Region of Durham Basement Flooding Prevention Study. Public Information Centre #2

Transcription

1 Region of Durham Basement Flooding Prevention Study Public Information Centre #2 October 27, 2009

2 Welcome Today is an opportunity for you to hear about and offer input on the Annes Street Basement Flooding Prevention Study that was initiated by the Region of Durham in the spring The study team is now at the point where input from stakeholders has been received about the existing issues, and computer modeling and analysis have been completed. Tonight, you will hear about the package of solutions that are being considered. Please let us know what you think. This Public Open House Booklet will help you to navigate the evening s activities. Project Team Contacts Alfred Ho, P. Eng, Project Manager The Regional Municipality of Durham ext alfred.ho@durham.ca Phil Gray, P. Eng., Project Manager XCG Consultants Ltd ext. 232 philg@xcg.com Agenda for October 27, 2009 The Regional Municipality of Durham Headquarters, Room 1G. 605 Rossland Rd. E, Whitby, ON 6:00 p.m. Sign In, Review Poster Boards 6:15 p.m. Introduction/study presentation 6:45 p.m. Questions and answers 7:30 p.m. Next steps 8:00 p.m. Adjourn Thank you for your time and input! Please take time to fill in the attached questionnaire and a meeting evaluation. Page 2

3 Why? Region of Durham Basement Flooding Prevention Study Project information There was significant surface and basement flooding at various locations in the Annes Street Sewershed during a number of heavy rain events, including the years 1986, 2005 and What is the study area? Page 3

4 What is being considered? Once the issues were identified by the community and the study team, a number of options were identified to address them including: Source control measures (at the individual property level); Conveyance control measures (within the sanitary sewer system); Storage Facilities. Decision-making criteria: In order to identify the solution(s) that are the best fit for the study area, a number of decision-making criteria were used. Please let the study team know if you have any feedback related to these criteria, how they are described, or how they were used to make the preliminary recommendation presented. Evaluation Criteria Comparative Criteria Terrestrial System Aquatic System Community Impact Description Natural Environment Criteria Potential to impact terrestrial habitats or systems, including terrestrial features/functions (Areas of Natural and Scientific interest - ANSIs, Environmentally Sensitive Areas - ESAs), unique vegetation species, mature trees, existing park/open spaces linkages or wildlife. Potential to impact aquatic habitats or systems, including possible impacts on aquatic life, features/functions. Social/Cultural Environment Potential to impact the community either during construction or long-term operation, including: short-term construction impacts such as noise, emissions, traffic congestion consideration for access to the site, visibility, road access, use/loss of valley lands/parks, possible noise/odour / light due to operations requirement for access to private property to implement, effects on school, community or social service facilities, tourism, etc. Measures for Evaluating Does not impact (+) Has comparatively small impact (O) Has comparatively large impact (-) Does not impact (+) Has comparatively small impact (O) Has comparatively large impact (-) Does not impact (+) Has comparatively small impact (O) Has comparatively large impact (-) Page 4

5 Evaluation Criteria Comparative Criteria Land Use Compatibility Description The extent to which the control measure is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and regulatory requirements. Measures for Evaluating Demonstrates good compatibility (+) Demonstrates fair compatibility (O) Demonstrates poor compatibility (-) Implementation The time required to complete design and construction of project elements Cultural Impact Impacts on any local cultural facilities or practices. Potential to affect First Nations Lands such as areas of traditional use, or of sacred or cultural and natural heritage significance. Effectiveness of Control Measure Feasibility of Control Measure Downstream Impacts on Downstream Trunk Sewers / Treatment Facilities / Receiving Water Capital Cost Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Cost Technical Considerations Effectiveness of the alternative to reduce the risk of basement flooding from the sanitary system in the study area. The extent to which the alternative is feasible in terms of availability of space, accessibility, ease of construction,, disruption of utilities, life cycle (durability), construction requirements and minimizing impacts such as upstream flooding. The negative impacts of the alternative in increasing the peak flow rate and total flow in the downstream receiving water system. Cost Considerations The capital cost associated with the construction of the alternative including labour, material, equipment and possibly property acquisition. Post-construction operation and maintenance activities associated with various mitigation measures including regulation inspection, grass cutting/weed control, performance monitoring, sediment/ trash removal and other operational requirements. Shortest implementation period (+) Mid-implementation period (O) Longest implementation period (-) Does not impact (+) Has comparatively small impact (O) Has comparatively large impact (-) Effective in achieving stated requirements (+) Slightly effective (O) Minimal or no effectiveness (-) Feasible in terms of stated considerations (+) Partially feasible (O) Not feasible (-) Does not have an impact (+) Comparatively minor impact (O) Significant impact (-) Capital cost is lowest (+) Capital cost is medium (O) Capital cost is highest (-) O&M cost is lowest (+) O&M cost is medium (O) O&M cost is highest (-) Page 5

6 Please Get Involved Any additional comments should be forwarded by November 6, Comments received will be compiled and summarized in the project documentation. Copies of the presentation and posterboards from tonight s meeting will soon be available on the Region s website at: or by request from the project contacts listed. Thank you for your participation today! We hope that you will continue to contribute as this project moves to completion. Page 6

7 Notes: Region of Durham Basement Flooding Prevention Study Page 7

8 Tear-off Comment Sheet Please return this sheet to a project team member before you leave, or you can mail it in later if you prefer. (Optional information) Name Street Address Phone number Note: Any information added to these comment sheets will be accessible to the general public. By providing comments hereto, you are hereby consenting to the disclosure of your name and comments as part of the public record of consultation for this project. Tonight we heard about the issues that were identified, the possible solutions that were identified, how they were evaluated, and a preliminary recommendation for your neighbourhood. 1. Do you have any comments about the evaluation criteria? Additions, deletions, modifications, clarifications? Page 8

9 Do any comments about the preliminary recommendations? Are you in support? Please explain. Do you have other comments or questions that you feel need to be responded to before the recommendations are finalized? Do you need any additional information? Page 9

10 Evaluation Form (Please return this form to a project team member) Today s event was the second of two public information centres for the Annes Street Sewershed Basement Flooding Prevention Study. We would appreciate any comments you have that could help to improve future meetings. What did you like most about today? What should we improve? Do you have any other ideas about this process? Thank you for your thoughts! Page 10