Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Update (Oct. 30 PIE).

1. Welcome
Waterfront Sanitary Servicing
Master Plan Update
Public Information Event (PIE)
October 30, 2017
View display boards and speak one-on-one with project team staff

2. 2
Purpose of PIE
• Present details of alternative solutions for Waterfront
Sanitary Servicing Update
• Present the evaluation of alternatives
• Present the Preliminary Preferred Solution
• Hear from you as a stakeholder
Please, complete your comment sheet so your
comments are properly recorded
Your input is important

3. 3
Study Purpose and Objectives
PURPOSE:
• Develop a comprehensive Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan, to
service current, planned and future developments along Toronto’s
waterfront to 2041
OBJECTIVES
• Assess the existing system for adequacy and constraints, and recommend
upgrades and/or modifications
• Make “best use” of existing and proposed facilities
• Provide servicing for new development without increasing the number and
volume of combined sewer overflows
• Identify operational efficiencies
• Build on the 2012 Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan

4. 4
The Study and
Municipal Class EA Process
Phase 1
Problem or
Opportunity
• Identify problem
or opportunity
Phase 2
Alternative
Solutions
• Identify alternative
solutions
• Inventory
environment
• Identify impacts
and mitigation
measures
• Evaluate
alternatives
• Select preferred
solution
Phase 3
Alternative Design
Concepts
Preferred Solution
• Identify alternative
design concepts
• Detail inventory
environment
• Evaluate
alternative
designs
• Select preferred
design
• Preliminary
finalization
Phase 4
Environmental
Study Report
• Complete ESR
• ESR on public
record
• Notice of
Completion
Phase 5
Implementation
• Contract drawings
and tender
documents
• Construction and
operation
• Monitor
We are
here

5. 5
Study Area

6. 6
Waterfront Sanitary Master Plan Update
is Linked with Other City Initiatives
Related studies completed since 2012 Waterfront Sanitary
Servicing Master Plan include:
• Don River and Central Waterfront Project: Strategy for combined sewer
overflow control in Don River and Central Waterfront.
• Integrated Pump Station (IPS): Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant “M” and
“T” Pumping Station replacement.
• Waterfront Servicing: Multiple projects addressing local sanitary servicing
for the waterfront development precincts.
• Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project: EA
addressing re-naturalization of mouth of Don River.
• Port Lands + South of Eastern Transportation & Servicing Master Plan
EA: EA for the Port Lands area.

7. 7
What has Changed Since 2012?
• Completion of other EA studies in particular Don River and Central
Waterfront project, and new Integrated Pump Station at Ashbridges Bay
Treatment Plant.
• Growth estimates have increased since 2012 master plan. Now estimating
146,000 more residents and 166,000 more jobs within the study area.
• Managing risk associated with operating levels along the Mid-Toronto
Interceptor.
• Timeline of demand for servicing capacity and more advanced Precinct
Plans.
• Wet-weather flow reduction initiative in Scott Street Sewage Pumping
Station (SPS) service area.
• Changes in local servicing (Cherry Street sewer and SPS, East Bayfront
sewer).

8. 8
The Problem and Opportunity
• 312,000 residential and employment population growth
in the study area.
• Sustainable long-term servicing strategy required.
• Address immediate need for sanitary servicing.
• Opportunities to maximize the use of existing
infrastructure (local sewers, interceptors and pumping
stations).
• Opportunity to reduce dependence on pumping.

9. 9
Evaluation Process
Screen alternatives for feasibility and ability to meet requirements of
Problem Statement. Eliminate infeasible or non-compliant
alternatives
Compare and evaluate alternative solutions using criteria which
include technical considerations, as well as our natural, social,
cultural and economic environment
Identify Preliminary Preferred Alternative/Solution for public and
stakeholder review
Identify Preferred Alternative/Solution
for 30-day review

10. 10
Evaluation Criteria
Cultural Environment
•First Nations lands, archaeological sites
•Cultural / heritage features
Natural Environment
•Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife
•Aquatic vegetation and wildlife
•Groundwater
•Soil and geology
Socio-Economic Environment
•Long term community impacts
•Construction impacts
•Need for property acquisition
Servicing New Development
•Ability to meet short term servicing needs
•Adaptability to change in growth
•Design adaptability
Sustainability
•Energy efficiency
•Green house gas emissions
•Climate change adaptability
Technical Considerations
•Sewer system overflows and flooding risk
•Constructability and risk
•Contaminated materials disposal
•Long term system reliability/resilience
•System operational complexity
•Operational redundancy and flexibility
Financial Considerations
•Capital cost
•O&M costs
•Lifecycle costs

11. 11
Overview of Alternative Solutions
DO NOTHING • Service new growth though existing sewer systems, no upgrades
ALTERNATIVE 1 CENTRAL 1 + PORT LANDS
• Upgrade Scott Street SPS (990 L/s), install Scott Street SPS gravity bypass
• Yonge Street and Lower Jarvis sanitary sewer upgrades
• New Port Lands SPS (977 L/s) with forcemain to Carlaw Ave. interconnect to MTI
• New Port Lands collection sewers
ALTERNATIVE 2 CENTRAL 2 + PORT LANDS
• Install Scott Street SPS gravity bypass
• New Lower Yonge Precinct SPS (830 L/s) with forcemain to Scott-Victoria interconnect to MTI
• Harbour Street and Lower Jarvis sanitary sewer upgrades
• New Port Lands SPS (977 L/s firm capacity) with forcemain to Carlaw Ave. interconnect to MTI
• New Port Lands collection sewers
ALTERNATIVE 3 CENTRAL 3 + PORT LANDS
• Decommission Scott Street SPS, divert flow to new Lower Yonge Precinct SPS (1,040 L/s) with
forcemain to Scott-Victoria interconnect to MTI
• New gravity sewer from Scott SPS to new SPS
• Lower Jarvis sanitary sewer upgrades
• New Port Lands SPS (977 L/s firm capacity) with forcemain to Carlaw Ave. interconnect to MTI
• New Port Lands collection sewers
ALTERNATIVE 4 INTERCEPTOR TUNNEL
• New interceptor trunk sewer to service the entire area following alignment of future Inner Harbour Wet
Weather Tunnel
• Elimination of four local SPS (Skydome, Simcoe, Scott, Cherry)
• New SPS (2,240 L/s) at tunnel terminus west of IPS discharging to MTI/LLI or HLI tunnel
• Short term services required – Scott SPS bypass; Scott SPS Upgrade (990 L/s); Yonge Street and Lower
Jarvis sewer upgrades; New Port Lands SPS (550 L/s) and Commissioners Street sewer

12. 12
Do Nothing
PROS
• Lowest Capital and
Lifecycle costs
CONS
• Does not provide
adequate sanitary
servicing
• Results in overloading
of existing sanitary
sewers.
• Will result in an increase
in combined sewer
overflows
• More complex operation
to manage flow
COSTS
• No Cost
• No increase in
operational costs

13. 13
Alternative 1
PROS
• Lowest Capital and
Lifecycle costs
• Lowest Capital and
Lifecycle costs
• Low impact on natural
environment
• Some adaptability to
changing conditions.
CONS
• Additional stress on the
Scott Street SPS
• Higher annual operation
and maintenance costs
COSTS
• $84.8 Million
Capital Cost
• $214 Million
Life Cycle (100 year)

14. 14
Alternative 2
PROS
• More adaptable to
changing conditions
• Less disruption to the
community (Yonge
Street)
• Provides capacity relief
to existing Scott Street
SPS
• Similar to Alternative 1
CONS
• Additional sewage
pumping station
• Higher annual operation
and maintenance costs
COSTS
• $103 Million
Capital Cost
• $227 Million
Life Cycle (100 year)

15. 15
Alternative 3
PROS
• More adaptable to
changing conditions
• Allows Scott Street SPS
to be decommissioned
CONS
• Higher annual operation
and maintenance costs
• Greater community
disruption (Yonge
Street)
• Higher costs than
Alternatives 1 or 2
COSTS
• $112 Million
Capital Cost
• $240 Million
Life Cycle (100 year)
x

16. 16
Alternative 4
PROS
• Reduces number of
pumping stations to one
station at the end of the
interceptor
• Very adaptable to
changing development
CONS
• High capital costs
• High life cycle costs
• Requires short term
servicing
• Coordination with other
projects
• Land requirements
COSTS
• $263 Million
Capital Cost
• $319 Million
Life Cycle (100 year)

17. 17
Evaluation Matrix - Alternative Scoring
Criteria Do Nothing
Alternative 1
Central 1 + Port
Lands
Alternative 2
Central 2 + Port
Lands
Alternative 3
Central 3 + Port
Lands
Alternative 4
Interceptor
Tunnel
1 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 10 6 6 6 6
2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 8 12 12 12 12
3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 11 13 9 9 7
4 SERVICING NEW DEVELOPMENT 3 11 11 11 13
5 SUSTAINABILITY 2 6 6 6 10
6 TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 14 16 18 18 24
TECHNICAL SCORE TOTAL 48 64 62 62 72
*PIE Handout provides more detailed information on criteria and scoring

18. 18
Evaluation Matrix - Alternative Scoring
Cost Metrics
Alternative 1
Central 1 + Port
Lands
Alternative 2
Central 2 + Port
Lands
Alternative 3
Central 3 + Port
Lands
Alternative 4
Interceptor
Tunnel
1 CAPITAL COST $84,800,000 $102,900,000 $111,600,000 $263,600,000
2 ANNUAL O&M COSTS $770,000 $810,000 $840,000 $240,000
3 LIFE CYCLE COSTS (100 YR) $214,100,000 $227,000,000 $239,900,000 $319,800,000
1 CAPITAL COST SCORE 5 3 3 1
2 ANNUAL O&M COSTS SCORE 3 1 1 5
3 LIFE CYCLE COSTS (100 YR) SCORE 5 3 3 1
FINANCIAL SCORE TOTAL 13 7 7 7
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE SCORING
TECHNICAL 64 62 62 72
FINANCIAL 13 7 7 7
TOTAL SCORE 77 69 69 79

19. 19
Alternatives Evaluation
• Alternative 4 has the “highest”
Technical score, at the
“highest” cost.
• Alternative 1, 2 and 3 have
comparable Technical scores,
with Alternative 1 having the
highest Financial score.
• Alternative 4 implementation
timeline requires short-term
infrastructure improvements
that are effectively the same
as Alternative 1.
Timeline EA
Schedule
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Alternative 4 - Interceptor Tunnel
Interceptor Tunnel B Planning Design Construction In-Service
Terminus SPS B Planning Design Construction In-Service
Consolidation Sewers A+/B Planning Design Construction In-Service
Decommission SPSs
Short-Term Infrastructure
Scott Street I/I Initiative A+ Ongoing
(Potential 100 L/s
capacity restored)
Lower Jarvis Pipe
upgrade
A+ Design In-Service
Scott Street by-pass A+ Design In-Service
Yonge Street upgrade A+ Design In-Service
Scott Street SPS upgrade
to
990 L/s
A+ Design In-Service
Port Lands SPS (550 L/s) MESP/B Design In-Service
MESP‐Master Environmental Servicing Plan constitutes a municipal servicing plan (stormwater, wastewater, water and transportation) along with environmental
management to support future development
 Construction of Interceptor Tunnel can
be deferred with Short-Term Servicing
 Scott Street SPS, Lower Yonge
Precinct, Don Lands, Unilever and
Port Lands immediate capacity needs
met with Short-Term Infrastructure
Alternative 4
Implementation requires short-term infrastructure to meet immediate capacity needs.

20. 20
Alternatives Evaluation
• Alternative 4 and 1 have similar total scores.
• However, Alternative 4 is approximately $178M more in capital costs.
• The high cost for Alternative 4 is not considered preferable as it does
not necessarily provide additional benefits at this time.
• Many of the early upgrades associated with Alternative 4 include
Alternative 1 system improvements and upgrades.
• Alternative 1 has the lowest costs and makes the best use of existing
infrastructure.
• Overall, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for Waterfront
Sanitary Servicing.

21. 21
Alternative 1 - Preferred Alternative
Timeline
EA
Schedule
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Alternative 1 – Upgrade Scott SPS, Scott St. Bypass, New Port Lands SPS
Scott Street I/I
Initiative
A+ Ongoing
(Potential 100 L/s
capacity restored)
Lower Jarvis Pipe
upgrade
A+ Design
In-
Service
Scott Street by-
pass
A+ Design
In-
Service
Yonge Street
upgrade
A+ Design
In-
Service
Scott Street SPS
upgrade to
990 L/s
A+ Design
In-
Service
Port Lands SPS
(550 L/s initial
stage)
MESP/B Design
In-
Service
Future expansion to ultimate 997 L/s
MESP‐Master Environmental Servicing Plan constitutes a municipal servicing plan (stormwater, wastewater, water and transportation) along with environmental
management to support future development
Alternative 1
 Implementation addresses short-term needs.
 Future expansion of Port Lands SPS would be required and can be timed with growth.
 Alternative does not preclude the Alternative 4 servicing strategy.

22. 22
Alternative 1 - Preferred Alternative
• Substantially lower capital cost.
• Independent servicing strategy for Scott St. SPS service area.
Bypass to Scott-Victoria inter-connection will allow for gravity
operation the majority of time.
• Independent servicing strategy for Port Lands can be
implemented to meet servicing demand from Lower Don Lands
and Unilever lands. Port Lands SPS capacity would be staged.
• Potentially the best approach to making future use of MTI via
gravity conveyance by interconnecting sewers, once IPS and
WWF tunnel system in place.
• Does not preclude future consideration of Alternative 4.

23. 23
Alternative 1 - Preferred Alternative
Approvals:
Class EA Master Plan once complete will allow projects to proceed.
Design/Construction:
• Implementation timeline will meet capacity requirements.
• Scott Street Bypass, Lower Jarvis Upgrade and Yonge Street Upgrade the highest
priorities.
• Yonge St. Upgrade will have traffic and utility impacts. This project has the highest
potential constructability risk and further detailed work is required to properly scope.
• Scott Street area I/I reduction program initiated. Success of program may delay the
need for Scott St. SPS upgrade.
• Port Lands SPS timing needs to be coordinated with Lower Don Lands/Unilever and
flood protection work.
• Avoids need for design/construction coordination with IPS and WWF tunnel project.

24. 24
Preferred Alternative - Construction Impacts
and Mitigation Measures
Possible Construction Impact Mitigation Proposed
Noise Adherence to City Noise By-Law.
Dust/Mud Tracking Use of dust suppressant, mud mats, street sweeping.
Site Safety Fenced, signed construction sites.
Traffic/Pedestrian Disruption
Detailed traffic plan to be developed. Notices distributed, as
necessary to inform of alternate routes.
Existing Utilities/Services
Utility support and relocation. Temporary services provided, if
necessary.
Natural Environment (trees, birds) Tree protection zones; tree replacement, if needed.
Cultural Environment (uncover artifacts) Unlikely. Protocols will be followed.
Pump Noise Long term monitoring of facility performance. Use of noise baffling.
Aesthetics
New pump station exterior designed to bring aesthetic value to
surroundings.
Odour Carbon-based odour control system.

25. 25
Key Questions for Consideration Tonight
Do you have any comments or feedback regarding:
• The alternative solutions considered
• The evaluation criteria or process
• The preliminary preferred solution
• Other aspects of the study

26. 26
Next Steps
When What
Tonight Present and receive input/feedback on the preliminary preferred solution
End-2017 Complete EA Report and submit for 30-day public comment period
PIE CONTACT INFORMATION
Mae Lee, City of Toronto
Telephone: (416) 392-8210
Tty: (416) 338-0889
Fax: (416) 392-2974
Email: mae.lee@toronto.ca
Email your comments by Nov. 10th, 2017