1. Executive summary

1.1 General background

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) established the York Region Wastewater Advisory Panel (“the Panel”) in October of 2021 to provide confidential advice to the Government of Ontario before a decision is made on whether to approve the Individual Environmental Assessment (Environmental Assessment) conducted for York Region’s proposed Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) project.

Panel objectives

The objective of the Panel was to provide confidential advice to the Minister regarding wastewater servicing in the upper portion of York Region, with a focus on the following:

  • The need for additional sewage servicing capacity to accommodate forecasted population and development growth in the upper York Region wastewater service area.
  • Alternatives to the Upper York Sewage Solutions project, including alternatives that would provide additional sewage capacity necessary to accommodate future population and development growth in both the York and Durham Regions.
  • The costs of developing and implementing the UYSS project and any alternatives identified under item 2.
  • The sustainability and efficiency of the UYSS project and any alternatives identified under item 2, including consideration of the use and optimization of existing wastewater services and the protection of human health and the environment.
  • Where possible, impacts of any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects by any alternatives identified in item 2 should be considered.
  • The feasibility and financial viability of the UYSS project and any alternatives identified under item 2.
  • Any other matter the Minister considers necessary or advisable.

In addition to the objectives outlined above, the Panel reviewed the engagement program with First Nations Communities undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment. The Panel also developed and carried out a detailed engagement plan for stakeholders and Rights Holders.

Panel engagement

The Panel was made aware that many parties were concerned about First Nations and stakeholder consultation. In addition, the Terms of Reference for the Panel specifically indicated that First Nation engagement is required to identify First Nations concerns with their involvement in the Environmental Assessment process. As a result, the Panel developed a Consultation and Engagement Plan as well as a detailed Indigenous Engagement Plan. These plans have been completed and were endorsed by the Panel.

Engagement with stakeholders was completed in accordance with the work plan. There were 38 separate meetings, some of which included the Regions of York and Durham and affected area municipalities. The Panel heard that both the regions and the municipalities supported the WRC as proposed in the 2014 EA, with the sole exception of representatives from the Town of Georgina, who opposed both the WRC and any discharge to Lake Simcoe.

The Panel met with representatives from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation on four occasions and representatives from Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog First Nation and Curve Lake First Nation twice.

There were more than 45 Panel meetings, including some attended by MECP staff and the Consultants.

2014 Individual Environmental Assessment

In 2014, York Region submitted the Individual Environmental Assessment for the proposed Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) initiative (the Undertaking), which would accommodate growth in the towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket.

The UYSS service area was originally forecast to grow to about 152,700 (residential population and employment) by 2031, requiring sewage servicing capacity of 40 Mega Litres per Day (MLD). Recent studies have shown that this growth will not be realized until 2039 or later.

Wastewater servicing in the Towns of Aurora and Newmarket is currently through local sewers connecting to the existing York Durham Sewage System (YDSS). In the Town of East Gwillimbury, the Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) (lagoons) services a portion of Holland Landing through local sewers. Private septic systems treat sewage in the communities of Sharon, Queensville and the remainder of Holland Landing.

The 2014 Environmental Assessment considered four alternatives to the Undertaking:

  • Alternative 1: Do Nothing
  • Alternative 2: Discharge to Lake Ontario
  • Alternative 3: Discharge to Lake Simcoe
  • Alternative 4: Innovative Solution (Water Reclamation Centre, or WRC)

Throughout the Environmental Assessment process, the technical and cost impacts of each alternative were assessed and were used as the basis for screening of each alternative.

Alternatives 1 (Do Nothing) and 3 (Discharge to Lake Simcoe) did not meet the screening criteria, since neither would support growth in upper York Region and would increase phosphorus discharges to Lake Simcoe.

Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 met all 15 screening criteria. However, Alternative 4 (WRC) was selected as the recommended alternative because it was deemed to have additional benefits.

Overview of panel options

The Panel reviewed four options related to the two viable alternatives identified in the Environmental Assessment, identified as Panel Options A, B, C and D:

  • Discharge to Lake Simcoe:
    • Option A: WRC as per the 2014 Environmental Assessment
    • Option B: WRC with Process Design Updates
  • Discharge to Lake Ontario:
    • Option C: Connection of the UYSS to the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) via the Yonge Street Sewer
    • Option D: Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via the Highway 404 Right of Way

Technologies, timelines for growth, environmental impacts and financial considerations were evaluated for each option, and the Engagement Plans were carried out.

1.2 Option A:  Water Reclamation Centre (WRC), per the 2014 Environmental assessment

The WRC, as per the 2014 Environmental Assessment, consists of three major components:

  • Water Reclamation Centre

The proposed WRC in East Gwillimbury would produce treated clean water for discharge to the East Holland River and reclaimed water applications. This 40 MLD facility would accommodate wastewater from approved growth in the Town of East Gwillimbury and a portion of the Town of Newmarket. The WRC would replace the Holland Landing WPCP.

  • Project specific phosphorus offsetting program

Project-specific phosphorus offsets would be implemented to maintain the total phosphorus load of 124 kilograms per year into Lake Simcoe, as per the current phosphorus cap for the much smaller capacity Holland Landing WPCP, which would be decommissioned.

  • Modifications to the existing York Durham Sewage System

Modifications would include two new forcemains adjacent to the existing YDSS in the Town of Newmarket to provide additional system reliability and accommodate wastewater flows from approved growth from the Town of Aurora and the remaining portion of the Town of Newmarket.

Panel observations

The Environmental Assessment is complete and was submitted to the MECP in 2014. Subject to additional First Nations engagement and accommodation, approval can be given. The design of the WRC is complete (as per York Region) and as a result tendering and construction could commence quickly. This is an important consideration, since, at its current population growth rate, the existing upper York Region servicing will reach its service capacity limits by 2026. Additionally, it is estimated that York Region has spent approximately $100 million on the UYSS Environmental Assessment, detailed design of the WRC, land acquisition and some equipment procurement.

The WRC could be implemented in a manner that will satisfy the Provincial Growth Plan to 2031 in East Gwillimbury, Aurora and Newmarket. As growth has been delayed since the Environmental Assessment was submitted, the Panel’s analysis suggests the initial WRC capacity of 40 MLD will meet the growth demand until approximately 2039.

The Panel identified several environmental concerns associated with the WRC, including:

  • Meeting phosphorus loading limits will be challenging up to 32 MLD. There is no defined plan to meet TP limits beyond 32 MLD, up to the ultimate capacity of 80 MLD.
  • Strict TP concentration limits at the WRC may affect future approvals for WPCPs in the province.
  • GHG emissions will be more than double that of one of the YDSS/Lake Ontario options.
  • Further review needs to be done to ensure the WRC option will meet intra-basin transfer limits at its ultimate capacity of 80 MLD.

Option A has an estimated cost of $1.665 billion (50-year NPV).

This option has a very high cost with significant capital financing and rate impacts for York residents combined with the most resistance from First Nations Communities.

1.3 Option B:  Water Reclamation Centre (WRC), with process design updates

Option B: WRC with process design updates

During the Panel’s review of the 2014 Environmental Assessment and the WRC as the preferred alternative, it became apparent that several design opportunities had emerged whereby alternative technologies and configurations would provide optimized operation of the WRC, including reduced environmental impacts and savings in capital and operations and maintenance costs. Optimization opportunities identified by the panel include: updated unit processes; directing peak flows to the YDSS; and discharging treated effluent into the subsurface aquifer.

Panel observations

Option B is an enhancement of Alternative 4 (Innovative Technology) in the 2014 Environmental Assessment. The Panel’s review of this option is in alignment with the Panel Objectives.

The Panel’s observations under Option A (WRC per Environmental Assessment) apply to Option B, along with the following:

  • The 2014 Environmental Assessment included the best available information and process selection available at that time.
  • The process changes discussed in Option B were not available when the 2014 Environmental Assessment was being prepared.
  • Process optimizations, if implemented, would likely reduce capital and O&M costs, and reduce the GHG footprint of the WRC.
  • Maintaining a base influent flow to the WRC and directing peak flows to Duffin Creek via the YDSS would reduce the capital and operating costs of the WRC and allow for more consistent operation of the WRC.
  • Subsurface discharge of WRC effluent can be accommodated for 40 MLD or greater within local geological formations (Oak Ridges Moraine) and could be designed for year-round operation. Discharging to the natural sub-surface aquifer via infiltration galleries would further enhance the quality of the effluent.
  • Subsurface discharge would assist to mitigate the water quality impacts on Lake Simcoe but would require further study and approvals. Replenishing the water supply in York Region is not urgent, however, the added benefit of reducing phosphorus discharge to Lake Simcoe could be realized.
  • A review of The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement should be conducted to determine if implementing the changes identified would meet the requirements of the Intra-Basin transfer agreement currently in place.

The financial ramifications of these changes to the WRC design have not been fully quantified, and the proponent should undertake a detailed analysis to determine the full financial impacts. It is estimated Option B would be 10% to 15% less expensive than Option A, with a 50-year NPV of approximately $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion.

1.4 Option C:  Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via the Yonge street trunk sewer

Option C is similar to the Environmental Assessment’s Yonge Street trunk sewer alternative. It maximizes the original YDSS infrastructure, as well as improvements made in the intervening years. Wastewater from the UYSS service area currently flows through this route to the Duffin Creek WPCP for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario, except for some flows treated at the Holland Landing lagoons, and those serviced by on site septic systems. This option for upper York Region wastewater conveyance involves the utilization of existing infrastructure, together with capital upgrades already in the York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2016), with some relatively minor updates.

Connection to the Yonge Street trunk sewer would require that the flow from the UYSS be pumped via two pump stations to the Yonge Street trunk sewer, where it will then flow by gravity to the YDSS and the Duffin Creek WPCP. This option would require an increase in capacity at both pump stations and the installation of one new forcemain.

Panel observations

The Panel had the following observations regarding its review of Option C:

  • Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS with ultimate discharge to Lake Ontario would reduce the Total Phosphorous load on Lake Simcoe and its watershed.
  • The current phosphorus discharge limit to Lake Ontario from the Duffin Creek WPCP is 0.45 mg/L, which is significantly below the MECP standard of 1.0 mg/L for Policy 1 receivers.
  • There is a significant opportunity to optimize the ongoing improvements to the Yonge Street trunk sewer by upsizing the sections of the YDSS that are already planned to be twinned.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP’s current design includes flows from the UYSS up to 40 MLD.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP, at its current design capacity of 630 MLD, would not need to be expanded to accommodate increased UYSS flows (to 80 MLD) for at least 20 years.
  • The intra-basin transfer agreement should be reviewed to determine if this option requires any amendments to that agreement.
  • The Yonge Street trunk sewer is on a highly spiritual and sacred area of the Michi Saagiig People.
  • It is expected that the utilization of existing infrastructure and corridors may have less effect on First Nations rights. These rights, however, would need to be addressed with the affected First Nations Communities.

At $861 million, Option C has the lowest cost (50-year NPV) of any of the options reviewed by the Panel. It is approximately 50% less expensive than the other options.

1.5 Option D:  Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via highway 404 trunk sewer tunnel

Similar to Option C, Option D would convey wastewater from upper York Region to the Duffin Creek WPCP via the YDSS, with final discharge to Lake Ontario. This option employs a tunnel boring machine (TBM) and would require approximately 15 down shafts to accommodate the construction. It should be noted that this option provides for a dedicated sewer within the Highway 404 Right of Way (ROW) for upper York Region wastewater servicing.

The route considered for the Highway 404 sewer tunnel concept would involve a new dedicated sewer containing three components:

  • From proximity of the Queensville West Pumping Station, east along Queensville Sideroad to Highway 404.
  • Highway 404 from Queensville Sideroad south to 19th Avenue.
  • From Highway 404 and 19th Avenue to Leslie Street, connecting to the existing YDSS.

The first component, along Queensville Sideroad to Highway 404, would be a 1.5-metre diameter forcemain. The second component, in the Highway 404 ROW from Queensville Sideroad south to 19th Avenue would be a three-metre diameter gravity sewer tunnel approximately 25 kilometres in length. The third component, from 19th Avenue to the Leslie Street connection to the YDSS, would be a gravity sewer.

Panel observations

The Panel had the following observations regarding its review of Option D:

  • Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS, with ultimate discharge to Lake Ontario would reduce the total phosphorous load on Lake Simcoe and its watershed.
  • The current phosphorus discharge limit to Lake Ontario from the Duffin Creek WPCP is 0.45 mg/L, which is significantly lower than the MECP standard of 1.0 mg/L for Policy 1 receivers.
  • The current design for the Duffin Creek WPCP included flows from UYSS to 40 MLD.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP, at its current design capacity of 630 MLD, would not need to be expanded to accommodate increased UYSS flows (to 80 MLD) for at least 20 years.
  • The Ministry of Transportation has historically considered infrastructure within its corridors undesirable.
  • The intra-basin transfer agreement should be reviewed to determine if this option requires any amendments to that agreement.
  • It is expected that the utilization of existing infrastructure and the Highway 404 corridor may have less effect on First Nations Rights. These Rights, however, would need to be addressed with affected First Nations Communities.

At $1.727 billion, Option D has the highest cost (50-year NPV) of the four options reviewed by the Panel, over double that of Option C.

Option D would require an Environmental Assessment and it may take up to 10 years to complete the project.

1.6 Financial discussion

The table below summarizes the estimated costs for Option A (WRC as per EA), Option C (YDSS via Yonge Street sewer) and Option D (YDSS via Highway 404 ROW). Option B (WRC with Process Updates) has not been included in the side-by-side comparison of costs in the table since a detailed cost analysis has not been performed on this option.

The WRC (with discharge to Lake Simcoe) and Highway 404 (with discharge to Lake Ontario) have a similar 50-year NPV at $1.665 billion and $1.727 billion respectively. The Yonge Street sewer option for Option C has an estimated 50-year NPV of $861 million, which is approximately 50% of the cost of the WRC or Highway 404 options.

A high-level estimate has put Option B as being approximately 10% to 15% less expensive than Option A (WRC as per EA), with a 50-year NPV in the $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion range.

The costs for Options A, C and D are summarized below:

Conveyance
Cost ($M)
50-year NPV (80 MLD)
Lake Simcoe WRC
WRC (Option A)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Yonge St (Option C)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Highway 404 (Option D)
Capital$29$415$1291
O&M$17$25$15
Subtotal$46$440$1306
Treatment
Cost ($M)
50-year NPV (80 MLD)
Lake Simcoe WRC
WRC (Option A)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Yonge St (Option C)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Highway 404 (Option D)
Capital$1032$180$180
O&M$587$241$241
Subtotal$1619$421$421
Combined
Cost ($M)
50-year NPV (80 MLD)
Lake Simcoe WRC
WRC (Option A)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Yonge St (Option C)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Highway 404 (Option D)
Capital$1061$595$1471
O&M$604$266$256
Subtotal$1665$861$1727

Financing

While the Panel has not analyzed the financing of the options in detail, it is assumed the capital costs will be at least 90% financed by development charges. Therefore, the alternative with the lowest capital cost would minimize the impact on development charges.

Additionally, the WRC operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are more than double the O&M costs for either of the YDSS alternatives (Highway 404 or Yonge Street). This ongoing cost would have a significant impact on water user rate fees for York Region residents and businesses.

1.7 Panel advice

1.7.1 Servicing alternatives

The Panel worked to ensure that the options it reviewed for wastewater servicing in the UYSS service area were consistent with the objectives contained within its mandate.

It is the Panel’s advice that Option C best satisfies the need for additional sewage servicing capacity necessary to accommodate future population and development growth in both York and Durham Regions, based on the criteria established by the Panel. The following considerations and observations form the basis for the Panel’s advice, based on the Minister’s Panel objectives and the evaluation criteria established by the Panel:

  • Accommodates timing of growth pressures
  • Protection of human health and environment (e.g. lower GHG emissions)
  • Optimization of existing wastewater infrastructure and services
  • Financial viability (lower overall capital and life cycle costs)
  • Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation and expandability)
  • Option C meets the requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

This advice is subject to satisfactory resolution of the following:

  • Hydraulic modelling of the YDSS to confirm that the ultimate flow of 80 MLD can be accommodated within the existing and expanded infrastructure; and
  • Confirmation that the existing Intrabasin Transfer Agreement will be sufficient to support this servicing strategy to 2051 and beyond.

1.7.2 What the Panel heard

Based on the feedback received during meetings and engagement sessions with Rights Holders and stakeholders, the Panel offers the following additional comments and observations to the Minister (and other Ministers as appropriate):

  • The MECP should make it clear to all proponents, and those affected in any Environmental Assessment, that the Crown has a "Duty to Consult and Accommodate” and/or when the Crown has delegated its duty to a proponent.
  • First Nations Communities should be involved at a very early stage in the development of population and employment numbers by the Growth Secretariat at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
  • The Minister should enhance collaboration with First Nations Rights Holders, Indigenous Affairs, and First Nations engagement staff in MECP to enhance the First Nations consultation and engagement requirements in the Environmental Assessment process. The province (MECP, Municipal Affairs and Housing and other Ministries as appropriate) should provide municipalities with clear guidelines/protocols to consult and engage with First Nations Communities on Official Plans, long-term infrastructure plans, related capital plans and training on meaningful consultation.
  • The MECP should review its capacity funding policies to ensure that all impacted First Nations Communities are provided with the necessary funding to engage and provide meaningful review and comments on Environmental Assessments.
  • The MECP should review all negative environmental impacts in the Lake Simcoe watershed as they impact Lake Simcoe and develop a comprehensive and overarching plan with specific environmental targets and related performance measures to further enforce the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
  • The MECP should proceed with the development, design, and construction of the Holland Marsh Polder project as quickly as possible, on its own or with a partner, to reduce phosphorus in Lake Simcoe. In addition, there are other smaller polder projects, which should be reviewed for their financial and phosphorus reductions effectiveness.

2. Introduction

2.1 General background

Panel overview

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) established the York Region Wastewater Advisory Panel (“the Panel”) in October of 2021 to provide confidential advice to the Government of Ontario before a decision is made on whether to approve the Individual Environmental Assessment (Environmental Assessment) conducted for York Region’s proposed Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) project.

The objective of the Panel was to provide confidential advice to the Minister regarding wastewater servicing in the upper portion of York Region by September 22, 2022, with a focus on the following:

  1. The need for additional sewage servicing capacity to accommodate forecasted population and development growth in the upper York Region wastewater service area.
  2. Alternatives to the Upper York Sewage Solutions project, including alternatives that would provide additional sewage capacity necessary to accommodate future population and development growth in both the York and Durham Regions.
  3. The costs of developing and implementing the UYSS project and any alternatives identified under item 2.
  4. The sustainability and efficiency of the UYSS project and any alternatives identified under item 2, including consideration of the use and optimization of existing wastewater services and the protection of human health and the environment.
  5. Where possible, impacts of any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects by any alternatives identified in item 2 should be considered.
  6. The feasibility and financial viability of the UYSS project and any alternatives identified under item 2.
  7. Any other matter the Minister considers necessary or advisable.

In addition, based upon discussions with MECP the Panel decided to review more fully the First Nations and local level engagement. The Panel developed a specific Indigenous Engagement Plan and a Stakeholder Engagement Plan. The Panel also reviewed the engagement program with the First Nation Communities undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment. Finally, there were continued efforts to engage with potentially impacted First Nation Communities through the Panel’s review process.

In summary, the Panel was tasked to review any new technologies or advances in wastewater treatment since the 2014 Environmental Assessment was filed, look at other alignment alternatives for the UYSS and engage with stakeholders and Rights Holders.

Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) project overview

The province enacted the Places to Grow Act in 2005 and released the Final Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2006. The Growth Plan established a population forecast for York Region of 1.5 million people and employment of 780,000 by 2031. That population forecast timeline has recently been extended to 2041. The approved York Region Official Plan locates growth to meet the directives of The Growth Plan. These two documents form the basis for growth in the UYSS service area, which includes the towns of Aurora, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury.

In order to accommodate growth, the UYSS Environmental Assessment project was developed to examine options to treat wastewater from a population expected to grow by approximately 152,700 in upper York Region, comprised of residents and employment by 2031.

The UYSS Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2009. The original Terms of Reference identified the work plan and consultation program for the Environmental Assessment. The Minister approved it on March 11, 2010, subject to the following amendment:

“Consideration of innovative wastewater treatment technologies will be considered in the UYSS Environmental Assessment. At a minimum, this will include but not be limited to consideration of the development and use of a water purification system and water recycling facilities to be located in the Regional Municipality of York.”

As a result, York Region amended the Environmental Assessment to include an additional Alternative to the Undertaking, resulting in four Alternatives:

  • Alternative 1: Do Nothing
  • Alternative 2: Discharge to Lake Ontario
  • Alternative 3: Discharge to Lake Simcoe
  • Alternative 4: Innovative Solution (Water Reclamation Centre, or WRC)

While Alternatives 2 and 4 met all 15 screening criteria, Alternative 4 (WRC) was selected as the recommended alternative because it was deemed as having additional benefits. The Environmental Assessment was submitted to the Ministry for approval in July of 2014.

Within the defined mandate, the Panel reviewed and will provide advice on four options. These are:

  • Option A:  Water Reclamation Center as per the 2014 Environmental Assessment.
  • Option B:  Water Reclamation Center with proposed changes and enhancements.
  • Option C:  UYSS connection to the YDSS, utilizing the Yonge Street sewer infrastructure.
  • Option D:  UYSS connection to the YDSS utilizing the Highway 404 Right of Way.

Options A and B supported Environmental Assessment Alternative 4: Innovative Solution (WRC) Options C and D supported Environmental Assessment Alternative 2: Discharge to Lake Ontario.

2.2 First Nations engagement with the Panel

The Panel decided that First Nations engagement is a significant aspect of the assignment. Although the Panel was tasked with reviewing servicing alternatives to the UYSS, it was felt that the First Nations engagement also needed to be examined more fully. The Panel worked to better understand the engagement process, but also to ensure that the Panel captured the current state of engagement with First Nations in the 2014 Environmental Assessment, and how the engagement process can be enhanced.

The Panel reviewed the engagement program with First Nations Communities undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment and continued the efforts to engage with potentially impacted First Nations Communities through the Panel review process. The Panel wrote to all Rights Holders and interested parties and met with the Williams Treaty First Nations on six occasions to discuss their concerns. Section 3 (Engagement and Consultation) of this report provides further details on these discussions.

2.3 Lake Simcoe watershed protection

Lake Simcoe and its watershed are highly valued and shared resources that offer many benefits – water to drink and play in, fish to eat, and a diverse and bountiful natural environment to enjoy. However, human activities have taken their toll on the lake’s water quality, changing the natural landscape, and compromising its delicate ecosystem. These human impacts are a serious environmental concern and addressing them has been a priority for First Nations Rights Holders, all levels of government, watershed stakeholders and residents.

In December of 2008, the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 was passed in Ontario. The purpose of the Act is to protect and restore theecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The Act resulted in the development of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which outlines actions to protect and restore the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan came into effect on June 2, 2009.

One of the key concerns about Lake Simcoe is that too much phosphorus is entering the lake and its watershed. There are several contributors to phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe, including wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff, rural and agricultural sources, atmospheric deposition, septic systems, and polders. Per data provided by the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority (LSCA), the breakdown of phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe is presented in Figure 1 below.

A pie chart displaying the phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe

Figure 1: displays the phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe from Tributaries, Atmosphere, Septic systems, Polders, and Sewage Treatment Plants. (data provided by LSCA)

As reported by the LSCA, by 2017, all 15 wastewater treatment plants that discharge into Lake Simcoe were contributing approximately 2 tonnes of phosphorus per year, or about 1.5% of the total.

Panel observations

Of the 131 tonnes of phosphorus discharged to Lake Simcoe annually, only 2 tonnes, or 1.5% of the total, is from wastewater treatment plants. The Panel encourages a review of the other phosphorus contributors to identify opportunities for reductions to the overall phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe.

Phosphorus removal from the agriculture-heavy Holland Marsh polder is also discussed in the 2014 Environmental Assessment; however, this option will be pursued as a separate project.

2.4 Panel assumptions and disclaimers

The Panel made certain assumptions before undertaking its review of the UYSS options. These assumptions include:

  • In preparation of this report the panel has relied on existing information and information provided by third parties. It is assumed that such information is reliable.
  • That the basis for reviewing the options and offering advice to the Minister would be established by the Panel and align with the Panel objectives.
  • That the Panel would include engagement with First Nations and consultation with stakeholders as part of its review. Through this process, the Panel would engage directly with affected Rights Holders, but the engagement would not be meant to satisfy the Crown’s Duty to Consult obligation.
  • That the 2014 UYSS Environmental Assessment used the appropriate planning information available at that time. The growth projections were consistent with the Places to Grow Act (2005) and the 2010 York Region Official Plan, and that the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan had been adhered to throughout the Environmental Assessment process.
  • That the growth projections from the 2014 Environmental Assessment of 152,700 people/jobs by 2031 would now not be realized until almost 10 years later. A 40 MLD solution would now service growth to 2039 based on updated growth projections from the 2021 York Region Official Plan (Draft). An 80 MLD solution could service growth out to 2055. Because of this newly available information, the Panel decided to consider the ability of all options to accommodate growth to 2051 and beyond, including any implementation implications.
  • That any increase in flow from upper York Region to the YDSS beyond 40 MLD would require an expansion to the Duffin Creek WPCP and would not affect allocated capacity at the WPCP for Durham Region. Capacity at the plant is divided by the flow allocation of 80% to York Region and the remaining 20% to Durham Region.

3. Engagement and consultation

3.1 Consultation during the Environmental Assessment process

York Region initiated the Individual Environmental Assessment process for the UYSS in March 2009, with the preparation of a Terms of Reference, as required under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act. The Terms of Reference was developed in consultation with First Nations Communities, government review agencies and the public. It was submitted to the MECP for approval in November of 2009 and updated based on comments received through the consultation process. The Minister approved the amended Terms of Reference on March 11, 2010.

An additional key principle undertaken during the Environmental Assessment was to engage and accommodate First Nations Communities with respect to any potential impacts within their traditional territories.

In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the Environmental Assessment was prepared in five stages:

  • Development of Terms of Reference
  • Review of Alternatives to the Undertaking
  • Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Preferred Undertaking
  • Impact Assessments of the Preferred Undertaking (Net Effects)
  • Draft and Final Environmental Assessment Report

Each stage included Consultation and Engagement with First Nations Communities, agencies, the public and other stakeholders. Stakeholders consulted included MECP, local area municipalities and local Conservation Authorities.

3.1.1 Consultation with First Nations Communities

The engagement and consultation program that York Region followed with First Nations Communities was carried out separately but in parallel with York Region’s overall public consultation process between May of 2009 and July of 2013.

First Nations communication protocol

York Region’s Engagement and Consultation Plan included a “Protocol for First Nations Consultation”, which was detailed in the Terms of Reference. It consisted of seven consultation rounds at key stages throughout the Environmental Assessment process.

Sixteen First Nations Communities and groups were consulted throughout the development of the Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment, including the seven First Nations that comprise the Williams Treaty First Nations. Consultation with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation was of particular significance, as they would be the most affected by the undertaking.

3.1.2 Consultation during the Environmental Assessment preparation

Consultation was undertaken at each stage of the Environmental Assessment development process. The focus of each consultation phase is described below.

Development of terms of reference (Environmental Assessment Stage 1)

Five phases of consultation were carried out during the preparation of the Terms of Reference (referred to as Round 1 Consultations). This included numerous meetings with all stakeholder groups from January to September of 2009.

Many comments were received during the Round 1 Consultations. All comments were responded to, and input was incorporated into the Terms of Reference, as appropriate.

Stage 1 First Nations consultation

As noted previously, York Region developed a “Protocol for First Nations Consultation” as part of the Terms of Reference process. Letters were sent notifying First Nations Communities of the commencement of the Terms of Reference and the availability of the draft Terms of Reference. In addition, letters and emails were sent requesting the participation of Community representatives at two meetings that were held on June 26 and September 17, 2009.

Generally, comments received from First Nations Communities during the preparation of the Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment reflected the need to:

  • Protect source waters
  • Consider treaties, land claims and sacred sites
  • Protect archaeological resources
  • Remain flexible with respect to the “Protocol for First Nations Consultation” presented in the Terms of Reference
  • Continue to involve First Nations Communities through the Environmental Assessment process
Review of Alternatives to the Undertaking (Environmental Assessment Stage 2)

Rounds 2 and 3 of Consultation were carried out during Stage 2 of the Environmental Assessment process (review of alternatives to the undertaking).

Alternatives to the undertaking are defined as functionally different ways of carrying out the project. The four alternatives to the undertaking that were identified in the Terms of Reference were:

  1. Do nothing
  2. Discharge to Lake Ontario
  3. Discharge to Lake Simcoe
  4. Innovative solution (Water Reclamation Centre)

Each alternative was assessed against the 15 screening criteria established in the Terms of Reference.

Following the review, Alternative 4, an innovative wastewater treatment plant (Water Reclamation Centre), was selected as the preferred option.

Stage 2 First Nations consultation

York Region sent notices, information bulletins, and requests for meetings to 16 First Nations Communities during Stage 2 of the Environmental Assessment. Two meeting were held on June 18, 2010 and July 7, 2011. Community representation at the meetings was as follows:

  • June 18, 2010 meeting: Chippewas of Georgina Island, Mississaugas of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of New Credit, Hiawatha, Alderville.
  • July 7, 2011 meeting: Mississaugas of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of New Credit, Hiawatha, Alderville.

Comments received at both meetings focused on ensuring that:

  • First Nations Treaty Rights were considered in the Environmental Assessment; and
  • Lake Simcoe water quality and aquatic/terrestrial species and their habitats be protected.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation did not support the WRC discharging to Lake Simcoe as the preferred undertaking. They submitted a Band Council Resolution to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) on November 12, 2011, and to York Region at the Stage 2 Environmental Assessment public meeting on November 16, 2011, stating their strong opposition to having sewage discharged into Lake Simcoe, as the lake is their primary drinking water source and affects almost every aspect of their daily lives. The resolution also stated that any sewage discharged into the lake will have an effect of the health of the lake and their people and that any further consideration of the WRC option must ensure adequate and appropriate consultation and consideration of the First Nation.

The Williams Treaty First Nations provided written support for the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Band Council Resolution on February 6, 2012. Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, the Chippewas of Beausoleil First Nation, and the Mnjikaning (Rama) First Nation subsequently provided written support for the Resolution.

In response to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Band Council Resolution, York Region enhanced their engagement and consultation program. York Region and the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation together developed a Technical Review Communications Protocol to be followed during the remainder of the Environmental Assessment. Both Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation and York Region signed the Protocol document in July of 2012. York Region also provided funding for FHR Inc. (formerly named Northern Waterworks FN Inc.), a firm identified by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, to provide a review of the technical documents.

Review of alternative methods of carrying out the preferred undertaking (Environmental Assessment Stage 3)

Stage 3 of the Environmental Assessment involved reviewing alternative methods of carrying out the preferred undertaking (the WRC), focusing on describing and receiving input on the screening processes and the recommended alternative to the undertaking.

Impact Assessments of the preferred undertaking (Net effects) (Environmental Assessment Stage 4)

Stage 4 of the Environmental Assessment involved reviewing the impact (net effects) of the preferred undertaking (the WRC). The detailed evaluation criteria were classified into 7 categories including Technical, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Social Environment, Economic Environment, Cultural Environment and Financial.

Indigenous Communities consultation during Environmental Assessment Stages 3 and 4

Throughout Environmental Assessment Stages 3 and 4, consultation with First Nations proceeded in accordance with the Technical Review Communications Protocol developed in consultation with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation.

During these Stages, York Region made more effort to ensure that the 16 First Nations were given the opportunity to be involved in the process. As before, the Region sent letters and information bulletins, but during these Stages, they also followed up with phone calls to ensure the information was received, answer any questions, and invite community representatives to meetings. Four meetings were held, including three held during Stage 3 of the Environmental Assessment (December 13, 2011; April 13, 2012; and November 1, 2012), and one final meeting held during Stage 4 on July 4, 2013.

Questions and concerns were raised regarding the impact of the alternative methods on archaeological resources, water quality, terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species. York Region responded to all concerns and considered them in finalizing the preferred methods. The Chippewas of Georgina Island also expressed concern that they felt rushed through the process and did not have enough time to review documents.

Technical review – Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation

Four groups of technical review meetings were held with Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation between April of 2012 and September of 2013, following the process outlined in the Technical Review Communications Protocol. MECP representatives were present at all four sets of meetings. During the technical review, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation representatives had questions regarding the selection of the WRC as the preferred alternative, the potential environmental impacts of the WRC, and the measures to mitigate the impacts of the WRC discharge on Lake Simcoe. York Region responded to all the comments that were received.

York Region put in a considerable effort to consult with First Nations Communities during Stages 3 and 4 of the Environmental Assessment processes, particularly with respect to Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. Despite the consultation efforts, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation still had remaining concerns about the undertaking and its impacts at the end of Stage 4.

Draft and final Environmental Assessment report (Environmental Assessment Stage 5)

Pre-submission process

York Region addressed all stakeholder comments received during the Environmental Assessment and provided the draft Environmental Assessment submission for public, Agency, stakeholder, and First Nations Communities’ review on February 18, 2014, with a review period scheduled to last until March 28, 2014.

Prior to the submission of the draft Environmental Assessment, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation indicated that they still had unresolved concerns.

Consultation program – Agencies, public and other stakeholders

During the pre-submission process, York Region also met with the MECP, the Towns of Newmarket, East Gwillimbury and Georgina, and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to receive comments.

York Region issued individual responses to those providing comments, except for the MECP because of their role in reviewing and approving the submission.

Consultation program – First Nations Communities

York Region contacted all 16 First Nations Communities to ensure they received the notice, ask if they had questions regarding the draft Environmental Assessment process, and ask if they wanted to meet regarding the draft Environmental Assessment. One meeting was held with the Chippewas of Georgina Island to review and discuss the findings and recommendations included in the draft Environmental Assessment.

Technical review – Chippewas of Georgina Island

The technical review conducted by FHR Inc. on behalf of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation indicated that there were no concerns regarding the engineering aspects of the proposed WRC. However, FHR Inc. noted that additional expertise would be required to assess the potential impacts of the undertaking on Lake Simcoe.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation requested that any further decision on the WRC be put on hold until a further investigation was completed.

York Region proceeded to complete and file the Final Environmental Assessment based on comments received and their responses.

3.1.3 Comments received on the final Environmental Assessment report

York Region finalized the Environmental Assessment based on comments received on the Draft Environmental Assessment and submitted it to the MECP for final review on July 25, 2014. The MECP review period was from July 25, 2014 to September 19, 2014.

During the review period, minor comments were received from Agencies and one from the public. No concerns with the undertaking were received, only questions and comments regarding mitigating impacts and monitoring, which the MECP considered in issuing their final review document.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation issued a detailed submission to the MECP on September 19, 2014, indicating they “still had outstanding issues and concerns”. In addition to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation submission, MECP records indicate that the Environmental Assessment was distributed to all 16 First Nations Communities identified through the Environmental Assessment, and that four Communities provided written responses (two supportive of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation’s position, and two with no further comments).

In response to the identified concerns, York Region met and corresponded with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation between September of 2014 to December of 2015, providing responses to their concerns and issues.

3.1.4 Ministry final review document

The MECP issued their final review of the Environmental Assessment, indicating that:

  • The Environmental Assessment complied with the requirements of the approved amended Terms of Reference and was prepared in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and process. The Environmental Assessment provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.
  • The Environmental Assessment assessed and evaluated alternative solutions and methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative solutions and methods of the proposed undertaking, and provided a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.
  • The Ministry was satisfied that York Region provided sufficient opportunities for the Government Review Team, public, stakeholders, and First Nations Communities to comment during the development of the Environmental Assessment. York Region addressed concerns raised regarding the undertaking or a commitment was made to address the concerns through additional work that would be completed as part of future approval requirements.
  • If the proposed undertaking were approved under the Environmental Assessment Act, there would be several standard conditions imposed, such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking. Project-specific conditions were also being considered for the undertaking, including requiring monitoring/management and pilot testing, to ensure that the undertaking achieved the proposed parameters for phosphorus and that the environment would be protected. A condition was also being considered to require that York Region continue to consult with affected First Nations Communities as the project design progressed, to address the concerns expressed by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation.

3.1.5 Post-MECP review - Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation continued to provide comments on the Environmental Assessment following the MECP’s final review. While York Region engaged and consulted with First Nation Communities, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation expressed concerns throughout the Environmental Assessment process, and still oppose the project today based on these concerns.

Issues raised include:

  • Concerns that they had not been able to review all documents pertaining to the project in a satisfactory manner.
  • Concerns regarding phosphorus, micro-constituents and Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP) effects on aquatic life and Lake Simcoe.
  • The belief that the project will undoubtedly adversely impact Treaty Rights and their Rights as a First Nation, along with the overall well-being of future generations.
  • That they did not believe the Duty to Consult had been met and that the consultation undertaken throughout the Environmental Assessment was unsatisfactory.

3.2 Panel consultations

As with the Environmental Assessment process, the Panel’s Terms of Reference required the Panel to engage with stakeholders, including First Nations Communities, to support its deliberations and provision of advice. The Panel was also open to requests from individual stakeholders or interested parties to provide input to Panel members. Communication protocols were developed for engagement of Rights Holders and stakeholders. While the Panel engaged directly with affected First Nations Communities throughout the review process, this engagement was not meant to satisfy the Duty to Consult obligation.

The Panel developed an Indigenous Engagement Plan and a Stakeholders Engagement Plan and adhered to it throughout the Panel’s review process.

The Panel reviewed the engagement program with First Nations Communities undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment, as well as continued efforts to engage with the potentially impacted First Nations Communities through the Panel review process. The Panel also met with the Williams Treaty First Nations on six occasions to discuss their concerns.

The Panel had two “in person” meetings with Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog First Nation and Curve Lake First Nation. Although they had concerns regarding impacts of the proposed WRC on Lake Simcoe, they also expressed significant concerns about the entire First Nations engagement process. At the meetings, Chief Carr of Hiawatha First Nation indicated that:

  • Harvesting rights, including the waters for fishing recognized in the settlement agreement, need to be upheld.
  • Adequate consultation with First Nations should be a mandatory requirement of the Panel and the Panel should continue engaging in it.
  • A strategic restorative assessment should be undertaken for Lake Simcoe water quality, regional environmental limits and capacity. During the assessment, there should be a process to ensure consultation and accommodation are done correctly.
  • Meaningful consultation includes discussing concerns and being willing to accommodate those concerns.

Additional comments from the meetings included:

  • The Gathering Rights that were detailed in the pre-Confederation Treaties were not considered in this Environmental Assessment.
  • A discussion regarding different levels of consultation (information sharing, engagement, consultation, accommodation).
  • It was noted that First Nations meetings have historically consisted of information sharing, but a better approach would be to consider individual First Nations’ Consultation and Accommodation Standards.
  • It was also stated that it was important that consultants were made aware of the First Nations engagement requirements.
  • A Capacity Agreement is an option for consideration in addition to a Relationship Agreement as it recognises the staffing and funding limitations of First Nations and provides for a means to accommodate the shortfall.

The Panel had four virtual meetings with a representative of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation (CGIFN) and a member of Ecojustice and Turan Law acting on their behalf. They walked through many of the technical issues raised by their consultants in the Riverstone Report. It is important to note that these concerns have been responded to by York Region and the MECP. In addition, CGIFN expressed concerns that the duty to accommodate has not been met, and they are very concerned that the requirement to accommodate the First Nation as a result of the project has not been met.

At the meeting held on September 12th 2022, staff from CGIFN, Turan Law and Ecojustice as well as Chief Donna Big Canoe and members of the Band Council were in attendance virtually.

Their comments included the following:

  • First Nations involvement in developing the provincial growth numbers would be advantageous.
  • CGIFN do not feel as though their concerns were dealt with in a meaningful way regarding input into the 2014 EA. First Nations involvement in the EA process needs to be enhanced.
  • It was felt that there was very little involvement with CGIFN in assessing the 2014 EA options.
  • CGIFN feel as though the Panel process is leaving them out of the opportunity to comment on options as the Minister will be selecting a solution.
  • Chief Big Canoe stated that they were left out of the Panel process. They received one call from the province and asked for Panel Terms of Reference. Her view is that FN have a right to be consulted.
  • Chief Big Canoe stated that she is not satisfied with only one meeting (with her and the Band Council) with the Panel.

It should be noted that the Panel had four meetings with staff and representatives from CGIFN and the Chief and Band Council were invited to each meeting. In addition, individual Panel members reached out on many occasions in order to schedule meetings between CGFIN and the Panel. It is unfortunate that the Panel was only able to engage with Chief Big Canoe and the Band Council late in the process, but concerns raised by CGIFN have been clearly articulated in the final Panel report to the Minister.

Engagement with stakeholders was completed in accordance with the Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Plan, including 38 separate meetings with affected stakeholders. In addition to consultations with First Nations Rights Holders, the Panel met numerous times with staff from York Region and Durham Region, and with staff from affected municipalities within those regions. The Panel heard that both the regions and the municipalities supported the WRC as proposed in the 2014 EA, with the exception being representatives from the Town of Georgina, who opposed both the WRC and any discharge to Lake Simcoe. The Panel also met with representatives from Lake Simcoe Watch and Rescue Lake Simcoe as well as a Councillor from the Town of Georgina and a Councillor from the Town of Bradford who were opposed to the WRC as referenced in the 2014 EA.

3.3 Summary

The Panel observes that York Region met the basic Environmental Assessment requirements for engagement and consultation with First Nation Communities, Rights Holders and other stakeholders. The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, however, feel that their issues and concerns have not been accommodated. Most stakeholders, with the notable exception of affected First Nations Rights Holders, accepted the preferred alternative (the WRC).

Throughout the Environmental Assessment and consultation process, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation expressed concerns regarding the WRC alternative. They still oppose the project today based on these concerns. Other Williams Treaty First Nations did not provide as many comments during the Environmental Assessment process as the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, however, the following have indicated their support for the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nations: Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Scugog Island First Nation.

While there was no requirement in the Environmental Assessment Act that prohibited York Region from proceeding to Stage 3 of the EA process while continuing to resolve issues with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nations, taking time to build trust with the Chippewas of the Georgina Island and other Williams Treaty First Nations before moving on to Stage 3 may have led to a better understanding of the issues and agreements for resolutions.

4. Growth forecasts and flow estimates

4.1 Population growth projections updated since 2014

As outlined in the 2014 UYSS Environmental Assessment, the purpose of the undertaking was to develop a sustainable sewage servicing solution that could accommodate the growth forecasted to occur in the UYSS service area in accordance with both the provincial growth management policies outlined in The Growth Plan pursuant to the Places to Grow Act (2005), and applicable environmental statutes including but not limited to the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (2005), the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001), the Greenbelt Act (2005), and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

As noted in the Environmental Assessment, the province enacted the Places to Grow Act (“P2G Act”) in 2005 and released the Final Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) in 2006. The Growth Plan established a 2031 population forecast of 11.5 million for the municipalities making up the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which had a 2001 population of 7.79 million. For York Region, the Growth Plan established a 2031 population of 1.5 million and an employment forecast of 780,000. York Region had an estimated population of 1,011,360 people as of December 31, 2008.

In addition to the P2G Act and the Growth Plan, the province also enacted the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001) and the Greenbelt Act (2005), which directed how growth in York Region would occur. The population growth estimates as laid out in the 2010 York Region Official Plan (“York OP”) form the basis for the growth projections identified for the UYSS service area in the 2014 Environmental Assessment. These population and employment forecasts and the 2006 census population data available at the outset of the 2014 UYSS Environmental Assessment’s completion were used to develop the residential and employment numbers for the UYSS service area.

The UYSS service area growth from 2006 to the end of the Environmental Assessment planning period (2031) was projected to be 104,000 people and 48,700 jobs, resulting in 152,700 people and jobs by 2031. 60% of the population growth was anticipated to occur in East Gwillimbury, with Aurora and Newmarket allocated 22% and 18% of the growth projections, respectively. The table below describes the 2006 and forecasted (2031) growth projections in detail.

2006 and forecasted (2031) growth projections for the UYSS service area
Forecasted itemAurora
2006
Aurora
2031
Newmarket
2006
Newmarket
2031
East Gwillimbury (HLQS2)
2006
East Gwillimbury (HLQS2)
2031
UYSS service area
2006
UYSS service area
2031
Population49,70070,20077,60097,10013,90077,900141,200245,200
Employment20,30034,20042,10049,4004,20031,70066,600115,300
Total70,000104,400119,700146,50018,100109,600207,800360,500
Service area growth (from 2006 to 2031)N/A34,400N/A26,800N/A91,500N/A152,700

Note 1: Based on 2010 York Region Official Plan

Note 2: HLQS = Holland Landing, Queensville, Sharon

Since the submission of the Environmental Assessment in 2014, additional sources for population data have become available for York Region. These additional sources include the:

  • 2016 York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan
  • 2021 York Region Updated Draft Official Plan
  • 2022 York Region Draft Water and Wastewater Master Plan
  • Census Data from Statistics Canada (comparison of data from 2006 to 2021)
  • Updated Places to Grow projections

As new census data has become available, additional studies were completed with updated population projections, which provide refined growth trends in specific catchment areas. The updated growth projections from the 2016 York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan and 2021 York Official Plan (Draft) reflect adjusted growth rates and future projections in the UYSS service area municipalities that are consistently lower/deferred compared to the growth rates assumed in the 2014 Environmental Assessment.

For example, the 2014 Environmental Assessment predicted a total UYSS population (people and jobs) of 307,900 by 2021, while the 2021 York Official Plan (Draft) identifies 281,000 people and jobs in 2021. Comparison of the two planning studies indicates that, by 2021, population growth in UYSS had been delayed by five years as compared to the projections included in the 2010 York Official Plan.

Based on the adjusted census data from 2006 to 2021, population and employment growth in the UYSS service area had grown by 63,939 (41,300 people and 22,638 jobs) to a total of approximately 281,000 people and jobs. The 2014 Environmental Assessment projected this increase to have occurred by 2016, again indicating a five-year lag.

4.2 Wastewater flow projections and infrastructure capacity

The 2014 wastewater flow projections included in the Environmental Assessment were based on a wastewater generation rate of 309 litres per capita per day (L/cap/day). This wastewater generation rate was also used in the 2022 York Region Draft Water and Wastewater Master Plan. While conservative, this rate is consistent with neighbouring municipalities’ wastewater generation rates and is reasonable for long term planning. A less conservative wastewater generation rate that reflects past and future reductions of inflow and infiltration (I/I) to the UYSS sewer system would result in extended timelines for the use of the existing and future wastewater conveyance and treatment infrastructure (infra-stretching).

The 2014 Environmental Assessment identified a total wastewater flow increase in the UYSS service area of 72% from 2006 to 2031 (an increase from the 2006 flow of 65.9 MLD to 113.1 MLD by 2031). The 2006 flow of 65.9 MLD was made up of flows from:

  • Aurora (23.4 MLD, conveyed by the YDSS to Duffin Creek WPCP)
  • Newmarket (36.9 MLD conveyed by the YDSS to Duffin Creek WPCP)
  • East Gwillimbury (5.6 MLD, comprised of 1.4 MLD treated at the Holland Landing Lagoons, and 4.3 MLD treated by private septic systems)

The 2014 Environmental Assessment projected the 2031 sewage flows from Aurora and Newmarket would be 34.3 MLD and 44.8 MLD, respectively. These flows would continue to be conveyed by the YDSS for treatment at the Duffin Creek WPCP, with the exception of 5 MLD from north-west Newmarket that would be conveyed north to the proposed WRC for treatment. The 5 MLD flow from north-west Newmarket and the projected 34 MLD flow from East Gwillimbury would be conveyed to the WRC for treatment, for a combined flow of 39 MLD by 2031. Final discharge would be to the Lake Simcoe watershed. The figure below describes the growth and flow projections anticipated in the 2014 Environmental Assessment.

East Gwillimbury

  • 91,500
    people
    (population and employment growth)
  • 28
    sewage flow (MLD)

Newmarket

  • 26,800
    people
    (population and employment growth)
  • 8
    sewage flow (MLD)

Aurora

  • 34,400
    people
    (population and employment growth)
  • 11
    sewage flow (MLD)
  • 152,700
    people
    (total growth)
  • 4.2
    growth flow (MLD)
  • 5.6
    existing East Gwillimbury flow (MLD)
  • 52.8
    total flow (MLD)

Existing East Gwillimbury sewage flow of 5.6 MLD = Existing private on-site systems (4.3 MLD) + Holland Landing (HL) Lagoons WPCP (1.3 MLD)

Currently, wastewater flows from Aurora and Newmarket are conveyed via the YDSS to the Duffin Creek WPCP, with final discharge to Lake Ontario. The wastewater flows in East Gwillimbury are partially conveyed to the YDSS, with the remainder treated at the Holland Landing Lagoons or treated in private on-site septic systems, with discharge to the Lake Simcoe watershed.

The projected population growth for the UYSS service area included in the 2014 Environmental Assessment would have necessitated that the entire capacity of the 40 MLD WRC be required by 2031 (or improvements to the YDSS system as per the other servicing strategies). Based on the updated growth projections identified in the 2021 York Official Plan (Draft), the entire capacity of the 40 MLD WRC will now be required by 2039, with subsequent expansions to 60 MLD by 2041 and 80 MLD by 2046.

If the UYSS service area growth projections are extended beyond 2051 at the same growth rate, an expansion of the WRC beyond a rated capacity of 80 MLD would be required to service growth post-2055 (or alternatively, additional improvements to the YDSS). The graph below describes the updated timing for infrastructure needs.

The graph plots projected population growth on the y axis, and the date in years on the x axis

The graph plots projected population growth on the y axis, and the date in years on the x axis. There are two lines plotted. The first line illustrates when growth projections used in the UYSS EA will require 40 MLD of sewage capacity. The second line illustrates when growth projections in the 2021 York Region Official Plan will require 40 MLD and 80 MLD.

The 2021 Servicing Capacity Assignment Status Update completed by York Region indicates that there is only approximately five years of growth capacity available in the YDSS system for the UYSS service area. This means that, without receiving approval from the province of the UYSS project, servicing capacity for new development in Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket will be fully used up in about five years, restricting development and limiting the ability to meet Growth Plan targets after that period.

4.3 Durham Region growth projections

The Panel met with representatives from Durham Region in February and August of 2022 to discuss the requirements for wastewater servicing of growth in Durham to 2051.

The Panel was informed that growth planned to 2051 would add approximately 9000 acres to Durham’s urban boundary, and approximately 575,000 people (residents and employment) to the Region’s eight municipalities. The growth is anticipated to include 340,000 in Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington, and 216,590 in Ajax and Pickering, and the remainder in the other smaller municipalities in Durham. Ajax and Pickering are the only municipalities that are connected to the YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP for wastewater collection and treatment. The growth anticipated to occur in Oshawa, Clarington, Whitby and other areas in Durham Region are not connected to the YDSS and utilize other wastewater collection and treatment facilities.

It is anticipated that the 2021 Ajax population of 131,400 will grow to 194,590 by 2051, and that the 2021 Pickering population of 102,940 will grow to 256,340 by 2051. Most of the growth in the Pickering area is expected to be in Seaton and Northwest Pickering.

Given the growth projections described above, Durham Region’s 20% allocation of the Duffin Creek WPCP’s current capacity of 630 MLD provides enough wastewater treatment capacity until about 2041. Additionally, the UYSS connection to the YDSS should not have any impact on Durham Region’s available capacity in the YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP to meet its latest growth projections.

4.4 Summary

The following statements represent a summary of observations from a review of the population growth estimates presented in the 2014 Environmental Assessment, additional population growth estimates obtained from subsequent planning studies, and the implications regarding the timing and needs for infrastructure improvements within the UYSS service area:

  • York Region and the UYSS service area will continue to be subject to population and employment growth based on provincial legislation (Places to Grow Act).
  • The 2014 UYSS Environmental Assessment used the appropriate planning information available at that time. The growth projections were consistent with the Places to Grow Act and the 2010 York Region Official Plan.
  • A slower rate of growth is anticipated between 2022 and 2041 and a higher rate of growth is anticipated beyond 2041.
  • Updated growth projections completed since the submission of the 2014 Environmental Assessment show slower uptake and deferred growth projections for the UYSS service area. The previous 2031 population and employment targets are not anticipated to be reached until 2039. A 40 MLD solution would now service growth to 2039 based on updated growth projections from the draft 2021 York Official Plan. An 80 MLD solution could service growth out to 2055.
  • While the 2014 Environmental Assessment growth projections will not be realized until 2039, the Towns of Aurora, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury have indicated that there are approximately five years of growth in servicing capacity remaining in the YDSS, after which population growth will halt without approval and construction of an acceptable alternative.
  • Flow projections based on 309 L/cap/day could be considered slightly high or slightly conservative. A lower criterion (i.e., 251 L/cap/day) could extend the service life of the 40 MLD solution to 2045 and the 80 MLD solution to 2061, particularly in view of the achievements of York Region’s Long Term Water Conservation Strategy and Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Strategy (both updated in 2021).

5. Upper York Long Term Servicing Solutions

5.1 General background

In 2014, York Region completed the Individual Environmental Assessment for the proposed Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) initiative (the Undertaking), which would accommodate growth in the towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket.

The UYSS service area consists of the growth portions of the Towns of Aurora, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury, including Holland Landing, Queensville and Sharon. The service area was originally forecasted to grow to about 152,700 (residential population and employment) by 2031, requiring sewage servicing capacity of 40 mega litres per day (MLD). Recent studies have shown that this growth will not be realized until 2039 or later.

Sewage servicing in the Towns of Aurora and Newmarket is currently through local sewers connecting to the existing York Durham Sewage System (YDSS). In the Town of East Gwillimbury, the Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) (lagoons) services a portion of Holland Landing through local sewers. Private septic systems treat sewage in the communities of Sharon, Queensville and the remainder of Holland Landing.

Overview of panel options

The Panel reviewed four options related to the two viable Alternatives identified in the Environmental Assessment, identified as Panel Options A, B, C and D:

  • Discharge to Lake Simcoe:
    • Option A: WRC as per the 2014 Environmental Assessment
    • Option B: WRC with Process Design Updates
  • Discharge to Lake Ontario:
    • Option C: Connection of the UYSS to the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) via the Yonge Street Sewer
    • Option D: Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via the Highway 404 Right of Way

5.2 Option A: Water Reclamation Centre (WRC), per the 2014 Environmental Assessment

The 2014 Environmental Assessment identified the WRC as the preferred alternative because it was perceived to offer a number of additional benefits, including:

  • Enhancing York Region’s Water Efficiency and Conservation programs by making use of reclaimed water, reducing the demand for fresh/potable water resources
  • Consistency with the intra-basin transfer provisions of the Ontario Water Resources Act
  • Promoting a water balance within the Lake Simcoe watershed
  • Improving water quality and augmenting river baseflow flowing into Lake Simcoe
  • Financial viability, as construction can be phased in over time, resulting in lower initial capital costs
  • No requirement for new wastewater infrastructure within the Oak Ridges Moraine, as the WRC would replace the Holland Landing WWTP (lagoons)

The York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2016) identi¬fied the WRC as part of its preferred servicing strategy, supporting the recommendation of the 2014 Environmental Assessment. To date, the provincial government has allowed the construction of two new forcemains to go ahead but has not yet rendered a decision on the other components, including the WRC.

York Region has recognized that the significant growth planned for the upper York will require a substantial increase in wastewater treatment servicing capacity. In consideration of these servicing needs, the UYSS Environmental Assessment proposed the WRC to provide 40 MLD wastewater treatment capacity until 2031, with an ultimate expansion to 80 MLD. The effluent water produced by this facility would be discharged within the Lake Simcoe watershed, through an outfall discharging to the East Holland River. The Environmental Assessment also suggested a portion of the reclaimed water could be used in the future for beneficial purposes such as irrigating golf courses, sod farms or agricultural crops that are for non-human consumptive use.

Wastewater from East Gwillimbury (34 MLD) and a portion from growth in Newmarket (5 MLD) would be conveyed to the WRC for treatment. Wastewater from growth in Aurora and the remainder of Newmarket would continue to be conveyed through the existing YDSS for treatment at the Duffin Creek WPCP and discharge to Lake Ontario.

Any wastewater treatment facility located within the Lake Simcoe watershed is subject to the requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. The existing Holland Landing WPCP discharges seasonally to the East Holland River, a tributary of Lake Simcoe. The facility is subject to a Total Phosphorus (TP) load restriction of 124 kg/year. A facility replacing the Holland Landing WPCP to accommodate the wastewater flows associated with the approved growth in the UYSS service area must not exceed this TP load restriction.

The WRC has been designed to produce final effluent average TP concentrations at or below 0.02 mg/L. This concentration limit is the lowest in Canada for a municipal wastewater treatment plant and is the lowest detection level for most common analytical methods, and will be difficult to monitor consistently and accurately. At flows of 40 MLD, achieving the concentration limit of 0.02 mg/L would still not meet the 124 kg TP/year cap. The WRC effluent TP forecasted in the Environmental Assessment is 292 kg/year. The Environmental Assessment proposes a Project-Specific Phosphorus Offsetting Program that would offset the exceedance of 168 kg TP/year. The Project Specific Phosphorus Offsetting Program is described in greater detail below.

The Environmental Assessment projected population growth (residential and employment) of 152,700 and 40 MLD of wastewater flow associated with that growth by 2031. Since 2014, additional sources for population data have become available that include population projections to 2051 (see Section 4: Growth Forecasts and Flow Estimates). The updated projections indicate that the growth anticipated by 2031 of 152,700 and 40 MLD of wastewater flow will now not be realized until 2039 or later. It is also projected that growth will continue to 2051 and beyond.

As a result of the updated growth projections, the WRC would be at its full capacity of 40 MLD by 2039. Expanding the WRC capacity beyond 40 MLD would be done in two phases, yielding a total capacity of 60 MLD and then 80 MLD (in 2041 and 2046 respectively, according to the York Region Presentation to Council on May 19, 2022). The second expansion to 80 MLD could service growth out to 2055. The 2014 Environmental Assessment was restricted to initial construction, or 40 MLD. If the 2014 Environmental Assessment was approved, that would not commit the province to approving the next two expansions. Phases 2 and 3 would require additional Environmental Assessments and would be subject to all applicable legislation and regulations in place at that time, including Rights Holders consultation and accommodation. Further expansions would require TP offsets in addition to those proposed for Phase 1.

WRC process overview

The process flow concept consists of conventional primary treatment (fine screening, grit removal and primary clarification), followed by the secondary treatment process which utilizes an enhanced nutrient waste-activated sludge process involving biological treatment and secondary clarification. The tertiary process utilizes microfiltration as the main treatment process. The process flow divides at this stage into the reclaimed water train and the treated clean water train, with process differences described below:

  • The reclaimed water train (for beneficial re-use on golf courses, sod farms, etc.) would subsequently receive disinfection, first through ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and secondly using chloramination, prior to distribution. The process train from the plant inlet sewer through to the tertiary treatment process, including disinfection, is commonly used in Ontario for tertiary plants with sensitive receiving water bodies such as the East Holland River and Lake Simcoe. Operating and lifecycle costs for the first three unit treatment processes are well known and understood.
  • The treated clean water train (for discharge to Lake Simcoe via the East Holland River) would subsequently have quaternary treatment using reverse osmosis (RO), followed by UV disinfection and post-conditioning, prior to discharge to the East Holland River. The use of reverse osmosis technology to meet the WRC effluent TP concentration limit for this project is unique.
  • RO is rarely used in wastewater treatment facilities in North America due to increased requirements in terms of capital, operating, energy, reject water, lifecycle costs and elevated greenhouse gas emissions. There are no known wastewater facilities in North America with this technology being applied specifically for phosphorus reduction. It would be challenging and expensive to construct, commission and operate.
  • While RO technology has been shown to achieve very low effluent TP concentrations, the process is energy intensive. The WRC would produce more than double the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as carbon dioxide equivalents per MLD when compared to the existing wastewater treatment processes at the Duffin Creek WPCP. In addition, pumping or hauling of the RO reject water and solids streams from the WRC to the Duffin Creek WPCP for treatment would still be required, leading to additional GHG generation.
  • Waste process water (e.g. membrane reject water) and biosolids from the WRC would be discharged to the YDSS for treatment at the Duffin Creek WPCP. This waste flow is estimated at 7 MLD when the WRC reaches 40 MLD and would not affect the ability of the Duffin Creek WPCP to meet its compliance limits.
  • In terms of effluent quality discharge to the East Holland River, the WRC’s TP limit of 0.02 mg/L is less than the average TP concentration in the East Holland River, as is the effluent pH, which would provide an improvement in river water quality. However, the scalability of the WRC using a surface discharge to the East Holland River in light of severe phosphorus restrictions would remain a consideration going forward.

WRC and intra-basin transfer

In 2010, an increased intra-basin transfer was authorized from the Lake Ontario watershed to the Lake Simcoe/Lake Huron watershed under The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. The increase allowed for a maximum transfer of 105 MLD (maximum day), with a maximum 30-day average transfer of 72.1 MLD, provided that at least 75% of water transferred is returned to Lake Ontario. Based on the average 30-day transfer, a minimum daily return flow of 54.1 MLD is required. York Region emphasized this daily limit as a key factor impacting the approach taken for additional servicing, especially for the communities studied within the UYSS Environmental Assessment, which are north of the Lake Ontario watershed boundary.

Option A, WRC at 40 MLD, is consistent with the intra-basin transfer provisions and promotes a water balance within the Lake Simcoe watershed. There would be no requirement to increase the current limit of 105 MLD previously approved through the Great Lakes Water Agreement (Canada and U.S.A.). The UYSS service area would continue to be supplied with potable water through the City of Toronto and Region of Peel potable water systems (approved up to 105 MLD), from Lake Ontario-based water treatment plants, and the existing municipal groundwater wells (40 MLD) located in the Lake Simcoe watershed, as well as additional supply from the Keswick Water Treatment Plant.

The 40 MLD of potable water from municipal groundwater wells would be used in the Lake Simcoe watershed (northwest Newmarket and East Gwillimbury) and 40 MLD of treated effluent would be returned to the Lake Simcoe watershed via the WRC. The 105 MLD limit (72.1 MLD 30 day average) of potable water from Lake Ontario would be collected after use in Newmarket and Aurora, then conveyed via the YDSS to the Duffin Creek WPCP for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario, less approximately 25% for consumptive use. While the scenario described above (WRC at 40 MLD), meets the requirements for intra-basin transfer per the Great Lakes Water Agreement, further investigation is required to determine if expansion of the WRC to 80 MLD would be consistent with the existing intra-basin transfer provisions.

Project specific phosphorus offsetting program

Even with advanced treatment technologies, the WRC phosphorus discharge to the Lake Simcoe watershed would be more than double the annual permitted amount for the current lagoons. Meeting the pre-existing limit of 124 kg TP/year would not be achievable even using the quaternary/RO level of treatment outlined in the Environmental Assessment. The WRC, at 40 MLD, would contribute an annual load of 292 kg of TP to Lake Simcoe, despite the fact that the WRC’s phosphorus concentration limits are five times lower than any other Lake Simcoe wastewater treatment plant and over 20 times lower than most Lake Ontario based plants.

The resulting exceedance of 168 kg TP/year above the limit is proposed to be offset through the Project-Specific Phosphorus Offsetting Program. To accommodate any risk in the Offset Program meeting the 168 kg TP/year requirement, it was proposed that a safety factor of three would be applied, requiring an offset of 504 kg TP/year.

The offset program proposed in the Environmental Assessment is based primarily on retrofitting seven stormwater management ponds (SWMPs) and the construction of one new SWMP in upper York Region. Included in this option is the retrofit of pond swales and 1.8 km of perforated pipe installations to discharge the pond effluent to groundwater through stormwater ditches and easements. This solution is expected to remove 350 kg TP/year. This amount would meet TP removal requirements until the WRC reached a flow of approximately 32 MLD. The Environmental Assessment did not specify how the remainder of the TP offsets (154 kg TP/year) would be achieved when the WRC reaches 40 MLD, noting that the delayed implementation would enable emerging technologies to be incorporated. Similarly, methods to achieve TP offsets when flows reach 80 MLD by 2051 were not addressed.

Feedback from First Nations Communities and environmental groups indicates it is their position that any phosphorus offsets should be utilized to meet Lake Simcoe Protection Act phosphorus objectives, not as an offset for increased wastewater plant phosphorus discharge.

While one pilot is underway by York Region to monitor TP removal from a retrofitted SWMP, the ability to monitor the offset program properly may require additional pilots before this option is selected. It is anticipated that ongoing monitoring for TP loading compliance may be challenging.

Modifications to the existing York Durham Sewage System (YDSS)

The third component of the WRC Undertaking involves conveying wastewater from growth in Aurora and the remainder of Newmarket to the existing YDSS. The following modifications are necessary to convey these flows:

  • A second new forcemain from the existing Newmarket Pumping Station directly to the Aurora Pumping Station or to the existing gravity sewer, which discharges to the Aurora Pumping Station
  • A second new forcemain from the existing Bogart Creek Pumping Station to the new Newmarket forcemain
  • Modifications to the Newmarket pumping station and Bogart Creek pumping station for connection of the second forcemain

The province permitted twinning of the Bogart Creek forcemain from UYSS to go ahead owing to system security concerns, making it the only component of the proposed UYSS initiative approved to date. Because of delays in approving the other components, York Regional Council authorized two interim projects in 2018 to provide capacity to meet growth needs in the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket:

  • Upgrades to the Aurora sewage pumping station, which were completed in 2021; and
  • A new pumping station near the intersection of Yonge Street and Henderson Drive in the Town of Aurora, construction of which commenced in the summer 2021.

Financial discussion

Option A, WRC per the Environmental Assessment, has the second highest cost of any of the four options reviewed by the Panel. Total capital costs of this option are estimated at $1.061 billion. The 50-year net present value (NPV), including operations, maintenance and capital costs, is estimated at $1.665 billion.

Capital and O&M cost information for the WRC for 80 MLD flow is summarized in the following table. O&M costs are reported as 50-year NPVs, assuming that the WRC is constructed to 80 MLD capacity.

Cost ($million) for Lake Simcoe WRC (80 MLD)
 ConveyanceTreatmentCombined (conveyance and treatment)
Capital2910321061
O&M17587604
Total4616191665

Panel observations

The Environmental Assessment is complete and was submitted to the MECP in 2014. It is the Panel’s advice that additional First Nations engagement and accommodation take place before approval is given. The design of the WRC is complete (as per York Region), and as a result, tendering and construction could commence quickly. This is an important consideration, since, at its current population growth rate, the existing UYSS service area will reach its wastewater servicing capacity limits by 2026. Additionally, the Panel has been informed that an estimated $100 million has been spent on the UYSS Environmental Assessment, detailed design of the WRC, land acquisition and some equipment procurement.

The WRC could be implemented in a manner that will satisfy the Provincial Growth Plan to 2031 in East Gwillimbury, Aurora and Newmarket. Since growth has been delayed since the Environmental Assessment was submitted, the Panel’s analysis suggests the initial WRC capacity of 40 MLD will meet the growth demand until approximately 2039.

The Panel identified several environmental concerns associated with the WRC, including:

  • Meeting phosphorus loading limits will be challenging up to 32 MLD. There is no defined plan to meet TP limits beyond 32 MLD.
  • Strict TP concentration limits at the WRC may affect future approvals for WPCPs in the province.
  • GHG emissions will be more than double that of one of the Lake Ontario options.
  • Further review needs to be undertaken to ensure the WRC option will meet intra-basin transfer limits at its ultimate capacity of 80 MLD.

As this option has a very high cost and the most opposition from First Nations Communities, there is risk that the project could be delayed further, with increasing costs and risk to meeting growth targets associated with further delays.

5.3 Option B: Water Reclamation Centre (WRC), with process design updates

The cost for the WRC as initially proposed is significantly higher than that of a more conventional wastewater collection and treatment option. The treatment process train selected for the WRC generally represents available and well-demonstrated technology at the time that the process train was selected. Changes in technology and design approaches that have occurred since the time of filing the Environmental Assessment can reduce both cost and the environmental footprint of the WRC.

Since the process concept was selected in the Environmental Assessment, nanofiltration (NF) has developed as an alternative to RO. Replacing RO with an appropriate NF process would reduce energy requirements (thereby reducing both costs and GHG emissions), using membranes with a slightly larger pore size than RO, which would thus require less pressure and energy. The use of NF would meet the design effluent TP concentration of 0.02 mg/L and would significantly reduce the volume of the reject stream to be sent to the YDSS and the Duffin Creek WPCP.

A second value engineering opportunity is that the biological treatment process appears to be configured to meet the effluent ammonia and total nitrogen (TN) effluent objectives established for the WRC during the secondary and tertiary processes, although significant ammonia and TN removal would occur through the RO (or NF) quaternary treatment process. As a result, some adjustments in the biological treatment design appear possible, resulting in potential cost savings.

Current experience, largely accumulated since the original development of the WRC treatment approach, indicates that the proposed clarifier-based biological treatment process could be replaced with a membrane bioreactor (MBR), which would reduce capital and operating costs and further enhance treatment performance. The improvement in performance would not be sufficient to eliminate the need for further treatment downstream to meet the strict effluent TP limit, but it would be beneficial to RO or NF system operation and reduce long-term costs.

The proponent should review the use of MBR and NF technologies if the WRC alternative is approved. Both technologies have the potential to provide lower capital and ongoing operational costs, while still meeting the strict 0.02 mg/L TP concentration limit.

Directing peak flows to the YDSS

Significant cost savings are possible if the WRC design is viewed as part of the larger Duffin Creek WPCP service area and if the principal purpose of the WRC is to retain a specified volume of appropriately treated effluent in the Lake Simcoe watershed. This can be accomplished by directing a specific flow of wastewater to the WRC (up to 40 MLD in the initial phase of construction) and diverting any additional flows via the YDSS to the Duffin Creek WPCP.

The cost of the tertiary and quaternary treatment technology is generally determined by the peak flow to be treated, so reducing the peak flow capacity needed will result in significant cost savings. Another way to think about this is that, if expensive treatment technology is to be installed (which is the case for tertiary and quaternary technology), then the most cost-effective use of this expensive technology is for it to be used consistently for the average day flows rather than intermittently for peak flow conditions.

This approach would have the potential additional benefit of delaying the expansion of the WRC to 60 MLD, and later to 80 MLD, until average day flows in the UYSS approach those volumes.

Since the existing Permit to Take Water limits withdrawal rates in the Yonge Street Aquifer to 42 MLD, the proponent might review this option as an opportunity to provide Lake Ontario water supply to upper York Region above that volume, and return it to Lake Ontario via the YDSS, per the current intra-basin transfer agreement.

Subsurface discharge

Within the 2014 Environmental Assessment, treated water from the WRC would be discharged to surface water within the Lake Simcoe watershed, with an outfall discharging to the East Holland River. As discussed earlier in this report, this concept creates a challenge in meeting the current annual TP discharge limits to Lake Simcoe and its watershed. Given this challenge, and the exceptionally high quality of the treated effluent from the WRC, the Panel reviewed the potential benefits and opportunities for subsurface discharge of WRC effluent. Under this concept, the highly treated effluent from the WRC would be discharged into trenches with perforated piping extended along their length, which would then infiltrate into the subsurface aquifer.

This concept has the advantages of eliminating or significantly reducing the discharge to Lake Simcoe, while still discharging to the Lake Simcoe watershed. The concept could be used all year, including the winter months (unlike agricultural reuse). In fact, discharging to the sand and gravel deposits nearby the preferred location of the WRC would further enhance the treatment of the already high-quality effluent.

To assess opportunities for subsurface discharge, the Panel’s engineering consultants reviewed hydrogeological information to identify areas with infiltration potential within or near York Region. Several data sources were reviewed to determine suitable locations with the required infiltration capacity for supporting the UYSS project. The focus of the study was on shallow infiltration systems into shallow unconfined aquifers (moraine and channel deposits). However, an infiltration potential may also exist locally in deeper variably confined aquifer systems within York Region.

The engineering consultants’ review concluded that, based on hydrogeological data, it is likely that sites in reasonable proximity to the WRC could be used for infiltration galleries, for discharge to the aquifer. Three suitable sites were examined, two in York Region and one in Durham Region, that are within a reasonable distance to convey the treated water and present reasonable locations for further investigation. Furthermore, the geological formations in the area are ideally suited for this application.

Financial discussion

Option B (WRC with Process Design Updates), was not one of the Alternatives included in the 2014 Environmental Assessment. The Panel’s engineering consultants, as documented in several technical memos, identified this option during their investigations. As such, Option B is an updated version of Option A (WRC as per the 2014 Environmental Assessment), using information unavailable when the original submission was made.

A detailed financial review of the proposed changes in Option B has not been completed. However, implementation of the newer processes (MBR and NF), peak flow diversion to the YDSS and subsurface discharge will provide some savings over the costs discussed in Option A, perhaps in the 10% to 15% range. This high-level estimate would result in a 50-year NPV in the range of $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion.

The proponent, before proceeding with construction of the WRC (if it is approved), should perform a detailed analysis of the costs associated with this option.

Panel observations

Option B it is an enhancement of Alternative 4 (Innovative Technology) in the 2014 Environmental Assessment. The Panel’s review of this option is in alignment with the Panel Objectives.

The Panel’s observations under Option A (WRC per Environmental Assessment) apply to Option B, along with the following:

  • The 2014 Environmental Assessment included the best available information and process selection available at that time.
  • The process changes discussed in Option B were not available when the 2014 Environmental Assessment was being prepared.
  • Process optimizations, if implemented, would likely reduce capital and O&M costs and reduce the GHG footprint of the WRC.
  • Maintaining a base influent flow to the WRC, and directing peak flows to Duffin Creek via the YDSS, would reduce capital and operating costs of the WRC, and allow more consistent operation of the WRC.
  • Subsurface discharge of WRC effluent can be accommodated for 40 MLD or greater within local geological formations (Oak Ridges Moraine) and could be designed for year-round operation. Discharging to the natural sub-surface aquifer via infiltration galleries will further enhance the quality of the effluent.
  • Subsurface discharge would assist to mitigate the water quality impacts on Lake Simcoe but would require further study and approvals; replenishing the water supply in York Region is not urgent, however, the added benefit of reducing phosphorus discharge to Lake Simcoe could be realized.
  • A review of The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement should be conducted to determine if implementing the changes identified would meet the requirements of the Intra-Basin transfer agreement currently in place.
  • The financial ramifications of these changes to the WRC design have not been fully quantified, and the proponent should undertake a detailed analysis to determine the full financial impacts.

5.4 Option C: Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via the Yonge Street trunk sewer

Option C is similar to the Environmental Assessment’s Yonge Street trunk sewer alternative. It maximizes the original YDSS infrastructure, as well as improvements made in the intervening years. Wastewater from the UYSS service area currently flows through this route to the Duffin Creek WPCP for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario, with the exception of some flows treated at the Holland Landing lagoons, and those serviced by on-site septic systems. This option for upper York Region wastewater conveyance involves the optimization of existing infrastructure together with capital upgrades previously identified in the York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2016), with some relatively minor updates.

Connection to the Yonge Street trunk sewer would require that the flow from the UYSS is pumped via two pump stations to the Yonge Street trunk sewer, where it will then flow by gravity to the YDSS and the Duffin Creek WPCP. This option would require an increase in capacity at both pump stations and the installation of one new forcemain. The estimated cost for these improvements is included in the financial discussion for Option C.

Since the UYSS Environmental Assessment was submitted, York Region infrastructure planning for the YDSS no longer considered the 40 MLD from the UYSS. After the filing of the Environmental Assessment, the York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan was consistent with York’s preferred solution, the WRC, which would collect and treat the UYSS growth area wastewater and discharge treated effluent to the Lake Simcoe watershed. Thus, the long-term planning for the YDSS does not include either the 40 MLD (by 2039) or the 80 MLD (by 2051) flows from UYSS. However, the 40 MLD is included in York Region’s allocation of the current Duffin Creek WPCP capacity.

Today, wastewater from East Gwillimbury in the UYSS service area is conveyed via the Yonge Street trunk sewer and the YDSS to the Duffin Creek WPCP, with final discharge to Lake Ontario. The Environmental Assessment’s preferred alternative (the WRC) requires that some of these flows would be diverted north to the new WRC. However, the WRC’s RO reject water and biosolids would be pumped to the YDSS for treatment at Duffin Creek WPCP. This reject flow could amount to 15% of the plant flow (7 MLD).

Although the Region’s hydraulic models were not available to the Panel’s engineering consultants, it was assumed that the York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan constraints and planned upgrades to the YDSS capacity between 2022 and 2051 are relevant to assessing the impact of the UYSS flows of 80 MLD. Given the long-term horizon of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2051), generally the downstream impact of adding 80 MLD to the YDSS would be to shorten the time for when the improvements are planned.

Since the development flows for UYSS are forecast to reach 40 MLD later than the Environmental Assessment outlines, namely 2039 to 2041 (as described in Section 4 of this report), the impact on the YDSS would be gradual over time.

The 2022 Water and Wastewater Master Plan identified three locations on the YDSS as primary bottlenecks, where twinning of the pipes would accommodate increased flows from future growth. The three locations for twinning are:

  • Yonge Street sewer twinning from Bloomington Sideroad to 19th Avenue (Environmental Assessment beginning 2022)
  • Primary trunk sewer twinning from Highway 2 to Duffin Creek WPCP (Environmental Assessment beginning 2022)
  • The Markham Collector Twinning program (long range 2040 to 2050)

Further investigation using the regional wastewater model would refine the timing of the improvements and capacity expansion of the northern section of the YDSS and the three sections south of the Bloomington Sideroad currently forecast to occur between 2030 and 2050.

The Yonge Street trunk sewer south of Bloomington Sideroad is currently above 90% capacity and is the first priority for twinning in the YDSS. The current capacity of the existing pipe is 259 MLD. After twinning, the future capacity would be 518 MLD. The opportunity exists to further increase capacity through oversizing the new section of pipe to accommodate the peak flows from the UYSS. Since the twinned installation is currently budgeted in York Region’s 10-year capital budget, the costs for oversizing the pipe to accommodate UYSS flows up to 80 MLD is relatively small compared to the total amount budgeted for the project.

The Class Environmental Assessment for the twinning of the Yonge Street trunk sewer has recently started. Also underway is the Class Environmental Assessment for the twinning of the primary trunk sewer (to Duffin Creek WPCP). Both Environmental Assessments could be amended to reflect increased flows from the UYSS. The estimated cost for these improvements is included in the financial discussion for Option C.

Conveyance of wastewater from East Gwillimbury would require southbound flows to connect with the Yonge Street trunk sewer (via pumping station and a new force main). The analyses conservatively assumed that a new sewer would be required from the proposed WRC site north of Queensville Sideroad to Bloomington Road. The estimated cost for these improvements is included in the financial discussion for Option C.

Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via the Yonge St. sewer and intra-basin transfer

The intra-basin transfer of water between the Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe watersheds needs to be managed through balancing the supply of potable water and the return of wastewater. The UYSS service area water supply relies on both the Yonge Street aquifer (Lake Simcoe watershed) and Lake Ontario supplies. Currently wastewater is returned to Lake Ontario through the YDSS.

Information provided by York Region suggests that the current intra-basin transfer agreement is sufficient to service growth in York Region to 2051 when accompanied by the WRC solution. The impact of using Option C (or Option D) will need to be assessed based on a review of the intra-basin transfer agreement. The use of the YDSS to service growth in UYSS will not reach an additional 40 MLD until approximately 2039 to 2041. This should provide ample time to consider an amendment to the intra-basin agreement limit if that is required.

Financial discussion

When all the capital improvements attributed to conveying the UYSS flow through the YDSS to the Duffin Creek WPCP are included, the total cost for Option C is $415 million. Added to this is an estimated $25 million in O&M costs (50-year NPV), bringing the total conveyance cost to $440 million (50-year NPV).

The Duffin Creek WPCP would not require expansion during the next 20 years and has available capacity for UYSS within the facility’s current 630 MLD capacity until approximately 2041. The capital cost of expansions to accommodate flows to 80 MLD by 2051 is estimated at $180 million (50-year NPV), bringing the total estimated cost for Option C (capital and O&M; 50-year NPV) to $861 million.

Cost ($million) for Lake Ontario (Yonge St.) (80 MLD)
 ConveyanceTreatmentCombined (conveyance and treatment)
Capital415180595
O&M25241266
Total440421861

Panel observations

The Panel had the following observations regarding its review of Option C:

  • Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS with ultimate discharge to Lake Ontario would reduce the TP load on Lake Simcoe and its watershed.
  • The current phosphorus discharge limit to Lake Ontario from the Duffin Creek WPCP is 0.45 mg/L, which is significantly below the current MECP standard of 0.1 mg/L for Policy 1 receivers.
  • There is a significant opportunity to optimize the ongoing improvements to the Yonge Street trunk sewer by upsizing the sections of the YDSS that are already planned to be twinned.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP’s current design includes flows from the UYSS up to 40 MLD.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP, at its current design capacity of 630 MLD, would not need to be expanded to accommodate increased UYSS flows (to 80 MLD) for at least 20 years.
  • The intra-basin transfer agreement should be reviewed to determine if this option requires any amendments to that agreement.
  • The Yonge Street trunk sewer is on a highly spiritual and sacred area of the Michi Saagiig People.
  • It is expected that the utilization of existing infrastructure and corridors may have less effect on First Nations Rights. These Rights, however, would need to be asked of the First Nation Communities.
  • Option C had the lowest cost (50-year NPV) of any of the options reviewed by the Panel. It is approximately 50% less expensive than the other options and could be accommodated through minor amendments to Municipal Class Environmental Assessments already underway.

5.5 Option D: Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via Highway 404 trunk sewer tunnel

Similar to Option C, Option D would convey wastewater from upper York Region to the Duffin Creek WPCP via the YDSS, with final discharge to Lake Ontario. This option employs a tunnel boring machine (TBM) and would require approximately 15 down shafts to accommodate the construction. This option provides for a dedicated sewer within the 404 Right of Way (ROW) for upper York Region wastewater servicing.

The route considered for the Highway 404 sewer tunnel concept would involve a new dedicated sewer containing three components:

  • From proximity of the Queensville West Pumping Station, east along Queensville Sideroad to Highway 404
  • From Highway 404 from Queensville Sideroad south to 19th Avenue
  • From 19th Avenue from Highway 404 to Leslie Street, connecting to the existing YDSS

The first component, along Queensville Sideroad to Highway 404, would be a 1.5-metre diameter forcemain. The second component, in the Highway 404 ROW from Queensville Sideroad south to 19th Avenue would be a three-metre diameter gravity sewer tunnel approximately 25 kilometres in length. The third component, from 19th Avenue to the Leslie Street connection to the YDSS, would be a gravity sewer.

This route was selected and sized to ensure capacity for 80 MLD or greater through to 19th Avenue. The concept examined utilizing a TBM method of construction for the trunk sewer, which dictates a minimum diameter of approximately 3 metres. The capacity of this size of pipe would far exceed the UYSS’s ultimate flows.

York Region’s ownership of the Highway 404 sewer tunnel and its location within the provincial ROW would require that an agreement be developed between the province and York Region. The trunk tunnel option would be similar to other tunnel sections of the YDSS and the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure is familiar to the Region. It should be noted that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) historically has had concerns with infrastructure being located within the Highway 404 ROW and considers it undesirable.

York Region’s 2022 Water and Wastewater Master Plan (Draft) considers that a portion of the UYSS flows from Newmarket and Aurora would continue to flow through the YDSS to Duffin Creek WPCP. However, it assumes the WRC concept would service the majority of the UYSS development lands. As such, the Highway 404 trunk sewer flow (80MLD) has not been included or modelled in the 2022 Master Plan for the YDSS south of 19th Avenue to the Duffin Creek WPCP.

As with Option C, York Region’s hydraulic models were not available to the Panel’s engineering consultants. The same assumptions were made for both Options C and D, that the Water and Wastewater Master Plan constraints and planned upgrades to the YDSS capacity between 2022 and 2051 were relevant to assessing the impact of the UYSS flows of 80 MLD. Given the long-term horizon of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2051), generally the downstream impact of adding 80 MLD to the YDSS would be to shorten the time for when the improvements are planned. Since the development flows for UYSS are forecast to reach 40 MLD later than the Environmental Assessment outlines, namely 2039 to 2041 (as noted in Section 4 of this report), the impact on the YDSS would be gradual over time.

Unlike Option C, the twinning of the Yonge Street Sewer would not need to be upsized, since connection to the existing YDSS would take place downstream from that point.

Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS via Highway 404 ROW and intra-basin transfer

The constraints regarding intra-basin transfer for Option C are the same for Option D. The impact of using Option C or D would have to be assessed based on a review of the intra-basin transfer agreement.

Financial discussion

When all the capital improvements attributed to conveying the UYSS flow through the Highway 404 tunnel and the YDSS are included, the total capital cost for Option D is approximately $1.291 billion.

In addition to this are estimated O&M costs of $15 million (50-year NPV), bringing the total for conveyance to $1.306 billion (50-year NPV).

The Duffin Creek WPCP would not require expansion during the next 20 years and has available capacity for the UYSS flow within the facility’s current 630 MLD capacity until approximately 2041. York Region’s share of the capital cost for expansions to accommodate flows to 80 MLD by 2051 are estimated at $180 million.

The total estimated cost for Option D (capital and O&M; 50-year NPV) is 1.727 billion.

Cost ($million) for Lake Ontario (Highway 404) (80 MLD)
 ConveyanceTreatmentCombined (conveyance and treatment)
Capital12911801471
O&M15241256
Total13064211727

Panel observations

The Panel has the following observations regarding its review of Option D:

  • Option D would require an Environmental Assessment and may take up to 10 years to complete the project.
  • Connection of the UYSS to the YDSS, with ultimate discharge to Lake Ontario would reduce the TP load on Lake Simcoe and its watershed.
  • The current phosphorus discharge limit to Lake Ontario from the Duffin Creek WPCP is 0.45 mg/L, which is significantly lower than the MECP standard of 1.0 mg/L for Policy 1 receivers.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP current design included flows from UYSS to 40 MLD.
  • The Duffin Creek WPCP, at its current design capacity of 630 MLD, would not need to be expanded to accommodate increased UYSS flows (to 80 MLD) for at least 20 years.
  • MTO has historically considered infrastructure within its corridors undesirable.
  • The intra-basin transfer agreement should be reviewed to determine if this option requires any amendments to that agreement.
  • It is expected that the utilization of existing infrastructure and the Highway 404 corridor may have less effect on First Nations Rights. These Rights, however, would need to be asked of the First Nation Communities.
  • Option D has the highest cost (50-year NPV) of the four options reviewed by the Panel, more than double that of Option C.

6 Comparison of options reviewed by the Panel

6.1 General background

The Panel developed six criteria for review of the four options to ensure alignment with the Panel objectives. Each criteria was further broken into subcategories, with observations from the Panel for each subcategory.

The six criteria were:

  1. The current need for additional capacity and capacity to accommodate future growth
  2. Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation/operation)
  3. Protection of human health and the environment
  4. Impacts on any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects
  5. Cost and financial viability
  6. Impacts on First Nations rights

The Panel’s review confirmed that all four options reviewed were viable solutions and would provide wastewater servicing in upper York Region beyond 2051. However, several of the options have significant implementation, technical and/or operational concerns that may hamper their ability to meet growth requirements in a timely way.

A summary of the Panel’s assessment of each option against the six criteria is presented below (Sections 6.2-6.5).

6.2 Option A: WRC as per the 2014 Environmental Assessment

Criteria 1: The current need for additional capacity and capacity to accommodate future growth

The WRC can accommodate the growth plans to 40 MLD. Additional work is required post 40 MLD to accommodate growth numbers to 2051.

The facility could be built in a timeline that would not interfere with planned growth in the UYSS service area.

The total phosphorus loading limits into Lake Simcoe will need to be further addressed, given that the phosphorus offset program currently proposed is only sufficient to meet the 3:1 TP offset ratio up to 32 MLD. Additional Environmental Assessments will be required for any expansions beyond 40 MLD. The Panel has concerns regarding the facility's ability to meet growth demands up to and beyond 2051 based upon the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan limitations.

Criteria 2: Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation/operation)

A significant amount of work has already been completed on this option, including the UYSS Environmental Assessment, land acquisition, detailed design of the WRC and the pre-purchase of some process equipment. It is estimated that $100 million has already been spent on this option.

The WRC would be complex to construct and operate, and the design is unique in Canada. There would be operational challenges, including consistently meeting the strict TP discharge concentration limits.

The design can be constructed in phases to accommodate growth.

Criteria 3: Protection of human health and the environment

The discharges from the WRC to the East Holland River would provide a net benefit, since the various effluent parameters of interest are at lower concentrations than the East Holland River receiving waters themselves. However, TP loads would increase and would not meet the requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, despite the high level of treatment at the WRC. An additional 168 kg of phosphorus would be discharged to Lake Simcoe, requiring the development of a TP offset program, which would include upgrades to stormwater management ponds. The proponent has not described how TP removed in the offset program will be measured and monitored to ensure compliance.

GHG output from the WRC would be more than double the GHG output per volume treated, as compared to Options C or D (treatment at Duffin Creek WPCP with discharge to Lake Ontario).

Criteria 4: Impacts on any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects

There are no impacts on provincial infrastructure projects, although strict TP concentration limits at the WRC may affect future approvals for WPCPs in the province. The York Region Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2022 Draft) includes construction of the WRC and the required sewer modifications associated with its construction. As a result, there are no impacts to York Region’s planned capital infrastructure projects.

Criteria 5: Cost and financial viability

Approximately $100 million has been spent on this option, including the 2014 Environmental Assessment, land acquisition and detailed design of the WRC and some process equipment pre-purchases.

The capital and lifecycle costs for the WRC to 2051 are significant and estimated at $1.665 billion (50-year NPV).

The O&M costs for the WRC are approximately double those of a traditional wastewater treatment facility. These increased costs would be borne by the ratepayer. Development charges would primarily fund the capital costs for the infrastructure. York Region has indicated their ability to fund these works.

Criteria 6: Impacts on First Nations rights

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation continue to oppose the WRC, or any alternative that discharges wastewater effluent to Lake Simcoe or its watershed. Further engagement, consultation and accommodation if appropriate, are recommended before proceeding with this option.

6.3 Option B: WRC with process design updates

Criteria 1: The current need for additional capacity and capacity to accommodate future growth

This option includes recommendations for operational design improvements that were not available when the Environmental Assessment was filed in 2014 and would require some design modifications from the original WRC concept.

This option would still meet the required timelines for current capacity requirements and future growth in the UYSS service area.

The WRC can accommodate the growth plans to 40 MLD. Additional work is required post 40MLD to accommodate growth numbers to 2051.

The total phosphorus loading limits into Lake Simcoe will need to be further addressed, given that the phosphorus offset program currently proposed is only sufficient to meet the 3:1 TP offset ratio up to 32 MLD. Additional Environmental Assessments will be required for any expansions beyond 40 MLD. The Panel has concerns regarding the facility's ability to meet growth demands up to and beyond 2051 based upon the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan limitations.

Criteria 2: Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation/operation)

The operation of the WRC with the proposed design updates would be more in line with traditional wastewater treatment plants, and other plants operated by York Region (e.g. Keswick). However, the updated process would still be complex to construct and operate and the challenges in consistently meeting the strict TP discharge concentration limits would remain.

The design can be constructed in phases to accommodate growth.

Criteria 3: Protection of human health and the environment

As with Option A, the discharges from the WRC to the East Holland River would provide a net benefit. However, if subsurface discharge is implemented in the future, this benefit would not be as significant. As with Option A, a TP offset program would still be required, as the total phosphorus would exceed the limit by 168 kg per year and thus not meet the requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. The proponent has not described how TP removed in the offset program will be measured and monitored to ensure compliance.

GHG output from the WRC would be approximately double the GHG output per volume treated as compared to Options C or D (treatment at Duffin Creek WPCP with discharge to Lake Ontario), although slightly lower than the GHG output in Option A.

Criteria 4: Impacts on any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects

Impacts on local or provincial infrastructure projects are the same as in Option A. There would be no impacts to provincial or regional infrastructure projects, although the design of the WRC would have to be modified to incorporate process updates. Strict TP concentration limits at the WRC may affect future approvals for WPCPs in the province.

Criteria 5: Cost and financial viability

A detailed costing analysis has not been performed for this option. However, it is estimated to provide a 10% to 15% reduction in total costs compared to Option A. This high-level estimate would result in a 50-year NPV in the range of $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion.

Criteria 6: Impacts on First Nations rights

This option would not address the concerns of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, as the facility would still discharge into the Lake Simcoe watershed. Further engagement and consultation are recommended before proceeding with this option.

6.4 Option C: Connection of the UYSS to the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) via the Yonge Street sewer

Criteria 1: The current need for additional capacity and capacity to accommodate future growth

There are no real limitations to this alternative in terms of ultimate capacity. While the initial 40 MLD is included in the current rated capacity of the plant, an Environmental Assessment would be required for expansion of the Duffin Creek WPCP beyond its current rated capacity of 630 MLD.

Several significant sewer twinning projects are included in the 2022 York Region Master Plan. With minor design changes (upsizing of pipes), this option would meet the timeline to accommodate immediate growth needs, and continued growth beyond 2051.

Criteria 2: Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation/operation)

York Region has considerable experience in capital infrastructure project implementation. This option would not pose a significant challenge in this regard. Similarly, there is a great depth of knowledge and experience in both wastewater conveyance and treatment operation (YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP, respectively), and selection of this option would not pose any new challenges in this area.

Criteria 3: Protection of human health and the environment

This option would reduce the TP loadings to Lake Simcoe, and entirely remove a wastewater discharge to that watershed (currently from the Holland Landing lagoons, and the proposed WRC).

GHG production would be approximately 50% of that in Options A or B (WRC), per volume of wastewater treated.

Criteria 4: Impacts on any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects

Option C would have no impacts on any provincial infrastructure.

York Region’s capital plan for the upgrade to the Yonge Street sewer would have to be modified if this option is selected. The upsized pipes recommended under this option would require a relatively minor update to the current design. The Region’s plan to construct the WRC would be cancelled if Option C were selected.

Criteria 5: Cost and financial viability

This option utilizes existing infrastructure and has the advantage of ‘piggybacking’ on already scheduled capital projects (some modification to specific capital projects would be required).

This option is the least expensive of the four options reviewed by the Panel. At an estimated cost of $861 million, it has a 50-year NPV cost up to 50% lower than the other three options.

Criteria 6: Impacts on First Nations rights

This option would address the concerns of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, as there would be no increase in treated wastewater volumes discharged to Lake Simcoe or its watershed.

It is expected that the utilization of existing infrastructure and corridors would have less impact on First Nations Rights, however, this would need to be addressed with First Nations Rights Holders.

6.5 Option D: Connection of the UYSS to the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) via the Highway 404 right of way (ROW)

Criteria 1: The current need for additional capacity and capacity to accommodate future growth

This alternative would require substantial approvals, including an Environmental Assessment and approval from the MTO regarding utilization of the 404 Right of Way.

There is concern that this alternative would not be able to meet current or future growth demands until after 2031. While there are no real limitations to this alternative in terms of ultimate capacity, the timelines for project completion are expected to be up to ten years (three years for an Environmental Assessment, two to three years for detailed design and approvals, and two to three years for construction). This timeline is not aligned with the current servicing needs of East Gwillimbury, Aurora and Newmarket.

Criteria 2: Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation/operation)

York Region has considerable experience in capital infrastructure project implementation, including tunnelling projects. This option would not pose a significant challenge in this regard. As with Option C, there is a great depth of experience in both wastewater conveyance and treatment operation.

Criteria 3: Protection of human health and the environment

Options C and D would have the same impacts under this criteria, since the wastewater from the UYSS would be conveyed to the Duffin Creek WPCP for treatment, followed by discharge to Lake Ontario.

GHG production would be approximately 50% of that in Options A or B (WRC), per volume of wastewater treated.

Criteria 4: Impacts on any significant local or provincial infrastructure projects

This option would require an agreement between the Province and York Region, since the Highway 404 Right of Way is provincially owned.

The Region’s plan to construct the WRC would be cancelled if Option D were selected.

Criteria 5: Cost and financial viability

This option is the most expensive of the four options reviewed by the Panel. It would require a significant tunnelling project of about 25 km, with up to 15 down shafts to facilitate construction. Upgrades to two pump stations, a new forcemain and a new gravity sewer would also be required.

The total estimated cost for this option (capital and O&M; 50-year NPV) is 1.727 billion, more than double the cost of Option C.

Criteria 6: Impacts on First Nations rights

As with Option C, Option D would address the concerns of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, as selection of this option would result in no increase in treated wastewater volumes discharged to Lake Simcoe or its watershed.

It is expected that the utilization of the Highway 404 Right of Way would have less impact on First Nations Rights; however, this would need to be addressed with the First Nations Rights Holders.

6.6 Financial summary

While the Panel has not analyzed the financing of the alternatives in detail, it is assumed the capital costs for all four Options will be at least 90% financed by development charges. Therefore, selection of Options A, B or D would have the largest impact on development charges of the four options.

Of the four Options, Option D has the highest capital cost, and the highest 50-year cost when operations and maintenance expenses are included.

Option A has the second highest 50-year cost of the four Options. Additionally, the WRC operation and maintenance costs are more than double the operations and maintenance costs for either of the YDSS Options (Yonge Street or Highway 404). This ongoing cost would have a significant impact on water user rate fees for York Region residents and businesses.

Option B is estimated to be approximately 10-15% less costly than Option A for both capital and operating expenses.

Option C (connection of UYSS to YDSS via Yonge St. sewer) is 40% to 50% less expensive than the other three Options and would therefore have a significantly reduced financial impact on development charges and user rate increases.

The costs for Options A, C and D are summarized in the table below:

Conveyance
Cost ($M)
50-year NPV (80 MLD)
Lake Simcoe WRC
WRC (Option A)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Yonge St (Option C)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Highway 404 (Option D)
Capital$29$415$1291
O&M$17$25$15
Subtotal$46$440$1306
Treatment
Cost ($M)
50-year NPV (80 MLD)
Lake Simcoe WRC
WRC (Option A)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Yonge St (Option C)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Highway 404 (Option D)
Capital$1032$180$180
O&M$587$241$241
Subtotal$1619$421$421
Combined
Cost ($M)
50-year NPV (80 MLD)
Lake Simcoe WRC
WRC (Option A)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Yonge St (Option C)
Lake Ontario via
YDSS and Duffin Creek WPCP
Highway 404 (Option D)
Capital$1061$595$1471
O&M$604$266$256
Subtotal$1665$861$1727

7. Panel advice and learnings

7.1 Panel advice

The Panel worked to ensure that the options it reviewed for wastewater servicing in the UYSS service area were consistent with the objectives contained within its mandate.

It is the Panel’s advice that Option C best satisfies the need for additional sewage servicing capacity necessary to accommodate future population and development growth in both York and Durham Regions, based on the criteria established by the Panel. The following considerations and observations form the basis for the Panel’s advice based on the Minister’s Panel objectives and the evaluation criteria established by the Panel:

  • Accommodates timing of growth pressures
  • Protection of human health and environment ( e.g., lower GHG emissions.
  • Optimization of existing wastewater infrastructure and services
  • Financial viability (significantly lower overall capital and life cycle costs)
  • Sustainability and efficiency (ease of implementation and expandability)
  • Meets the requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

This advice is subject to satisfactory resolution of the following:

  • Hydraulic modelling of the YDSS to confirm that the ultimate flow of 80 MLD can be accommodated within the existing and expanded infrastructure
  • Confirmation that the existing Intrabasin transfer agreement will be sufficient to support this servicing strategy to 2051 and beyond

7.2 What the Panel learned

Based on the feedback received during meetings and engagement sessions with Rights Holders and stakeholders, the Panel offers the following additional comments and observations to the Minister (and other Ministers as appropriate):

  1. The MECP should make it clear to all proponents, and those affected in any Environmental Assessment, that the Crown has a "Duty to Consult and Accommodate” and/or when the Crown has delegated its duty to a proponent.

In the Panel’s engagement with First Nations, one of the initial comments received was that it was not clear who had the "Duty to Consult and Accommodate”. The Panel heard that when First Nations Communities approached the proponent, they were directed to the MECP. When they went to the MECP, they were directed to the proponent. In this specific example, the parties became frustrated and open dialogue was negatively impacted. If the Crown chooses to delegate this responsibility to the proponent this should be made clear in writing to the proponent and First Nations Communities whose Rights may be affected.

  1. First Nations Communities should be involved at a very early stage in the development of population and employment numbers by the Growth Secretariat at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

There was feedback regarding the lack of First Nations input into where and how significant the growth proposed by the Places to Grow numbers will be. Regions and Upper Tiers are assigned growth population and employment numbers and which they then assign to specific municipalities. Based upon feedback from First Nations it was felt that if First Nations Communities were involved at an earlier stage with MMAH, they may be able to provide better insight into the negative impacts of growth and servicing, as it affects their hunting, fishing, harvesting, and gathering Rights.

  1. The Minister should enhance collaboration with First Nations Rights Holders, Indigenous affairs, and First Nations engagement staff in MECP to enhance the First Nations consultation and engagement requirements in the Environmental Assessment process. The province or MECP should provide municipalities with clear guidelines/protocols to consult and engage with First Nations Communities on Official Plans, long-term infrastructure plans, related capital plans and training on meaningful consultation.

During the Panel’s engagement there were many comments regarding the lack of clarity and understanding of what is required of a proponent when embarking on significant works. Most proponents want to do the right thing but lack clear direction regarding fulsome consultation with First Nations. The Williams Treaty First Nations Communities should be involved in designing the First Nations engagement plan.

The Panel feels strongly that significant advancement can be made if guidelines developed in conjunction with First Nations were prepared for municipalities when embarking on capital works. Suggestions include early involvement in capital master planning and in project initiation. For example, a municipality can involve the appropriate First Nation community when they are developing their 10-year capital plans. That would allow significant time for resolution of any accommodation issues, including altering a project alignment.

  1. The MECP should review its capacity funding policies to ensure that all impacted First Nations Communities are provided with the necessary funding to engage and provide meaningful review and comments on Environmental Assessments.

The Panel found through its First Nations engagement that, although the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation were provided with capacity funding, other First Nations Communities (Rights Holders) were not, and as a result, were not able to provide meaningful comment. Many First Nations Communities do not have the technical expertise and resources to review Environmental Assessment documents in the detail necessary. Feedback suggested that all Right Holders should be supported financially throughout the lengthy Environmental Assessment review process.

  1. The MECP should review all negative environmental impacts in the Lake Simcoe watershed as they impact Lake Simcoe and develop a comprehensive and overarching plan with specific environmental targets and related performance measures to further enforce the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

The Panel has found through its data and information review, as well as through engagement with Rights Holders and other stakeholders, that Lake Simcoe is a rich and valuable resource, and must be protected. The Panel found that the excess phosphorus deposits into the lake are the result of many different contributors. Existing wastewater treatment plants are a very small part (1.5%) of the total phosphorus discharged to the lake. The major contributors are agriculture, atmospheric deposition, streams and tributaries. A great deal of time, energy and money is being spent to reduce wastewater treatment plant phosphorus contributions with little “bang for the buck". The Panel strongly recommends that authority and funding should be provided to an agency that is watershed-based and can actively propose, fund, support and require improvements to the agriculture and storm water aspects of phosphorus finding its way into Lake Simcoe.

In addition, the MECP is reviewing wastewater treatment facility Environmental Assessment applications individually. It is the Panel’s understanding that there is not an overarching assessment of the impacts of growth to 2051 and beyond on Lake Simcoe.

  1. The MECP should proceed with the development, design, and construction of the Holland Marsh Polder project as quickly as possible, on its own or with a partner, to reduce phosphorus in Lake Simcoe. In addition, there are other smaller polder projects, and they should be reviewed for their financial and phosphorus reductions effectiveness.

The Panel reviewed the available feasibility study and draft Environmental Assessment material for the Holland Marsh Polder project. The Panel found that at a moderate cost, significant reductions in phosphorus released into Lake Simcoe can be realized. The technology is not complex and is readily available. The Panel is of the opinion that the Holland Marsh Polder project and others like it should proceed to enhance the condition of Lake Simcoe. The data shows that there is a significant amount of phosphorus being deposited through tributaries into the lake.

The province has an Agency (the Ontario Clean Water Agency) that could design, build, and operate the facility with the appropriate operator funding mechanism in place.