UPGRADE AND EXPANSION OF THE TAVISTOCK WWTP

1. UPGRADE AND EXPANSION OF THE TAVISTOCK WWTP Public Information Meeting September 2, 2009

2. Background • Existing Tavistock WWTP consists of three lagoon cells built in early 1960s and upgraded in 1986. • Existing approved capacity is 2,070 m3/d. • Plant currently operating at 83% of approved capacity (2007). • MOE Certificate of Approval allows seasonal discharge to the Hohner Drain.

3. Class EA • Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed in 2007. • Study Objective: To identify the most cost effective, environmentally sound and sustainable approach to provide wastewater servicing for future growth in the Community of Tavistock. • Under the County’s Official Plan, there is planned growth in the Community of Tavistock. • Saputo Foods Ltd. is a local cheese plant that has recently undergone expansion. • Additional capacity up to 2,525 m3/d needed to service growth in the community until 2025. • Agencies (MOE, UTRCA) and stakeholders were consulted throughout Class EA process.

4. Public Consultation PIC #1: June 7, 2004 16 people attended meeting. No comments received. Two PICs held as part of Class EA process. • PIC #2: August 15, 2006 • 35 people attended meeting. • Comments received included: • Expansion to 2,525 m3/d will not provide enough capacity for future development. • New storage cell should be located further away from town. • Concerns about impact of expansion on Hohner Drain.

5. Servicing Options Evaluated Wastewater Servicing Solutions Considered: Do Nothing Expand/Upgrade existing plant Decommission existing facility and build new mechanical treatment plant Pre-treatment for Saputo’s wastewater prior to discharge to lagoon Full treatment for Saputo’s wastewater with no discharge to lagoon Reduce wastewater flows through water efficiency and extraneous flow reduction Recommended Servicing Solution was to expand / upgrade existing plant.

6. Preferred Design • Components of preferred design of WWTP included: • Year-round discharge • Additional storage cell • Intermittent sand filter to polish effluent prior to discharge • Capability to provide emergency pH adjustment; and • No increase in organic loading to the plant from Saputo either by pre-treatment or in-house control initiatives

7. Recommended Solution

8. Proposed Tavistock WWTP Expansion per Class EA

9. Intermittent Sand Filters • Considered “Best Available Technology” for upgrading lagoon-based treatment plants by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

10. Norwich WWTP – Intermittent Sand Filter Norwich WWTP Capacity = 1,530 m3/dConstructed in 1996

11. Norwich WWTP – Intermittent Sand Filter Norwich WWTP Capacity = 1,530 m3/dConstructed in 1996

12. Part II Order • A local resident expressed concern about the preferred solution and requested that the Minister of the Environment direct the County to undertake an Individual Environmental Assessment (Part II Order Request). • In June 2008MOE denied the Part II Order request and accepted the County’s proposed upgrade plans. • MOE directed the County to proceed with implementation of the preferred solution to mitigate storage limitations that have required MOE approval of early discharges since 2004.

13. Hearing of Necessity - Inquiry • Implementation of the preferred solution requires expropriation of 79 acres of land for system expansion and buffer zone required by MOE • Land owner requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act • Hearing was held in Woodstock on June 25, 2009

14. Hearing of Necessity - Inquiry • Hearing officer’s report recommended that the County give further consideration to constructing a mechanical plant rather than upgrading the existing lagoon-based system • County Council on August 12, 2009 directed Public Works staff to review the findings of the Class EA, specifically the relative advantages and disadvantages of a mechanical plant compared to the proposed system expansion and upgrade

15. What will the review involve? • A more detailed analysis of the social, environmental and technical merits of the two alternatives – a mechanical plant and the proposed upgrade of the existing system including: • Impacts during construction • Impacts during operation • Impacts on the receiving water (Hohner Drain and Thames River) • Land requirements • Effect on implementation time

16. What will the review involve? • A more detailed analysis of the relative costs of the two alternatives, including: • Estimated capital costs • Estimated operating costs • Effect of cost on user rates, development charges for new development and industrial users

17. Tavistock Wastewater Rates • Current: $216.00/year • October 1, 2009: $248.40/year • January 1, 2010: $270.96/year

18. Tavistock Development Charges • Single family lot • August 10, 2009 to March 31, 2010 • Water $2700 • Wastewater $5464 • After March 31, 2010 • Water $3296 • Wastewater $6899

19. What will be the next steps? • County Council must decide by October 26th whether to expropriate the subject lands. • A second Public Information Meeting will be held on September 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM to present the findings of the review. • A report will be presented to County Council on October 14, 2009 which will include the findings of the review and a recommendation on how to proceed.

20. Thank you for your attendance and attention. Questions and Comments can be directed to: Shahab Shafai Manager of Wastewater Services sshafai@oxfordcounty.ca 519-539-9800 Ext. 3127 A copy of the presentation will be posted on the County’s website