities within an acceptable range.

10.1.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

The recommended wastewater conveyance system upgrades in Alcona are, as shown on Figure 11 overleaf:

Twinning of selected sanitary sewers. Extension of the sanitary sewer on 7 th Line.Expansion of SPS #3 and twinning of the forcemain. Expansion of SPS #4 and twinning of the forcemain. Extension of the sewer on Spring Street.Decommissioning of SPS #7. New 300 mm sanitary sewer on the 9 th Line.

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³

²³²³

DE

CO

MM

ISS

ION

SP

S #7

SPS

#4 EXPA

NS

ION

AN

D

FOR

CE

MA

IN TW

INN

ING

EXPAND

LAK

ES

HO

RE

W

PC

P

ALC

ON

A

SA

ND

Y C

OV

E

X

SPS

#8

KE

MP

EN

FE

LT

BA

Y/B

IG B

AY

P

OIN

T S

HO

RE

LIN

E

SP

S #2

SP

S #3 E

XPA

NS

ION

AN

D

FOR

CE

MA

IN TW

INN

ING

SAN

DY C

OV

E S

PS

SPS

#9

BBP S

PS

1

250ø

300ø

350ø

300ø

5 2 5ø

20 SR

SPS

300ø

NE

W S

PS

#2

25 SIDEROAD

10TH LIN

E

LOC

KHA

RT R

D.

1 3T HLIN

EBIG

B AY PO

INT R

D.

30 SRD.

GUEST RD.

9TH LIN

E

TR

ILLIUMPL.

20 SIDEROAD

SE

ARAY

AVE

.

MAP

L EV IE

W D

R.

WILK

INSO

N

ST.

WEST ST.

LEONARD ST.

SH

OR

EVIEWD

R.

IRETON ST.

FAIRWAY RD.

CH

ESTN

UT S

T.

KALE

DR

.

RIVA

AVE.

EAST ST.

PARK LN

.

GROVEPL.

MARTIN CRES.

LIAH LN.

QUANTZ

CR

ES.

RO

B INS

ON

PL.

DALKA

BC

RES.

PURVISS

T.

LON

GW

OO

D R

D.

CRESC

ENT

H

ARBOURRD.

FRIDAY DR.

0500

1,0001,500

2,000250

Meters

LEGEN

D

²³SE

WA

GE

PU

MP

ING

STATIO

N (2031)

²³S

EW

AG

E P

UM

PIN

G S

TATION

(FUTU

RE

)

²³EX

ISTING

SE

WA

GE

PU

MP

ING

STATIO

N

SAN

ITAR

Y GR

AVITY S

EW

ER

S (2031)

SAN

ITAR

Y GR

AVITY S

EW

ER

S (FU

TUR

E)

SAN

ITAR

Y FOR

CE

MA

IN (2031)

SA

NITA

RY FO

RC

EM

AIN

(FUTU

RE

) - PO

TEN

TIAL

LOC

AL IM

PR

OV

EM

ENT P

RO

JEC

T (NO

N D

C 2018)

EXISTIN

G S

AN

ITAR

Y SEW

ER

S

EXISTIN

G S

AN

ITAR

Y FOR

CE

MA

INS

SETTLE

ME

NT A

RE

AS

/

DATE: M

AY 2018

INN

ISFIL MA

STER SER

VICIN

G

PLAN

UPD

ATE

FIGU

RE 11

INN

ISFIL NO

RTH

W

ASTEW

ATER SER

VICIN

G

²³


Page 65 July 13, 2018

10.2Tow

n Campus

10.2.1W


New developments at the Town Campus site, including the new private school and the proposed IHP health hub, will require an increase in the capacity of the existing wastewater collection and pumping system that was designed for the existing Town’s municipal offices and the MURF only.

The Town Campus is identified in Innisfil’s Our Plan Official Plan as an area where future major government and cultural facilities shoud be considered and where related commercial developments may occur. The Town is preparing a master plan for the Town Campus. Accordingly, wastewater servicing needs for this area will increase and a servicing approach is required. For the purpose of this Master Plan Update, a commercial/institutional service area of 50 ha, including the Town Campus, was assumed in order to estimate wastewater servicing needs.

10.2.2W


The existing Town Campus wastewater pumping station (SPS #6) will be upgraded with minor pump modifications to increase its pumping capacity in order to service the proposed health hub, which is scheduled to be constructed in 2019. It only addresses the immediate needs of the Town Campus.

A longer-term servicing solution is to service the Town Campus in conjunction with the servicing plan for the Innisfil Heights economic district, which will involve trunk sewers on Innisfil Beach Road and 6

th Line to the Lakeshore W

PCP. The Innisfil Heights servicing alternatives and the recommended solution are discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.

10.3Sandy Cove

10.3.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual septic systems in the Sandy Cove service area.

There may be a need in the future however to extend municipal sanitary servicing to existing properties in Sandy Cove that are currently on private septic systems, in order to minimize the potential for contamination of Lake Simcoe if and when these systems fail.

There is also the need to provide municipal sanitary servicing for the planned residential developments in Sandy Cove.


Page 66 July 13, 2018

10.3.2W


Existing properties can remain on individual septic systems as no issues have been identified. In the future, existing properties could be connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system, as the 25

th Sideroad trunk sewer has been designed with sufficient capacity to convey wastewater flows from these existing properties, and the proposed capacities of the SPS expansions and sewer upgrades in Alcona will be sized for those flows. The sewers to connect to the 25 th Sideroad trunk sewer system will be local improvement projects.

The proposed developments in the Sandy Cove settlement area can be serviced by the Lakeshore wastewater system. The 25 th Sideroad and Lockhart Road trunk sanitary sewers have been sized to convey the projected flows from all the developments in the Sandy Cove settlement area. A new Sandy Cove SPS located at or near Pinegrove Avenue will be required to service lands that cannot be serviced by gravity sewers to 25 th Sideroad or Lockhart Road.

No alternative solutions needed to be considered.

10.3.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

The recommended municipal infrastructure in Sandy Cove is presented on Figure 11 and listed as follows:

300 mm diameter sanitary sewer on Lockhart Road, west of 25 th Sideroad. 300 mm diameter sanitary sewer on 10 th Line, west of 25 th Sideroad, Sandy Cove SPS on or near Pinegrove Avenue, and forcemain to Lockhart Avenue.

10.4Big Bay Point

10.4.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual septic systems serving the properties in Big Bay Point. As for other unserviced communities on the shoreline, there may be a need in the future to consider extending sanitary servicing to the existing areas in Big Bay Point that are currently on private septic systems, in order to minimize the potential for contamination of Lake Simcoe if the septic systems fail.

Wastewater servicing needs for the Friday Harbour Resort will be met by the Lakeshore wastewater

system that has been extended to Big Bay Point Road, including the recently built Mapleview SPS. Future servicing needs for Friday Harbour Resort’s expansion will require an increase in the pumping capacity of the Mapleview SPS.


Page 67 July 13, 2018

10.4.2W


Existing properties in Big Bay Point can remain on individual septic systems as no issues have been identified. In the future, existing properties in the Big Bay Point Shoreline community, north and south of Friday Harbour Resort, could be connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system, as the internal Friday Harbour SPS, the Mapleview SPS and the downstream trunk sewer system have been designed with sufficient capacity to convey wastewater flows from these properties, and the proposed capacities of the SPS expansions and sewer upgrades in Alcona will be sized for those flows.

If and when sewers are required, a Big Bay Point SPS and forcemain will be needed to convey the wastewater flows from the east of Friday Harbour to the existing sewer system at Friday Drive. This project will be a local improvement project.

No alternative solutions needed to be considered.

10.4.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

No municipal servicing projects are recommended for the Big Bay Point area. In the future, if and when needed, a local Big Bay Point SPS and forcemain may be required.

10.5Leonards Beach

10.5.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual septic systems serving the properties on the Leonards Beach shoreline. As for other unserviced communities on the shoreline, there may be a need in the future to consider extending sanitary servicing to the existing properties in Leonards Beach in order to minimize the potential for contamination of Lake Simcoe if the septic systems fail.

10.5.2W


Existing properties in Leonards Beach can remain on individual septic systems as no issues have been identified. If, in the future, sanitary servicing is required due to septic system failures, connection to the Big Bay Point/Friday Harbour sewers to the north, and/or a connection to the Sandy Cove sewers to the south will need to be considered.

10.5.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

No municipal servicing projects are recommended for the Leonards Beach shoreline.


Page 68 July 13, 2018

10.6Stroud

10.6.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual septic systems serving the properties in Stroud. There is also limited growth planned for Stroud. However, if this current situation changes, municipal servicing should be considered.

10.6.2W


Existing properties in Stroud can remain on private septic systems as no issues have been identified. The proposed new developments in Stroud are proposed to be serviced with septic systems in the absence of a municipal sewer system.

In the future, if it is determined that a municipal sanitary sewer system should be constructed to service all or parts of Stroud, it could be connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system via a SPS and forcemain connecting to the proposed Innisfil Beach Road sewer. Capacity in the proposed sewer system to the W

PCP for a future Stroud connection has been accounted for. However, there may be limitations at the Lakeshore W

PCP; the availability of treatment capacity will need to be reviewed at that time and will be contingent on actual and allocated flows and treatment performance.

10.6.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

No municipal wastewater servicing projects are recommended for Stroud for the period to the year 2031.


Page 69 July 13, 2018


ater Servicing

Innisfil Central includes the Settlement Employment Area of Innisfil Heights and the Hamlet of Churchill. Innisfil Heights and Churchill’s water systems, their current and future servicing needs and the recommended servicing solutions are described in this chapter.


11.1.1Innisfil Heights W


The Innisfil Heights water system, as shown on Figure 12, is supplied by two groundwater wells drilled into a confined aquifer. W

ell No. 2 is equipped with a 34 L/s pump; Well No. 3 has a 36 L/s pump. The

wells have a combined permitted capacity of 3,110 m3/day. Raw water is chlorinated and pumped

through the distribution system to a 2,200 m3 reservoir that provides storage for fire protection, flow

equalization and emergency. Drinking water is pumped from the reservoir into the distribution system by a high lift pumps with a firm capacity of 160 L/s. The Innisfil Heights reservoir and BPS facility, located on Commerce Park Drive, was designed for the ultimate planned expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district. The reservoir can be expanded to a volume of 8,800 m

3and high lift pumps with a firm capacity of 400 L/s can be accommodated in the BPS.

The Innisfil Heights water system supplies water to the existing economic district and the Innisbrook residential subdivision east of Highway 400. The water distribution system extends to the OnRoute service station and to OLG Slots at Georgian Downs via two watermain highway crossings, one at the 7 th Line and one north of Innisfil Beach Road to serve Georgian Downs.

The majority of the Innisfil Heights area is located in a single pressure zone. Existing homes in the Innisbrook subdivision that are at elevations below 285 m have individual pressure reducing valves.

11.1.2W


With the construction of the Innisfil Heights water reservoir and BPS in 2014, the existing water system

meets the existing capacity needs. Watermains have been replaced in the past three years to address

limitations in the water distribution system to convey adequate fire flows.

The Innisfil Heights reservoir and BPS facility was designed for future expansions to meet the projected water demands in the Innisfil Heights water distribution system, as per OPA1.

The issue of concern at Innisfil Heights, as shown in Table 16, is that the existing Innisfil Heights groundwater supply has insufficient capacity to meet the projected future water servicing needs as the employment lands expand to their ultimate area.

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

INNISFIL HEIGHTS RESERVOIR & BPS

INNISFILHEIGHTS

INNISFILHEIGHTS

WELL #2INNISFIL HEIGHTS WELL #3

BARRIE

ONROUTE INNISFIL

6th Line

Innisfil Beach Rd.

Hig

hway

400

9th Line

Com

mer

ce P

ark

Dr.

Bow

man

St.

5 S

ider

oad

10 S

ider

oad

Rei

veBl

vd.

Thomas S t.

7th Line

IndustrialParkRd.

5th Line

Inni

sbro

ok S

t.

Dor

al D

r.Fo

rest

Val

ley

Dr.

0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375Meters

LEGEND

!( SUPPLY WELL


!( WATER RESERVOIRS

WATERMAINS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

-

DATE: MAY 2018


FIGURE 12INNISFIL HEIGHTS WATER SYSTEM


BARRIE

BIG BAY POINT ROAD

MAPLEVIEW DRIVE

LOCKHART ROAD

10th LINE

9th LINE

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

7th LINE

6th LINE

5th LINE

YON

GE STR

EET

2nd LINE

3rd LINE

20th SIDER

OAD

10th SIDER

OAD

HW

Y. 400

5th SIDER

OAD



SANDY COVE

ALCONA


GILFORD

FENNELL'S CORNERS

CHURCHILL

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

ESSATWP.

COOKSTOWN

KEY PLAN

/


Page 71 July 13, 2018

Table 16: Innisfil Heights Water System


Projected Water Dem


entsSystem

Capacity Shortfalls

20172031

Ult.Existing

Future

ADD (m3/d)

305 3,296

9,796 Supply (m

3/d) 3,110

17,700 Ex.groundwatersupplyinsufficient for ultimate

MDD (m3/d)

550 5,933

17,633

PHD (L/s) 11

103 307

High Lift Pumping (Firm) (L/s)

160 400

None

Storage (m3)

4,419

8,075 Storage (m

3) 2,200

8,800 None


The following alternative solutions for increasing the water supply capacity for the Innisfil Heights water system were considered:

Alt. 1: Increase the capacity of the groundwater supply system.

Alt. 2: Supply water from the City of Barrie water system.

Alt. 3: Supply water from the Lakeshore water system.

Alternative 1 is not a viable solution. It has been confirmed by performance testing of the wells (Golder, January 2013) and an aquifer assessment study (Golder, May 2013) that increasing the supply capacity of the groundwater wells is not a feasible solution. The regional aquifer in which the wells are drilled cannot support the ultimate projected water flows for the expanded economic district without unacceptable declines in the water table, and no other aquifer appears to be available that could supply the projected water needs. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further.

The feasibility of supplying water from the City of Barrie water distribution system, Alternative 2, was discussed with City of Barrie staff on January 8, 2018. The City’s preliminary review of available capacity will not be completed until their water infrastructure models are updated for their Master Plan update. The City would also need to assess the compatibility of a water supply to Innisfil with the City’s growth management plan. The timing of a response from the City of Barrie is not expected until mid to late 2018. The feasibility, costs, and terms of an agreement for external servicing with the City of Barrie remain unknown and would be mainly determined by the City of Barrie.


Page 72 July 13, 2018

The supply of water from the Lakeshore water system, Alternative 3, could meet the needs of the economic district expansion. The Innisfil Heights reservoir and BPS was designed for a future connection to the Lakeshore water system. Two options were considered for Alternative 3:

Option A: Twin water transmission mains on Innisfil Beach Road.

Option B: One water transmission main on Innisfil Beach Road and one water transmission main on Yonge Street and 6 th Line.

Alternative 3A is shown on Figure 13. The water transmission main on Innisfil Beach Road would be constructed as part of the planned road reconstruction by the County of Simcoe in 2019 - 2021, and would meet other water servicing needs, including an alternate supply to Stroud, and an improved water supply to the Town Campus and associated developments at Yonge Street.

The potential Campus Node on 6 th Line would be serviced via a connecting watermain on Yonge Street. This Yonge Street watermain between Innisfil Beach Road and 6

th Line would enable a future watermain looping with the 6 th Line watermains in Alcona and a connection with the 6 th Line watermains in Innisfil Heights. Both connections would require pressure reducing valves due to the differences in pressures. In an emergency, the Innisfil Heights water distribution system could discharge through a PRV into a 6

th

Line watermain; similarly, the 6 th Line watermain could discharge through a PRV into Alcona Pressure Zone 1.

The Innisfil Beach Road transmission main to the Innisfil Heights reservoir would be twinned, in two construction phases, in order to provide redundancy for supply reliability, provide better operating conditions and utilization of the pipes; and defer costs until the water supply capacity is needed.

The construction of a BPS at the Alcona Reservoir site is required to pump water from Alcona to Innisfil Heights. The construction of the additional trunk watermain between the Lakeshore W

TP and the Alcona Reservoir is also required to supplement the supply capacity to the Alcona Reservoir site.

The following twinning sub-options were considered for the configuration of the water transmission main on Innisfil Beach Road, considering all potential water demands along its route, as follows:

Twinning Sub-option 1: Single 7.8 km (from Alcona to Innisfil Heights) 400 mm diameter watermain installed at the onset; the second 7.8 km watermain installed when needed, and sized based on updated water demands.

Twinning Sub-option 2: At the onset, twin 2.5 km, 400 mm diameter watermains from Alcona to Yonge Street, and single 400 mm diameter watermain from Yonge Street to Innisfil Heights. The second watermain from Yonge Street to Innisfil Heights would be installed when needed and sized based on updated water demands.

STROUD

TOWN CAMPUS BPS

400ø

600ø

400ø

ONROUTE

300ø

400ø

400ø

400ø



ALCONA ZONE 2 BPS

EXPAND LAKESHOREWTP

400ø

PRV

400ø

INNISFIL HEIGHTS RESERVOIR AND BPS EXPANSION

300ø

300ø

CAMPUSNODE

PRV

285

260285

260

260

285

285

260260

260

260

285

285

285

285

260

6TH LINE

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

7TH LINE

9TH LINE

MAPLE RD.

20 S

IDER

OA

D

YON

GE

ST.

10 S

IDER

OAD

5 S

IDE

RO

AD

5TH LINE

F O RES

TV

ALL

EY

DR

.

0 650 1,300 1,950 2,600325Meters

LEGEND

WATERMAINS (2031)

WATERMAINS (FUTURE)

EXISTING WATERMAINS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

INNISFILHEIGHTS PRESSURE ZONE 1

²³

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 13INNISFIL HEIGHTS WATER SERVICING

ALTERNATIVE 3 OPTION A

CO

MM

ER

CE

PA

RK

DR

.


Page 74 July 13, 2018

Alternative 3A with Twinning Sub-option 2, in which the watermain is twinned up to Yonge Street in the first phase, is preferred because it reduces disruption on Innisfil Beach Road by minimizing the number of construction projects, improves supply redundancy at Yonge Street, and benefits more significantly from cost sharing with the County‘s Innisfil Beach Road reconstruction project.

Alternative 3B is shown on Figure 14 overleaf. This option was developed to provide two water supply lines from the Lakeshore water system to the Innisfil Heights economic district to achieve some redundancy and improved reliability, using two separate routes, such that each route could have water servicing in the future. In Option B, one water supply main would be on Innisfil Beach Road, the other would be on 6 th Line.

A 6 th Line water supply main would provide water to the expansion area of the Innisfil Heights economic district, i.e., south of the 7 th Line, in a separate pressure zone from the one supplied by the existing Innisfil Heights BPS north of the 7 th Line. Therefore, Innisfil Heights would have two pressure zones. Pressure reducing valves on the trunk watermains in Innisfil Heights would enable connections between the two pressure zones in the event of a fire or of a break in the Innisfil Beach Road or the 6

th Line water supplies.

Water pumped from the new Alcona Reservoir BPS would be conveyed via twin watermains on Innisfil

Beach Road to Yonge Street. In a first phase corresponding with the development of the existing Innisfil Heights economic district, the watermain would be extended on Innisfil Beach Road to the Innisfil Heights Reservoir. In a second phase corresponding with the expansion of the economic district, watermains would be installed on Yonge Street and 6 th Line to a new reservoir and BPS on 6 th Line west of the 10 th

Sideroad. For this future phase, twin watermains, placed in operation in a phased manner, are preferred to ensure reasonable pipe velocities as the water demands gradually increase.

This 6 th Line BPS would provide the required pessures for the distribution system in the Innisfil Heights economic district between the 7 th Line and the 5 th Line. The 6 th Line Reservoir would provide equalization and emergency storage. Fire storage would continue to be provided in the Innisfil Heights Reservoir, so as not to duplicate this existing capacity.

With Option B, the planned Innisfil Heights Reservoir and BPS expansions would be limited to the

planned Phase 2 expansion as required to meet the demands in the Innisfil Heights economic district north of the 7 th Line.

Water pumped from the Alcona Reservoir BPs to a 6 th Line Reservoir could also fill a Campus Node

reservoir sized for the Campus Node and other local developments.

It is noted that the 2012 MSP considered an alternate approach to achieving a reliable water supply to Innisfil Heights. It involved an Innisfil Beach Road supply, pumped from a BPS at the Alcona Reservoir site, and a 6 th Line supply, pumped from the Lefroy BPS, both of which discharged to a new reservoir in Innisfil Heights that was to be located near the 7 th Line and 5 th Sideroad.

STROUD

TOWN CAMPUS BPS

600ø

400ø

ONROUTE

300ø

400ø

400ø

400ø


CAMPUSNODE


ALCONA ZONE 2 BPS

EXPAND LAKESHOREWTP

2 X 400ø

PRV

PRV

400ø

500ø

6TH LINE BPSAND RESERVOIR

PRV

2 X 300ø

2 X

300ø

300ø

300ø

INNISFIL HEIGHTS RESERVOIR AND BPS EXPANSION

CO

MM

ER

CE

PAR

K D

R.

PRV

285

285

285

285285

260

285

285

260

285

260

260

285

260

260

260

260

285

285

6TH LINE

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

7TH LINE

9TH LINE

YON

GE

ST.

MAPLE RD.

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

10 S

IDE

RO

AD

5 S

IDE

RO

AD

5TH LINE

FOR EST

VALL

EYD

R.

0 650 1,300 1,950 2,600325Meters

LEGEND

WATERMAINS (2031)

WATERMAINS (FUTURE)

EXISTING WATERMAINS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

INNISFIL HEIGHTS PRESSURE ZONE 1

INNISFIL HEIGHTS PRESSURE ZONE 2

²³

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 14INNISFIL HEIGHTS WATER SERVICING

ALTERNATIVE 3 OPTION B


Page 76 July 13, 2018

This approach is no longer viable as was envisioned because the Innisfil Heights Reservoir and BPS was constructed at Innisfil Beach Road east of Highway 400. Alternative 3B is a revised version of the previous MSP’s water servicing alternative.

11.1.4Assessm


Comparison of the Innisfil Heights water supply Alternative 3 Options A and B is presented in Table 17.


ent of Innisfil Heights Water Supply Alternative 3 Options

Criteria Alternative 3A – Innisfil Beach Road

Twin Supply Alternative 3B – Innisfil Beach Road

Supply and 6 th Line Supply

Impacts on

Servicing

Provides water service to Innisfil Heights, Town Campus, Stroud and Campus Node.

Provides water service to Innisfil Heights, Town Campus, Stroud and Campus Node. Could also service lands on 6

th Line in the future.

Technical and Operational

Considerations

Twin watermains provide service redundancy and reliability if watermains built in separate trenches. Requires 2 BPS: new BPS in Alcona and expansion of Innisfil Heights BPS. Requires 1 reservoir: 6,600 m

3 expansion of Innisfil Heights Reservoir. W

atermain co6nstruction can be coordinated with County IBR reconstruction project such that road reconstruction costs are picked up by County.

Separate supply watermains provide service redundancy and reliability. Requires 3 BPS: new BPS in Alcona, new BPS on 6

th Line, and expansion of Innisfil Heights BPS. Requires 2 reservoirs: new 6

th Line Reservoir and 2,200 m

3 expansion of Innisfil Heights Reservoir. Additional O&M requirements for additional facilities.W

atermain construction on IBR can be coordinated with County reconstruction project such that IBR road reconstruction costs are picked up by County. W

atermain construction on 6

th Line can be coordinated with future 6

th Line road upgrades (expected in next 10 years).

Estimated

Project Costs $25 M

$35 M

Environmental

Impacts

Project is within road right-of-way, therefore minor potential for environmental impacts. Few stream crossings and limited construction near sensitive environmental areas.

Project is within road right-of-way, therefore minor potential for environmental impacts. Few stream crossings and limited construction near sensitive environmental areas.

Social Impacts

Potential disruption to residents and businesses on IBR during construction. W

atermain installation would be concurrent with IBR reconstruction project.

Potential disruption to residents and businesses on IBR during construction. Disruption to minor road in future. W

atermain installation would be concurrent with road reconstruction projects.


Page 77 July 13, 2018

Although installing twin watermains on Innisfil Beach Road to Innisfil Heights in two phases to match growth of the economic district (Alternative 3A) is the lowest cost solution to providing a reliable water supply, in the longer term, the future extension of water servicing to the 6 th Line (Alternative 3B) may become necessary to service developments in the 6

th Line corridor such as the potential Campus Node. Alternative 3B also benefits from the County‘s Innisfil Beach Road reconstruction project starting in 2019, that will minimize construction costs and disruption. Therefore, in view of the long-term potential for growth in the Innisfil Beach Road corridor as well as in the 6

th Line corridor, Alternative 3B is considered the preferred long-term water servicing approach.

11.1.5Recom

mended W

ater Supply Solution

The recommended solution to meet the water supply needs of the Innisfil Heights economic district is to connect to the Lakeshore water system via a water transmission main on Innisfil Beach Road in a first phase, and in the future, via a water transmission main on 6 th Line, as shown on Figure 14.

The recommended water supply infrastructure for the first phase of expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district will consist of:

Twin 400 mm diameter water transmission main from the Alcona Reservoir site to Yonge Street. Single 400 mm diameter water transmission main from Yonge Street to the Innisfil Heights Reservoir.300 mm diameter watermain on Yonge Street to south limit of Town Campus site.400 mm diameter watermain on 5 th Sideroad from 9 th Line to 7 th Line. Expansion of the Innisfil Heights Reservoir (Phase 2) and replacement of the pumps at the Innisfil Heights BPS (Phase 2) New BPS at the Alcona Reservoir site. This facility will have multiple functions, including pumping to Alcona South, as described in Section 9.1.5.

It is recommended that the Innisfil Heights groundwater wells be maintained as a stand-by water supply until the future second Lakeshore supply watermain is implemented. The wells also have capacity (up to a MDD of 3,110 m

3/day) to support a limited amount of growth/redevelopment in the economic district.

To service the future expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district (OPA 1 lands), the following water infrastructure is anticipated to be required, with watermain, BPS and reservoir sizing to be confirmed to suit development plans:

Twin 300 mm diameter watermains on Yonge Street and 6 th Line. New 6 th Line Reservoir and BPS (in phases). 500 mm diameter watermain on 6 th Line from the 6 th Line BPS to Innisfil Heights. 400 mm diameter watermains on extension of Commerce Park Drive from the 7 th Line to the 5 th Line. 400 mm diameter watermain crossing of Highway 400 at the 6 th Line. 300 mm diameter watermain on Bowman Street to increase available fire flows.


Page 78 July 13, 2018

The implementation of the Innisfil Heights water servicing plan will also require the construction of the new trunk watermain between the Lakeshore W

TP and the Alcona reservoir that is discussed in Section 9.1.5.

11.1.6Cam

pus Node and 6th Line W

ater Servicing

The Innisfil Beach Road trunk watermain and the new booster pumping station at the Alcona Reservoir site will be capable of supplying water in the future to the 6 th Line, including to a local reservoir and BPS that would serve facilities at the Campus Node, as shown on Figure 14.

Due to the rolling topography on 6 th Line, local or individual BPS and PRVs will be required to maintain pressures within acceptable range. The proposed 6 th Line BPS should be designed to provide distribution pressures in Innisfil Heights as well as to the area between Highway 400 and 10

th Sideroad.

In the future, a 6 th Line water distribution main east of Yonge Street could be connected to Alcona’s water distribution system with a pressure reducing valve as Alcona operates in lower pressure zones.

11.2Churchill

11.2.1Churchill W


The Churchill water system is supplied by three groundwater wells with a combined permitted capacity of 743 m

3/day. Raw water is chlorinated and pumped to a 95 m3 capacity reservoir. Treated water is

pumped into the distribution network by a BPS with a firm capacity of 1,296 m3/day. The system is

illustrated on Figure 15.

A new BPS and treated water reservoir are currently in construction to replace the existing BPS and reservoir. The new facility will provide sufficient capacity for growth, up to the projected population to the year 2031, and will improve fire protection, to provide a fire flow of 100 L/s for 2 hours. The new reservoir will have a volume of 1,100 m

3and the BPS will have a firm capacity of 109 L/s.

Issues with THMs have been noted at the dead ends of the water distribution system. Innisfil operation staff will consider adding flushing stations.

11.2.2W


With the construction of the new BPS and reservoir in 2018, the projected water supply, pumping and

storage needs will be met, as shown in Table 18 below.


Page 79 July 13, 2018

Table 18: Churchill Water System


Projected Water Dem


entsSystem

Capacity Shortfalls

20172031

ExistingUnderConst.

ADD (m3/d)

134 175

Supply (m3/d)

743 743

NoneMDD (m

3/d) 336

437

PHD (L/s) 6


29 109

None

Storage (m3)

1,005 1,037

Storage (m3)

95 1,100

None

11.2.3W

ater Servicing Solutions

As there are no significant issues with the Churchill water system and measures are in place to address the known capacity deficiencies, no alternative servicing solutions needed to be considered.

11.2.4Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

No municipal water infrastructure projects are recommended for Churchill.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

CHURCHILL CHURCHILL WELL #2

CHURCHILL WELL #3

!(

!

!

CHURCHILL RESERVOIR,BPS & WELL #1

!(

5TH LINE

10SI

DER

OA

D

MEADOWLAND ST.

4TH LINE

VALL

EYVI

EWD

R.

ALLA

N S

T.

JOH

N S

T.

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

YON

GE

ST.

GIMBY CRES.

3RD LINE

SLO

AN

CIRCLE

DR.

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Meters

LEGEND

!( SUPPLY WELL


!( WATER RESERVOIRS

WATERMAINS

ROADS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

-


BARRIE

BIG BAY POINT ROAD

MAPLEVIEW DRIVE

LOCKHART ROAD

10th LINE

9th LINE

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

7th LINE

6th LINE

5th LINE

YON

GE STR

EET

2nd LINE

3rd LINE

20th SIDER

OAD

10th SIDER

OAD

HW

Y. 400

5th SIDER

OAD



SANDY COVE

ALCONA


GILFORD

FENNELL'S CORNERS

CHURCHILL

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

ESSATWP.

COOKSTOWN

KEY PLAN

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 15CHURCHILL WATER SYSTEM

!(

!(

!(


Page 81 July 13, 2018


astewater Servicing


Innisfil Heights’s economic district and residential community rely on individual septic systems for wastewater disposal.

As a Strategic Settlement Employment Area, the Innisfil Heights economic district is planned to be expanded. The first phase consists of growth within the existing settlement area to provide approximately 325 ha of commercial/industrial land. In the future, 320 ha of employment lands will be added, for a total of 645 ha. This future expansion, as per OPA1, will extend the south boundary of the economic district from the 7 th Line south to the 5 th Line on both sides of Highway 400, and will include two parcels of land at the northern limit of the economic district. The future expansion of the economic district is considered to occur post 2031.

12.1.1W

astewater System

Needs

There are no documented issues with the existing private individual septic systems that serve Innisfil Heights.

However, the planned development of the Innisfil Heights economic district would benefit from a municipal sanitary sewer system to maximize the land’s development potential.


The following wastewater servicing alternatives were considered to support the planned expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district:

Alt. 1. Establish a sanitary sewer system discharging to one or more communal subsurface disposal systems.Alt. 2. Establish a sanitary sewer system connected to the City of Barrie municipal wastewater system.Alt. 3. Service by private individual septic systems. Alt. 4. Establish a sanitary sewer system connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system via the 6 th Line. Alt. 5. Establish a sanitary sewer system connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system via Innisfil Beach Road. Alt. 6. Establish a sanitary sewer system connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system via Innisfil Beach Road for the first phase of development, and via the 6 th Line for the second phase.

Alternatives 1 and 3 were screened out for the following reasons:


Page 82 July 13, 2018

Alternative 1, communal subsurface disposal systems, was not considered further because it is not considered a feasible approach. Communal subsurface disposal systems for the projected wastewater flows would be extremely large, exceeding the size of large communal beds designed and built in Ontario. The areas required for such systems would reduce the land area available for development. Further, it would be very difficult, without wastewater treatment, to meet the MOECC Reasonable Use requirements for the protection of groundwater quality.

Alternative 3, continuing to service with individual tile beds, was not considered further as it would limit the type of commercial and industrial uses to dry or low wastewater generation facilities. This alternative would not satisfy the Town of Innisfil’s intent to provide a fully serviced industrial park.

Alternative 2, connecting to the City of Barrie sanitary sewer system, was discussed with the City of Barrie on January 8, 2018. City staff indicated the Barrie system could likely physically accommodate the wastewater flows from Innisfil Heights, however their preliminary review of available capacity will not be completed until their sanitary infrastructure models are updated for their Master Plan update. The City also indicated their need to assess the compatibility of this external servicing with the City’s growth management plan. The timing of a response from the City of Barrie is not expected until mid to late 2018. Available capacity, servicing costs, and terms of an agreement with the City of Barrie for current and future capacity and servicing costs were therefore unknown and would be mainly determined by the City of Barrie. This approach for wastewater servicing could not be considered in detail in the absence of further information.

Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 were considered in more detail. Two routes for connecting Innisfil Heights to the Lakeshore wastewater system were considered: via the 6 th Line (Alternative 4); and via Innisfil Beach Road (Alternative 5). Alternative 6 was added following receipt of input from the County of Simcoe. It involves using the Innisfil Beach Road route for the first phase of the Innisfil Height Economic District expansion (7 th to 9 th Line), and using the 6 th Line route for the second phase of the development (south of 7 th Line). All three alternatives were developed at a preliminary level with due consideration of available grades and modelled with SewerCAD to establish sewer pipe sizing, required pumping station capacity and head, and forcemain sizing.

The wastewater flows for all alternatives included flows from Cookstown to ensure the pipes would have sufficient capacity if the Cookstown Class EA concludes servicing to the Lakeshore wastewater system via 5 th Sideroad to Innisfil Heights is the preferred solution. For Alternative 6, two options were considered:

Alternative 6, Option A: Cookstown flows are directed to the first phase of the Innisfil Heights sanitary sewers to Innisfil Beach Road;Alternative 6 Option B: Cookstown flows are directed to the second phase of the Innisfil Heights sanitary sewers to 6 th Line.

The sewers for all alternatives also included wastewater flows from the potential 42 ha Campus Node.


Page 83 July 13, 2018

Alternatives 4, 5 and 6A and 6B are shown on the attached Figures 16, 17, 18 and 19. All figures show, in red, the works that would be necessary to serve the first phase of the economic district expansion to the 7 th Line (year 2031), and in green the works that would be needed to serve the future expansion (OPA 1, post 2031).

12.1.3Assessm


The preliminary comparative assessment Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 is summarized in Table 19. Estimated project costs for each alternative are summarized in Appendix B.

Alternative 6B, which consists of constructing the trunk sanitary sewer system on Innisfil Beach Road for the first phase of the expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district, and constructing a trunk sewer system on 6 th Line for the future expansion phase, with sufficient capacity for servicing Cookstown, is the preferred solution for the following reasons:

It enables the sanitary servicing to proceed concurrently with the County road reconstruction project starting in 2019, thus minimizing construction costs, and minimizing disruption to Innisfil Beach Road during construction.

It has lowest capital costs in Phase 1, which can facilitate initial growth in the economic district, increase the tax base, and assist in funding subsequent infrastructure projects.

It facilitates the servicing in the short term of the Town Campus, its expansion, and the development of lands in the Yonge Street and Innisfil Beach Road area, which is identified in the Town’s Official Plan and where development projects are anticipated in the very short term.

It aligns with the preliminary preferred water supply solution to Innisfil Heights of a water transmission main in the Innisfil Beach Road corridor, thus achieving efficiencies in planning, design and construction.

The Phase 1 infrastructure meets closely the servicing requirements of the planned first phase expansion of the economic district within the existing Innisfil Heights settlement area boundaries. No additional infrastructure needs to be built in the first phase that cannot be fully cost-recovered through the users of the infrastructure. OPA 1 lands do not need to gain official status so that costs can be recouped for Phase 1.

Servicing the future economic district expansion, which is between the 7th Line and 5 th Line, through

the 6 th Line corridor to the WPCP, reduces infrastructure costs.

The creation of two service corridors will facilitate the development of lands in both corridors, including the potential Campus Node.

A 6 th Line trunk sewer system will provide a lower cost servicing alternative for Cookstown than the more distant Innisfil Beach Road trunk sewer system.

EX. SPS #6

SPS #2

SPS #3

SPS #1

20 SR SPS

CN SPS

IH SPS 1

IH SPS 3

IH SPS 4

IH SPS 5IH

SPS 2

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

375ø

250ø

450ø

400ø 450ø

37

5ø

750ø 525ø 675ø 675ø

200ø

NEW SPS #2

375ø

EXPAND LAKESHORE WPCP

6TH LINE450ø

##

450ø

400ø

CAMPUS NODE


6TH LINE

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

HIG

HW

AY 4

009TH LINE

7TH LINE

YON

GE

ST.

MAPLE RD.

10 S

IDE

RO

AD

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

5TH LINE

F O RE

STV

ALLE

YD

R.

0 650 1,300 1,950 2,600325Meters

LEGEND

SEWAGE PUMPING STATION (2031)

SEWAGE PUMPING STATION (FUTURE)

EXISTING SEWAGE PUMPING STATION

GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER (2031)

GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER (FUTURE)

SANITARY FORCEMAIN (2031)

SANITARY FORCEMAIN (FUTURE)

EXISTING SANITARY FORCEMAINS

EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 16INNISFIL HEIGHTS

WASTEWATER SERVICING ALTERNATIVE 4 - 6TH LINE ROUTE

²³

EX. SPS #6

SPS #2

SPS #3

SPS #1

20 SR SPS

IH SPS 1

IH SPS 3

IH SPS 4

IH SPS 5

IH SPS 2A

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

IH SPS 6

NEW SPS #2


375ø

400ø 525ø 750ø 450ø 825ø

450ø

525ø

450ø

#

250ø

300ø

375øIH

SPS 2


CAMPUSNODE 200ø

450ø

6TH LINE

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

7TH LINE

9TH LINE

MAPLE RD.

YON

GE

ST.

20 S

IDER

OA

D

10 S

IDER

OAD

5 SI

DER

OA

D

5TH LINE

FOR

EST

VALL

EY

DR

.

0 640 1,280 1,920 2,560320Meters

LEGEND










SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

DATE: JUNE 2018

INNISFIL MASTER SERVICING PLAN UPDATEFIGURE 17

INNISFIL HEIGHTS WASTEWATER SERVICING

ALTERNATIVE 5 - INNISFIL BEACH RD. ROUTE

²³

SPS #6

SPS #2

SPS #3

SPS #1

20 SR SPS

IH SPS 1

IH SPS 3

IH SPS 4

IH SPS 5

IH SPS 2A

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

IH SPS 6

NEW SPS #2


375ø

400ø 450ø 525ø 450ø 750ø

450ø

525ø

# 250ø

300ø

IH SPS 2


CAMPUSNODE 375ø

# #450ø400ø450ø400ø

#

CN SPS

600ø

6TH LINE

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

7TH LINE

9TH LINE

MAPLE RD.

YON

GE

ST.

20 S

IDER

OA

D

10 S

IDER

OAD

5 SI

DER

OA

D

5TH LINE

FOR

EST

VALL

EY

DR

.

0 640 1,280 1,920 2,560320Meters

LEGEND










SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

²³

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 18INNISFIL HEIGHTS WASTEWATER SERVICING

ALTERNATIVE 6A - INNSIFIL BEACH RD/6TH LINEOPTION A - COOKSTOWN FLOWS TO INNISFIL BEACH RD.

SPS #6

SPS #2

SPS #3

SPS #1

20 SR SPS

IH SPS 1

IH SPS 3

IH SPS 4

IH SPS 5

IH SPS 2A

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

IH SPS 6

NEW SPS #2


375ø

400ø 375ø 450ø 400ø 600ø

400ø

525ø

# 250ø

300ø

IH SPS 2


CAMPUSNODE 450ø

# #525 ø400ø

400ø600ø400ø

#

CN SPS

525ø

6TH LINE

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

7TH LINE

9TH LINE

MAPLE RD.

YON

GE

ST.

20 S

IDER

OA

D

10 S

IDER

OAD

5 SI

DER

OA

D

5TH LINE

FOR

EST

VALL

EY

DR

.

0 640 1,280 1,920 2,560320Meters

LEGEND










SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 19INNISFIL HEIGHTS WASTEWATER SERVICING

ALTERNATIVE 6B - INNSIFIL BEACH RD/6TH LINE OPTION B - COOKSTOWN FLOWS TO 6th LINE

²³


Page 88 July 13, 2018

Table 19: Comparative Assessment of Innisfil Heights Wastewater Alternatives

Criteria Alternative 4 – 6th Line Route Alternative 5 – Innisfil Beach Road Route

Alternative 6 – Innisfil Beach Road (Phase 1) and 6th Line Route (Future)


Servicing of the Town Campus expansion will require a separate sewer line to the 6th Line trunk sewer. Facilitates servicing of the future Campus Node on 6th Line. Proposed sewer on 20 Sideroad facilitates servicing of the Alcona South growth area.

Facilitates servicing of the Town Campus expansion and developments in the Yonge St./IBR area. Servicing the future Campus Node will require a separate sewer line. Proposed sewer on 20 Sideroad facilitates servicing of the Alcona South growth area.

Facilitates servicing of the Town Campus expansion and new developments in the Yonge St./IBR area. Facilitates servicing of the future Campus Node on 6th Line. Doubles the total potential service area. Proposed sewer on 20 Sideroad facilitates servicing of the Alcona South growth area.


Need to install sewers on 5 Sideroad to the south limit of the future economic district expansion in the first phase, although servicing south of 7th Line will not be required in the first phase.Requires the construction of 4 SPS in the first phase, plus up to 3 SPS within Innisfil Heights to service the future economic district expansion. Sanitary forcemain crossing of Highway 400 at 6th Line may be shorter than at IBR and may be partially completed by conventional excavation because of the existing Highway 400 underpass at 6th Line. Trunk sewer construction can be combined with 6th Line road upgrades, planned in the next 5 to 10 years.

Lesser extent of sanitary works on the west side of Highway 400 in the first phase as IBR is central to the existing and expanded economic district. Requires the construction of 4 SPS in the first phase, plus up to 4 SPS within Innisfil Heights to service the future expansion of the economic district. Sanitary forcemain crossing of Highway 400 at IBR will require directional drilling or microtunnelling. Construction of the trunk sewer on IBR can be coordinated with the 2019 County IBR road reconstruction project and concurrently with the installation of the water transmission main. Costs of road reconstruction are picked up by the County.

Lesser extent of sanitary works on the west side of Highway 400 in the first phase as IBR is central to the existing and expanded economic district. Requires the construction of 4 SPS in the first phase, plus up to 4 SPS within Innisfil Heights to service the future expansion of the economic district. Requires two crossings of Hwy 400: at IBR in the first phase and at 6th Line in the future. Construction of the trunk sewer on IBR can be coordinated with the 2019 County IBR road reconstruction project and concurrently with installation of the trunk watermain. Costs of road reconstruction are picked up by County. Increases system reliability by providing redundancy of trunk sanitary sewers to the WPCP.


Page 89 July 13, 2018

Criteria Alternative 4 – 6th Line Route Alternative 5 – Innisfil Beach Road Route

Alternative 6 – Innisfil Beach Road (Phase 1) and 6th Line Route (Future)

Estimated Project Costs

Phase 1: $52 M; Phase 2: $33 M; Total: $85 M

Phase 1: $45 M; Phase 2: $52 M; Total: $97 M

Option A Phase 1: $46 M; Phase 2: $46 M Total: $92 M

Option B Phase 1: $41 M; Phase 2: $50 M Total: $91 M


Project is within the road right of way, therefore there is minor potential for environmental impacts. Few stream crossings and limited construction near sensitive environmental areas.

Project is within the road right of way, therefore there is minor potential for environmental impacts, except at SPS sites. Potential impacts at crossing of Lover’s Creek can be mitigated by directional drilling.

Project are within the road right of ways, therefore there is minor potential for environmental impacts, except at SPS sites. Potential impacts at crossing of Lover’s Creek can be mitigated by directional drilling.

Social Impacts

Potential disruption to residents and businesses during construction on road with less traffic. However, installation of sewers could be combined with the 6th Line road reconstruction project.

Potential disruption to residents and businesses on major arterial road during construction. However, installation of sewers would be combined with planned County IBR road reconstruction project and the water transmission main construction project.

Potential disruption to residents and businesses during construction on two roads, one a major arterial road. However, installation of sewers on IBR would be combined with planned County road reconstruction project and the water transmission main construction project.


Page 90 July 13, 2018

12.1.4Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

The recommended servicing infrastructure for the first phase of expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district consists of:

375 mm diameter sanitary sewers on 5th Sideroad from 9 th Line to 7 th Line. IH SPS 1 near 9 th Line with 200 mm diameter forcemain. IH SPS 2 at 7 th Line with 400 mm diameter forcemain to and on Innisfil Beach Road, crossing Highway 400. 375 mm to 525 mm diameter sewers on Innisfil Beach Road to IH SPS 6. IH SPS 6 with 400 mm diameter forcemain to Yonge Street. 600 mm diameter sewer on Innisfil Beach Road to SPS on 20 th Sideroad. 20 th SR SPS with 400 mm diameter forcemain to 6 th Line. 525 mm diameter sewer on 6 th Line to the existing sanitary sewer at Sleeping Lion.

To service the future expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district, the following infrastructure is anticipated to be required, with sewer and SPS sizing to be confirmed to suit the development plans:

Gravity sewers on 5 th Sideroad from 7 th Line to 5 th Line. IH SPS 2A at 5 th Line with 400 mm diameter forcemain to and on 6 th Line, crossing Highway 400. 600 mm diameter sewer on 6 th Line to the Campus NodeCN SPS and twin 400 mm diameter forcemain to Yonge Street 450 mm and 525 mm diameter sewers on 6 th Line to 20 Sideroad. IH SPS 3 at 9 th Line and forcemains and gravity sewer to Innisfil Beach Road sewer. IH SPS 4 at 7 th Line and IH SPS 5 at 5 th Line, with forcemains and gravity sewers to 6 th Line sewer.

12.2Churchill

12.2.1W


There are no documented issues with the existing private individual septic systems that serve Churchill. Modest growth is planned for Churchill.

12.2.2W


Existing properties in Churchill can remain on private septic systems as no issues have been identified. The proposed new developments in Churchill are proposed to be serviced with septic systems in the absence of a municipal sewer system.

In the future, if it is determined that a municipal sanitary sewer system should be constructed to service parts or all of Churchill, it could be connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system via a SPS and forcemain connecting to the existing sewer on Killarney Beach Road. The proposed sewer twinning on Killarney Beach Road has sufficient capacity to convey wastewater flows from Churchil to SPS #5, and downstream infrastructure has adequate capacity to convey the flows to the Lakeshore W

PCP. There


Page 91 July 13, 2018

may be limitations, however, at the Lakeshore WPCP. The availability of treatment capacity will need

to be reviewed at that time and will be contingent on actual flows and treatment performance.

12.2.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

No municipal wastewater servicing projects are recommended for Churchill by the year 2031.


Page 92 July 13, 2018

13Innisfil South W

ater Servicing

The water servicing requirements for Innisfil South, which consists of the Urban Settlement Area of Lefroy-Belle Ewart, and the Hamlets of Gilford and Fennell’s Corners, and the shoreline communities of Degrassi Point and Big Cedar Point, are described in this chapter.

13.1Lefroy-Belle Ew

art and Big Cedar Point

13.1.1W


The Lakeshore water distribution system currently only extends into Lefroy-Belle Ewart via a trunk watermain on Maple Road and Belle-Aire Beach Road that was installed in 2016. Connecting streets are not serviced by the municipal water system. Only the most recent subdivisions in Lefroy at Belle Aire Beach Road and 20 th Sideroad are serviced. The majority of Lefroy’s existing properties rely on individual well supplies.

There are no documented issues with the existing private individual wells serving the existing properties in Lefroy and Big Cedar Point. However, the need may arise in the future to provide municipal water servicing to the existing properties on individual wells. It is an objective of the 2017 Official Plan that residential and employment growth in Lefroy be on full municipal services.

In Lefroy Pressure Zone 2, which encompasses the new developments west of the railway line, the existing Lefroy BPS can supply the current phases of development up to approximately 800 new units. Expansion of the facility will be required to supply the remainder of the developments in the BPS’ service area.

13.1.2W


Existing properties on Maple Road and Belle-Aire Beach Road in Lefroy-Belle Ewart can be serviced by direct connections to the existing trunk watermains. The connection of other areas of Lefroy-Belle-Ewart that are in Pressure Zone 1 will require extensions of the Lakeshore water distribution system south to Killarney Beach Road and to connecting streets. There are no constraints to these projects: the capacity of the proposed W

TP expansion, reservoirs and trunk watermains provide for the connections of currently unserviced lots in this area to the Lakeshore water system. Connection projects can be implemented as local improvement projects.

Water servicing in the area of Lefroy-Belle-Ewart that is within Pressure Zone 2 will be provided by the

planned expansion of the Lefroy BPS (pump replacement) and the extension of internal watermains, up to an equivalent population of approximately 3,900.


Page 93 July 13, 2018

13.1.3Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

The recommended municipal infrastructure in Lefroy is to extend the water distribution system in Lefroy Pressure Zone 2 to Killarney Beach Road, and to increase the Lefroy BPS capacity to meet the water demands of the development plans, as shown on Figure 20. In summary, the recommended projects are:Replacement of the pumps in the Lefroy BPS to increase capacity.

New 400 mm diameter watermain on Killarney Beach Rd., with PRV to connect to Pressure Zone 1. New 400 mm diameter watermain on Church Drive to connect the existing LSAMI P2 watermain to Killarney Beach Road.

Expansion of the Lefroy Reservoir is not expected to be required to service the development plans in the Lefroy Secondary Plan area. Lefroy Reservoir expansion will be needed in the future as water demands increase from connections of existing properties in Lefroy and Innisfil South to the lakeshore water distribution system.

13.2Degrassi Point and Gilford

13.2.1W


Most of Gilford is serviced by municipal watermains that are supplied by the Lakeshore water system via the water transmission main to Bradford. Gilford has an established network of water distribution mains with hydrants that was originally supplied by a municipal groundwater system. However, the water transmission main to BW

G was not designed to supply fire flows. In the event of a fire in Gilford, fire flows drawn from the water transmission main would reduce the available supply to meet the other water demands in Cookstown and BW

G.

The properties in Degrassi Point rely on individual water supplies. There are no documented issues with these systems. However, the need may arise in the future to provide municipal water servicing to the existing properties on individual wells.

13.2.2W


In the absence of any issues with the existing private water supplies, no alternative water servicing solutions were specifically considered for the Degrassi Point shoreline.

LEGEN

D

WATE

RM

AIN

S (2031)

WATE

RM

AIN

S (FU

TUR

E) - LO

CA

LIM

PR

OV

EM

EN

T PR

OJE

CT (N

ON

DC

2018)

EXISTIN

G W

ATER

MAIN

S

SETTLE

ME

NT A

RE

AS

EX

PAN

DLA

KE

SH

OR

E

WTP

LE

FR

OY

- BE

LLE

EW

AR

T

EXPA

ND

LE

FRO

Y BP

S

ALC

ON

A TO B

RA

DFO

RD

W

ATER

TRA

NS

MIS

SIO

N M

AIN

TOW

N

CAM

PU

S BP

S

GIL

FO

RD

FE

NN

ELL'S

CO

RN

ER

S CU

RC

HIL

L

GO

LDC

RE

ST

STAND

PIPE

& BP

S

3RD

LINE

BP

S

DE

GR

AS

SI P

OIN

T

SH

OR

ELIN

E

300ø

300ø

300ø

300ø

ALCO

NA

ZON

E 2 B

PS

ALCO

NA R

ES

ER

VO

IR

EX

PAN

SIO

N

NE

W A

LCO

NA

RE

SE

RV

OIR

BP

S

WTM

TW

INN

ING

(BW

G)

PRV

INN

ISFIL TO

WN

C

AM

PU

S

ME

TER

ING

AN

D P

RV 400ø

YONGE ST.

20 SIDEROAD

6TH LIN

E

7TH LIN

E

3 RD

L INE

2ND

L INE

5 TH LIN

E

GI LFO

RD

RD

.

KILL AR

NE

Y BE

AC

H R

D.

EWART ST.

JAN

SBLVD.

PINE AVE.

MAPLERD.

BELL E A

I RE B

EAC

H R

D.

HARBOUR ST.

ARNOLD ST.CORNER AVE.

INNISFREE PL.

HOUSTONAVE.

LEA RD.

FOXH

ILLS

T.

20 SIDEROAD

0620

1,2401,860

2,480310

Meters

INN

ISFIL MA

STER SER

VICIN

G

PLAN

UPD

ATE

FIGU

RE 20

INN

ISFIL SOU

TH W

ATER SER

VICIN

G

/ ²³

DATE: JU

NE

2018


Page 95 July 13, 2018

The following alternative solutions were considered for the provision of an adequate supply for fire protection in Gilford:

Alt. 1: Extension of the Lakeshore water distribution system south to Gilford.

Alt. 2: New water storage tank near or in Gilford, supplied from the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main.

Alt. 3: Continue to rely on the water transmission main to supply fire flows to Gilford.Alternative 1 would involve extending a 300 mm diameter watermain south on Pine Avenue to and on 3

rd Line and south along the shoreline to connect to the existing water distribution system in Gilford. However, the network of roads on the shoreline between 3 rd Line and 2 nd Line is not continuous, therefore easements would need to be obtained for the construction of this watermain.

Alternative 2 would involve the construction of an elevated tank or standpipe with a minimum volume of 572 m

3, which would be sufficient to supply a fire flow of 38 L/s for 2 hours.

Alternative 3 is the status quo, whereas fire flows are supplied from the connection to the water transmission main. This may result in a short term decrease in the flow supplied to Cookstown and Bradford.

A comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 20.

13.2.3Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

The recommended water servicing for Gilford and Degrassi Point is to maintain the status quo, Alternative 3, until the Lakeshore water system is extended south through Lefroy and until there is an expressed need or desire by the residents of Degrassi Point to connect to the municipal water system. The future extension of watermains to Degrassi Point would be a local improvement project.


13.3.1W

ater System Needs

The Goldcrest water system, which is supplied from the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main, is adequate for the existing and future water demands and pressure requirements at Fennell’s Corners.

As noted in Table 21, the existing water storage tank and fire pump can meet the minimum Town fire protection standard of 38 L/s for 2 hours. The facility was not designed to supply fire protection flows that are suggested by FUS for higher density residential developments. As Fennell’s Corners is a low density residential community with large lots, the current fire protection capacity is considered adequate. However, there is no back-up fire pump. Although the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main that supplies water to the Goldcrest system was not designed to provide fire flows, it provides additional security of supply in the event of a large fire that exceeds the Goldcrest water storage volume.


Page 96 July 13, 2018

Table 20: Comparative Assessment of Gilford Fire Protection Alternatives

Criteria Alternative 1 – Extend Lakeshore System South to Gilford

Alternative 2 – New Elevated Reservoir in Gilford

Alternative 3 – Rely on Water Transmission Main to BWG


Provides future opportunity for existing properties in Degrassi Point to connect to the Lakeshore water system if needed or desired.

No changes to existing servicing. Potential impacts on the temporary availability of water to Cookstown, Fennells Corners and Bradford.

TimingExtension of the Lakeshore water distribution system in Lefroy must be completed first.

No timing constraints to implementation. No timing constraints.


Completes looping of the Lakeshore water distribution system with the WTM to Bradford, improving the system’s overall redundancy and reliability. Utilizes available water storage in the Lakeshore water system that has capacity to supply fire flows to Degrassi Point and Gilford. Additional watermain to maintain.

Additional water storage tank to maintain. No additional infrastructure. No changes to operation and maintenance requirements.

Estimated Project Costs $4.6 M $600,000. No cost.


Potential impacts during construction of the watermain on the wetland in Degrassi Point.

No potential impacts on natural environment if reservoir site is within Gilford’s built area.

No potential environmental impacts.

Social Impacts

If properties in Degrassi Point connect to the watermain, improvements to the drinking water quality and quantity, and improved fire protection.

Visual impact of elevated tank on adjacent properties. No improvements to water supplies in Degrassi Point. Improved fire protection in Gilford.

No potential social impacts.


Page 97 July 13, 2018

Table 21: Goldcrest Water System


Projected Water Dem


entsExisting System

Capacity Shortfalls

20172031

ADD (m3/d)

46 59

Supply (m3/d)

389 None

MDD (m3/d)

83 106

Fire Pump (L/s) 38

Sufficient for MDD + fire protection of single family homes. No redundancy

PHD (L/s) (PF:5) 2


11.2

Storage (m3)

for 2 hrs @38 L/s

368 375

Storage (m3)

483 Sufficient for fire protection of single family homes.

13.3.2W


As there is no planned growth in Fennell’s Corners, there is no need to upgrade or expand the existing system.

13.3.3Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

No water infrastructure upgrades are required for Fennell’s Corners.


Page 98 July 13, 2018

14Innisfil South W

astewater Servicing

The wastewater servicing requirements, servicing solutions and recommendations, for Innisfil South (Lefroy-Belle Ewart, Gilford, Fennell’s Corners, Degrassi Point and Big Cedar Point) are described in this chapter.

14.1Lefroy-Belle-Ew

art and Big Cedar Point

14.1.1W

astewater System

Needs

Most of Big Cedar Point and Lefroy-Belle Ewart is serviced by the Lakeshore wastewater system. All proposed developments in Lefroy are planned to be serviced by connections to the Lakeshore wastewater system. There are no documented issues with existing individual septic systems in Lefroy. If the need to abandon septic systems arise, connections to the municipal system are possible.

The existing SPS #2 at the eastern end of 6th Line in Big Cedar Point requires minor maintenance

including new roof shingles, parging of concrete surfaces in the wet well, and replacement of deteriorating piping and valves in the wet well. This work will not be required if the SPS is decommissioned as part of the new SPS #2 project.

SPS #5 has adequate capacity for the projected wastewater flows. Refurbishing at SPS #5 is required however: the piping and valves in the wet well are deteriorating and need to be replaced.

14.1.2W


No alternative solutions needed to be considered for wastewater servicing in Lefroy and Big Cedar Point as the Lakeshore wastewater system can be extended as required to meet the needs of the existing properties and proposed developments.

14.1.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

The recommended wastewater infrastructure in Lefroy to provide the required conveyance capacity is as follows:

New 300 mm diameter sewer on Killarney Beach Road to increase the capacity of the existing sewer to convey flows from proposed developments to SPS #5.


Page 99 July 13, 2018

14.2Gilford and Degrassi Point

14.2.1W

astewater System

Needs

The Lakeshore wastewater system does not extend south of Killarney Beach Road. Degrassi Point and Gilford are serviced by private individual septic systems. There are no documented issues with the existing septic systems.

As for other unserviced communities on the shoreline, there may be a need in the future to consider extending sanitary servicing to the existing properties in Degrassi Point and Gilford in order to minimize the potential for contamination of Lake Simcoe if septic systems fail.

Lefroy Harbour Resort in Degrassi Point is planning an expansion, which would require a connection to the Lakeshore wastewater system via a private lift station.

14.2.2W


Alternative routes for a future extension of the Lakeshore wastewater system to Degrassi Point and Gilford were considered, as shown on Figure 21.

Alt. 1: New SPS in Gilford (G2 SPS) with forcemain to new SPS at 2 nd Line (G1 SPS). G1 SPS forcemain on 20 Sideroad to Killarney Beach Road. New Degrassi Point SPS (DP SPS) at 3 rd Line with forcemain to the Lefroy sewer at Pine Street.

Alt. 2: New SPS in Gilford (G2 SPS) with forcemain to new SPS at 2 nd Line (G1 SPS). G1 SPS forcemain along the shoreline to new Degrassi Point SPS (DP SPS) at 3 rd Line, with forcemain to the Lefroy sewer at Pine Street.

Both alternatives involve three new sewage pumping stations. With Alternative 1, the forcemain from

Degrassi Point SPS #2 at 2 nd Line would take a longer route to the 20 Sideroad. This route would avoid constructing a forcemain on the shoreline of Degrassi Point where there are no continuous municipal roads and through the wetland between Limerick Road and Innisfree Place. Alternative 2 would be the more direct route that would require obtaining easements and crossing the wetland. The route for Alternative 2 is also the route for a future watermain if the Lakeshore water system is extended to Gilford.

With either alternative route, the new Degrassi Point SPS would be designed to accommodate the flows

from Lefroy Harbour Resort, and its forcemain would be constructed within municipal right of ways.

Table 22 summarizes the comparative assessment of the two alternative routes.

³

³

³

³

²³²³

EXPAN

D

LAK

ES

HO

RE

W

PCP

SPS

#1

SP

S #5

GIL

FO

RD

LE

FR

OY

SPS

#2N

EW

SPS

#2

DE

GR

AS

SI P

OIN

T SP

S #1

GILFO

RD

SPS

#1

GILFO

RD

SP

S #2

250ø

200ø

200ø

ALT. 1

ALT. 2

300øKILLAR

NE

Y BE

ACH

RD

.

3 RD

L INE

SH

OR

EAC

RES

DR

.

GILF O

RD

RD

.

6TH LIN

E

K ILL ARN

EY B

EA C

H R

D.

2ND

L INE

BEL LE

AIR

EB E

AC

HR

D.

MAPLE

RD.

HOUSTONAVE.

HARBOUR ST.

SAINT JOHN'S RD.

20 SIDEROAD

5TH LI N

E

0390

7801,170

1,560195

Meters

/

DATE: JU

NE

2018

INN

ISFIL MA

STER SER

VICIN

G

PLAN

UPD

ATE

FIGU

RE 21

INN

ISFIL SOU

TH

WA

STEWATER

SERVIC

ING

²³

LEGEN

D³

SEW

AG

E P

UM

PIN

G S

TATION

(2031)

²³S

EW

AG

E P

UM

PIN

G S

TATION

(FUTU

RE

)

²³E

XIS

TING

SE

WA

GE

PU

MP

ING

STATIO

N

SA

NITA

RY G

RAV

ITY SE

WE

R (2031)

SA

NITA

RY G

RAV

ITY SE

WE

R (FU

TUR

E)

SA

NITA

RY FO

RC

EM

AIN

(FUTU

RE

) - LOC

AL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT P

RO

JEC

T (NO

N D

C 2018)

SA

NITA

RY FO

RC

EM

AIN

(2031)

EX

ISTIN

G S

AN

ITAY FOR

CE

MA

IN

EXIS

TING

SA

NITA

RY S

EW

ER

S

SETTLE

ME

NT A

RE

AS


Page 101 July 13, 2018


ent of Servicing Routes to Degrassi Point and Gilford

Criteria Alternative 1 – Route Forcem

ain to 20 Sideroad

Alternative 2 – Route Forcemain

along Shoreline

Impacts on

Servicing

Opportunity for servicing all of Degrassi Point and Gilford

Opportunity for servicing all of Degrassi Point and Gilford


Requires three new SPS. Significantly longer forcemain from Gilford SPS at 2

nd Line to Lefroy (4.9 km), and includes a railway crossing.

Requires three new SPS. Shorter forcemain from Gilford SPS at 2

nd

Line to Degrassi Point (1.5 km). Forcemain

constructed through

wetland: more difficult construction; permit expected to be difficult to obtain.

Estimated

Project Costs $15.6 M

$11.9 M + Easements

Environmental

Impacts

Few potential environmental impacts as all construction could be completed within road ROW

s.Servicing expected to reduce contamination from existing septic systems

Potential environmental impacts during construction of forcemain through wetland area. Mitigating measures required. Servicing expected to reduce contamination from existing septic systems

Social Impacts

More disruption during construction due to longer forcemain. Improvements to property value from municipal servicing.

Disruption to lakefront properties during construction.Improvements to property value from municipal servicing

14.2.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

No municipal sanitary servicing project is recommended for Degrassi Point and Gilford.

However, if and when needed due to issues with the existing septic systems, or desired by the residents and implemented as a local improvement project, the extension of the Lakeshore wastewater sewer system south of Lefroy to Degrassi Point and Gilford should be considered and the preferred route should follow the shoreline up to 3 rd Line.


14.3.1W


No issues with the existing private septic systems in Fennell’s Corners have been identified. No growth is planned for this community. The Official Plan allows for the Hamlet to continue to be on partial services.


Page 102 July 13, 2018

14.3.2W


Existing properties in Fennell’s Corners can remain on private septic systems as no issues have been identified.

14.3.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

No municipal wastewater infrastructure project is recommended for Fennell’s Corners.


Page 103 July 13, 2018

15Cookstow

n and Highway 400 & 89 Area W

ater Servicing

The existing water infrastructure, water servicing needs and recommended servicing for the Village of Cookstown and the commercial/industrial area at the intersection of Highways 400 and 89, are described in this chapter.

15.1Cookstow

n

15.1.1W

ater System Needs

Cookstown is connected to the Lakeshore water system via a connection to the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main. The existing water distribution system is illustrated on Figure 22 overleaf.

The water supply capacity allocated to Cookstown in the original design of the water transmission main (1,182 m

3/day) is adequate for the existing community and some of the currently planned growth in Cookstown, as shown in Table 23. A small increase in the allocated capacity to Cookstown will be required when the water transmission main is twinned, in order to meet the projected maximum day water demands.

The storage volume in the Cookstown standpipes is sufficient for the current and projected water demands to the year 2031.

Table 23: Cookstown Water System


Projected Water Dem


entsExisting System

Capacity Shortfalls

20172031

With Hwy

400 & 89. ADD (m

3/d) 648

907 2,520

Supply (m3/d)

1,182 None

MDD (m3/d)

1,166 1,632

4,535 Storage (m

3) 1,466

Insufficient for growth of employment lands

Storage (m3)

1,302 1,410

2,317

The east standpipe is in relatively good condition. The older west standpipe had leaks when a riser was pulled off the side wall by ice, and the communication antennae welded directly to the side wall of the standpipe may over time impact the integrity of these sections. The exterior paint is peeling off and rust stains are noticeable in a number of areas. Given the age and condition of the west standpipe, an interior inspection and a structural assessment are needed to determine when replacement of the east standpipe will be required. The standpipes are not equipped with mixing systems. Although maintaining chlorine residuals has not been an issue, both get significant ice build-up. A water mixing system is needed in each standpipe.

!(

COOKSTOWN

COOKSTOWN STANDPIPES

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

FROM ALCONA TO BRADFORD WATERTRANSMISSION MAIN

HIGHWAY 89

HIG

HW

AY 400

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

15TH LINE

5 SI

DER

OAD

RE

IVE B

LVD

.

2ND LINE

14TH LINE

11TH

LIN

E

-

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Meters

LEGEND

!( WATER RESERVOIRS

WATERMAINS

SETTLEMENT AREAS


BARRIE

BIG BAY POINT ROAD

MAPLEVIEW DRIVE

LOCKHART ROAD

10th LINE

9th LINE

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

7th LINE

6th LINE

5th LINE

YON

GE STR

EET

2nd LINE

3rd LINE

20th SIDER

OAD

10th SIDER

OAD

HW

Y. 400

5th SIDER

OAD



SANDY COVE

ALCONA


GILFORD

FENNELL'S CORNERS

CHURCHILL

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

ESSATWP.

COOKSTOWN

KEY PLAN

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 22 COOKSTOWN WATER SYSTEM


Page 105 July 13, 2018

It is estimated that the majority of the watermains in the Cookstown distribution system were installed in the 1970s. Many of these watermains are made of asbestos cement and there are a number of 100 mm diameter pipes, which are smaller than the minimum diameter recommended by the MOECC. A phased watermain replacement plan is needed to upsize small diameter watermain and replace old watermains.

Pressures in the distribution system under maximum day demands vary widely: pressures in the lower elevation areas to the west of Highway 27 can exceed 95 psi, while homes in the higher elevation lands, such as in the Pattson subdivision, need to be equipped with individual booster pumps to obtain the required minimum pressures.

15.1.2W


Alternative solutions were considered to improve system pressures in Cookstown:

Alt. 1: New BPS at standpipes to increase pressures in high elevation areas, and install pressure reducing valves (PRV) in low elevation areas.

Alt. 2: Individual booster pumps in high elevation areas (status quo).

Review of the existing water distribution system shows that the area of Cookstown that would benefit from a booster pumping station (Alternative 1) is relatively small compared with the existing areas of Cookstown (more than half) that would need PRVs to maintain pressures below 90 psi if a new BPS increased the pressure in the distribution system. An excessive number of PRVs would therefore need to be installed. On this basis, the status quo is the recommended approach.

15.1.3Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

The following recommended projects are recommended to improve water servicing in Cookstown:

Replacement of the west standpipe if need confirmed from an inspection and structural assessment of the standpipe. Installation of mixing systems in the east and west standpipes. Replacement of all 100 mm diameter watermains with minimum 150 mm diameter pipes. Replacement of aging watermains, as needed.

15.2Highw

ay 400 & 89 Area

15.2.1W


No issues have been identified with the individual well supplies to the residents and businesses in the Highway 400/89 area, including the Cookstown Outlet Mall.

Anticipated growth of the employment area will require an increase in the water supply.


Page 106 July 13, 2018

15.2.2W


The following alternatives were considered to increase the water supply in the Highway 400 and 89 area:

Alt. 1: Extend municipal water servicing from the Highway 89 watermain.

Alt. 2: Continue with private groundwater supply wells.

Alternative 1 would involve increasing the water supply from the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main. The water transmission main and the Third Line BPS were not designed to supply water to the Highway 400 and 89 employment lands. In the absence of spare capacity, the Third Line BPS would need to be expanded and higher velocities allowed in the watermain on Highway 89 to convey the additional flow. In addition, a water storage tank would be required as there is no spare capacity in the Cookstown standpipes.

The availability of an adequate groundwater supply to accommodate the potential increase in the employment land area has not been investigated.

Further review of the feasibility of increasing the water supply from the water transmission main as part of the planned expansion of the system by the Town of BW

G is required.

15.2.3Recom

mended W

ater Servicing

No municipal water servicing infrastructure is recommended for the Highway 400 and 89 area. Discussions with the Town of BW

G are required to determine the feasibility of increasing the design capacity of the expanded Third Line BPS to supply additional flows to this area.


Page 107 July 13, 2018

16Cookstow

n and Highway 400 & 89 Area W

astewater Servicing

The wastewater infrastructure, servicing needs and recommended servicing for the Village of Cookstown and the commercial/industrial area at the intersection of Highways 400 and 89, are described in this chapter.

16.1Cookstow

n

16.1.1Cookstow

n Wastew


As shown on Figure 23 overleaf, the Cookstown sanitary sewer system flows to the Cookstown SPS, which pumps raw sewage to the Cookstown W

PCP.

The Cookstown SPS has two pumps with a firm capacity of 30.5 L/s.

The Cookstown WPCP is an extended aeration plant with an ADF capacity of 825 m

3/day. The effluent is discharged to two on-site ponds, from where it is pumped seasonally to Innisfil Creek (October 1 to May 31). For the month of April, the maximum daily mean effluent discharge rate is 60 L/s. From October to March and during May, a maximum daily flow of 10 L/s can be discharged.

In 2017, the Cookstown WPCP was operating at 69%

of its average day rated capacity. The WPCP has

been operating well and has been meeting the required effluent quality and maximum phosphorus loading. Effluent ammonia concentrations have been inconsistent, however in compliance with the limit.

16.1.2W


Proposed developments in Cookstown are projected to result in wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of the Cookstown W

PCP. Additional wastewater treatment and effluent disposal capacity, or an alternative servicing approach, is needed. A Municipal Class EA study is underway to identify the preferred solution to provide the required increase in treatment and disposal capacity.

Review of flows recorded at the Cookstown WPCP has shown that the sanitary sewer system conveys

significant amounts of inflow and infiltration (see Section 6.2). A flow monitoring program and identification of sources of inflow and infiltration are needed to devise a control plan and remediation work to reduce the amount of I/I in the collection system.

Existing sewers in Cookstown are adequate to convey the projected future flows except for two 200 mm sewer sections upstream of the W

PCP within the abandoned rail line corridor that are well beyond their maximum capacity.

²³

²³

COOKSTOWN

COOKSTOWN WPCP

SPS

EFFLUENTFORCEMAIN

EFFLUENT OUTLET TO INNISFIL CREEK

SEWAGE LAGOONS

HIGHWAY 89

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

15TH LINE

11TH

LIN

E

14TH LINE

2ND LINE

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Meters

LEGEND

²³ SEWAGE PUMPING STATION

²³ WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT

SANITARY FORCEMAIN

SANITARY SEWER

SEWAGE LAGOONS

SETTLEMENT AREAS

-

²³²³


BARRIE

BIG BAY POINT ROAD

MAPLEVIEW DRIVE

LOCKHART ROAD

10th LINE

9th LINE

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

7th LINE

6th LINE

5th LINE

YON

GE STR

EET

2nd LINE

3rd LINE

20th SIDER

OAD

10th SIDER

OAD

HW

Y. 400

5th SIDER

OAD



SANDY COVE

ALCONA


GILFORD

FENNELL'S CORNERS

CHURCHILL

STROUD

INNISFIL HEIGHTS

ESSATWP.

COOKSTOWN

KEY PLAN

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 23COOKSTOWN SANITARY SYSTEM


Page 109 July 13, 2018

16.1.3W


As a Municipal Class EA study is underway, this MSP Update study did not review alternative servicing approaches for Cookstown. However, as one of the alternative solutions considered in the Cookstown Class EA is the connection to the Lakeshore wastewater system via the 5 Sideroad, the servicing solutions for the expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district took into consideration the potential need to convey flows from Cookstown.

16.1.4Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

Excluding the need to increase the wastewater treatment and disposal capacity, which is being addressed separately by the Cookstown Class EA study, the following measures are recommended for Cookstown:

Inflow and infiltration monitoring study and control plan. Sewer replacement or rehabilitation as required to address issues identified by the I/I study. Replacement of two undersized sewers.

16.2Highw

ay 400 & 89 Area

16.2.1W

astewater System

Needs

The Highway 400 and 89 area is not serviced by municipal sewers. The Cookstown Outlet Mall is serviced by two facultative lagoons and an effluent spray irrigation system. Other commercial properties, the campground, and the few residents in the area are serviced by private septic systems. There are no documented issues with these existing private systems.

The potential expansion of the employment lands area will require a wastewater servicing solution.

16.2.2W

astewater Alternative Solutions

The Municipal Class EA for the Cookstown WPCP is considering alternative solutions for providing

wastewater servicing to the Highway 400/89 area in addition to Cookstown. As this Municipal Class EA study is underway, this MSP Update study did not review alternative servicing approaches for the Highway 400 & 89 area

16.2.3Recom

mended W

astewater Servicing

There is no recommended wastewater servicing infrastructure project for the Highway 400 & 89 area until the Class EA study is completed.


Page 110 July 13, 2018

17Public and Agency Consultation

17.1Notice of Study Com

mencem

ent

A Notice of Study Commencement was published in the Innisfil Examiner’s Community Bulletin on May 3, 2017 and posted on the InnServices website on April 28, 2017. The Notice was also mailed to all stakeholders on the initial mailing list on May 16, 2017. The Notice of Study Commencement and mailing list are attached in Appendix C.

Initial comments were received from the MOECC providing guidance on the completion of Class EAs and consultation with aboriginal communities.


17.2.1M

eeting with Technical Liaison Com

mittee

During Phase 1 of the Class EA study, prior to holding the PIC, a meeting was held with the Technical Liaison Committee to review the study’s findings to date, i.e., the servicing needs and the preliminary list of alternative solutions. The presentation to the Committee and minutes of the first meeting with the Technical Liaison Committee on September 22, 2017 are attached in Appendix D.

17.2.2Public Inform

ation Centre No. 1

The public and stakeholders, agencies and interested parties were invited to a Phase 1 Public Information Centre (PIC) to be informed of the servicing needs and potential solutions that had been identified to date and to obtain their input and comments.

The invitation to PIC No. 1 was published in the Innisfil Examiner’s Community Bulletin and posted on the InnServices website on October 27, 2017. The invitation was mailed to the updated mailing list on October 30, 2017. The Notice of PIC No. 1 and mailing list are attached in Appendix D.

PIC No. 1 was held at the Innisfil Town hall on November 14, 2017. Twenty four persons signed in, including InnServices and Town staff, Innisfil Councillors. The PIC included a presentation by CCTA, followed by a question and answer period. Display boards were available for discussion with the study team before and after the presentation. Following the PIC, the presentation and display boards were posted on the InnServices website. The attendance sheet and copies of the presentation and display boards are enclosed in Appendix D.

17.2.3Com

ments and Input Received

Table 24 overleaf summarizes the comments received during the Phase 1 consultation, including at the PIC. Copies of all correspondence are attached in Appendix D.


Page 111 July 13, 2018

Table 24: Summary of Comments Received during Phase 1

Date From Comments

Nov. 3, 2017 Attilio Iantorno Recommends that Belle Ewart be developed and fully serviced.

Nov. 9, 2017 Peter Dorton MTO MTO has no specific comments.

Nov. 9, 2017 Transport Canada Project proponents are to self-assess if project affect federal property and requires transport Canada approval.

Nov. 16, 2017 Roger Howard Rice Development Corp.

Owners of commercial sites in Stroud. Asked if and when Stroud wastewater servicing is planned.

Nov. 17, 2017 Brenda & Mark Thibedeau Gilford Residents

Requested wastewater service to Gilford. Where cottages need updated septic systems, and some have holding tanks.

Nov. 20, 2017 Jim Hartman Greenland Consulting Engineers

The Campus Node at the 6th Line should be included in the servicing schemes. Question re update of DC study as a result of the TMP and MSP Update.

Nov. 22, 2017 Ross & Debbie FraserGilford Residents

Important to have sewers in Gilford area. Some older homes have holding tanks that may be leaching to lake. Class EA not well advertised.

Nov. 29, 2017 Peter Campbell CB Land Management Inc. Supportive of watermain looping on Ewart St. from Killarney Beach Rd. to Maple St.

Nov. 29, 2017 Scott MacKenzie Town of Innisfil

Requested clarifications on draft figures and tables. Suggested consideration of additional servicing projects

Nov. 29, 2017 Chief Rodney Noganosh Rama First Nation

Information forwarded to Karry Sandy McKenzie, Williams Treaties First Nation Process Coordinator.


Page 112 July 13, 2018


17.3.1M

eeting with the Technical Liaison Com

mittee

The Technical Liaison Committee was reconvened on March 8, 2018 to discuss the analysis of servicing alternatives. The presentation to the Committee is attached in Appendix E.

17.3.2M

eeting with City of Barrie

A meeting with City of Barrie staff was held on January 8, 2018 to discuss the potential for servicing Innisfil Heights and Stroud through Barrie’s existing and proposed water and wastewater infrastructure.the minutes of this meeting are attached in Appendix E.

17.3.3Public Inform

ation Centre No. 2

The public and stakeholders, agencies and interested parties were invited to a Phase 2 PIC to obtain input on the water and wastewater servicing alternatives and preliminary preferred solutions.

The invitation to PIC No. 2 was published in the Innisfil Examiner’s Community Bulletin and posted on the InnServices website on March 8, 2018. The invitation was mailed to the updated mailing list on March 6, 2018. The Notice of PIC No. 2 and mailing list are attached in Appendix E.

PIC No. 2 was held at the Innisfil Town hall on March 20, 2018. Thirty nine persons signed in, including InnServices and Town staff, Innisfil Councillors. The PIC included a presentation by CCTA, followed by a question and answer period. Display boards were available for discussion with the study team before and after the presentation. Following the PIC, the presentation and display boards were posted on the InnServices website. The attendance sheet and copies of the presentation and display boards are enclosed in Appendix E.

17.3.4Com

ments and Input Received

All comments received during Phase 2 are summarized in Table 25 overleaf. Copies of all correspondence are attached in Appendix E.

Meetings were held with development stakeholders, specifically with Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities to discuss servicing of their properties in Sandy Cove, and with the Cortel Group to discuss servicing on the 6 th Line.


Page 113 July 13, 2018

Table 25: Summary of Comments Received during Phase 2

Date From Comments

Mar. 12, 2018 Maxime Picard Huron-Wendat Nation Question re arachaological assessments completed to date.

Mar. 15, 2018 Peter Dorton MTO Central Region

Need to dhare details of any proposed works at Highway 400 and Innisfil Beach Road with Nanda Kandiah and at Highway 400 and 6th Line with Robert Vandenberg. MTO Encroachment permits will be required for any highway crossings.

Mar. 19, 2018 Patrick Grace Infrastructure Ontario

Unclear if it is proposed to use lands under the control of the Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI). If MOI lands are used, specific due diligence obligations and assessments apply.

Mar. 20, 2018 Elizabeth Wardrop Degrassi Point Commission

Represents cottagers at Degrassi Point. Do not require municipal water and wastewater. The costs per lot would be too high. The area backs on EP lands.

Mar. 20, 2018 Dong Hong Diao Gilford resident

Strong need for water and wastewater servicing in Gilford for the environment and public health. His property uses a holding tank.

Mar. 20, 2018 Robert Sillers Innisfree Limited

Servicing Innisfil Southy through the shoreline is not possible as the land is privately owned, EP lands, and there is no public road. Land is serviced by MOECC approved septiic systems.

Mar. 21, 2018 Jon Cloud Concern with the lack of more innovative alternatives to use sewage as a resource for heat and electricity.

Mar. 27, 2018 Marvin Geist Acts on behalf of Jennifer Anne Wardrop, owner of land at east end of 3rd Line in Degrassi Point.Questions the need, location and cost of a SPS at this location. Lands are serviced by septic systems approved bty MOECC and individual wells. Do not require municipal water and wastewater. The costs per lot would be too high.

Mar. 29, 2018 George Todd Estimated project costs for water and wastewater servicing from Barrie for Innisfil Heights and Stroud should be included. Previous studies confirmed this would be the cheapest option.

Mar. 31, 2018 Rosario Sacco Alriz Development

Preparing submission for draft plan approval of Previn Court in Alcona South growth area.Suggests extension of the 7th Line watermain and the 7th line sewer west of railway line should be considered.

Apr. 2, 2018 Rob Nicol Town Councillor

Questions the preliminary preferred route for wastewater servicing of Gilford, and suggests the water transmission main twinning to Bradford could provide additional fire flow to Gilford.


Page 114 July 13, 2018

Date From Comments

Apr. 3, 2018 Chief Rodney Noganosh Rama First Nation

Information forwarded to Karry Sandy McKenzie, Williams Treaties First Nation Process Coordinator.

Apr. 5, 2018 Jim Hartman Greenland Consulting Ltd.

Concerns with the preliminary preferred wastewater servicing for Innisfil Heights through the Innisfil Beach Road corridor rather than the 6th Line corridor, which was the preferred route in the 2012 MSP. Concerns with financial implications (life-cycle costs) and traffic and economic impacts. Question on the absence of the Purple Pipe (water reuse system) from MSP Update.Question on location of Innisfil Heights reservoir. Requested a meeting.

Apr. 5, 2018 Fabian Papa fabian papa & partners

Suggests sewer upsizing at Killarney Beach Road and 20th Sideroad.be considered to increase potential for servicing in the future and minimize disruption.

Apr. 6, 2018 Scott MacKenzie Town of Innisfil

Requested: service areas be identified, consideration of redundancy and long term planning for servicing to 6th Line, Churchill, Stroud and Cookstown, clarifications on potential serviced populations, consideration of water servicing to specific areas, and other clarifications.

Apr. 6, 2018 Michael Vallins CN New contact name for CN. No comments. Rail corridor in Innisfil belongs to Metrolinx.

Apr. 6, 2018 Mark Osbaldeston and Steven Vieira Limerick St. residents

Strongly support servicing of area withy water and sewers. Concerned about proposed extended timeline to servicing (post 2031).

Apr. 6, 2018 Mike Baldesarra DLR Holdings

Represents owners of property north of Belle Aire Beach Road adjacent to Alcona and Lefroy settlement areas. Expressed opinion that the property could be serviced by existing and/or proposed water and sanitary infrastructure, and it should be considered in the planning/design of those watermains and sewers to maximize the number of benefitting users.

Apr. 6, 2018 Liz Hannah Limerick St. resident

Strongly supports servicing of Degrassi Point area with water and sewers. Concerned about proposed extended timeline to servicing (post 2031).

Apr. 8, 2018 Michael Hayes Limerick St. resident

Water and sanitary servicing should be extended to lakefront areas south of Lefroy where old septic systems are in use and could impact Lake Simcoe water quality. This should be a priority.

Apr. 9, 2018 James Blommers Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Requested a meeting to discuss the servicing of the Parkbridge properties in Sandy Cove and the need for a Class EA study for the SPS.

Apr. 10, 2018 Laura Hatcher Simcoe County initiated the Archaeological Management Plan, which will a useful tool to identify and mitigate potential project impacts to arcaheologicl sites.


Page 115 July 13, 2018

Date From Comments

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Apr. 16, 2018 Tom Reeve City of Barrie

City of Barrie is updating its Master Plan, which will be completed later in 2018, and is assessing the available capacities at its boundary with Innisfil. Recommends the analysis of costs of the Barrie servicing alternative and the scope of the Barrie options be presented in the Innisfil MSP Update report.

Apr. 18, 2018 Jenny Seo Hydro One

Hydro One has high voltage transmission facilities in the study area and corridors may have provisions for future lines. This should be considered in planning and in scheduling of projects.


Page 116 July 13, 2018

17.4Notice of Study Com

pletion

The Notice of Study Completion will be published in the Innisfil Examiner’s Community Bulletin, posted on the InnServices website, and mailed to all on the updated mailing list, during the week of July 9, 2018. The notice informs that the Final Draft of the MSP Update Report is available for review until August 24, 2018. A copy of the Notice of Completion is appended in Appendix E.

All correspondence received as a result of the Notice of Study Completion will be included in the Final Report. Comments will be addressed as appropriate in the Final Report.


Page 117 July 13, 2018

18Recom

mended Im

plementation Plan

The MSP Update identifies the water and wastewater servicing needs - based on existing conditions, projected population and employment growth and development plans - and the projects that are recommended to be implemented to meet those needs. It also identifies a longer-term water and wastewater servicing strategy to meet the expected needs beyond the 2031 horizon. This chapter presents the recommended implementation plan for these projects and summarizes the estimated capital expenditures.

18.1Project Tim

ing and Triggers

The timing of project implementation was estimated in discussions with InnServices and based on growth projections, for the horizons of ‘by 2031’, and ‘post 2031’. The projects in the latter horizon are longer term plans that do not need to, or could not realistically be, implemented in the next 15 years.

The projects that were identified as needed by 2031 were further divided into the projects that should be implemented in the short-term, i.e., in the next 5 years (period 2019 to 2023), and the projects that are anticipated to be needed in the mid-term, i.e., in the following 8 years (period 2024 to 2031). Some of these mid-term projects are implementable only when the shorter-term projects have been constructed.

Although timeframes are suggested in Tables 26 to 31, the implementation of servicing projects will be a function of various triggers and phasing, rather than estimated dates based on growth projections. These triggers include actual development proposals and phasing plans, actual increases in water demands and wastewater flows, County and municipal road projects, funding opportunities, changes in conditions and needs, and financial considerations. The MSP Update is therefore an overall map that shows how the municipal water and wastewater infrastructure should and will evolve, and sets the priorities for the proposed works. Flexibility in the implementation of the servicing plan will, however, be necessary.

18.2Estim

ated Project Costs

The estimated project costs for all recommended projects are summarized in Tables 26 to 31. Detailed cost estimates are attached in Appendix B.

All cost estimates were developed on the basis of the projected wastewater flows and water demands (presented in Chapter 5) for existing serviced areas and planned developments within the settlement areas. Costs were developed based on conceptual design work and preliminary sizing of watermains, sewers, pumping stations and forcemains. They are based on 2017 pricing. The cost estimates should be considered as opinions of probable costs for budgeting purposes, subject to refinement following detailed design, and should be updated or adjusted for inflation.


Page 118 July 13, 2018

The cost estimates for the expansions of the Lakeshore WTP and Lakeshore W

WTP were taken from

the respective Class EA studies, and adjusted for inflation at 2% per annum.

All cost estimates include allowances for contingencies (25%), engineering (10%

for linear works and 15%

for complex works), and InnServices internal costs of $25,000 to $100,000 per project.

18.3Recom

mended W

ater Master Servicing Plan

The recommended water servicing projects and the potential future water servicing projects, some of which as local improvement projects, are shown on Figure 24.

The municipal projects, suggested to be implemented in the short-term, mid-term and long term are summarized in Tables 26, 27 and 28. These tables present the estimated project costs, the expected triggers for their implementation, and the Class EA requirements.

18.3.1Short-Term

Water Projects

Innisfil Beach Road Phase 1 Waterm

ain and Alcona Reservoir Booster Pumping Station

Project

The extension of trunk watermains on Innisfil Beach Road to Yonge Street will be implemented in conjunction with the County’s planned road reconstruction project stating in 2019. This project is the first building block of the Innisfil Heights water servicing plan.

The construction of a new booster pumping station at the Alcona Reservoir site will be needed to service the Town Campus beyond the current plans (IHP Health Hub) and supply water to Stroud, Innisfil Heights and developments in Alcona South. A separate Class EA study is not required for this project.

Alcona Zone 2 Booster Pumping Station Upgrade Project

Upgrades to the Zone 2 booster pumping station in Alcona will be needed to service the proposed developments in Alcona North that are in Pressure Zone 2.

Stroud Water Servicing Project

The extension of a watermain on Yonge Street to the Stroud reservoir is a project that could be implemented as soon as the Innisfil Beach Road Phase 1 watermain and Alcona Reservoir BPS are commissioned. If the Stroud groundwater supply can be upgraded reliably with a new well, this project can be postponed.

BARRIE


LAKE SIMCOE

ESSA TWP.

NEW TECUMSETH

CHURCHILL

GILFORD

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

STROUD RESERVOIR,BPS & WELL #1

COOKSTOWN

INNISFILHEIGHTS

FENNELL'S CORNERS


INNISFIL TOWN CAMPUS BPS & RESERVOIR

600ø

400ø

ONROUTE

400ø

400ø

400ø


CAMPUSNODE


ALCONA RESERVOIR EXPANSION20

0ø

²³EXPAND LAKESHORE WTP

300ø

300ø

FRIDAYHARBOUR

STANDPIPE

300ø

3RD LINE BPS

METERING AND PRV

GOLDCREST STANDPIPE & BPS

WTMTWINNING

(BWG)

300ø

300ø

300ø

300ø

EXPAND LEFROY BPS

300ø 300ø

NEW ZONE 3 BPS

UPGRADE ZONE 2 BPS

KEMPENFELT BAY/ BIG BAY

POINT SHORELINE

REPLACE STANDPIPE

PRV400ø

INNSIFIL HEIGHTS RESERVOIR AND BPS EXPANSION.

6th LINE BPSAND RESERVOIR

PRV

PRVPRV

25SI

DER

OA

D

6TH LINE

3RD LINE

HIGHWAY 89

10TH LINE

LOCKHART RD.

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

4TH LINE

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

GILFORD RD.

13TH LINE

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

2ND LINE

7TH LINE

BIG BAY POINT RD.

30 S

RD

.

9TH LINE

MAPLEVIEW DR.

WE

ST

ST.

SHOR EVI EW DR.

YO

NG

E S

T.

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

FAIR

WAY

RD.

15TH LINE

K ALE DR.

RIVAAVE

.5

SID

ER

OA

D

10 S

IDE

RO

AD

20 S

IDER

OA

D

PARK L N.

COUNTY RD. 89

5TH LINE

ROBINS

ON

P

L.

14TH LINE

DA

L KAB CRE S.

PURV

IS ST.

11TH

LIN

E

LONGWOOD RD.

RE

IVE

BLV

D.

FRIDAY DR.

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Meters

LEGEND

WATERMAINS (2031)

WATERMAINS (FUTURE)

POTENTIAL LOCALIMPROVEMENT PROJECT

EXISTING WATERMAINS

SETTLEMENT

/

DATE: JUNE 2018


FIGURE 24WATER SERVICING

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAPLE RD.


Page 120 July 13, 2018

Table 26: Short-Term Water Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements and Triggers

Project Estimated Cost Class EA Requirement Project Trigger

Short Term 2019 to 2023

Upgrade Alcona Zone 2 BPS $600,000 Development in Alcona North

Innisfil Beach Road trunk watermains Phase 1 $9,900,000 County IBR Reconstruction project

Yonge St watermain, 285 m south and 440 m north of IBR $590,000 County IBR Reconstruction project

Alcona Reservoir BPS (Phase 1) $4,800,000 Developments at Town Campus

Trunk watermain to Stroud Reservoir $2,400,000 IBR watermain and Alcona Reservoir BPS completed

5th Sideroad (9th Line to 7th Line) watermains $2,900,000 IBR watermain and Alcona Reservoir BPS completed; developments in Innisfil Heights

6th Line trunk watermain (east of tracks) $1,270,000 Development (Sleeping Lion)

Lockhart Rd. to Ireton St. Trunk watermain $2,850,000 Development of Johnson lands

Church Drive (Lefroy LSAMI P2) watermain $800,000 Development in LSAMI P2

Replace Cookstown standpipe and add mixing systems $1,500,000 Existing condition

Total $27,610,000


Page 121 July 13, 2018

Table 27: Mid-Term Water Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements and Triggers

Project EstimatedCost

Class EA Requirement Project Trigger

Mid-Term 2024 – 2031

20th Sideroad and 6th Line trunk watermains $3,670,000 Development in Alcona South; construction of Alcona Reservoir BPS

10th Line trunk watermain $1,170,000 Development of Valaitis & Stockman lands

Watermains to loop distribution system in Alcona $500,000 Intensification projects

Alcona Reservoir expansion $3,700,000 Development in Alcona South & Sandy Cove

Innisfil Heights BPS and Reservoir Phase 2 expansion $3,300,000 Developments in Innisfil Heights

WTP to Alcona Reservoir trunk watermain $8,290,000 Water demands from Innisfil Heights and BWG

Alcona North Zone 3 BPS $2,600,000 Class EA Sch. B Development of Alcona North (NW)

Killarney Beach Rd. watermain $1,500,000 Development of LSAMI P3 and other lands

Lefroy BPS Phase 2 pump upgrade $200,000 Development of LSAMI totals > 800 units

Cookstown watermain replacement $600,000 Condition assessment study

Lakeshore WTP Phase 3B expansion $16,000,000 Increase in water demands

Total $41,530,000


Page 122 July 13, 2018

Table 28: Long-Term Water Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements and Triggers

Project Estimated Cost Class EA Requirement Project Trigger

Long-Term Post 2031

Alcona Reservoir BPS expansion $1,300,000 Expansion of the IH employment lands

Yonge Street twin watermains (to Campus Node) $5,200,000 Expansion of the IH employment lands or Development of Campus Node

6th Line twin watermains to 6th Line reservoir $4,300,000 Expansion of the IH employment lands

6th Line BPS and Reservoir (in phases) $9,100,000 Class EA Sch. B Expansion of the IH employment lands

6th Line watermain from 6th Line BPS to Innisfil Heights $2,900,000 Expansion of the IH employment lands

Innisfil Heights watermains Phase 2 $4,700,000 Expansion of the IH employment lands

Lefroy Reservoir Phase 2 expansion $2,700,000 Increase in water demands in Lefroy

Lakeshore WTP Phase 3C expansion $12,100,000 Increase in water demands

Total $42,300,000


Page 123 July 13, 2018

6th Line Trunk W

atermain Project

The installation of a watermain on 6 th Line east of the railway line is required to service the Sleeping Lion development and temporarily service the GO Station until the Pressure Zone 2 water distribution system to Alcona South is built.

5th Sideroad W

atermains Project

The first phase of new watermains in the Innisfil Heights economic district, to service the lands west of Highway 400 on 5 th Sideroad between the 9 th Line and the 7 th Line, can be implemented once the Innisfil Beach Road Phase 1 watermain and the Alcona Reservoir BPS project is commissioned. The project should be implemented concurrently with the 5 th Sideroad sanitary servicing project.

Lockhart Road to Ireton Street Trunk Waterm

ain Project

The trunk watermain connecting the Ireton Street watermain to the 25 th Sideroad watermain at Lockhart Road will need to be installed to service the proposed developments in Sandy Cove.

Lefroy Church Drive Trunk Waterm

ain Project

The extension of the LSAMI P1 trunk watermain south to the LSAMI P2 lands and Killarney Beach Road is required to service growth.

Cookstown Standpipe Replacem

ent Project

The replacement of the west standpipe in Cookstown has been identified as a project that may be urgent. A condition and structural assessment must first be completed to confirm the need for the replacement.

18.3.2M

id-Term W

ater Projects

Waterm

ains on 20th Sideroad and 6

th Line Project

The construction of watermains on 20 th Sideroad south of Innisfil Beach Road, and on 6th Line to the

railway line, will be needed to service the residential developments in Alcona South that are in Pressure Zone 2. The watermains will be supplied by the proposed Alcona Reservoir BPS.

10th Line W

atermain Project

The 10 th Line watermain will be needed to service the proposed developments in the south of the Sandy Cove area. This project should be coordinated with the 10 th Line sanitary sewer project.


Page 124 July 13, 2018

Waterm

ain Looping in Alcona

Installation of additional watermains in Alcona where dead ends exist is recommended to improve fire flow availability in support of intensification plans. Specific watermain looping projects will be triggered by development plans.

Alcona Reservoir Expansion Project

The addition of the third cell of the Alcona Reservoir will be triggered by increases in the population serviced by the Lakeshore water system, mainly in Alcona and Sandy Cove. The reservoir expansion is recommended to be implemented once the water distribution system to the Alcona South and North growth areas is built.

Innisfil Heights Reservoir and BPS Phase 2 Expansion Project

The Phase 2 expansion of the Innisfil Heights reservoir and BPS will be required when approximately 50%

of the lands within the existing Innisfil Heights economic district are developed (when MDD reach 45 L/s).

Trunk Waterm

ain from Lakeshore W

TP to Alcona Reservoir Project

The additional feed watermain to the Alcona Reservoir from the Lakeshore WTP will need to be built to

supplement the existing Innisfil Beach Road trunk watermain once the combined water demands from Innisfil and BW

G reach approximately 60 ML/day. This is expected to occur by 2031 if the Innisfil Heights economic district develops as planned and if BW

G’s water demand projections are achieved. The 9th

Line section of the trunk watermain may be installed earlier in conjunction with the 9th Line sanitary sewer

project, which will be required to service the Alcona North growth area.

Alcona Zone 3 Booster Pumping Station Project

The pressure zone 3 booster pumping station in Alcona North will be required to service part of the development in Alcona North, and could be implemented once the new trunk watermain from the W

TP to the Alcona Reservoir is constructed. A Class EA Schedule B study will need to be completed to establish the preferred site for the booster pumping station.

Lefroy Booster Pumping Station Expansion Project

Replacement of the pumps at the Lefroy booster pumping station will be required when the water demands reach the capacity of the stage 1 pumps (MDD of 15 L/s), which were designed for servicing approximately 800 equivalent residential units.


Page 125 July 13, 2018

Killarney Beach Road Waterm

ain Project

The installation of a trunk watermain on Killarney Beach Road, including a PRV to allow the connection between the Lefroy Pressure Zone 2 and the Alcona Pressure Zone 1, is required to service proposed developments east of the railway line, as well as south of Killarney Beach Road. The project should be coordinated with the Killarney Beach Road sanitary sewer twinning project.

Cookstown W

atermain Replacem

ent Project

The extent of the replacement of small diameter and old watermains in Cookstown will be determined following a watermain condition assessment study.

Lakeshore Water Treatm

ent Plant Phase 3B Expansion Project

The next phase of expansion of the Lakeshore WTP (Phase 3B) is expected to be required before 2031

if the water demands in Innisfil continue to increase as planned. The project will include the twinning of the raw water intake. Design of the expansion should be initiated when the total MDD reach approximately 30 ML/day.

18.3.3Long-Term

(Post 2031) Water Projects

Expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district south of the 7 th Line is expected to be the trigger for the following projects:

Yonge Street and 6 th Line Twin Waterm

ains. With these projects, the water distribution system

will be extended from Innisfil Beach Road to the 6th Line, and will bring a water supply to the potential

Campus Node and to the future 6 th Line Reservoir and BPS. The projects may be implemented in one or two phases. A first phase may consist of extending the watermains only to the Campus Node if the Campus Node requires servicing prior to Innisfil Heights. Alternatively, the construction of watermains on 6 th Line may occur concurrently with the reconstruction of 6 th Line and/or the installation of sanitary sewers on 6 th Line.

6 th Line Reservoir and BPS and 6 th Line Waterm

ain to Innisfil Heights, which will supply water to the water distribution system for the expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district.

Innisfil Heights Waterm

ains Phase 2 Project. The installation of trunk watermains in Innisfil Heights south of 7 th Line and a new watermain crossing of Highway 400 at the 6 th Line, will be required to service the expansion of the economic district. The highway watermain crossing should be coordinated with the sanitary forcemain crossing.

Expansion of the Alcona Reservoir Booster Pumping Station. Replacement of pumps at the

Alcona Reservoir booster pumping station, and associated electrical upgrades, will be required to supply the increase in water demands in Innisfil Heights.


Page 126 July 13, 2018

Lefroy Reservoir Phase 2 Expansion Project

The addition of two cells at the Lefroy Reservoir will only be required if the water service area is extended within Lefroy and to Innisfil South.

Lakeshore Water Treatm

ent Plant Phase 3C Expansion Project

The Phase 3C expansion of the Lakeshore WTP will need to be in place when the total water demands

from Innisfil and BWG reach 55 ML/day (MDD). Design of the expansion should be initiated when the

total MDD reaches approximately 75% of the W

TP’s rated capacity.

18.4Recom

mended W

astewater M

aster Servicing Plan

The recommended wastewater servicing projects and the potential future servicing projects, some of which are local improvement projects, are shown on Figure 25.

The municipal projects, suggested to be implemented in the short-term, mid-term and long term are summarized in Tables 29, 30 and 31. The summary tables present the estimated project costs, the triggers for their implementation, and the Class EA requirements.

18.4.1Short-Term

Wastew

ater Projects

Alcona Sewers Tw

inning Projects

Existing sanitary sewers in Alcona that currently have very limited residual capacity, insufficient to accommodate increases in wastewater flows from intensification projects and proposed developments in Innisfil North and Alcona, need to be twinned in the very short term.

Sandy Cove Sewage Pum

ping Station and Forcemain Project

The first phase development plans in Sandy Cove will require the construction of a sewage pumping station and forcemain to Lockhart Road to provide a sanitary outlet for the proposed developments and existing properties. A Class EA Schedule B study will be required to identify the preferred sewage pumping station site and configuration.

Lockhart Sewer Project

A trunk sanitary sewer on lockhart Road will be required to service the lands west of 25 th Sideroad.

7th Line Sew

er Project

The extension of the 7 th Line sanitary sewer east of Webster Boulevard is recommended to reinforce the

Lakeshore sewer network. The project should be coordinated with the reconstruction of the 7 th Line.

BARRIE

LAKE SIMCOE

NEW TECUMSETH

CHURCHILL

GILFORD

ALCONA

SANDY COVE

STROUD

WASTEWATER DISPOSAL TO BE DETERMINED

BY COOKSTOWN CLASS EA

COOKSTOWN

INNISFILHEIGHTS

FENNELL'S CORNERS


375ø 400ø

250ø

375ø

IH SPS 2INNISFIL TOWN

CAMPUS

CAMPUSNODE

300ø

200ø

#* #*

#*

#* #*

IH SPS #3

IH SPS #4

IH SPS #5IH SPS #2A

IH SPS 1

IH SPS 620 SR SPS

525ø

300ø

#* 400ø 600ø

525ø²³

SPS #1

EX. SPS #6

EXPAND LAKESHORE

WPCP

SPS #3 EXPANSION AND FORCEMAIN TWINNING

SPS #4 EXPANSION AND FORCEMAIN TWINNING

300ø

300ø

300ø300ø

SPS #2

SPS #8

SPS #9

BBP SPS 1

KEMPENFELT BAY/BIG BAY

POINT SHORELINE

SPS #5

300ø

200ø

DEGRASSI POINT SPS

GILFORDSPS #1

GILFORDSPS #2

SANDY COVE SPS

DECOMISSION SPS#7

400ø

MAPLE RD.

SEWER TWINNING

400ø

450ø

#*

#*

CN SPS#*

525ø

#*375ø

#*

#*

#*400ø

400ø 600øNEW SPS #2

25S

IDE

RO

AD

6TH LINE

3RD LINE

HIGHWAY 89

10TH LINE

LOCKHART RD.

INNISFIL BEACH RD.

4TH LINE

SHORE ACRES DR.

HIG

HW

AY 4

00

GILFORD RD.

13TH LINE

KILLARNEY BEACH RD.

2ND LINE

7TH LINE

BIG BAY POINT RD.

30 S

RD

.

9TH LINE

MAPLEVIEW DR.

WE

ST

ST.

SHOR EVIEW DR.

IRET

ON

ST.

YON

GE

ST.

CO

UN

TY R

D. 2

7

FAIR

WAY

RD

.15TH LINE

K ALE DR.

RIVAAVE

.5

SID

ER

OA

D

10 S

IDE

RO

AD

20 S

IDE

RO

AD

PARK L N.

COUNTY RD. 89

5TH LINE

ROBINS ON

P

L.

14TH LINE

DA

L KAB CRE S.

PU

RVI

S ST.

11TH

LIN

E

LONGWOOD RD.

FO R ES

TV

ALL

EY

DR

.

RE

IVE

BLV

D.

FRIDAY DR.

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Meters

LEGEND

SEWAGE PUMPING STATION(2031)

SEWAGE PUMPING STATION(FUTURE)

EXISTING SEWAGE PUMPINGSTATION

GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER(2031)

GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER(FUTURE)


SANITARY FORCEMAIN(FUTURE)

POTENTIAL LOCALIMPROVEMENT PROJECT

EXISTING SANITARYFORCEMAINS


SETTLEMENT AREAS

/

DATE: JUNE 2018

INNISFIL MASTER SERVICING PLAN UPDATEFIGURE 25

WASTEWATER SERVICING RECOMMENDATIONS


Page 128 July 13, 2018

Table 29: Short-Term Wastewater Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements and Triggers



Short Term 2019 to 2023

Alcona sewers twinning $2,580,000 Alcona and Innisfil North developments; intensification

Sandy Cove SPS and forcemain to Lockhart Rd. $5,060,000 Class EA Sch. B Development of Sandy Cove golf course lands

Lockhart sewer west of 25th Sideroad $700,000 Development of Johnson lands (Sandy Cove)

7th Line sewer $460,000 7th Line reconstruction

9th Line sewer $3,760,000 Development of Alcona North

Spring St. sewer (North) $1,500,000 Development of Alcona North

SPS 7 Decommissioning $350,000 Development of Alcona North

Alcona SPS 4 Phase 1 expansion $2,800,000 Developments in Alcona and Innisfil North, and intensification

New SPS 2 $8,200,000 Developments in Alcona (Sleeping Lion)

IBR trunk sewer from Yonge St to 20th Sideroad $3,370,000 County IBR reconstruction project

IBR Trunk sewer from Hwy 400 to SPS 6 $2,800,000 County IBR reconstruction project

20th Sideroad SPS and forcemain $4,680,000 Class EA Sch. B Developments in Innisfil Heights/Town Campus

20th Sideroad trunk sewer $2,060,000 Developments in Innisfil Heights/Town Campus

6th Line trunk sewer to Sleeping Lion $2,470,000 Developments in Innisfil Heights/Town Campus

IH SPS 6 and forcemain $4,340,000 Class EA Sch. B Developments in Innisfil Heights

5th Sideroad sewer from 9th Line to 7th Line $2,780,000 Developments in Innisfil Heights; IBR sewer and SPS constructed


Page 129 July 13, 2018



IH SPS 1 and forcemain $2,890,000 Class EA Sch. B Developments in Innisfil Heights; IBR sewer and SPS constructed

IH SPS 2, forcemain and highway crossing $7,560,000 Class EA Sch. B Developments in Innisfil Heights; IBR sewer and SPS constructed

Lakeshore WPCP Stage 3 expansion $88,000,000 Increase in wastewater flows to 75% of WPCP rated capacity

Total $146,360,000

Table 30: Mid-Term Wastewater Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements and Triggers



Mid Term 2024 to 2031

10th Line sewer west of 25th Sideroad $840,000 Development of Valaitis and Stockman lands (Sandy Cove)

Alcona SPS 4 Phase 2 expansion and forcemain twinning $5,450,000 Development of Sandy Cove lands and Friday Harbour

Alcona SPS 3 expansion and forcemain $7,560,000 Developments in Alcona & Innisfil North; intensification

Killarney Beach Road sewer twinning $1,680,000 Lefroy developments south of Killarney Beach Rd.

Lakeshore WPCP Stage 4 expansion $65,000,000 Increase in wastewater flows to 75% of WPCP rated capacity

Total $80,530,000


Page 130 July 13, 2018

Table 31: Long-Term Wastewater Servicing Project List, Capital Costs, Class EA Requirements and Triggers



Long Term Post 2031

6th Line trunk sewer from Yonge St. to 20th Sideroad $4,000,000 Campus Node development

Campus Node SPS and forcemain $9,970,000 Class EA Sch. B Campus Node development

6th Line trunk sewer to Campus Node $5,160,000 Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed

IH SPS 3 (East of Hwy 400 at 9th Line) and forcemain $4,740,000 Class EA Sch. B Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed

Industrial Road sewer to Innisfil Beach Road $430,000 Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed


Commerce Park Drive sewer from 7th to 6th Line $1,050,000 Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed


Commerce Park Drive sewer from 5th to 6th Line $460,000 Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed

5th Sideroad sewer (from 7th Line to 5th Line) $3,070,000 Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed IH SPS 2A (5th Sideroad at 5th Line), forcemain and Hwy crossing $8,220,000 Class EA Sch. B Innisfil Heights expansion; 6th Line sewer constructed

IH SPS 6 expansion $2,960,000 Innisfil Heights expansion north of IBR

20th Sideroad SPS expansion $3,520,000 Innisfil Heights expansion north of IBR

New SPS #2 expansion $1,000,000 Innisfil Heights expansion

Stroud SPS and forcemain $4,350,000 Class EA Sch. B Developments in Stroud that need municipal sewers

Churchill SPS and forcemain $4,060,000 Class EA Sch. B Developments that need municipal sewers

Total $58,500,000


Page 131 July 13, 2018

9th Line Sew

er Project

The 9 th Line sanitary sewer will be required to service developments in Alcona North. Its construction should be coordinated with the construction of the trunk watermain from the W

TP to the Alcona Reservoir.

Spring Street Sewer and Decom

missioning of SPS #

7 Project

The extension of the Spring Street sewer north and connection to the sanitary sewer on Leslie Drive is required to complete the servicing of the residential developments in the area. It will enable the decommissioning of SPS #7 and its forcemain.

Alcona SPS #4 Phase 1 Expansion Project

The first phase of expansion of SPS #4, which will consist of replacing the pumps and all associated electrical work, will be triggered by the increase in wastewater flows from the proposed developments in Alcona North and Innisfil North (Sandy Cove and Friday Harbour) reaching the current pumping capacity. This project should be coordinated with the Alcona sewer twinning projects. Public notification of the proposed project should be completed before final design is finalized.

New SPS #

2 Project

The design of the new SPS #2 has been completed. The new SPS #2 is required to service the Sleeping Lion developments in the short term and ultimately convey wastewater from InnIsfil Heights to the W

PCP.

Innisfil Beach Road Phase 1 Sewer Project

The first phase of the Innisfil Heights servicing project will be the installation of gravity sanitary sewers on Innisfil Beach Road, implemented in conjunction with the County’s planned road reconstruction project starting in 2019. This first phase will consist of the gravity sewer section from Yonge Street to 20 th Sideroad, and the gravity sewer section from the Highway 400 interchange to the proposed Innisfil Heights SPS #6.

Innisfil Beach Road Phase 2 Sewer Project

The Innisfil Beach Road Phase 2 sewer project may proceed in the short term, but will depend on the timelines for the development plans in the Innisfil Heights economic district and in the Alcona South growth area. Phase 2 is expected to include the following projects. In addition to servicing InnIsfil Heights, it will enable the servicing of growth on the Town Campus and in Alcona South.

20 th Sideroad SPS and forcemain. A Class EA study must be completed to establish the preferred

SPS site.


Page 132 July 13, 2018

20 th Sideroad gravity sewers.6 th Line gravity sewer and railway line crossing to connect to the existing 6 th Line sewer.IH SPS #6 and forcem

ain. This project, starting with a Class EA study for siting the pumping station, will be triggered by development plans in Innisfil Heights.

Innisfil Heights Phase 1 Sewer Project

The first phase of sanitary sewers in the Innisfil Heights economic district to service the existing settlement area will be implemented as a function of the specific development plans. It can be connected to the Lakeshore wastewater system once the Innisfil Beach Road Phase 2 Sewer Project is commissioned. The Innisfil Heights sanitary servicing project is expected to comprise:

Gravity sanitary sewers on 5 th Sideroad from the 9 th Line to the 7 th line.

IH SPS #1 near the 9 th Line and forcemain, to service Georgian Downs and lands near the 9 th

Line.IH SPS #2 at the 7 th Line and forcem

ain crossing the highway.

Both sewage pumping stations will require Class EA studies to identify their preferred location and configuration.

Lakeshore WPCP Stage 3 Expansion Project

The Stage 3 WPCP expansion to a capacity of 25 ML/d, as per the Class EA study, is required in the

short term to allow the servicing of developments with allocated capacity. Detailed design should proceed immediately as the W

PCP has reached 75% of its average day rated capacity.

18.4.2M

id-Term W

astewater Projects

10th Line Sew

er Project

The 10 th Line sanitary sewer west of 25 th Sideroad will be needed to service the proposed developments in the south of the Sandy Cove area. This project should be coordinated with the 10

th Line watermain project.

Alcona SPS #4 Phase 2 Expansion Project

The second phase of expansion of SPS #4 will consist of expanding the SPS wet well and twinning the forcemain. The project will be triggered by increases in wastewater flows from developments in Alcona North and Innisfil North, reaching the capacity of the existing forcemain.


Page 133 July 13, 2018

Alcona SPS #3 Expansion Project

The expansion of SPS #3 and the twinning of the forcemain will be needed when wastewater flows reach the existing SPS pumping capacity, as growth occurs in Alcona and Innisfil North.

Killarney Beach Road Sewer Tw

inning Project

The twinning of the sanitary sewer on Killarney Beach Road will be required to service proposed LSAMI developments in Lefroy. The project should be coordinated with the Killarney Beach Road watermain construction.

Lakeshore WPCP Stage 4 Expansion Project

Wastewater flow projections indicate the final expansion stage of the W

PCP will be required by 2031. In effect, plans to construct the expansion should be initiated when the wastewater flows reach 75%

of the W

PCP Stage 3 rated capacity, or based on allocations and updated projections of flows.

18.4.3Long-Term

(Post 2031) Wastew

ater Projects

Innisfil Heights Servicing Projects

Expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district south of the 7th Line and north of the 9 th Line (OPA 1

lands) will trigger the second phase of the Innisfil Heights sanitary servicing project. Other potential triggers to the installation of a sanitary sewer network on 6

th Line include the development of the Campus Node, the construction of a Highway 400 interchange at the 6 th Line, and the road reconstruction of the 6 th Line.

The configuration of the sanitary sewer and SPS projects will be defined in more details as the developments in Innisfil Heights, and at and around the Campus Node, are refined. The projects are expected to comprise the following:

6 th Line sewers from Yonge St. to 20 th Sideroad.

Campus Node SPS and forcem

ain. The SPS is needed to convey flows from the Innisfil Heights economic district to the proposed gravity sewer system on 6 th Line. 6 th Line sewers from

Highway 400 to the Campus Node SPS.

IH SPS #2A and forcemain and highway crossing. This crossing will be implemented

concurrently with the proposed watermain crossing and 6th Line interchange.

IH SPS #3, #4 and #5 and forcemains. These projects will be implemented as needed to service

proposed developments. Gravity sewers in Innisfil Heights. These projects will be implemented as needed to service proposed developments.


Page 134 July 13, 2018

The expansion of the Innisfil Heights economic district north of Innisfil Beach Road may result in the need to increase the capacities of the sewage pumping stations on Innisfil Beach Road, namely:

Expansion of IH SPS #6, including replacing the pumps, upgrading the electrical works and expanding the wet well. Expansion of the 20 th Sideroad SPS, including replacing the pumps, upgrading the electrical works and expanding the wet well.

Stroud SPS and Forcemain Project

A Stroud sewage pumping station and forcemain on Yonge Street discharging to the proposed Innisfil Beach Road trunk sewer may need to be constructed in the future to provide a sanitary sewer outlet for developments.

Churchill SPS and Forcemain

A Churchill sewage pumping station and forcemain on Killarney Beach Road discharging to the proposed twinned Killarney Beach Road sewer may need to be constructed in the future to provide a sanitary sewer outlet for developments.

18.5Innisfil Heights Servicing Plans

The most significant servicing project in Innisfil will be the servicing of the Innisfil Heights economic district and its future expansion south to the 5 th Line and north of the 9 th Line.

The capital projects that will be required to implement the Innisfil Heights servicing plan and their estimated costs are presented in Table 32 and Table 33, for water and wastewater respectively. The list of projects includes all infrastructure, including some that will be shared for other benefitting areas, but excludes the Lakeshore W

TP and Lakeshore WW

TP expansions.

Projects listed for the first phase (2019-2023) are required to connect Innisfil Heights to the Lakeshore water and wastewater systems and provide servicing for developments in the existing settlement area. Projects listed as post-2031 are required to service the expansion of the economic district, i.e., south of the 7 th Line and north of the 9 th Line. These projects were shown on Figure 14 and Figure 19 for water and wastewater servicing respectively.


Page 135 July 13, 2018

Table 32: Summ

ary of Estimated Innisfil Heights W

ater Servicing Costs

Servicing Projects 2019 – 2023

2024 - 2031 Post 2031

Innisfil Beach Rd trunk watermains (Phase 1) $9,900,000

Alcona Reservoir BPS $4,800,000

Innisfil Heights trunk watermains (Phase 1) $2,900,000

Innisfil Heights BPS and Reservoir expansion (Phase 2)

$3,300,000

Alcona Reservoir BPS expansion

$1,300,000

Yonge Street twin watermains $5,200,000

6 th Line twin watermains

$4,300,000

6 th Line BPS and Reservoir $9,100,000

6 th Line watermain from BPS to Innisfil Heights

$2,900,000

Innisfil Heights trunk watermains (Phase 2) $4,700,000

Water Total

$17,600,000 $3,300,000

$27,500,000

18.6Overall Sum

mary of Project Costs

A summary of the total capital costs for all infrastructure projects identified in this MSP Update, excluding the costs of local improvement projects, is presented in Table 34.


Page 136 July 13, 2018

Table 33: Summ

ary of Estimated Innisfil Heights W

astetwater Servicing Costs

Servicing Projects 2019 – 2023

2024 - 2031 Post 2031

Innisfil Beach Road trunk sewers $6,170,000

20 th Sideroad trunk sewers $2,060,000

6 th Line trunk sewers $2,470,000

New SPS #2 at WPCP

$8,200,000$1,000,000

20 SR SPS and forcemain $4,680,000

IH SPS 6 and forcemain $4,340,000

Innisfil Heights trunk sewers (Phase 1) $2,780,000


IH SPS 2, forcemain and Hwy crossing $7,560,000

6 th Line trunk sewers $9,160,000

Campus Node SPS and forcemain

$9,970,000

Innisfil Heights trunk sewers (Phase 2) $5,010,000

IH SPS 2A, forcemain and crossing

$8,220,000


IH SPS 4 and forcemain

$2,800,000


IH SPS 6 expansion

$2,960,000

20 SR SPS expansion $3,520,000

Wastewater Total

$41,150,000

$50,090,000

Table 34: Summ

ary of Capital Project Costs

Servicing Projects 2019 - 2023

2024 - 2031 Post 2031

Total

Water

$27.6 M $41.5 M

$42.3 M $111.4 M

Wastewater

$146.4 M $80.5 M

$58.5 M $285.4 M

Total $174.0 M

$122.0 M $100.8 M

$396.8 M


Page 137 July 13, 2018

18.7Further Studies

18.7.1Class Environm

ental Assessment Studies

In accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association, plans for municipal water and wastewater pumping stations, new or upgrades, should be developed under the Class Environmental Assessment process for Schedule B undertakings. The Class EA requirements for some of the projects identified in this MSP Update are considered completed under this Master Plan Class EA, however, there are a number of projects that will require further assessment of alternatives and potential impacts on existing environmental and social conditions, to ensure that the preferred conceptual design is selected and adequate mitigating measures are identified. The projects that require further Class EA studies were identified in Tables 26 to 31.

18.7.2Other Recom

mended Studies

Prior to the implementation of some of the capital projects identified in this MSP Update, the following studies should be completed to either refine the scope of the capital project, confirm the timeline of the project, confirm the feasibility, and/or determine if additional capital projects are needed to address concerns with existing conditions.

Stroud hydrogeological investigation. This study is required to identify a short-term solution to the absence of firm groundwater supply capacity, which is needed for a reliable water supply and to enable new developments to be serviced.

Cookstown watermain condition assessm

ent. This study is needed to determine which watermains should be replaced.

Cookstown west standpipe condition and structural assessment. This assessment will provide

the information required to determine the required timeline to the replacement of the west standpipe.

Lakeshore WPCP optim

ization study. The goal of the optimization study is to identify short-term measures to increase the W

PCP’s capacity and improve performance.

Lakeshore WPCP expansion design. The preliminary design should consider both Stages 3 and

4 expansions to ensure cost efficiencies are built in the expansion plans. Preliminary and final design of the Stage 3 expansion needs to be completed immediately.

Inflow and Infiltration monitoring and control studies for Alcona and Cookstown. The studies

will identify opportunities for reducing wet weather induced extraneous flows and recommend repair, rehabilitation and/or replacement of sewer infrastructure, or disconnection of sump pumps, that should be implemented to reduce per capita wastewater flows and increase the W

PCP’s future serviced population.


Page 138 July 13, 2018

Highway 400 & 89 water servicing feasibility study. This study should be conducted as a result of development proposals, to determine the implications of increasing the water taking from the Alcona to Bradford water transmission main to service growth of employment lands in the Highway 400 and 89 area.

Purple Pipe feasibility study. This study should be conducted to assess the potential interest, costs and benefits of implementing a wastewater reuse pipe for irrigation and industrial uses.

18.8Other Recom

mendations

18.8.1Tow

n Engineering Standards Update

Differences between the design criteria used in the 2012 MSP Update and the ones recommended in the Town of Innisfil Engineering Design Standards (2016) have caused difficulty to both engineers and reviewers when determining the appropriate design basis for servicing plans for development proposals. Alignment of the Town Standards with the adopted MSP would eliminate this difficulty.

It is recommended that the Town Standards for the design of water and wastewater linear and vertical infrastructure be updated to reflect the criteria outlined in Chapter 6. These updated criteria are summarized in Tables 35 and 36.

Table 35: Recomm

ended Water Design Criteria for Town Standards

Criteria W

ater Systems

LakeshoreChurchill

StroudInnisfilHeights

Average Day Water Consum

ption


300 300

300

Proposed Residential (L/person/day) 250

275 275

275

Commercial and Industrial 20 m

3/ha/day or site specific calculation

Maximum

Day Factor 1.8

2.5 2.3

1.8

Fire Flows

Residential (Detached and semi-detached) 100 L/s for 2 hours or as per FUS

Residential (Multiple (>2 units) As per FUS

Commercial and Industrial 190 L/s for 3 hours or as per FUS


Page 139 July 13, 2018

Table 36: Recomm

ended Wastewater Design Criteria for Town Standards

Criteria System

s

LakeshoreCookstown

Average Daily Flows (incl. Average I/I)


350

Proposed Residential (L/person/day) 325

325

Commercial and Industrial 20 m


Peak Flows

Existing Residential Domestic (L/person/day) 300 x Harmon Factor

Existing Residential Peak I/I (L/person/day) 600

800

Proposed Residential Domestic (L/person/day) 275 x Harmon Factor

Proposed Residential Peak I/I (L/person/day) 400

Commercial and Industrial (incl. Peak I/I) 40 m


18.8.2Allocated Capacity Updates

It is recommended that InnServices, in cooperation with the Town’s Planning department, develop and maintain up-to-date (annual) capacity allocation tables for each water system and wastewater system to determine more accurately when the next facility expansions will be required.

The intent is to use these allocation tables to assist in planning for the expansions of the major infrastructure in a timely manner, and to provide a clear benchmark for the review of proposed development servicing requests. These allocation tables must be kept up-to-date in order to be a useful tool.

Tables of actual and allocated flows for each of the following systems should be prepared:

Lakeshore water system (overall summary to include all areas that are supplied by the Lakeshore W

TP, including Lefroy, Cookstown and BWG, and Innisfil Heights and Stroud when connected)

Lefroy BPS and reservoir Innisfil Heights BPS and reservoir Churchill water system Stroud water systemLakeshore W

WTP


Page 140 July 13, 2018

Cookstown WW

TP

These tables should tally the following, as a minimum, for each of the water and wastewater systems:

Actual flows and number of serviced customers. Potential servicing of unserviced lots: existing lots that could potentially connect to the system because they front on existing watermains or sewers. Potential intensification: existing serviced lots that could be redeveloped at a higher density.Allocations Residential: list of residential developments/lots with allocation (registered). Allocations ICI: list of industrial, commercial and institutional developments/lots with allocation (registered).Future Residential and Future ICI: these development proposals would be organized based on their planning approval status (draft plan approved, submitted, expected, etc).

The tables should clearly state the basis for the estimated future water demands and wastewater flows including the number and type of lots and population or area, the flow criteria, which should be based on updated Town Standards, and the source of the information for each development.


Page 141 July 13, 2018

19References

The following background documents were reviewed during the development of this MSP Update:

Town of Innisfil Town-Wide W

ater and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan, Genivar, March 2012.

Innisfil Our Place Official Plan, SGL Planning & Design Inc., January 2018.

Town of Innisfil Transportation Master Plan Update, HDR, March 2018.

Innisfil Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant Phase 2 Expansion – Environmental Study Report, C.C.

Tatham & Associates Ltd., October 2002.

Water Transmission Main from Alcona to Bradford – Final Design Report, C.C. Tatham & Associates

Ltd., February 2005.

Innisfil M.U.R.F. Reservoir/Pumphouse and Wastewater Pump Station – Design Brief, Ainley &

Associates Ltd., March 2006.

Friday Harbour Resort Development Treated Water Storage Facility Design Report, TMIG, August

2014.

Friday Harbour Resort Internal Sewage Pumping Station Design Report, TMIG, August 2015.

Friday Harbour Resort Functional Servicing Report, SCS, December 2017.

Innisfil Lakeshore Water System Zone 2 Booster Station – Design Brief, Ainley & Associates Ltd.,

June 2007.

Innisfil Heights Water Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station – Preliminary Design Report, C.C.

Tatham & Associates Ltd., May 2012.

Lefroy Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station – Design Report, C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd., January 2011.

Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant Expansion – Environmental Study Report, AECOM Canada Ltd.,

March 2011.

Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant Predesign Report, CH2M Hill Canada Ltd., March 2015.

Lakeshore WPCP Expansion Environmental Study Report (Final), Ainley Group, September 2011.

Churchill Drinking Water System Annual Summary Reports, 2012 to 2017.

Goldcrest Drinking Water System Annual Summary Reports, 2012 to 2017.

Innisfil Heights Drinking Water System Annual Summary Reports, 2012 to 2017.


Page 142 July 13, 2018

Stroud Drinking Water System Annual Summary Reports, 2012 to 2017.

Lakeshore Wastewater Treatment Plant Annual Performance Reports, 2015 and 2017.

Cookstown Water Pollution Control Plant Annual Performance Reports, 2015 and 2017.

Aquifer Assessment – Innisfil Heights, Golder Associates, May 2013.

Long range Financial Plan, Town of Innisfil. Hemson Consulting Inc., February 12, 2016.

Land Budget & Municipal Comprehensive Review. Phase 1 Discussion Paper. Hemson Consulting Inc., August 2015.

Simcoe County Land Budget Data Collection and Analysis, Phase 1: Population Growth. Simcoe County Planning Department, December 2015.

Development Charges Background Study, Town of Innisfil, Staff Consolidation Report. Hemson Consulting Ltd. February 4, 2014.

Authored by: Suzanne Troxler, B.Eng., M.Sc., P.Eng. Director, Manager – Environmental Engineering

Reviewedby:Bryan F. Stanton, B.A.Sc., P. Eng. Director, Manager – Barrie Office

© C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

This document may not be used for any purpose other than that provided in the contract between the Owner/Client and theEngineer nor may any section or element of this document be removed, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the express written consent of C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.

INNISFIL MASTER SERVICING PLAN UPDATE · Innisfil Master Servicing Plan Update Final Draft Report...

Documents

Transcript of INNISFIL MASTER SERVICING PLAN UPDATE · Innisfil Master Servicing Plan Update Final Draft Report...