PIERS 5 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES - … 5 – 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES Municipal Class...

PIERS 5 – 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Schedule B

May 2014

i

Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background .................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background .................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. Previous Studies .............................................................................. 1

1.2. Class EA Process ............................................................................................. 3 1.3. Problem Statement and Description of the Project ...................................... 5 1.4. Public Consultation ........................................................................................ 6

2. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 8 2.1. Natural Environment ..................................................................................... 8

2.1.1. Fisheries .......................................................................................... 8 2.1.2. Terrestrial ........................................................................................ 8 2.1.3. Species at Risk ............................................................................... 11

2.2. Social, Economic, and Cultural Environments ............................................. 11 2.2.1. Socio‐Economic ............................................................................. 11 2.2.2. Archaeology .................................................................................. 11 2.2.3. Built and Cultural Heritage Landscapes ........................................ 12

2.3. Technical Environment ................................................................................ 12 2.3.1. Existing Sewage Infrastructure ..................................................... 12 2.3.2. Existing Pumping Station .............................................................. 15

3. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 16 3.1. Alternative 1 ‐ Do Nothing ........................................................................... 18 3.2. Alternative 2 ‐ Construction of New Pumping Stations and Forcemains .... 18 3.3. Alternative 3 ‐ Construction of a Central Pumping Station and Forcemain 19

4. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 20 4.1. Evaluation of Criteria ................................................................................... 20 4.2. Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................. 23 4.3. Assessment of Alternatives .......................................................................... 23 4.4. Selection of Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 28

5. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................ 30 5.1. Description of Preferred Alternative ........................................................... 30 5.2. Approvals ..................................................................................................... 32

5.2.1. City of Hamilton ............................................................................ 32 5.2.2. Ministry of the Environment (MOE) ............................................. 32 5.2.3. Hamilton Conservation Authority ................................................. 32 5.2.4. Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport ........................................ 32 5.2.5. Other ............................................................................................. 32

6. MITIGATION AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 34 6.1. Social and Economic .................................................................................... 34

6.1.1. Traffic ............................................................................................ 34 6.1.2. Noise, Dust, Vibrations ................................................................. 34 6.1.3. Public Notifications ....................................................................... 34

6.2. Cultural and Archaeological Environment ................................................... 34 6.3. Natural Environment Impacts ...................................................................... 40

ii

6.4. Pumping Station and Forcemain Impacts .................................................... 42 7. Public Consultation .................................................................................................. 44

7.1. Project Notices and Consultation Activities ................................................. 44 7.1.1. Notice of Commencement and Public Information Centre No. 1 44 7.1.2. Public Information Centre No. 1 ................................................... 44 7.1.3. Notice of Public Information Centre No. 2 ................................... 44 7.1.4. Public Information Centre No. 2 ................................................... 44 7.1.5. Notice of Completion .................................................................... 45

7.2. Agency Consultation .................................................................................... 45 7.3. Public and Agency Comments and Responses ............................................ 53

7.3.1. Public Information Centre No. 1 Comments ................................ 53

List of Figures

Figure 1 ‐ Existing Conditions Study Area ........................................................................... 2 Figure 2 ‐ Municipal Class EA Process (Schedule ‘B’ Project) ............................................. 4 Figure 3 ‐ Existing Infrastructure 1 ...................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 ‐ Existing Infrastructure 2 .................................................................................... 10 Figure 5 ‐ Photo of Existing Parks Canada Pumping Station ............................................. 15 Figure 6 ‐ Conceptual Sanitary Plan .................................................................................. 31 Figure 7 ‐ Built Heritage .................................................................................................... 36 Figure 8 ‐ Cultural Landscape Elements ............................................................................ 37 Figure 9 ‐ Archaeology ...................................................................................................... 39 Figure 10 ‐ Tree Inventory ................................................................................................ 41

List of Tables

Table 1 ‐ Existing Pumping Station Facility Operator Survey ............................................ 14 Table 2 ‐ Long‐list Screening of Alternatives .................................................................... 16 Table 3 ‐ Evaluation Criteria and Key Considerations ....................................................... 21 Table 4 ‐ Short List Evaluation – Pumping Station Facilities Alternatives ........................ 24 Table 5 ‐ Summary of Comments Received from Agencies .............................................. 46 Table 6 ‐ PIC No. 1 Comments and General Comments Received Post PIC No. 1 ............ 54 Table 7 ‐ PIC No. 2 and Comments Received Post PIC No. 2 ............................................ 62

List of Appendices

Appendix A ‐ Terrestrial Appendix B ‐ Stage 1 Archaeological Report Appendix C ‐ Heritage Impact Assessment Report Appendix D ‐ Consultation

1

1. Introduction and Background

1.1. Background

The study area includes Piers 5 to 8 along the Hamilton Waterfront and is adjacent to a mixed use/residential neighbourhood immediately to the south. The study area is located approximately 3 kilometres from downtown Hamilton and is located in the North End Neighbourhood. Existing development on Piers 5, 6, 7 and 8 is currently serviced with water services that connect to municipal watermains & sanitary services, either connect to the municipal sewer system by a gravity connection or by a number of pumping facilities and forcemains. Located on Pier 8 is the Parks Canada Sewage Pumping Station (See Figures 3 and 5). The pumping station and associated infrastructure was constructed to service the Parks Canada Marine Discovery Centre which opened in 2004 and operated until its closure in 2010 when management of the building was transferred to the Hamilton Waterfront Trust. The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Waterfront Trust have assessed upgrading alternatives to the pumping station as well as the private pumping facilities located in the study area.

1.1.1. Previous Studies

Setting Sail Secondary Plan Setting Sail is a land use plan for the West Harbour, with an emphasis on three areas of major change: the Waterfront, the area south of the CN rail yard (Barton‐Tiffany), and the former industrial lands along Ferguson Avenue (Ferguson‐Wellington Corridor). The Secondary Plan also focuses on commercial and mixed use corridors within the area, where strategic redevelopment and streetscape improvements would strengthen the economic vitality of the corridors, provide additional amenities to adjacent neighbourhoods and generally beautify the area. Setting Sail Secondary Plan came into effect in December 2012. West Harbour Waterfront Recreational Master Plan The West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan was initiated in 2005 following Hamilton Council’s adoption of the Setting Sail Secondary Plan. The Master Plan contains policies and principles relating to design guidelines, architecture, waterfront precincts and implementation to ensure that public and privately funded initiatives develop in a fashion that highlight the areas heritage, while creating a vibrant and contemporary place within the West Harbour. It was received by Hamilton Council in April 2010. Hamilton West Harbour Piers 5‐8 Servicing Studies and Pro Forma Analysis (2014) The 2014 Servicing Studies Report and Pro Forma Analysis report explores the servicing requirements and redevelopment potential for Piers 5‐8, identifies the opportunities and constraints to development and recommends the immediate next steps for facilitating redevelopment. The study identified the need for

2

Figure 1 ‐ Existing Conditions Study Area

3

a new pumping station or pumping facilities to address current and future development needs. As part of this study a functional servicing concept was completed. The study was received by Hamilton Council in January, 2014. North End Traffic Management Study The North End Traffic Management Study was endorsed by Hamilton Council in October 2010. The study is about improving conditions as well as protecting the integrity of the neighbourhood now and in the future as growth and change occurs. The study was initiated largely in response to concerns about the redevelopment of Pier 8, which is planned for mixed‐use residential and commercial uses.

1.2. Class EA Process

This Project is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Provincial Class EA process. The Class EA planning process allows for the integration of sound engineering judgment, prudent long‐term planning, and protection of all aspects of the environment (natural, social, economic, and cultural). This includes consultation with the public and affected agencies to obtain comments and input, ensure regulatory compliance and ultimately achieve acceptance of the preferred alternative. The Class EA process was developed as a method for planning municipal infrastructure projects (including roads, water and wastewater projects), which display the following common characteristics:

Recurring;

Usually similar in nature;

Generally limited in scale;

Have a predictable range of environmental effects; and,

Responsive to mitigating measures. The requirements for undertaking a Class EA are described in the document Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October 2000 as amended in 2007 and 2011, Municipal Engineers Association (MEA). A Class EA applies to a group of projects that are permitted under the Environmental Assessment Act as long as they follow the approved planning process. The specific requirements depend on the type and complexity of the project as well as the significance of potential impacts. The following three types of projects are identified:

Schedule ‘A’ and ‘A+’ Projects are limited in scale and have minimal adverse impacts. This type of project is pre‐approved and may proceed to construction without further work following the Class EA process

Schedule ‘B’ Projects have the potential for some adverse environmental impacts and are approved provided they are “screened” by the public and government

4

review agencies. This type of project requires the completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the EA planning process.

Schedule ‘C’ Projects are more complex and the potential for significant environmental impacts. These projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. This type of project is subject to the full Class EA process and requires the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR).

The Class EA process in Ontario follows a rational decision‐making process and includes:

Identifying the problem or need for the project (Phase 1);

Identification and evaluation of planning options or alternative solutions to address the problem (Phase 2);

An assessment of design alternatives (Phase 3);

The completion of documentation for the public record (phase 4); and

The implementation of the project including design, with appropriate monitoring during construction (Phase 5).

This EA project is required to determine the preferred alternative to upgrade the Piers 5 – 8 sewer pumping station or pumping facilities to ensure reliable service for existing uses and future development. The project requires upgrading the pumping station, installation of standby power equipment, forcemain upgrades, and potentially retiring and decommissioning the existing sewer pumping station. Accordingly, it has been determined that this project will follow the Schedule ‘B’ process. As a Schedule ‘B’ project, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Class EA process are required (see Figure 2). The Schedule ‘B’ Class EA concludes with the Notice of Completion and filing of the Class EA Project File Report for a minimum 30‐day public review period. The Municipal Class EA process includes an appeal provision, also referred to as a Part II Order. If concerns regarding a project cannot be resolved in discussions with the proponent (for this study, the proponent is the City of Hamilton), then members of the public, interest groups or technical agencies may request the Minister of the Environment to “bump‐up” (Part II Order) a project to an individual EA. The Minister of the Environment then decides whether a “bump‐up” is appropriate or necessary. If no “bump‐up” (Part II Orders) requests are outstanding by the completion of the review period, the project is considered to have met the requirements of the Class EA and the proponent may complete contract drawings, proceed to tender and construct the project. Figure 2 ‐ Municipal Class EA Process (Schedule ‘B’ Project)

5

1.3. Problem Statement and Description of the Project

With the approval of the Setting Sail Secondary Plan and the proposed land use for Piers 5 to 8 at the West Harbour, the City of Hamilton is currently reviewing wastewater infrastructure needs at the West Harbour to support both existing and future growth needs of the area. Existing development at Piers 5 to 8 are currently serviced by sewage infrastructure which includes a number of existing pumping stations or private sanitary servicing with pumped sewage to municipal sewers. One existing municipally maintained pumping station is located on Pier 8. The existing municipally maintained pumping station on Pier 8 was constructed to service the former Parks Canada Marine Discovery Centre in 2004 (now known as the Hamilton Waterfront Trust Centre) now services existing development at the north and west side area of Pier 8. This pumping station has operational deficiencies which include:

No standby power generator to provide a backup power source in the event of

power failure; and,

Inadequate capacity to manage existing development sewage flows and / or service

future development.

6

In addition to the sanitary sewage servicing needs on Pier 8, the City also reviewed sanitary infrastructure needs on Piers 5 to 7 which may require new sewage pumping infrastructure to service existing and future development needs. The objectives of the Schedule B, Class EA project will be to review and compare alternative solutions for either the rehabilitation of the existing pumping station(s), replacement of the existing pumping stations with a new facility, new pumping station(s) or sanitary sewage infrastructure including the construction of new sanitary forcemains. A review of the alternative locations for a replacement or new pumping station(s) is required in order to address the above noted concerns and to identify the preferred solution. If the replacement or new pumping station(s) alternative is selected as the preferred solution, then the existing pumping station(s) may also need to be decommissioned. 1.4. Public Consultation

Public Consultation is a key feature of the Class EA process. Through an effective public consultation program, the City of Hamilton can provide an opportunity for the exchange of ideas and information with the public and affected agencies. One of the principle goals of public consultation is to achieve resolution of different points of view on the project thus reducing or averting controversy and obtaining general public support. Appropriate and timely contact with government agencies will ensure compliance with all public policy and regulatory requirements. For this Schedule B, Class Environmental Assessment project, the following consultation activities were undertaken:

Notice of Commencement

Public Information Centres (2) (including notices)

Regulatory Agency Consultation

Operators Consultation

Notice of Completion For a Schedule ‘B’ project, there are two mandatory points of consultation: A consultation with review agencies and the public, and issuance of the “Notice of Completion”. The first consultation for this project occurred during the beginning of Phase 1 (refer to Figure 2). The purpose of the first public consultation was to introduce the study, outline the issues and opportunities, highlight the existing system, list alternative solutions, and identify the criteria to be used to evaluate the alternatives. The second public consultation occurred during Phase 2, once the alternative solutions had been evaluated. A general inventory of the natural, social, economic and cultural environments were made to determine the possible impacts each alternative solution

7

may have on the environment. The intent of this consultation activity was to explain the evaluation process, illustrate the potential alternatives, and provide the public with the opportunity to comment prior to finalizing the selection of the preferred solution. The issuance of a “Notice of Completion” represents the completion of Phase 2 for Schedule ‘B’ projects. The Notice identifies the preferred solution, and provides the public with a review period, the date by which “Part II Order” requests are required and where comments are to be submitted. If no “Part II Order” requests are received during the specified period (a minimum 30 calendar days) then the proponent may proceed with design and construction of the project. Specific public and agency consultation activities for this project – including Aboriginal and First Nations consultation‐ are discussed in Section 7 of this document.

8

2. Existing Conditions

2.1. Natural Environment

As part of the environmental assessment work the existing infrastructure has been reviewed (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). A summary of the project area’s natural environment existing conditions, assessment of potential for Species at Risk (SAR) and Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) habitat has been reviewed. 2.1.1. Fisheries

The shoreline along Piers 5, 6, 7 and 8 consists primarily of concrete, steel and wooden vertical walls with limited shoreline diversity. Two short lengths adjacent to the Williams Fresh Café and Trolley Ticket Booth (Pier 8) are comprised of rip‐rap and also have limited cover for fish and/or mussel species. Most of the open water area is exposed to heavy wave action with the only area that would shelter fish being the Marine Police Unit area located at Pier 7. This area is partially enclosed and provides shelter from waves and heavy boating activity. The construction or upgrades to the sanitary sewer infrastructure within Piers 5, 6, 7, and 8 that discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer system will not impact the fisheries resources of Hamilton Harbour as the municipal sanitary sewer system does not have a hydrological connection to the Harbour at this location and proposed works are not anticipated to be located in or directly adjacent to the water’s edge. 2.1.2. Terrestrial

Terrestrial vegetation within Piers 5, 6, 7 and 8 is very limited, with most of the area comprised of built structures (i.e. concrete and asphalt). Vegetation is found in the form of manicured lawns, gardens and hedgerows associated with the redeveloped northwest corner of Pier 8. There is also limited vegetation along the rip‐rap shorelines, which is comprised of very common species found in the urban environment. Further details on vegetation that was observed in the study area can be found in Appendix A. Habitat for wild life within Piers 5, 6, 7, and 8 is also limited. Use of the project area as habitat is restricted to species with a high tolerance for human disturbance and species that have adapted their behaviour. Further details on wildlife that was observed in the study area can be found in Appendix A.

9

Figure 3 ‐ Existing Infrastructure 1

10

Figure 4 ‐ Existing Infrastructure 2

11

2.1.3. Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern

A list of 80 Species at Risk (SAR) and Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) with potential to occur within the Hamilton Area was gathered from secondary source information. Using this list and the results of the site investigation, a SAR screening exercise was completed (see Appendix A for complete screening information). This screening examined the habitat requirements for SAR and SCC identified during the background review and determined if the habitat available in the project area could support those species. As outlined in Appendix A, there is potential habitat for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) in the warehouses/garages that occupy parts of Pier 6 and Pier 8. 2.2. Social, Economic, and Cultural Environments

2.2.1. Socio‐Economic

The study area includes Piers 5‐8 along the Hamilton Waterfront, the mixed use/residential neighbourhood immediately to the south and is located approximately 3 kilometres from downtown Hamilton in an area referred to as the North End. The West Harbour area is home to a number of older, well established recreational and boating related uses, such as Bayfront Park, the Royal Hamilton Yacht Club and several boat repair/service operations. The area also includes recreational and commercial uses. 2.2.2. Archaeology

A Stage 1 Archaeology study was completed for the study area. The purpose of the study was to determine if there is any potential for the presence of any undocumented cultural heritage resources, and secondly to determine whether known cultural resources are extant on the subject lands. The study area is located in the historic township of Barton, Wentworth County. The study area includes the Hamilton Harbour from Piers 5 to 8 as well as roads just south of the Harbour. Most of the roads for the proposed and alternative sewage servicing routes are bound by mid to late 19th century buildings, including houses and factories. However, one of the alternative forcemain routes does run through the eastern edge of the study area. The general topography is flat where the piers are located, mainly due to infilling and modifications of the wharves. The natural landscape includes a relatively smooth descent from the foot of the Niagara Escarpment north towards the waterfront where the old shoreline, which once had a steep slope down to the water’s edge can still be seen in some areas. The neighbourhood provides evidence of this old shoreline through

12

the cut in and gently sloping roads. Eastwood Park is slightly irregular and rising to the south, with a raised soccer pitch and playground on the north section. The Stage 1 Archaeology work included a search of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) registered sites database for archaeological sites within one kilometre radius of the study area. Although there are no registered sites in or within one kilometre of the study area or surrounding the study area, there is still potential for Aboriginal and or European find spots or sites. One unregistered site that was recorded was the Burlington Glass Factory located on the north‐west corner of MacNab St. North and Burlington St. The site is now a park and is just south of the study area. The full Stage 1 Archaeology Report can be found in Appendix B. 2.2.3. Built and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

A Heritage Impact Assessment Report was completed for the study area including historical overview of the study area’s development, a description of the built heritage and cultural landscapes resources within or adjacent to the study area, a description of the proposed development, an analysis of any impacts of the proposed development on identified cultural heritage resources, and mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts to any significant cultural heritage resources. The proposed pumping station works are to be limited to existing municipal rights of way or municipal lands, installed below ground although small structures may be erected for the pumping stations. These developments will not have any adverse impact on built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes in the study area. The full Heritage Impact Report can be found in Appendix ‘C’. 2.3. Technical Environment

2.3.1. Existing Sewage Infrastructure

Existing development on Piers 5 to 8 are predominately serviced by aged sanitary sewer infrastructure which includes a number of pumping stations or pumping facilities. Sewage is generally pumped to the existing sewer system on Guise Street, Catharine Street or connected to the more recently constructed sewers at the west end of the study area on Pier 5 that drain to the Strachan Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) tank located at Bayfront Park. In addition to the Strachan CSO tank there are two other CSO tanks in the study area, the James Street CSO tank located on Pier 6 and the Eastwood Park CSO tank located in Eastwood Park.

13

Nine pumping stations or facilities were identified at; (i) Parks Canada lands at Pier 8 operated by the Hamilton Waterfront Trust / City of Hamilton, (ii) Navy League of Canada operated by the Navy League, (iii) Pier 8 Warehouse operated by the Hamilton Port Authority, (iv) Brewers Marine Supply site operated by the Brewers Marine, (v) Hamilton Police Marine Facility operated by the City of Hamilton, (vi) James Street Pier operated by the Hamilton Port Authority, (vii) Hamilton Port Authority Marina Office operated by the Hamilton Port Authority, (viii) Royal Hamilton Yacht Club site operated by the Royal Hamilton Yacht Club and (ix) Pier Washrooms site operated by the City of Hamilton. A survey of the existing pumping facilities was conducted with the operators of the pumping facilities. The results of the operator survey are included in Table 1. In addition to sanitary infrastructure, there are existing watermains, water services and storm sewers that service existing development within the study area. There is one Sun Canadian Oil pipeline (active) and two Imperial Oil pipelines (not active) that are located on Pier 8. Existing infrastructure is shown on the Existing Infrastructure Figures 3 and 4.

14

Table 1 ‐ Existing Pumping Station Facility Operator Survey

EXISTING PUMPING FACILITY OPERATOR SURVEY

Parks Canada PS (Pier 8)

Navy League (Pier 8) Pier 8 N/E Corner Brewers Marine Supply PS (Pier 8) Hamilton Marine Police

Facility PS (Pier 7)

James St PS (Pier 6) HPA Marina (Pier 6) Royal Hamilton Yacht Club (Pier 5)

Pier Washroom PS (Pier 5)

1. What is age of pumping facility 11 years 67 years 50 years Data Not Available approx 60 years In‐ground cement tank estimate 30+ years

In‐ground cement tank estimate 30+ years

Data Not Available 16 years

2. Upgrades since pumping facility original installation

No

(1987‐1988) work done (new pumps), 2012 new pumps, 2 pumps

float operated

Both pumps were rebuilt within the last 6

years, the original control system located inside the chamber has been replaced with a very basic system

outside of the chamber (float switch and a

starter).

Data Not Available

Upgraded 16‐18 years ago with the

installation of 2 new pumps

Tank ‐ no, Service hatch ‐ yes, Pumps ‐ yes

Tank ‐ no, Service hatch ‐ yes, Pumps ‐ yes

Data Not Available No

3. Identified operational issues Yes No Yes Data Not Available Yes No Yes Data Not Available No

4. Does the facility have a monitoring system or alarm/call‐out system.

Yes Yes No Data Not Available Yes Yes Yes Data Not Available Yes

5. Who currently maintains the pumping facility

City of Hamilton Private Contractor Hamilton Port Authority Data Not Available Owner Maintained In‐house In‐house Data Not Available City of Hamilton

6. How often is maintenance conducted on the facility?

As required Call when there is an

issue (no major servicing)

Monthly level inspection

Data Not Available I check to ensure the pumps are working as designed every month.

Semi‐annually & seasonally used

Semi‐annually Data Not Available Semi‐annually and as

required

7. Pump facility details (if available)

a. Current capacity (flow/pressure) 60 gallons per min. per

pump 2hp each Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available

5" impeller Barnes pumps

5" impeller Barnes pumps

Data Not Available Not sure

b. Number of pumps 2 2 Data Not Available 2 2 2 Data Not Available 2 high volume pumps

c. Diameter of the wet well 8' dia. by 32' deep 8' x 8' Data Not Available Data Not Available 4', depth is 8' Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available Shallow squre approx.

2' deep

d. Discharge pipe diameter 3" 4" inlet 4" Data Not Available 4" 3" 3" Data Not Available 2"

e. Does the wet well have an overflow No No Yes Data Not Available No No No Data Not Available No

8. Any other comments or operational issues?

None Services the Navy

League only 5,000 sq. ft. Bldg.

None Data Not Available

Pending future development uses – discharge system not protected to winter freezing conditions.

Pumping station utilized all year

facilitating the marina office & shop building systems (and seasonally

with the fuel dock pleasure craft holding

tank pump out)

Data Not Available Discharge not

protected to winter freezing conditions

15

2.3.2. Existing Pumping Station

The pumping station that is located on Parks Canada lands (Figure 5) has experienced operational problems which include inadequate capacity to manage existing development flows and / or future redevelopment. This pumping station was originally designed to service the Parks Canada Marine Discovery Centre but now services the Hamilton Waterfront Trust (HWT) developments which include the HWT Centre (includes Sarcoa Restaurant), Williams Fresh Café, HWT offices, recreational facilities on Pier 8 as well as visitors to the Pier whose number has substantially increased over the years. There is adequate capacity in the existing combined sewers during dry weather (non rain events) to support future redevelopment but inadequate capacity to support redevelopment during wet weather (rain) events. The study area topography gradient is sloping down from Guise Street / Bay Street to the harbour. New infrastructure within the study area would be needed to support redevelopment along with an adequate location to connect the new infrastructure to. The need for one or more new pumping stations needs to be reviewed to service any redevelopment as the land drains away from the municipal roads adjacent to the study area. Figure 5 – Photo of Existing Parks Canada Pumping Station

16

3. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

At the onset of the project a Long‐List Screening was created. The purpose of the Long‐list was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of different alternatives in the study area to determine which alternatives would address the problem statement and be able to accommodate the existing and future development sanitary sewage servicing needs of in the study area. The long list of alternatives included (i), rehabilitate or upgrade existing pumping stations, (ii) construction of new on site treatment facility, (iii) new pumping stations and forcemains, (iv) new central pumping station and forcemain, (v) gravity sewers and (vi) do nothing. The review of these different alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 2 – Long‐list Screening of Alternatives

Long‐list Screening of Pumping Station Facilities Alternatives

Alternative Description Advantage Disadvantage Results

Rehabilitate/upgrade the existing pumping stations (P.S.)

Pier 5

Leander Boat Club: Gravity connection to municipal sewer ‐ Not Applicable

Rehabilitate/upgrade the existing pumping facilities and/or forcemain connections (if required) to meet current standards. Upgrades to meet current and future demands.

• Lower capital costs • Compatible with existing topography • Existing pumping facilities on Pier 5 are servicing current development. Significant redevelopment of Pier 5 is not planned under Setting Sail

• No ability to consolidate sewage flows. It is more costly to maintain multiple PS's vs. one central PS• Provides for existing development but not a redevelopment of pier in the future

Screened out Pier Washroom Facility ‐ (City Operated)

Royal Hamilton Yacht Club Facility ‐ (Privately Operated)

Pier 6

HPA Marina Office Facility ‐ (HPA)


• Lower capital costs • Compatible with existing topography • This pumping facility may be able to maintain existing development during redevelopment to allow for staging of works

• Does not address redevelopment proposed under Setting Sail • No ability to consolidate sewage flows • It is more costly to maintain multiple PS's vs. one central PS • City would need to assume ownership of any privately operated pumping facilities in their current condition and provide service to any private development

Screened out

Pier 7

James Street Pier Facility ‐ (HPA)


• Lower capital costs • Compatible with existing topography • These pumping stations can maintain existing development during the redevelopment period and allow for staging of the works

• Does not address redevelopment proposed under Setting Sail• No ability to consolidate sewage flows • It is more costly to maintain multiple PS's vs. one central PS • City would need to assume ownership of any privately operated pumping facilities in their current condition and provide service to any private development • Location of some of the existing pumping facilities are not compatible with future planned development

Screened out Hamilton Marine Police Facility ‐ (City Operated)

Pier 8

Parks Canada PS ‐ (HWT / City Operated)


• Lower capital costs • Compatible with existing topography • These pumping stations can maintain existing development during the redevelopment period and allow for staging of the works

• No ability to consolidate sewage flows • It is more costly to maintain multiple PS's vs. one central PS • Does not provide capacity to service new redevelopment under Setting Sail • City would need to assume ownership of any privately operated pumping facilities(s) in their current condition and provide service to any private development • Location of some of the existing pumping facilities are not compatible with future planned development

Screened out

Brewers Marine Supply Facility ‐ (Privately Operated)

Navy League Facility ‐ (Privately Operated)

Warehouse PS ‐ (HPA)

17

Long‐list Screening of Pumping Station Facilities Alternatives

Alternative Description Advantage Disadvantage Results

Provide on site treatment of collected sewage

Construction of new WWTP to accommodate existing and future flows in study area.

• Less impact to existing sewer system and treatment plant (Woodward WWTP) • Compatible with existing topography

• Difficult to get approvals for new discharge to the harbour • Higher capital and operational costs • Planning approvals needed to permit on site treatment plant • Increased complexity • Timeline for implementation. Reduction in development opportunity footprint

Screened out

New pumping stations and forcemains

• Multiple pumping stations with accompanying forcemains • Abandon/removal of existing pumping facilities • Construction of new collection sewers

• Addresses existing and future development needs • Compatible with existing topography • Allows for flexibility in multiple sewer connection points • Some consolidation of sewage flows • Increased staging opportunities for construction • Replacement of existing aging pumping facilities • Increased operational monitoring and standardization

• Increased capital costs by building multiple pumping facilities • Increased O&M costs by operating multiple pumping facilities

Carry forward for further evaluation

New central pumping station and forcemain

• Single pumping station located strategically to service the needs of the entire study area. • Abandon/removal of existing pumping facilities • Construction of new collection sewers

• Addresses existing and future development needs • Compatible with existing topography • Complete consolidation of sewage flows • Cost effective operationally (single PS vs. multiple PS's) • Connection flexibility with one single discharge to an acceptable sewer location with available capacity • Replacement of existing aging pumping facilities • Increased operational monitoring and standardization

• Limitations in construction staging with single pumping station

Carry forward for further evaluation

Gravity sewers

• Construction of sanitary sewers within study area which will connect to the existing sewer system without pumping

• Less operational and capital costs • Less complexity (i.e. no pumping facilities)

• Current topography does not allow for gravity sewers without raising the entire site • Raising site will impact views of the harbour from area south of the study area • Existing sewers adjacent to site cannot accommodate additional flows • Ability to raise the site in certain areas is limited due to existing permanent buildings

Screened out

Do Nothing ‐ As required by Class EA, alternative carried forward for evaluation Carry forward for further

evaluation

18

A number of alternatives were not carried forward for further review. These included the rehabilitation of existing pumping stations or facilities, on site treatment of sewage through the construction of a new treatment facility and the construction of a gravity sewer system without pumping facilities. The rehabilitation of existing pumping stations was not carried forward as the replacement of existing pumping stations would only partially address existing development and not the needs of all existing development or future development that is anticipated by the Setting Sail study. Maintaining multiple pumping facilities at their current locations is not expected to be compatible with the location of future redevelopment and would require increased costs by the City to become the operators of all of the existing facilities and maintain the aged infrastructure. The construction of a new treatment facility for on site sewage treatment was not carried forward as it was expected that approvals for the new treatment facility and a new discharge to the harbour would be difficult to aquire, there would be higher capital and operational costs for this alternative and the area for development would be decreased associated with the use of the study area for the treatment facility. The other alternative which was not carried forward was the construction of new sewers to service the study area and connect to the existing municipal sewers by gravity without pumping. The topography of the study area slopes away from Guise Street to the harbour. Without the placement of fill which would impact views to the harbour and lack of compatibility with existing development that will remain, the study area cannot be serviced by a gravity sewer system and would need to have sewage pumped to the existing municipal sewer system. The existing sewers on Guise Street do not have the required capacity for redevelopment sewage flows for a gravity sewer system. The remaining alternatives were carried forward for further review. These included, (i) Do Nothing, (ii) the construction of new pumping stations and forcemains and (iii) the construction of a central pumping station and forcemain. 3.1. Alternative 1 ‐ Do Nothing

The Do Nothing alternative would involve maintaining the existing infrastructure without the construction of new infrastructure. Any existing deficiencies in the existing system would remain with ongoing maintenance. This alternative is not expected to address current and future development needs but as required by the Class EA process, this alternative has been carried forward for further review. 3.2. Alternative 2 ‐ Construction of New Pumping Stations and Forcemains

The construction of new pumping stations and forcemains was carried forward as it will address existing and future redevelopment sewage flow needs. The new pumping

19

stations can be located to be compatible with both the existing topography and the location of future redevelopment blocks. There will be some consolidation of sewage flows through the replacement of the existing aged pumping facilities with new infrastructure constructed to current standards with improved monitoring. The construction of multiple new pumping stations will result in increased capital and operational costs over a single new facility but will have the advantage of increased construction staging opportunities. 3.3. Alternative 3 – Construction of a Central Pumping Station and Forcemain

The construction of a single centrally located pumping station and forcemain has similar advantages as the construction of multiple pumping stations as it also addresses existing and future redevelopment sewage flow needs and was also carried forward for further review. The centrally located pumping station location can be placed to be compatible with the existing topography and future redevelopment and would offer a complete consolidation of sewage flows for the study area. This alternative will also replace the existing aged pumping facilities with a new facility constructed to current standards with improved monitoring and would be more cost effective than multiple pumping facilities. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it may not have the flexibility to address other on site infrastructure constraints or the opportunities for construction staging.

20

4. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1. Evaluation of Criteria

The evaluation criteria used for the assessment of the alternatives reviewed the potential environmental (natural, social, economic, cultural) and technical impacts of each alternative. In assessing alternative solutions, the alternatives were compared on the basis of each criterion. The key considerations that apply to each criterion are outlined in Table 3:

21

Table 3 ‐ Evaluation Criteria and Key Considerations

Evaluation Criteria Indicator

Natural Environmental Considerations

Potential Impacts on Terrestrial Environment

Potential for displacement, disruption or improvement to vegetation/wildlife habitat during construction and operation (including SARS, Greenspaces, Wetlands, ESAs, ANSIs)

Potential Impacts on Aquatic Habitat Potential for displacement, disruption or improvement of potential fisheries resources (including riparian zones, fish, aquatic wildlife and vegetation, wetlands)

Technical Considerations

Current Pumping Facilities Operation for current and future loading

Compatibility of "Tie‐In" with Existing Infrastructure System

Ease of connection to existing infrastructure

Ease of Construction (ie., construction constraints)

Qualitative assessment of the ability to construct

Location/Impacts of Other Utilities Potential impacts to existing utilities, mitigation required and opportunities

Noise/Odour Potential for changing existing conditions

Permits and Approvals Ability to obtain approvals in a timely manner

Reliability of Service Ability to provide reliable/continuous service for the required capacity

Social and Cultural Environmental Considerations

Residential Buildings within 100m The potential impact or limitation on current and/or future residential uses for the property or adjacent properties

Institutional Buildings within 100 m The potential impact or limitation on current and/or future land, institutional uses for the property or adjacent properties

22

Evaluation Criteria Indicator

Recreation The potential impact or limitation on current and/or future recreational uses for the property or adjacent properties

Cultural/Heritage Areas within 200m The number of cultural/heritage/built heritage areas and type of cultural area surrounding the site

Traffic Impacts The type of roadyway amount of traffic potentially using the route (high, moderate, low), and access to private properties and parking by residents.

Known Archaeological Features (including First Nations)

The number and significance of known archaeological sites at the site or along the route. Potential (high or low) for undiscovered archaeological features on the site.

Private Properties Affected The number of private properties impacted

Visual Landscape Impacts Impact on views from adjacent residences (e.g.,harbour)

Private Access Routes Affected (Driveways)

The number of private access routes affected.

Planning Policies or Initiatives Impact on planning policies or planning initiatives

Air Quality The impact on air quailty by emissions and/ odours

Economic Considerations

Capital Costs Estimated construction costs

Operating and Maintenance Costs (Life Cycle)

Estimated on‐going maintenance costs

Property Acquisition Need for new property/easements

23

4.2. Evaluation Methodology

The proposed alternative solutions were evaluated by each of the evaluation criteria presented in Table 3. The evaluation criteria is based on a descriptive manner instead of a quantitative manner. The evaluation concentrates on the strengths and weakness of each alternative to identify the best possible solution. For each criteria and for each possible alternative, the potential effects on the environment (natural, social, cultural, economical) and technical impacts are identified. The evaluation is based on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the potential environmental effects for each alternative. The following considerations were taken into account:

Natural Environmental Considerations – Protection of the Physical features of the environment

Social/Cultural Environmental Considerations – Residents, neighbourhoods, businesses, community characteristics and heritage features of the area.

Technical Considerations – Technical suitability and constructability

Economic Considerations – Capital and operation/maintenance costs. The selection of the preferred alternative is based on the advantages and disadvantages of the net environmental effects, including the results of applying mitigating measures. 4.3. Assessment of Alternatives

Table 4 provides a summary of the evaluation of three (3) alternatives. There is an overall rating for the four main criteria groupings (natural, social & cultural, technical, and economic considerations). At the end of the table is an overall preference rating to identify the preferred alternative based on all four categories.

24

Table 4 – Short List Evaluation – Pumping Station Facilities Alternatives

Short List Evaluation ‐ Pumping Station Facilities Alternatives

New pumping stations (or facilities) and forcemains New central pumping station and forcemain Do Nothing

Natural Environmental Considerations

Potential impacts on terrestrial environment (plant life and wildlife)

Limited impacts to vegetation include pruning and removal of select trees. Limited impacts to wildlife Preferred

Limited impacts to vegetation include pruning and removal of select trees. Limited impacts to wildlife Preferred

None Most Preferred

Potential impacts on aquatic habitat No impact during construction. Most Preferred

No impact during construction. Most Preferred

None Most Preferred

Social and Cultural Environmental Considerations

Residential Buildings within 100m Low impact on existing residential during construction. Improvement supports new development. Most Preferred

Low impact on existing residential during construction. Improvement supports new development. Most Preferred

Does not support new development. Least Preferred

Institutional Buildings within 100 m No impact during construction. Preferred

No impact during construction. Preferred

None Preferred

Recreation

Low impacts on existing recreation. Pumping Station may impact future park development on Pier 8 and forcemain construction in Eastwood Park may impact any future park uses. Least Preferred

Low impacts on existing recreation. Pumping Station may impact future park development on Pier 8 and forcemain construction in Eastwood Park may impact any future park uses. Least Preferred

None Most Preferred

Cultural/Heritage Areas within 200m No impacts during construction. Most Preferred

No impacts during construction. Most Preferred

None Most Preferred

25



Traffic Impacts

Impact to Piers 5, 6, 8 existing development during pumping station construction / Discovery Drive and residential streets with forcemain construction. Least Preferred

Impact to Pier 8 existing development during pumping station construction / Discovery Drive and residential streets with forcemain construction. Least Preferred

None Most Preferred

Known Archaeological Features (including First Nations)

Low potential for archaeology impact with pumping station construction and limited potential with forcemain construction on Pier 8, Catharine Street, Mary Street, Brock Street, Eastwood Park and Burlington Street. Preferred

Low potential for archaeology impact with pumping station construction and limited potential with forcemain construction on Pier 8, Catharine Street, Mary Street, Brock Street, Eastwood Park and Burlington Street. Preferred

None Most Preferred

Private Properties Affected Low ‐ limited impacts during construction Preferred

Low ‐ limited impacts during construction Preferred

None Most Preferred

Visual Landscape Impacts Low ‐ limited impacts to visual landscape Preferred

Low ‐ limited impacts to visual landscape Preferred

None Most Preferred

Private Access Routes Affected (Driveways)

Pumping station construction on Piers 6 and 8 may temporarily impact existing development. Forcemain construction may temporarily affect Pier 8 existing development for alternate east ‐ west route selection. Forcemain construction on road allowances will have limited temporary access disruption to local residences. Least Preferred

Pumping station construction on Pier 8 may temporarily impact existing development. Forcemain construction may temporarily affect Pier 8 existing development for alternate east ‐ west route selection. Forcemain construction on road allowances will have limited temporary access disruption to local residences. Least Preferred

None Most Preferred

26



Planning Policies or Initiatives Pumping Station and forcemain construction supports Setting Sail redevelopment Planning Initiative. Most Preferred

Pumping Station and forcemain construction supports Setting Sail redevelopment Planning Initiative. Most Preferred

Existing sewage collection systems are under‐capacity for future developmentLeast Preferred

Air Quality Low ‐ limited impacts to air quality. Preferred

Low ‐ limited impacts to air quality. Preferred

None Most Preferred

Technical Considerations

Capacity Needs Addresses current and future capacity needs. Preferred

Addresses current and future capacity needs. Most Preferred

Does not address existing needs on Pier 8 and future capacity needs. Least Preferred

Compatibility of "tie‐in" with Existing Infrastructure System

Allows for added flexibilitity with multiple tie‐in locations to existing infrastructure. Additional sewer capacity on Guise Street will be needed. Preferred

Slightly more constrained with single tie in point to existing infrastructure. Preferred

N/A

Ease of Construction (ie., construction constraints)

Limited construction constraints. Allows for added flexibility in construction phasing. Addresses possible conflict with gravity connection to a central pumping station in Pier 8 from Pier 6.Most Preferred

Limited construction constraints but ability to service future development on Pier 6 by gravity with James Street CSO infrastructure is needed. Limited flexibility with phasing of development. Preferred

N/A

Location/Impacts of Other Utilities

Pumping station and forcemain construction will need to accommodate existing pipeline infrastructure. More flexibility with a second pumping station in Pier 6 with mitigating conflicts with other infrastructure that may be impacted by a gravity sewer connection to a central pumping station in Pier 8.Least Preferred

Pumping station and forcemain construction will need to accommodate existing pipeline infrastructure. Greater potential for conflict with a gravity sewer connection from Pier 5/6. Least Preferred

None Most Preferred

27



Noise/Odour

Low ‐ limited impacts during and after construction. Pumping stations and associated infrastructure will need to be designed for noise and odour control. Preferred

Low ‐ limited impacts during and after construction. Pumping station and associated infrastructure will need to be designed for noise and odour control. Preferred

Potential for unpleasant odours due to aging existing smaller pumping stations Least Preferred

Permits and Approvals Additional permits and approvals associated with multiple pumping facilities Least Preferred

Less permits and approvals due to single pumping station. Preferred

No permits required to maintain existing infrastructure. Most Preferred

Reliability of service Good ability to provide reliable service for existing and future redevelopment is achieved. Preferred

Good ability to provide reliable service for existing and future redevelopment is achieved. Preferred

Current smaller pumping stations do not meet future capacity and are not as reliable. Least Preferred

Economic Considerations

Capital Costs Limited higher construction costs, $4,620,000 (Present Value). Preferred

Marginally lower construction costs $4,411,000 (Present Value) Most Preferred

Increased costs to replace aged infrastructure without increased capacity. Least Preferred

Operating and Maintenance Costs (Life Cycle)

Slightly higher operation and maintenance costs due to multiple pumping facilities, $682,000 Present Value over 60 year life of pumping stations. Preferred

Slightly lower operational and maintenance costs due to single pumping station $461,000 Present Value over 60 year Life of pumping stations. Most Preferred

Increased costs to maintain aged infrastructure without increased capacity. Least Preferred

Property Acquisition No need for property acquisition, City owned land. Preferred

No need for property acquisition, City owned land. Preferred

No land needed. Preferred

Summary of Evaluation

Preferred Solution Increased flexibility in tie‐in to existing infrastructure if gravity sewer connection from Pier 6 to Pier 8 is not feasible. Only moderately higher capital costs ($4,620,000 Present Value). Design for pumping station in Pier 8 will allow for gravity sewer connection from Piers 5/6 and 7. If gravity sewer connection is not feasible, replace existing pumping station on Pier 6 or construct new pumping station to connect to Guise Street sewer when required capacity is available.

Eliminated Slightly lower construction costs. Gravity sewer connection from Piers 5/6 to Pier 8 around James Street CSO infrastructure will need to be feasible. Solution does not allow for alternate servicing strategy if connection cannot be completed. Slightly lower capital costs ($4,411,000 Present Value). Lower life cycle costs ($461,000 Present Value over 60 year Life of Pumping Station).

Eliminated Does not meet future capacity needs with planned development.

28

4.4. Selection of Preferred Alternative

Pumping Stations The three short listed alternatives that included (i) new pumping stations (or facilities) and forcemains, (ii) central pumping station and forcemain and (iii) do nothing were evaluated and the preferred alternative that was selected was the new pumping stations (or facilities) and forcemain. The do nothing alternative was not selected as it did not address future development capacity needs as well as existing pumping station deficiencies. A new central pumping station and forcemain would have had less capital and operational costs but there may be constraints with the location of the existing municipal combined sewer overflow infrastructure on Pier 6 which may result in an unfeasible gravity sewer connection from Pier 6 to the new Pier 8 pumping station. Increased flexibility is needed to allow for the connection to existing infrastructure on Guise Street if a gravity sewer connection from Pier 6 to Pier 8 is not feasible. The feasibility of a gravity connection from Piers 6 to 8 would be confirmed during the detailed design process and if feasible the provisional pumping station located on Pier 6 and forcemain connection to Guise Street would not be constructed. In order to allow for the provisional forcemain connection to Guise Street, sewer capacity in the existing municipal system would need to be available through the reduction of existing flows to the Guise Street sewers. Only moderately higher costs were expected with the provisional pumping station on Pier 6 and new pumping station on Pier 8 preferred alternative. This alternative solution allows for a staged approach to servicing with the new pumping station on Pier 8 being designed for provisions for a future gravity sewer connection from Piers 5/6 and 7. If a gravity sewer connection is not feasible, then the new provisional pumping station on Pier 6 with a forcemain connection to Guise Street would be constructed when sewer capacity is available on Guise Street. The location of the preferred solution is outlined on the Conceptual Sanitary Plan Figure 6.

Forcemain Alignment The location of the pumping station forcemain connection from Pier 8 that was selected was the Burlington Street sewer located at the intersection of Ferguson Avenue. Two routes were reviewed and the preferred route was from Pier 8, southerly to Hughson Street, easterly on Brock Street, southerly on Mary Street and easterly on Burlington Street. Both road allowances and a possible location on the south side of Eastwood Park on the north side of Burlington Street are included as part of the corridor selection. The alternative forcemain location also reviewed was Pier 8 easterly to Catharine Street, southerly to Eastwood Park, easterly to Brock Street, easterly through Eastwood Park to Ferguson Avenue and southerly on Ferguson Avenue to Burlington Street. The preferred alternative forcemain route is shown on the Conceptual Sanitary Plan (Figure 6) and limits the length of forcemain on both Pier 8 and Eastwood Park. It was preferred to limit the location of the forcemain on Pier 8 to mitigate potential conflict with future

29

redevelopment as well as on Eastwood Park which may impact future park uses through additional infrastructure placement in the park.

30

5. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

5.1. Description of Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative is outlined on the Conceptual Sanitary Plan (Figure 6) and consists of a new pumping station on Pier 8 and underground sewer storage infrastructure which is located in or in the vicinity of the future park in Pier 8. The size and timing of construction of the sewer storage infrastructure will be determined during design along with the size of the pumping station.

There is a provisional pumping station on Pier 6 that has been included in the preferred alternative. This pumping station would be constructed if a gravity sewer connection from Piers 5, 6 to the Pier 8 pumping station is not feasible due to conflicts with existing combined sewer overflow infrastructure located on Pier 6 at the foot of James Street. A gravity sewer connection from Pier 7 to the Pier 8 pumping station is proposed as part of the preferred alternative. In order to allow for the provisional pumping station and an associated forcemain connection to Guise Street, sewer capacity in the existing municipal system would need to be available through the reduction of existing flows to the Guise Street sewers. This timing for the construction of the provisional pumping station would be when there is available capacity in the Guise Street sewers.

The Pier 8 pumping station forcemain is proposed to connect to the Burlington Street sewer located at the intersection of Ferguson Avenue. The preferred alignment that is outlined on the Conceptual Sanitary Plan from the Pier 8 pumping station is southerly along or adjacent to Discovery Drive, to Hughson Street, easterly on Brock Street, southerly on Mary Street and easterly on Burlington Street to the intersection of Burlington Street and Ferguson Avenue. The Burlington Street road allowance or the south side of Eastwood Park on the north side of Burlington Street will be considered for the forcemain alignment during design.

31

Figure 6 – Conceptual Sanitary Plan

32

5.2. Approvals

5.2.1. City of Hamilton

Building and Development Site Plan reviews and / or approvals will be needed for the pumping station and sewer storage infrastructure which is not located on road allowances. In addition pumping station building façade and sewer infrastructure reviews by the Public Works Landscape Architectural Services group will be needed to ensure compatibility with park designs on Pier 8, the proposed Marina Village on Piers 6 and 7 or Eastwood Park.

5.2.2. Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Environmental Compliance or Certificate of Approval for Air and Noise will be required for the pumping stations. The MOE forcemain approval is expected to be through a delegated approval process by the City. 5.2.3. Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA)

The pumping station(s), sewer storage infrastructure and a section of the forcemain is expected to be in the Hamilton Conservation Authority regulated area of the harbour and therefore will require a permit. Considerations for flood proofing of the infrastructure which will address Regional flood levels and wave uprush will be needed. No further terrestrial or aquatic reviews are anticipated. If there is a requirement for tertiary gravity overflows from the pumping station into the Harbour it will need approval from HCA. 5.2.4. Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport

A Stage 1 Background Archaeological Study for the West Harbour sewage pumping facilities Environmental Study was completed and submitted to the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport (MTCS). The archaeological study identified archaeological potential and follow up archaeological investigations will be required. An archaeological clearance from the MTCS will be required following the Stage 2 archaeological work and reporting. A Heritage Impact Assessment report was also submitted to the MTCS who provided their comments. No further submissions were requested by the Ministry for built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes impacts associated with the preferred pumping stations and forecemains. 5.2.5. Other

Other agency or pipeline considerations include the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA), Sun‐Canadian Pipe Line and Imperial Oil Limited. Confirmation of the location of the Sun‐Canadian and Imperial Oil pipelines will be required during design

33

for the proposed forcemain pipeline crossings. Communication with TSSA and the pipelines will be needed during design to confirm crossing requirements. A Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) screening process by the City for aquatic impacts should be undertaken. DFO approvals are not anticipated to be required for the construction of the pumping station and forcemains. The Natural Environment Existing Conditions review did not identify the need for any Ministry of Natural Resource approvals or reviews associated with the preferred pumping stations and forcemains alternative.

34

6. MITIGATION AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Social and Economic

6.1.1. Traffic

The work proposed in the preferred solution is located on public lands and includes road allowances and municipally owned land on Piers 5, 6, 7 and 8. Local access to homes and businesses will be maintained during temporary road closures and where possible road closures will be avoided where feasible. For work on municipally owned lands on Piers 5, 6, 7 and 8 where businesses are operating, access to businesses will be maintained and advance notice provided to those with active City leases if the use of lands are impacted. The location of proposed pumping stations and forcemains have considered existing development and minimized impacts where possible. 6.1.2. Noise, Dust, Vibrations

Noise impacts during construction can be limited by working during the day where operations do not require evening work to maintain infrastructure services to business. Noise associated with pumping station equipment will be considered during design and a Ministry of Environment Environmental Compliance Approval or Certificate of Approval for Noise obtained. Dust suppression items such as the application of water or calcium chloride will minimize impacts from dust. Vibration associated with construction can be monitored against industry accepted standards to minimize damage to adjacent buildings. 6.1.3. Public Notifications

In order to inform the public, residences and businesses within the construction area, notification letters are provided prior to the commencement of construction activities. In addition, there is project signage informing the public of the ongoing construction project and project contact numbers available for inquiries during construction. 6.2. Cultural and Archaeological Environment

Cultural Heritage A Heritage Impact Assessment was completed for the study area which included a Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes review. This review provided comments on the conceptual pumping station locations and forcemain alignment. The results of the review concluded that the proposed work was not anticipated to have long term irreversible adverse impacts to built heritage or cultural landscape resources within the study area. Impacts associated from construction, such as soil disturbance were considered to be short term and temporary in duration and therefore adverse impacts of significant cultural heritage resources are not expected as the works have been confined to existing municipal right of ways, municipal lands or previously disturbed

35

areas. A summary of the built heritage inventory and cultural landscape elements are shown on Figures 7 and 8.

36

Figure 7 – Built Heritage

37

Figure 8 – Cultural Landscape Elements

38

Archaeology A Stage 1 Background Study for the West Harbour Piers 5 to 8 Pumping Station and Forcemains Environmental Assessment was completed. The report documented where there was an archaeological high potential for the conceptual pumping station locations and forcemain alignments. The report also noted where there was low archaeological potential. These areas have been shown on the Archaeological High Potential for Proposed Pipeline Routes figure. The locations identified to have high archaeological potential will be reviewed further by an archaeologist following a refinement of the location of proposed infrastructure during the design phase. Additional archaeological investigations will be carried out during design for the locations that are identified to have high archaeological potential following this review.

39

Figure 9 – Archaeology

40

6.3. Natural Environment Impacts

An existing conditions review was completed for the natural environment for the project area and a summary of impacts associated with the proposed pumping stations and forcemains identified. The assessment of potential Species at Risk (SAR) and Species of Concern (SCC) habitat was included in the review along with potential impacts associated with the construction of new pumping stations and forcemains. The review concluded that the project area has limited natural features and landscape trees and the conceptual pumping station locations were not anticipated to impact terrestrial or aquatic natural features during the construction or operations phase with the implementation of appropriate construction mitigation. Mitigation measures included pruning, limited tree removals and the use of tree protection zones for trees not required for removal that have close proximity to the construction area to minimize tree damage and root impacts associated with compaction of soil around the trees. Wildlife habitat was noted to be scarce and the project area on Piers 5 to 8 is sparsely occupied by common urban species. Barn Swallow habitat was noted to be marginal and restricted to buildings that may be removed during the redevelopment of Piers 5 to 8 which is not part of this pumping station and forcemain Environmental Study. During consultation with the Hamilton Conservation Authority a request was received by the Conservation Authority to remove the Tree of Heaven that is a highly invasive species and is located in the vicinity of the provisional pumping station location on Pier 6. This request will be reviewed during the design phase of the work in the vicinity of this tree.

41

Figure 10 – Tree Inventory

42

6.4. Pumping Station and Forcemain Impacts

Existing The existing pumping stations, excluding the former Parks Canada pumping station on Pier 8, that are within the study area that are maintained by private operators are not expected to be impacted by the work that is proposed in this study. Any requests received by the operators of any privately operated pumping facilities for a connection to new infrastructure would need to be reviewed during the design phase of the new pumping stations and forcemains. These new connections may only be temporary until the redevelopment of Piers 5 to 8. The new pumping station on Pier 8 that will serve to replace the Parks Canada pumping station will provide service to the existing facilities which are managed by the Hamilton Waterfront Trust or the City of Hamilton. Decommissioning of the Parks Canada pumping station would need to be coordinated with the construction of the new pumping station so service to existing development is maintained. The existing forcemain that services the existing Parks Canada pumping station will need to be maintained during the construction phase of any new infrastructure. Proposed The proposed pumping station on Pier 8 and provisional pumping station on Pier 6 will need to address flood control associated with Regional storm water levels and wave uprush. These items will need to be addressed during detailed design along with the new pumping station(s) being designed to include (i) a backup standby generator to allow for continued use of the pumping station during a power outage, (ii) passive gravity overflow as a tertiary redundant measure to further protect homes from basement flooding, (iii) provision for odour control of the pumping station(s), and (iv) provision for temporary storage of sanitary sewage at the station during wet weather event(s). Other considerations include consideration for the neighbourhood and available urban design guidelines for any above ground infrastructure (buildings etc.). In addition the proposed pumping station and any associated underground sewer storage infrastructure on Pier 8 may be located within a future park. Park design concepts will need to be considered during the design phase of any new infrastructure that may be located in the future park including the provision of adequate cover over underground infrastructure to construct future park elements. The design of the sewer infrastructure in the park will need to be undertaken in conjunction with park design. The location of the provisional pumping station and sewers on Piers 6 and 7 will need to be determined in conjunction with the proposed Marina Village by the Public Works Landscape Architectural Services group. During the design phase of the forcemain, the pipeline locations at the crossings of the Imperial Oil and Sun‐Canadian pipelines will need to be confirmed. The final alignment of the proposed forcemains needs to consider archaeological potential impacts and

43

future park use at Eastwood Park. The opportunity for a sewer gravity connection from Pier 6 to Pier 8 will need to be confirmed during design and provisions made if this gravity connection is not feasible. The available capacity in the municipal sewer system will also need to be confirmed during design to determine the need and timing for the construction of any sewer storage infrastructure in Pier 8.

44

7. Public Consultation

7.1. Project Notices and Consultation Activities

Agency and public consultation plays an important part in the environmental assessment process. Two (2) Public Information Centre’s were held to give the public opportunity to provide input on the assessment and evaluation process for the project. All project Notices were circulated to review agencies, neighbouring residents of the pumping station and placed in the local newspaper. The following section provides a summary of the key points of contact that were undertaken throughout the course of the project as well as a summary of the comments received. 7.1.1. Notice of Commencement and Public Information Centre No. 1

The Notice of Commencement and Public Information Centre (PIC) No. 1 included a description of the study area and identified the area of study on a map. The Notice was issued to agencies and public individuals expressing interest in the project on September 9th, 2013 and published in the Hamilton Spectator on September 13th, 2013 and September 20th, 2013. A Notice of Commencement and Public Information Centre No. 1 as well as a list of all recipients of the mail out are included in Appendix D. 7.1.2. Public Information Centre No. 1

A PIC was held on September 23rd, 2013 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at Hamilton Waterfront Trust Centre (57 Discovery Drive) in Hamilton, Ontario. The PIC was organized as a drop‐in centre where people could review a series of display panels outlining the environmental assessment (EA) process, project information, the alternative solutions, the evaluation criteria to determine the preferred alternative solution and the next steps that would be followed in the Class EA process. The display boards presented at the PIC are included in Appendix D. Ten (10) people (9 people and the local councillor) were in attendance. Based on the feedback, received, overall the PIC was well received. 7.1.3. Notice of Public Information Centre No. 2

The Notice of PIC No. 2 was issued to agencies and public individuals expressing interest in the project on December 19th, 2013 and was published in the Hamilton Spectator on Friday December 27th, 2013 and Friday January 3rd, 2014. A copy of the Notice of PIC No.2 is included in Appendix D. 7.1.4. Public Information Centre No. 2

The second PIC was held on January 6th, 2014 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at the Hamilton Waterfront Trust Centre (57 Discovery Drive) in Hamilton, Ontario. The PIC provided

45

information on the evaluation of alternatives, the selection of the preferred solution, and next steps. The display boards presented at the PIC are included in Appendix D. Attendees were asked to complete a comment sheet, and all comments received are included in Appendix D. Five (5) people were in attendance. 7.1.5. Notice of Completion

The Notice of Completion for this project will identify that the preferred alternative is the construction of a new sewage pumping station on Pier 8 and a provisional pumping station on Pier 6. The Notice will provide the public and agencies a review period for 30 days. The Notice will be placed in the Hamilton Spectator and sent to those Stakeholder and Agency mailing list as well as distributed to neighbouring residents of Piers 5 ‐ 8. 7.2. Agency Consultation

The Notice of Commencement, PIC No. 1 and PIC No. 2, and was forwarded to agencies that may have an interest in the project. The list of agencies provided with a copy of the notice is included in Appendix D. Table 5 summarizes the comments received from the Agencies and the responses to their concerns or comments.

46

Table 5 ‐ Summary of Comments Received from Agencies

Agency Comment Received Response

Comments Received after Notice of Commencement and PIC 1

Mr. Mike Stone Manager, Watershed Planning Services Hamilton Conservation Authority

Received Notice of Commencement and PIC 1 Letter dated September 16th, 2013. Given a significant portion of the study area is regulated, HCA has an interest in the study would appreciate continued circulation of notices and new information as it becomes available.

Project team will continue to keep HCA involved in the Class EA process for the Pier 8 Pumping station.

Sarah Jermyn Project Coordinator GO, a Division of Metrolinx

Based on the information provided, GO transit have no major concerns. However, due to the projects proximity to the future James Street North GO Station we are interested in this project and wish to be kept informed. Below is a synopsis of GO Transits work to date in the area. Please can you provide us with the PIC material to review and also confirm the schedule of work for this project, so we can ensure there are no further issues? In May 2011, GO Transit completed the Niagara Rail Service Expansion Environmental Assessment (EA) for the expansion of service to the Niagara Peninsula. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) assessed a new GO station located at 353 James Street North in Hamilton, as part of delivering more integrated and effective public transportation in the GTHA. The ESR also assessed James

Thank you for your email. You can find the PIC materials on our website. We are planning on having a second PIC closer to the year end. At the second PIC we will be presenting the preferred alternative. We will keep you informed on our next steps. Please review the PIC material.

47



Street North as a potential location for a layover facility, but was not recommended in considering the City of Hamilton’s vision for the waterfront area, and, as the site could only accommodate two trains (most layover sites must accommodate a minimum of four trains). Since then, in order to meet the 2015 deadline for increased service to support the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games, and to avoid operational impacts such as deadheading of trains from outside of Hamilton, Metrolinx has consulted with the City of Hamilton regarding using the James Street North GO Station as an interim/temporary layover for two trains, until the Lewis Road Layover Facility, as approved in the EA, is constructed. The layover location resides within the West Harbour Secondary Plan area. Part of the study area falls into the Barton‐Tiffany Planning Area.

Amy Liu Project Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Letter Provided information on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. If it appears that CEAA 2012 may apply to your proposed project please contact the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

CEAA 2012 does not apply to the Pier 8 Pumping Station EA.

48



Heather Levecque Manager, Consultation Unit Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) identifies First nation and Metis communities who may have the following interests in the area of your project: ‐ Reserves; ‐ Land claims in litigation against Ontario; ‐ Existing or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights, such

as harvesting rights; or an interest in your project’s potential environmental impacts.

MAA is not the approval or regulatory authority for your project, and receives very limited information about projects in the early stages of their development. With respect to your project and based on the brief materials you have provided, we can advise that the project appears to be located in an area where First Nations may have existing or asserted rights or claims in Ontario’s land claim process or litigation, that could be impacted by your project. ‐ Six Nations of the Grand River Territory ‐ Haudenosaunee Confederacy ‐ Mississaugas of the new Credit First Nation

Please remove from mailing list.

The following first Nations group were advised and consulted on the Pier 8 Pumping Station EA. ‐ Six Nations of the Grand River ‐ Huron‐Wendat Nation Council ‐ Haudenosaunee Resource Centre ‐ Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation

Rosi Zirger Heritage

As part of the Class Environmental Assessment process, the MTCS has an interest in the conservation of cultural

The City of Hamilton will be completing a Stage 1 Archeological Assessment and a Heritage Impact

49



Planner Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport

heritage resource including: ‐ archaeological resources, ‐ built heritage resources, and ‐ cultural heritage landscapes MTCS would, be interested in remaining on the circulation list and being informed of the project as it proceeds through the EA process. Could you advise whether an archaeological assessment and/or heritage impact assessment is being undertaken for the EA project? If so please forward the completed reports to MTCS prior to issuing a Notice of Completion. Archaeological Resources Please be aware that, while much of the study area is reclaimed land, there are portions of natural shoreline within the EA area. As such the lands that are subject of this EA meets at least one provincial criteria and is considered to have archaeological potential. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes In order to determine the existing cultural conditions, known and potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes should be identified. The Ministry’s “Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes” checklist will help you in identifying known or potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within the study area.

Assessment as part of the EA work for Pier 8 Pumping Station.

50



Paul Lane Sr. Property & Construction Technologist Sun‐Canadian Pipe Line

Sun‐Canadian Pipe Line Company Limited owns and operates a NPS 6 oil pipeline across Pier 8 lands and confirms an interest in any work proposed for the area. We attach 2 route maps outlining our location and ask that you include our pipeline when evaluating the various pumping station, force mains and other associated sewage facilities.

The City of Hamilton is aware of the existing pipeline route and will continue to work with Sun‐Canadian Pipe Line through the EA process for Pier 8 Sewage pumping station.

Cyrus Elmpak‐Mackie Hydro One Networks Inc.

In our initial review, we can confirm that there are no Hydro One Transmission Facilities in the subject area. Please be advised that this is only a preliminary assessment based on current information. No further consultation with Hydro One Networks Inc. is required if no changes are made to the current information.

Comments were noted.

Comments Received during PIC 2 Consultation

Mike Stone Manager, Watershed Planning Services

It is noted that the pruning or removal of select landscape trees may be required as a result of some the proposed construction work, including the possible removal of a 65cm DBH Tree‐of Heaven. HCA staff note this is a highly invasive species, and would recommend the recorded species be removed at the noted location (and at any other locations within the study area) regardless of whether or not construction work necessitates its removal. A significant portion of the study area is regulated under HCA’s Development, Interference with Wetlands and

A digital copy of the Hamilton West Harbour Shoreline and Breakwater Infrastructure Environmental Study Report can be accessed through the following web link.

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/Environment_Sustainable_Infrastructure/StrategicPlanning/StrategicEnvironmentalPlanningProjects/Municipal+Class+Environmental+Assessment+%28Class+EA%29+Phases+3+and+4+for+Hamilton+West+Harbo

51



Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 161/06 under Ontario Regulation 97/04. All proposed construction work/activities within a regulated area will have to be reviewed by HCA staff in the context of our regulation and associated policies. To assist in this regard, HCA staff will be following up with the Hamilton Waterfront Trust to obtain a copy of the final study completed by Shoreplan Engineering Ltd. that examined the hazards (wave up‐rush) associated with the waterfront as part of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan and West Harbour Waterfront Shoreline and Breakwater Infrastructure Class EA.

ur+Waterfr.htm

Rosi Zigler Heritage Planner, Ministry of Tourism, Culture Sport

MTCS has reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment (Piers 5‐8) and have the following comments: The HIA identified 19 properties included on the City of Hamilton Inventory of Buildings of Architectural of Historical Value or Interest, an additional 5 properties having potential cultural heritage value identified as part of this study and cultural landscapes The HIA states that the proposed work is generally limited to existing municipal (road) rights of ways or on municipal lands or located beneath ground previously disturbed park and Pier lands. As such the proposed works are not anticipated to have any adverse, long‐term impacts to built heritage or cultural heritage landscapes

Comments have been noted.

52



within the study area. MTC has no issues with this technical assessment report, and the cultural heritage resources identified. We note your e‐mail advice that the City of Hamilton Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the report and provided comments, which have been addressed in this draft.

53

7.3. Public and Agency Comments and Responses

The need for upgrades to the Pier 8 Sewage Pumping Station was recognized and accepted by those in attendance at both of the PIC’s through comment sheets and discussions with the project team. The concerns are summarized below: Full comments and response are included in Appendix D. 7.3.1. Public Information Centre No. 1 Comments

The following tables (Tables 6 and 7) provides a summary of comments that were received from participants at PIC No. 1 as well as comments received after the PIC No. 1 event (Table 6) and at PIC No. 2 as well as comments received after the PIC No. 2 event (Table 7). The purpose of the table is to provide an overview of the overall comments received and responses provided.

54

Table 6 ‐ PIC No. 1 Comments and General Comments Received Post PIC No. 1

Comment Response

How was the project advertised in the Community?

Thank you for your e‐mail and interest on our Class Environmental Assessment for Piers 5 to 8 Pumping station facilities. The meeting notices were posted in the Hamilton Spectator on Friday September 13th, 2013 and Tuesday September 20th, 2013. It’s unfortunate that you missed the first Public Information Centre (PIC). However, that does not mean you cannot comment on the information that was displayed at the PIC. The information that was provided at the September 23rd, 2013 PIC) can be found on our website. The direct link to the project is below: http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PlanningEcDev/Divisions/GrowthManagement/Infrastructure+Planning/Environmental+Assessments/Piers58PumpingStationUpgrades.htm If you have any questions or comments on the information presented at the PIC, please feel free to contact me. If you would like to be kept informed on our next PIC we can add you to our mailing list.

Who was the successful roster candidate for the project, if there is one? I would like to be included on all mail lists for Notices concerning the North End of Hamilton, via e‐mail.

Thank you for your e‐mail. Please note the project team has added you to our mailing list and will ensure all future communications/notices for Piers 5 and 8 Pumping Station Environmental Assessment (EA) study are sent via e‐mail. Dillon Consulting Limited is part of the EA Project Team and for this study and has been retained directly by the Hamilton Waterfront Trust but is on the following related City of Hamilton ROSTERS;

Municipal Engineer (Roster 1) Terrestrial and Avian Ecology and Fisheries Biology (Roster 21)

55

Comment Response

Environmental Planning Process (Roster 7) Public Consultation and Facilitation (Roster 23) Land Use Planning and Urban Design (Roster 25)

Doug Onishi is the lead Project Manager from Dillon. For your contact information I have included him on this e‐mail.

My family and I live in the neighbourhood of Centremount, north of Fennell Avenue, east of Upper James Street. I read, on the City of Hamilton's website, of the proposed rehabilitation or re‐construction of the city's sewage pumping facilities and am wondering if you could tell me how the sewage is treated at this point in time and precisely where the sewage is being pumped after its treatment. Is the sewage stored in containers, as in a septic tank system, or is it returned to the nearest body of water?

The sanitary sewage from the existing development on Piers 5 to 8 is pumped from a number of pumping facilities or drain by gravity sewer connection to the existing sewer system. The flows from this sewer system are treated at the Woodward Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and treated effluent is discharged to Hamilton Harbour via an outfall on the Red Hill Creek. The West Harbour area is predominantly serviced by combined sewers: during storm events or snowmelt rain/snowmelt is conveyed along with sanitary sewage via a single pipe. To reduce the risk of basement flooding and guard against peak flows at the WWTP a portion of the flows may be diverted to combined sewer overflow (CSO) tanks at Bayfront/Strachan, James St/Guise or Eastwood Park where the flows are stored and, following a storm, subsequently pumped/drained back into the system and conveyed to the WWTP for treatment. During significant events where tank capacity is exceeded or at locations where there are no tanks combined sewage may be discharged directly to the harbour. The City has made significant progress in addressing CSO and pollutant loadings to receiving waters via sewer collection system upgrades and a planned upgrade in treatment process at the Woodward WWTP. Recently (2012), the City designed and built/rehabilitated a number of Real Time Control (RTC) facilities in the North End which take advantage of spare capacity that may exist in the

56

Comment Response

pipes during portions of a wet weather event and capture and convey a large portion of CSO which was previously discharged to the harbour. You can read more about this project at: http://www.uimonline.com/index/webapp‐stories‐action?id=268 If you have any further questions regarding CSO tanks or our sewer collection system please contact Chris Gainham at 905‐546‐2424 x 3421. If you have any additional questions regarding the environmental assessment project being completed for the pumping station facilities (Piers 5‐8), please feel free to contact me at any time.

Hello, I have a number of questions about the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreational Master Plan. (I have referred to it as the Waterfront Master plan in my questions, just because the title is so long!)

1. Where are we with the Waterfront Masterplan? As far as I can tell from my search of the City website, the Waterfront Master Plan is dated April 2010, and is RECEIVED by council, not “adopted/approved”? If adopted is not the correct term, what is the next step after being “received”.

2. Please explain the difference between received and adopted/approved. What is the

I am the Project Manager for the Environmental Assessment work we are completing on Pumping Station (piers 5‐8) and most of these questions were related to other projects, so it took me a little longer to gather all the information. Thank you for your e‐mail dated Friday September 13, 2013. Below I have complied answers (or contact names) from various staff and have included their contact information if you have any additional follow up questions. Please note, any follow up questions pertaining to Piers 5‐8 Pumping Facilities can to be sent to me directly.

1. Where are we with the Waterfront Masterplan? As far as I can tell from my search of the City website, the Waterfront Master Plan is dated April 2010, and is RECEIVED by council, not “adopted/approved”? If adopted is not the correct term, what is the next step after being “received”.

RESPONSE: At a May 10, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting, staff presented the “Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan” to

57

Comment Response

next step(s) for the Waterfront MP?

3. My(our) concerns are specifically on Bayview Park. In the “planning law” how can Bayview Park be in more than one plan? (Setting Sail and HWHRMP?) Is this contrary to the Urban Official Plan?

Right now it is in the Setting Sail Secondary Plan under section A.6.3.7 as a “stable area” in the public realm. “The city shall develop a master plan to improve its amenities. . . .It is also in the Waterfront Master Plan. At a glance one may not think that would be an issue, except that there is/will be a significant impact on the neighbourhood on the in the Waterfront Master Plan – a 400 car parking garage.

3.a)Does the Waterfront MP call or imply widening of MacNab Street to accommodate the parking lot entrance and exit?

3b) Would MacNab become 2 way at this time?

3c) What is the data to justify the statement that it is “an underperforming

Council. Council endorsed the staff report recommendations and received the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan. The next step is to bring forward the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By‐law Amendment to implement the Waterfront Recreation Master Plan. (Contact Michelle Sergi 905‐546‐2424 ext. 1281)

2. Please explain the difference between received and adopted/approved. What is the next step(s) for the Waterfront MP?

RESPONSE: There will be a Statutory Public Meeting in the future (no date has been set) to bring forward the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By‐law Amendment to implement the Waterfront Recreation Master Plan. (Contact Michelle Sergi 905‐546‐2424 ext. 1281)

3. My(our) concerns are specifically on Bayview Park. In the “planning law” how can Bayview Park be in more than one plan? (Setting Sail and HWHRMP?) Is this contrary to the Urban Official Plan?

Right now it is in the Setting Sail Secondary Plan under section A.6.3.7 as a “stable area” in the public realm. “The city shall develop a master plan to improve its amenities. . . .It is also in the Waterfront Master Plan. At a glance one may not think that would be an issue, except that there is/will be a significant impact on the neighbourhood on the in the Waterfront Master Plan – a 400 car parking garage.

RESPONSE: The West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan is being brought forward as an Official Plan Amendment to the Setting Sail Secondary

58

Comment Response

park” (Waterfront MP)?

3d) Is Bayview Park excluded from Setting Sail? If so, when and how?

4. What is the result of the RFP responses from developers in the spring re:Piers 7 & 8?

5. What are the City’s timelines for Piers 7 & 8? I am aware of the MOU for Piers 7&8, April 17, 2013. Does all this go through some kind of planning process? Environmental assessment? Etc.

In addition, please inform me of any further public meetings regarding:

1. the Waterfront MP

2.development of Piers (5, 6, )7& 8.

Plan. (Contact Michelle Sergi 905‐546‐2424 ext. 1281)

3.a)Does the Waterfront MP call or imply widening of MacNab Street to accommodate the parking lot entrance and exit?

Please contact (Contact Steve Molloy 905‐546‐2424 ext. 2975)

3b) Would MacNab become 2 way at this time?

Please contact (Contact Steve Molloy 905‐546‐2424 ext. 2975)

3c) What is the data to justify the statement that it is “an underperforming park” (Waterfront MP)?

Please contact Lawrence Stasiuk (contact Lawrence Stasiuk 905‐546‐2424 ext. 2292)

3d) Is Bayview Park excluded from Setting Sail? If so, when and how?

RESPONSE: Bayview Park is designated as Open Space in the Setting Sail Secondary Plan. (Contact Michelle Sergi 905‐546‐2424 ext. 1281)

4. What is the result of the RFP responses from developers in the spring re: Piers 7 & 8?

RESPONSE: The City of Hamilton has not engaged in any formal RFP process to the development industry for the city‐owned lands within the Piers 7‐8 area. The City is aware that the Hamilton Waterfront Trust engaged in a formal RFP

59

Comment Response

process for potential development opportunities within the Pier 8 lands they lease from Parks Canada.

City staff would be required to obtain Council approval prior to any issuance of an RFP for the city‐owned lands on Piers 7‐8. Staff will ensure that the NEN are kept abreast of the timeframes and processes involved prior to any report being presented to Council for the issuance of an RFP for these lands. (Contact: Chris Phillips 905‐546‐2424 ext. 5304)

5. What are the City’s timelines for Piers 7 & 8? I am aware of the MOU for Piers 7&8, April 17, 2013. Does all this go through some kind of planning process? Environmental assessment? Etc.

City Council approved an MOU with the Hamilton Port Authority in April 2013, which formally transfers the Pier 7 & 8 lands to the City of Hamilton. Since the year 2000, these lands have been owned by the City of Hamilton, however through 2‐separate agreements, these lands were leased back to the Hamilton Port Authority until 2015 for the Pier 7 lands, and 2025 for the lands on Pier 8.

This MOU will allow for a partial termination of these leases as of 2013, and as such, allow the City of Hamilton full control over these lands today, without waiting for the leases to expire in 2025. This MOU will be formally executed upon the acceptance of both parties of a formal Marina Management Agreement between the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Port Authority. This Agreement is expected to be considered by City Council sometime in late 2013.

Neither the MOU or the formal termination of the leases with the Hamilton Port Authority require any Planning or Environmental Assessment process. The MOU

60

Comment Response

was approved by General Issues Committee and City Council in April 2013. The formal Marina Management Agreement will also be presented to General Issues Committee and require formal City Council approval, as per Council direction from April 2013. (Contact: Chris Phillips 905‐546‐2424 ext. 5304)

In addition, please inform me of any further public meetings regarding:

1. the Waterfront MP

2.development of Piers (5, 6, )7& 8.

At present, there are no specific public meetings and/or timeframes in‐place for the proposed development of the Piers 7&8 lands. As mentioned above, the City staff will be presenting General Issues Committee with a report respecting the formal Marina Management Agreement with the Hamilton Port Authority. This report is excepted to be presented sometime by the end of 2013.

With this said, staff will certainly commit to ensuring the NEN is kept abreast of the actions and timelines relating to the Piers 7&8 lands, as well, will ensure we communicate all information for Public Meetings as they become available. (Contact: Chris Phillips 905‐546‐2424 ext. 5304)

For the Evaluation Criteria presented at PIC 1 there are too many considerations. Most are moot for the obvious alternatives.

None of the obvious choices would be any problem to the existing neighbourhood.

Comments noted.

61

Comment Response

Costs the City way too much money to go thru these multiple considerations when there really are only 3 obvious choices.

No need to run a PIC until choices are narrowed down to obvious (repair, replace).

Pumping Station located close to the Lake is there a chance of old infrastructure leaking contaminating waterway?

Why are upgrades being done prior to RFP of Pier 8 development?

Construction noise, traffic detours , air quality are all disadvantages to this project.

The pumping station and associated infrastructure will be designed to minimize the risk of sewage leakage to the harbour. The existing municipally maintained pumping station on Pier 8 that was constructed to service the former Canadian Marine Discovery Centre in 2004 now services existing development at the north and west side area of Pier 8. This pumping station has operational deficiencies which include:

No standby power generator to provide a backup power source in the event

of power failure; and,

Inadequate capacity to manage existing development sewage flows and / or

service future development.

Comment noted.

62

Table 7 ‐ PIC No. 2 and Comments Received Post PIC No. 2

Comment Response

Will there be an implementation team of residents and stakeholders?

Will business be relocated or property’s re‐appropriated

Will the generator buildings fit in with the existing neighbourhood?

Will traffic calming be consistent with existing neighbourhood?

As part of the Pier 8 Sewage Pumping Station and Facilities EA there are no plans for an implementation team of residents and stakeholders. However, stakeholders who connect to the existing system and will be impacted by the new sewage system will be consulted during detail design. The conceptual location of the proposed New Sewage pumping station on Pier 8 is in the Hamilton Marine Storage Area. The City owns the land but the area is currently leased out to the Hamilton Port Authority. The City is negotiating the end of this lease with the Hamilton Port Authority and a report to Council is expected in the near future. Until the lease is terminated, arrangements would be made between the City and the Hamilton Port Authority to relocate the boat storage in the area of the pumping station. During the detail design of the new pumping stationstructure the project team will consult The City of Hamilton’s Design Review Panel to ensure it fits within the existing neighbourhood.

Traffic Calming is not applicable to this project.

Would you please advise me of the land use patterns employed by the City in developing the concept of a new pumping station for Pier 8 and the extent to which the concept is consistent with the new housing contemplated by Setting Sail.

My apologies in my delay in responding to your e‐mail on the "Piers 5 to 8 Pumping facilities Class EA". The City of Hamilton is currently reviewing wastewater infrastructure needs at the West Harbour (Piers 5 ‐ 8) to support both existing and future growth needs of the area. The existing pumping station located on Pier 8 has operational deficiencies which include: • No standby power generator to provide a backup power source in

63

Comment Response

the event of power failure; and, • Inadequate capacity to manage existing development sewage flows and / or service future development. In addition to the sanitary sewage servicing needs on Pier 8, the City is also reviewing sanitary infrastructure needs on Piers 5 to 7 which may require new sewage pumping infrastructure to service existing and future development needs. The project is following the Class Environmental Assessment process. The alternative solutions and preferred alternative solution that were developed were based on input from a number of sources (i.e. archaeology, natural environment, etc). The preferred solution recommends a new pumping station for Pier 8. The new pumping station is intended to service existing development on Pier 8 as well as future Pier 8 land uses that were included in the OMB approval for Setting Sail. Below is a link to our website that has the all of the project information to date. http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PlanningEcDev/Divisions/GrowthManagement/Infrastructure+Planning/Environmental+Assessments/Piers58PumpingStationUpgrades.htm

The documents I was able to see on the city website do not show any flow demand calculations, and thus do not show what future developments on piers 5 to 8 were assumed in terms of calculating demand. Those assumptions are very important and will be of great interest to residents of the North End. The other aspect I was unable to find was any indication as to how the proposed layout would or would not synchronize with future developments

Thank you for your follow up e‐mail. For clarity purposes, I have highlighted your comments in bold and the City's response in italics. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. E‐mail: The documents I was able to see on the city website do not show any flow demand calculations, and thus do not show what future developments on piers 5 to 8 were assumed in terms of calculating demand. Those assumptions are very important and will be of great interest to residents of the North End.

64

Comment Response in terms of location. Putting pipes in the ground has a tendency to structure future development. As you know, Setting Sail contemplates a design study for the future residential development on Piers 7 and 8. I was unable to see how that design study would not be severely hampered by location decisions at this stage. In other words, where do I find the rationale for proceeding with this work in advance of the Setting Sail mandated design study of the future development.

City Response: The EA study recommends a preferred solution to address the problem statement which notes that the City of Hamilton is currently reviewing wastewater infrastructure needs at the West Harbour on Piers 5 to 8 to support both existing and future growth needs of the area (completes Phase 1 and 2 of the EA process). One existing municipally maintained pumping station is located on Pier 8 and has operational deficiencies which include:

No standby power generator to provide a backup power source in the event of power failure

Inadequate capacity to manage existing development sewage flows and / or service future development.

To address this need the Class EA study reviewed and compared alternative solutions, in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Guideline. A preferred solution has been recommended that addresses the immediate need of inadequate capacity to manage existing sanitary flows on Pier 8 and deficiencies with the existing pumping station. Sizing of the preferred solution (i.e. new pumping station and associated infrastructure) will be determined during the detailed design stage and will consider both future and existing needs. As such only conceptual servicing infrastructure alignments are being included in the preferred solution. At a high level the preferred pumping facilities and forcemain solution considered a development scenario which included 1600 residential units and approx. 22,000 sq. metres of commercial or institutional floor area. This development scenario was only to provide guidance. E‐mail: The other aspect I was unable to find was any indication as to how the proposed

65

Comment Response

layout would or would not synchronize with future developments in terms of location. Putting pipes in the ground has a tendency to structure future development. City Response: The alignment and location of the preferred solution infrastructure on Pier 8 and existing roads was selected as it was compatible with the existing roads, future roads and future park layout proposed in Setting Sail. Input has been received from various City staff with respect to the proposed infrastructure locations associated with this Class EA. The proposed infrastructure on Piers 5, 6 and 7 was compatible with both the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan and Setting Sail. A refinement of these alignments would be completed as part of the detailed design stage. The preferred alternative provides a solution that has flexibility to address future development needs. E‐mail: As you know, Setting Sail contemplates a design study for the future residential development on Piers 7 and 8. I was unable to see how that design study would not be severely hampered by location decisions at this stage. In other words, where do I find the rationale for proceeding with this work in advance of the Setting Sail mandated design study of the future development? City Response: The urban design study will be based on Setting Sail as is this pumping facilities EA study. The rationale for proceeding at this time is to propose a solution to address existing needs now and also future needs. Not developing a solution at this time will not address existing pumping facility infrastructure deficiencies and upgraded capacity needs.

66

Comment Response Recently Leander Boat Club spent a considerable amount of money to repair our sewer lines. Our committee of management is concerned that this Pier 8 project may affect the club facilities. We currently rent out our banquet hall and we want to make sure there is no impact to our tenants either.

The work we are completing for Piers 5 to 8 includes assessing the existing and future sewage servicing needs of Piers 5 to 8, in particular Pier 8. Currently the existing pumping station located on Pier 8 has operational deficiencies which include:

No standby power generator to provide a backup power source in the event of power failure; and,

Inadequate capacity to manage existing development sewage flows and / or service future development.

Part of the background work looked at the existing sewage infrastructure located in the study area. The Leander Boat Club was noted to have an existing gravity sewer connection to the municipal sewer system and no changes to this sewer connection is being recommended in the pumping facilities EA study preferred solution. The conclusion / recommendation of the sewage servicing environmental assessment work is that the City of Hamilton construct a new pumping station on Pier 8 and allow for a gravity sewer connection from Piers 5/6 and 7 (this does not include Leander Boat Club since you are already connected to the municipal sewer). Please note that if the gravity sewer connection from Piers 5/6 is not feasible, the City recommends that we replace an existing pumping station on Pier 6 or construct a new pumping station to connect to the Guise Street sewer when required capacity is available (this also would not impact Leander).

Sun‐Canadian pipeline alignment shown on our existing infrastructure figure(s) do not accurately represent the pipeline location in all areas. Overall the alignments shown are generally correct, but near the proposed pipeline / forcemain crossing locations the Sun‐Canadian pipeline locations will need to

Paul Lane from Sun‐Canadian was informed that during preliminary design, Sun‐Canadian would be contacted to discuss the proposed pipeline crossings to confirm the alignment which would include survey's/locates.

PIERS 5 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES - … 5 – 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES Municipal Class...

Documents

Transcript of PIERS 5 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES - … 5 – 8, SEWAGE PUMPING FACILITIES Municipal Class...