CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 0 4 PROJECT … Falls WTP Raw... · 2013-12-13 · Maintain...

DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class

Environmental Assessment

Project File

Regional Municipality of Niagara

December 2013

DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment Project File Regional Municipality of Niagara

Issue and Revision Record

Rev Date Originator

Checker

Approver

Description

00 10/25/2013 G. Harris W. Andrews W. Andrews Draft – For Region’s Review

01 11/29/2013 G. Harris W. Andrews W. Andrews Final – Issued For Public Comment

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authorization of Hatch Mott MacDonald being obtained. Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm their agreement to indemnify Hatch Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether through contract or tort, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Hatch Mott MacDonald and used by Hatch Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.

Regional Municipality of Niagara DeCew Falls WTP Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class EA

Rev. 01 December 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Facilities ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Lake Gibson and Lake Moodie Intakes ........................................................................ 2 1.4 Agreement with Ontario Power Generation .................................................................. 2

2 PROJECT NEEDS ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Objective .......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Performance Requirements ......................................................................................... 3 2.3 Current and Future Demand for Water ......................................................................... 3 2.4 Problem and Opportunity Statement ............................................................................ 4

2.4.1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 4 2.4.2 Opportunity Statement .......................................................................................... 4

2.5 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 4 3 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................... 0

3.1 Class EA Procedures ................................................................................................... 0 3.2 Public Consultation ...................................................................................................... 1

4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................ 3 4.1 Decision Making Process ............................................................................................. 3 4.2 Long List of Alternative Solutions ................................................................................. 3 4.3 Screening Criteria ........................................................................................................ 5 4.4 Evaluation Criteria........................................................................................................ 7 4.5 Scoring ........................................................................................................................ 7

5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION .......................................................................34 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................34 5.2 Public Notification and Consultation ............................................................................34 5.3 Agency Notification and Consultation ..........................................................................44 5.4 First Nations Consultation ...........................................................................................44

6 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SOLUTIONS ............................................................45 6.1 Archaeological Impacts ...............................................................................................45 6.2 Natural Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................45 6.3 Cultural Heritage Assessment .....................................................................................46 6.4 Socio-Economic Impacts.............................................................................................46

7 IMPLEMENTATION ..........................................................................................................47 7.1 Approvals Process ......................................................................................................47 7.2 Commitments and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................47 7.3 Class Environmental Assessment Requirements ........................................................47 7.4 Notice of Completion ...................................................................................................48 7.5 Objections to the Project .............................................................................................48 7.6 Agency Approvals .......................................................................................................49



LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2 – Screening of Long List of Alternatives Table 3 – ‘Primary’ Evaluation Criteria Table 4 – ‘Secondary’ Evaluation Criteria Table 5 – ‘Primary’ Evaluation of Alternatives Table 6 – ‘Secondary’ Evaluation of Alternatives Table 7 – Evaluation Summary Table 8 – Publication of Notices Table 9 – Public Information Centre #1 Comments and Responses Table 10 – Public Information Centre #2 Comments and Responses

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - DECEW FALLS WTP RAW WATER SUPPLY CLASS EA STUDY AREA FIGURE 2 - CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CLASS EA) PROCEDURE,

DEVELOPED BY THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION (MEA) OCTOBER 2000, AS AMENDED IN 2007 & 2011

APPENDICIES APPENDIX A – Evaluation of Alternatives APPENDIX B – Agency and First Nations Correspondence APPENDIX C – Resident Correspondence APPENDIX D – Public Information Centres APPENDIX E – Technical and Environmental Reports


Page 1


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is owned and operated by the Regional Municipality of Niagara. It provides potable water to the City of St. Catharines, and parts of the City of Thorold, Town of Lincoln and Town of Niagara on the Lake. The WTP is supplied by raw water from Lake Erie via the Welland Canal. An intake on the west side of the Welland Canal is operated to convey raw water along a 5.3 kilometre intake channel through a series of three reservoirs and on to the WTP. There is an alternative supply via an intake at the Lake Gibson Dam which can provide water to the WTP during periods of maintenance on the intake channel. The intake channel also supplies water to Lake Gibson and ultimately to the DeCew Falls Power Generating Stations. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) leases a portion of the intake channel from Niagara Region and as part of the lease agreement, OPG is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the intake channel, Lake Gibson intake and associated structures and is currently completing urgent repairs required along the waterworks intake channel to protect the dam and levee structures as well as the raw water supply. OPG is therefore jointly promoting this Class Environmental Assessment with Niagara Region.

1.2 Existing Facilities

The existing facilities are shown in Figure 1 and are described below. The DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is located on DeCew Road, approximately 2 kilometres west of Highway 406 in the City of St. Catharines. The WTP services the City of St. Catharines, Thorold (excluding Port Robinson), the Town of Niagara-on-the Lake and the Vineland/Jordon areas of the Town of Lincoln. Due to the location of the WTP on the top of the Niagara Escarpment, the water supply system has the advantage of being able to service the majority of the service area by gravity flow without the need for high lift pumping. The DeCew Falls WTP raw water source originates from Lake Erie via the Welland Canal. Near Regional Road 20, a raw water intake on the west side of the Welland Canal (Allanburg Intake) is operated to convey raw water along the intake channel, through an outfall to a series of three reservoirs (upper, middle and lower) for settling out sediment and for temporary storage. The intake channel is a man-made open conveyance system that was constructed in the early 1900s. Approximately 1.4 km along the intake channel, there is a weir which diverts a portion of the flow to Lake Gibson (known as the Measuring Weir). There is a second weir approximately 4.1 km along the intake channel (known as the Diversion Weir) which also diverts flow from the channel to Lake Gibson, albeit a smaller volume than what is diverted at the Measuring Weir. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) owns the 1.4 km section of the intake channel from the Allanburg intake to the Measuring Weir. The Region owns the remaining 3.9 km section of the intake channel from the Measuring Weir to the upper reservoir. The upper reservoir is the smallest of the three reservoirs and functions as a cushion to dissipate the kinetic energy of the incoming water from the intake channel. The middle reservoir is the largest of the reservoirs and due to the reduced velocity, is where the majority of sediments settle out. Water enters the lower reservoir through a control inlet structure, flows to


Page 2


the intake building and is pumped to the DeCew Falls WTP. When the middle reservoir is full, water flows over a side weir into a spillway channel which discharges water to the Twelve Mile Creek. The DeCew Falls WTP consists of three separate treatment facilities referred to as Plant 1, Plant 2 and Plant 3. Plant 1 was constructed in 1925 – 1926. Plant 2 was constructed during the 1954-1956 period and Plant 3 was built between 1974 and 1977. It is a conventional treatment plant with the process consisting of pre-sedimentation, screening, pre-chlorination, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and rapid gravity filtration and disinfection. The current rated capacity of the WTP is 227.3 million litres per day (MLD).

1.3 Lake Gibson and Lake Moodie Intakes

The Region has an alternate intake located in Lake Gibson. This intake is included in the DeCew Falls WTP’s Permit to Take Water and is intended to provide an alternate/back up supply in the event the main source is unavailable (i.e. if maintenance work is required in the intake channel). However, the raw water piping associated with the Lake Gibson intake is routed through the earth embankment dam at Lake Gibson and OPG has determined that the intake cannot be operated due to dam safety concerns. There is a second intake in Lake Moodie which historically had the ability to feed the lower reservoir. However, the intake has not been used for many years and its condition/operability is unknown. The Region has made several attempts to verify the condition/operability of this intake without success. The Lake Moodie intake is not included in the current Permit to Take Water.

1.4 Agreement with Ontario Power Generation

In 1903, an agreement governing the use of the channel was reached between the Hamilton Cataract Power, Light and Traction Company Limited and the Water Works Commission of the City of St. Catharines and the Corporation of the City of St. Catharines. The 1903 agreement continues to be binding on the Region of Niagara as successor in interest to the Water Works Commission, and on OPG as the successor in interest to Hamilton Cataract Power. In accordance with the 1903 agreement, OPG is required to:

Supply at least 60 cfs (147 MLD) of raw water to Niagara Region and if additional raw water capacity is required, any “such additional quantity of water as shall be required”;

Maintain both the intake channel and the alternative supply valve works from Lake Gibson;

Maintain the slough drains under the intake channel which divert overland drainage from the intake channel into Lake Gibson; and

Provide the Niagara Region with an alternative water source from Lake Gibson.


Page 3


2 PROJECT NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2.1 Project Objective

The intent of this project is to review alternate solutions and identify a solution for the provision of two cost effective, long-term (100 year), reliable and safe raw water supplies to the DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant. Accordingly the Regional Municipality of Niagara has initiated a Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment to investigate the raw water supply alternatives for the DeCew Falls WTP.

2.2 Performance Requirements

The following performance requirements have been identified by the Project Team as key attributes of the preferred option. These requirements will be used as a basis for setting the criteria for evaluating the various raw water supply alternatives and identifying the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative should:

Provide a reliable, long-term (100 year) and safe primary raw water supply for the WTP that is sufficient to meet current and future demands (144.5 MLD –Build Out maximum daily demand);

Provide a reliable and safe alternate raw water supply for the WTP;

Provide operational flexibility such that either the primary or alternate raw water supplies can be utilized as the main source of supply to the WTP at any given time to suit operational requirements;

Have no negative impact to the flow through the spillway, Twelve Mile Creek, surrounding environment, neighbouring landowners, etc.;

Have a low impact potential to surrounding dam structures; and

Be able to be constructed without impacting the Region’s ability to supply water to its customers.

2.3 Current and Future Demand for Water

Raw water supply systems are typically designed for a 50-100 year design life, and it is important to consider a planning horizon suitably far into the future such that constraints are not introduced. The Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan for the Niagara Region was completed in 2011 and forecasts water demand to the 2031 planning horizon. The Master Plan concludes the following about the DeCew service area: Residential and employment growth is projected across this area, with additional growth possible under a build-out scenario. A ten percent increase in the maximum demand is forecast over the planning period, with maximum daily demands projected to increase from 113 MLD in 2011 to 124 MLD by 2031.

The ‘build-out’ scenario maximum daily demand is estimated to be 144.5 MLD.

The DeCew Falls WTP has a rated capacity of 227 MLD which is sufficient to satisfy both the 2031 max day demand and the ‘build out’ maximum daily demand scenarios.

Storage and pumping station capacities within the Regional system are projected to be sufficient for 2031demands.

In addition to the projected treated water demands, the following must be incorporated into the projected raw water supply requirements for the DeCew Falls WTP:


Page 4


Niagara Region is required to maintain water flow to the Twelve Mile Creek/Morning Star Mill at a minimum rate of 9.8 MLD under non-emergency conditions.

DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Annual Summary Reports (2009 through 2012) prepared by Niagara Region indicate that there was an average difference of 15.2% between the raw water and treated water volumes. These values represent the ‘in plant’ water usage (i.e., backwash water, filter-to-waste, etc.) that will be required to be supplied by the raw water system in addition to the treated water system demands. For the purposes of this study, ‘in plant’ usage will be calculated as 16% of the projected treated water demands, with a maximum day ‘build out’ requirement of 23.1 MLD (144.45 MLD x 16%).

For the purposes of this Class Environmental Assessment, it is recommended that the ‘build-out’ scenario maximum daily demand of 177.4MLD be considered as the minimum system demand that all raw water supply options must be able to meet and therefore will be set as a base performance requirement. The ‘build-out’ scenario demand is the demand that would be experienced if all areas that are zoned for development are built on within the existing urban boundary. This does not allow for growth outside the urban boundary, or additional demand if in the future Niagara Region wanted to restructure the water distribution system and increase the service area for the DeCew Falls WTP. Because both the rated capacity of the DeCew Falls WTP, and the Permit To Take Water limit, are higher than the projected ‘build-out’ demand (227 MLD) it would be beneficial to Niagara Region to have a raw water supply that is capable of delivering flows up to the rated WTP capacity. The ability of the various raw water supply options to provide flows above the 177.4 MLD ‘build-out’ demand will be considered during the detailed evaluation.

2.4 Problem and Opportunity Statement

2.4.1 Problem Statement

The intake channel is in poor condition: there may be drainage and seepage into the channel from the surrounding agricultural land, leakage from the channel, areas where the channel is being undermined by rodent activity and heavy vegetation growth. Significant repair work is required to bring the channel back into satisfactory condition it is likely that on-going maintenance and repair at an increasing rate will be required.

2.4.2 Opportunity Statement

This provides an opportunity to determine whether investing in the on-going maintenance and repair of the intake channel and associated structures is the best way to proceed, or whether there are other raw water supply alternatives that will provide a cost effective, long-term, reliable and safe primary raw water supply to the DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant, as well as an alternative raw water supply that can be used to provide raw water to the WTP during periods of outage in the main supply.

2.5 Study Area

The study area for this project is defined as the area close to the existing intake channel, Lake Gibson, Lake Moodie, and associated existing raw water supply infrastructure that will be impacted by this project. The northern boundary of the study area runs along the top of Lake Moodie, along DeCew Road to the Welland Canal. The study area is bounded to the east by


Page 5


the Welland Canal and the south and west by the Intake Channel. A 100m buffer has been drawn around these boundaries and all property owners within (or contacting) this buffer will receive formal notification of the project commencement. A number of the alternatives may involve investigation outside the study area, for example the possibility of developing new water supplies from Lake Ontario, Lake Erie or a different surface water source.

Figure 1 - DeCew Falls WTP Raw Water Supply Class EA Study Area

DeCew Falls WTP

Ex. Waterworks

Channel

Lake Gibson

Hw

y 4

06


Page 0


3 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.1 Class EA Procedures

The Class EA is a planning process to ensure that potential social, economic and natural environment effects are considered and, where possible, mitigated during the planning of municipal projects. Under the Class EA process input and approval is solicited from regulatory agencies, the municipality and the public. By following the Class EA, the process leads to an evaluation of alternative solutions to the problem considering the significance of environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures that could be implemented. Under the Class EA guidelines, a proponent following the approved process has complied with Section 13(3)(a) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The Class EA process approves municipal projects, which can be characterized as being operational in nature as Schedule A: approved. The process also approves municipal projects, which, in general, have insignificant effects upon the environment as Schedule B: approved with screening. Other projects, having larger, but predictable impacts upon the environment, are subject to the full Class Environmental Assessment process (Schedule C) and involve the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR). This project is being completed as a Schedule B Class EA. For a detailed summary of the planning and design aspects covered by the MEA Class EA process, please refer to the previously referenced MEA document entitled “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment”, MEA, October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011. The steps included in the Class EA, which are required by the Environmental Assessment Act, have been subdivided into five phases of activity, each of which is summarized below: Phase 1 is to identify the problem (deficiencies) or opportunity. Under the EA Act, it is necessary to document the factors, which lead to the conclusion that a given project is needed.

Phase 2 is the identification of alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity, bearing in mind the environmental considerations, and establishing the preferred solution taking into account public and review agency input. The planning phase outlined in Phase 2 will lead the proponent to the conclusion that the project is: approved subject to screening; subject to the full five phase Class EA planning process or, that it is subject to an Individual EA.

Phase 3 involves examining alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution, taking into consideration environmental effects, public and review agency input, and methods of minimizing negative impacts and maximizing positive impacts

Phase 4 is the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR). The ESR documents the rationale behind the project, and the planning, design and consultation process of the project, as established through the above Phases. The ESR is then made available for scrutiny by review agencies and the public.

Phase 5 is the completion of contract drawings and documents, and the proceeding to construction and operation, including monitoring of construction for adherence to


Page 1


environmental provisions and commitments. Where special conditions dictate, Phase 5 also includes monitoring the operation of the completed facilities.

A flow chart of the Class EA process is presented in Figure 2. The proponent is required to undertake Phase 1 and part of Phase 2 up to the determination of the project schedule, if the undertaking is a Schedule A. For Schedule B projects, the proponent is required to complete Phases 1 and 2. For a Schedule C project, the proponent must undertake all five phases of the process.

3.2 Public Consultation

An effective public consultation program can generate meaningful dialogue between the project planners and the public, allowing for an exchange of ideas and the broadening of the information base. This, in turn, results in better decision making. One of the principle goals of the public consultation program therefore, is to achieve resolution of differences and points of view, thus reducing or avoiding controversy and ultimately, hopefully avoiding the use of the Part II Order procedures. For Schedule A projects (approved), no formal contact with the public is required. For Schedule B projects (approved with screening), a minimum of two contact points are required. One is Notice of Study Commencement during Phase 2 of the Class EA process and the second is the Notice of Completion. For Schedule C projects, there is a minimum of three required contact points during the planning process. One is during Phase 2 of the Class EA process, the second is during Phase 3 and the third is at the end of Phase 4, upon filing the ESR in the public record.

Regional Municipality of Niagara DeCew Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class EA

Page 2

Rev. 01 November 2013

Figure 2 - Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) procedure, developed by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011


Page 3


4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION PROCESS

4.1 Decision Making Process

The following figure provides an overview of the decision making process that was utilized for this Class EA:

The two-step process ensures that all potential solutions are given equal consideration and allows for early elimination of alternatives that have little chance of becoming a viable solution. Only the solution(s) that meet all of the screening criteria were carried forward for the detailed evaluation. A set of screening criteria was required to screen the Long List of Alternative Solutions and agree to the short list of options that were taken forward for detailed evaluation. The project required that a primary water supply and an alternate water supply be identified. It was expected that both the primary water supply and alternate water supply alternatives will be taken from the short list of alternatives.

4.2 Long List of Alternative Solutions

The Long List of Alternative Solutions developed for this project is presented in Table 1 below. Visual representation of these alignments are included in the documents presented during Public Information Centre #1 and can be found in Appendix D.

Table 1: Long List of Alternatives Options Description

1 Do Nothing This option includes no change to the existing raw water system and no maintenance/repair to the existing intake channel and associated structures.

Develop Long List of Options

Develop and Apply Screening Criteria

Select Short List of Options

Evaluate Short List of Options

Consult with Review Agencies, Public, and First Nations

Confirm Preferred Option

Screening

Evaluation


Page 4


Options Description

2 Maintain/improve the existing intake system

This alterative includes no significant change to the configuration/operation of the existing water supply system other than the ongoing repair and maintenance of the intake channel, Lake Gibson intake, slough drains and associated structures.

3a Enclose the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar

This option involves the full enclosure of the intake channel by a box culvert or similar structure.

This was the Primary option that was recommended in the 2004 EA study when source water protection was the main driver. This solution was not implemented due to concerns regarding the implementation.

3b Enclose selected sections of the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar

This option involves the enclosure of the intake channel by a box culvert or similar structure, in selected sections only.

3c Replace intake channel with raw water pipe running along the route of the channel

This option involves the intake channel being replaced by a raw water pipe following the same route as the intake channel.

3d Replace intake channel with raw water pipe along selected sections of the channel

This option involves the intake channel being replaced by a raw water pipe in selected sections along the route of the intake channel.

4 New raw water pipe along DeCew Road

This option involves the construction of a new raw water (buried) pipe from the Welland Canal to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) along DeCew Road and will include a new intake in the Welland Canal

5 Lake Gibson Intake This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Gibson to the WTP.

A new intake in Lake Gibson could be routed around the earth embankment dam which would address the dam safety concerns associated with the operation of the existing Lake Gibson intake.

The intake would continue to supply water to the upper reservoir.

6a Lake Moodie Intake This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Moodie to the WTP.

The existing Lake Moodie intake is not in use and the condition/reliability of the intake is unknown.

New intake constructed from the WTP to Lake Moodie in the area of the existing (not functional) intake structure. Work would be generally confined to the existing road allowance along DeCew Road for outlet to the Middle Reservoir to maintain flow to Twelve Mile Creek.


Page 5


Options Description

6b Lake Moodie Intake This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Moodie to the WTP.

The existing Lake Moodie intake is not in use and the condition/reliability of the intake is unknown.

New intake constructed from the WTP to Lake Moodie routed along DeCew Road then will follow the existing dike (generally southeast) prior to entering Lake Moodie south of the existing intake structure. Work would be generally confined to the existing road allowance along DeCew Road for outlet to the Middle Reservoir to maintain flow to Twelve Mile Creek.

7 New raw water supply from Lake Ontario

This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Ontario.

This option would likely require significant changes to the existing water system and would require water to be pumped from Lake Ontario to the WTP.

Watermain routing would present significant challenges.

8 New raw water supply from the Welland Recreational Canal

This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from the Welland Recreational Canal

This option may require significant changes to the existing water system.

Watermain routing may present significant challenges.

4.3 Screening Criteria

The following screening criteria will be applied to the long list of alternatives to identify the alternatives which will be taken forward to the shortlist for more detailed evaluation. The shortlist will comprise alternatives which:

Meet the problem statement and performance requirements;

Technically, economically, environmentally, and socially practical; and,

Consistent with current public policies and legislation. The alternatives which are not being taken forward to the short list, are not considered eliminated as options, and will be reconsidered if an alternative in the short list of options does not pass the evaluation criteria.

Table 2: Screening of Long List of Alternatives

Options

Screening Criteria

Meets the problem statement and performance requirements

Technically, economically, environmentally, and socially practical

Consistent with current public policies and legislation

1 Do Nothing


Page 6


Options

Screening Criteria




2 Maintain/improve the existing intake system

3a Enclose the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar.

3b

Enclose sections of the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar.

3c

Replace intake channel with raw water pipe running along the route of the channel

3d Improve/Upgrade channel with other features

4 New raw water pipe along DeCew Road

5 Lake Gibson Intake

6a Lake Moodie Intake

6b Lake Moodie Intake

7 New raw water supply from Lake Ontario

This option requires

>12km of piping. High economic and social

cost. Technical requirements for this design are also high.


Page 7


Options

Screening Criteria




8 New raw water supply from the Welland Recreational Canal

This option requires

>12km of a new gravity pipeline. High economic and social

cost.

4.4 Evaluation Criteria

An agreed set of criteria were used to evaluate the pros and cons of each of the shortlisted options and identify the preferred option(s). To help in the scoring of options, the attributes of each criterion were defined as far as possible in service or output-oriented terms which will relate to the project objective and performance criteria. Care was needed to ensure that there was no double counting caused by an overlap in the attributes (e.g. aesthetic qualities and attractiveness), that there was no double counting caused by attributes being covered by costs (e.g. including a 'reliability' attribute when reliability was already provided for by inclusion of maintenance costs) and that all relevant attributes are included, even if they are common to all the options.

For this project, the evaluation criteria will be guided by the agreed project objective as defined in Section 2.1 above and the set of performance criteria listed in Section 2.2 above. The suggested criteria are presented in Table 3 below. The evaluation criteria presented in Table 3 was used to identify the preferred primary water supply option. A secondary evaluation was then undertaken to identify the best secondary water supply option, which when combined with the primary water supply option, will provide the best overall performance. The secondary evaluation requirements are outlined in Table 4.

4.5 Scoring

A weighted scoring method is typically used for evaluating the preferred option in Class EA studies such as this. The weighted scoring method is a form of multi-criterion analysis and involves identification of all the attributes that are relevant to the project, the allocation of weights to each of them to reflect their relative importance, and the allocation of scores to each option to reflect how it performs in relation to each criterion. The result is a single weighted score for each option, which may be used to indicate and compare the overall performance of the options in non-monetary terms. The preferred ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ water supply will be the alternatives that receive the highest score in their corresponding evaluations.


Page 8


Table 3: ‘Primary’ Evaluation Criteria

Factors & Criteria Rationale Attributes

1.0 Technical (40% of Total Score)

Reliability of Supply (Quantity)

(20%)

The preferred option needs to reliably supply (as a minimum) the current ‘build out’ maximum daily demand for water identified by the 2011 Master Plan (144.5 MLD), Twelve Mile Creek requirements (9.8 MLD) and 'in plant' usage (23.1MLD).

Extent of required water supply provided by the option. Potential for failure of infrastructure.

Safety of Supply (Quality)

(20%)

There is a risk of contamination of the raw water supply – options that provide better protection will be considered more reliable.

Potential risk to the source water from contamination:

sources of contamination.

estimate of time for contaminant to reach WTP.

operational flexibility to respond to contamination.

Clean Water Act Vulnerability Score considerations including: Great Lakes vs. connecting channel source, land characteristics (land-cover, slope) proximity to transport pathways (outfalls, watercourses, drains, etc.), depth of potential intake, distance from land, historical water quality.

Scalability and Flexibility

(15%)

The current WTP capacity is 227 MLD and the Permit To Take Water limit is also 227 MLD. Options that can provide raw water flows greater than 177.4 MLD (144.5 + 9.8 MLD), and ideally up to 227 MLD, will be considered preferable.

Scalability of the option (ability to provide additional capacity).

Constructability (7.5%)

The easier it is to implement an option (design, approvals, construction and integration), the greater the advantage of the option.

Ability to maintain water supply during construction. Permit Requirements Water course crossings, potential impact to local water users, dam safety, dewatering requirements, etc.


Page 9



Integration into Existing System

(7.5%)

The easier it is to integrate into the existing water system (water supply, treatment and distribution) the greater the advantage of the option.

Additional infrastructure, new plant or expansions or modifications required to implement the option.

Operation and Maintenance

(17.5%)

The easier it is to operate and maintain the option, the greater the advantage.

Potential system operation modifications. Potential maintenance requirements. Pumping or gravity operation.

Impact to Surrounding Dam

Structures (12.5%)

Impact to the existing dam structures needs to be minimized to ensure dam safety.

Potential of option to impact dam structures.

2.0 Natural Environment (20% of Total Score)

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat

(30%)

Potential that aquatic habitat could be negatively affected by an option (e.g., direct or indirect loss of aquatic communities, direct or indirect loss of aquatic habitats and functions, encroachment on wetland ecosystems, adverse effects on significant flora and fauna communities, adverse effects on rare, threatened, endangered or local concern species and etc.)

Potential impacts to aquatic habitat and fisheries (loss or alterations).

Surface Water Impacts (15%)

Flows over the spillway in the middle reservoir to Twelve Mile Creek need to be maintained for the downstream water users. Surface runoff from adjacent users will need to be maintained including slough drains.

Potential of option to impact (reduce) flows to Twelve Mile Creek and DeCew Falls. Potential impacts related to inadequate surface runoff from adjacent lands.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Area of Natural &

Scientific Interest,

Environmental Protection and/or

Conservation Areas, Species at

Risk (35%)

Any work or construction work planned in areas which have been designated, or any change to the operation of the raw water supply which has the potential to adversely impact a protected species or habitat, will make obtaining the required permits more difficult and could introduce constraints into the operation and maintenance of raw water supply.

Planned construction work, operation in a protected area. Potential for species at risk within the study area to be impacted by the construction/operation of the raw water supply.


Page 10



Erosion Impacts (10%)

Existing waterways could be impacted if the flow regimes are changed, or left unaltered, thereby impacting erosion potential.

Potential to impact erosion along existing/proposed waterways.

Groundwater and Geology Impacts

(10%)

Proposed works may have an impact on groundwater which may adversely impact existing structures or existing well supplies.

Potential impact to local well supplies, existing structures.

3.0 Social Environment (20% of Total Score)

Built Heritage and

Archaeological Features

(25%)

Potential impacts to built heritage and archaeological features due to construction, operation and maintenance activities need to be minimized.

Potential impact to heritage and archaeological features.

Conformance with Provincial,

Regional, Municipal, and

Source Protection Plans and/or Policies

(25%)

The option must comply with Local, Regional and Municipal Plans or Policies. It will likely be harder to obtain approval for options which deviate from these plans/policies.

Potential deviation from Local, Regional and Municipal Plans and Policies.

Potential Impacts on Local

Community and Recreational

Users (25%)

Community effects occur when any of the following factors are compromised:

Access to property or public space

Transportation Visual impact

Potential impact (major, moderate or minor) associated with the number of community factors compromised.

Potential Impacts Relating to

Vandalism and Public Safety

(25%)

Potential for residents to be injured, or to vandalize infrastructure should be minimized.

Potential for surrounding residents or recreational users to be injured or exposed to potentially unsafe conditions by the associated alternative. Potential for individuals to vandalize infrastructure which may include physical damage or aesthetic impacts.


Page 11



4.0 Economic/ Financial (20% of Total Score)

Estimated Cost of Option (Capital,

Operating and Life Cycle)

Solution must be cost effective from both a capital (initial) and life cycle (operation and maintenance) cost basis.

Net Present Value and Return on Investment Analysis considering Capital and Operating/Life Cycle Costs. Lifecycle cost to be calculated over a 100 year period. Decommissioning/maintenance of water works channel, if required, to be considered.

Table 4: 'Secondary' Evaluation Criteria


Water Supplied from a Different Water Body/Source (Pass/Fail)

The preferred secondary option needs to provide water from a source that can be considered "separate" or "different" from the preferred alternative.

Provides an effective secondary source of water that provides Operations Staff the capability to react to potential water quality incidents through operational changes and/or travel time.

Maintenance of Infrastructure (7.5%)

Provides an efficiently maintainable system with consideration to existing infrastructure.

Provides efficient use of existing infrastructure. Does not require maintenance of existing infrastructure that does not form part of the water works supply system.

Contamination Potential and Operational Compatibility (7.5%)

Provide optimal security and flexibility for the operation of the water supply system and reduce risks from contamination events.

Provides Operations with flexibility in controlling and mitigating contamination events in conjunction with the primary alternative. Provides operational compatibility with the primary alternative.

Total Combined Cost of Primary and SecondaryOption (5%)

Provide the most cost effective solution when combined with the preferred preliminary alternative.

Lowest combined 100-year NPV cost (Primary + Secondary)


Page 12


Table 5 – ‘Primary‘ Evaluation of Alternatives


Page 13


Table 5 – ‘Primary‘ Evaluation of Alternatives (cont’d)


Page 14


Table 5 – ‘Primary‘ Evaluation of Alternatives (cont’d)


Page 15


Cost of combined scores are relative to the lowest combined score. Ie. the larger the difference in cost between Option 3d and the option being compared, resulted in a lower rating.

Table 6 – ‘Secondary ‘ Evaluation of Alternatives


Page 16


A summary of the evaluation is provided below; the detailed evaluation in provided in Appendix A. Option 2 – Maintain the Existing System Primary Evaluation Technical

Source water protection concerns identified remain applicable.

Currently there is limited time to respond to potential spills near Highway 406 and to implement mitigation measures.

Table 7 – Evaluation Summary


Page 17


This option presents a potential moderate to high risk to the existing dam structures. Recent works provide some protection, but ongoing monitoring and maintenance will be required. OPG is currently completing urgent repairs required along the waterworks intake channel to protect the dam and levee structures as well as the raw water supply. Initially it was planned to complete repairs in four (4) key areas. While these repair works were being completed, an additional location was identified as requiring immediate repair works. The repair works included the enclosing of specific sections of the waterworks with corrugated steel pipe and backfill.

A temporary intake would be required during all maintenance/construction works. It is also anticipated that the concerns relating to both dam safety and the integrity of the levees/dykes would increase over time.

Construction activities would be comparable to the works currently being undertaken by OPG. Existing Slough Drains would need to be maintained and/or replaced.

Natural Environment

As is currently being observed around levees and dams, there are erosion issues resulting in structural concerns. Additional areas of concern are anticipated to develop as time progresses.

Dewatering of the channel will be required for the maintenance/construction works. In addition, impacts to fish passage/habitat will be incurred due to installation of potential remedial works.

Construction works involving dewatering would require temporary fish relocation.

Refer to Appendix E – Natural Heritage Report (October 23, 2013) prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited for additional information.

Social Environment

Contained within the existing canal infrastructure and will only potentially impact three (3) cultural heritage resources. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.

Potential for impacts would be similar to existing conditions. There is a potential for vandalism at existing culvert/pipe repair locations. There is also a potential safety concern with the open channel and culvert locations, in particular Hwy 406 and the "Beaver Slide" (Discharge weir to the Upper Reservoir).

Economical/Financial

It is anticipated that works will be required on an ongoing basis specifically around the dams, levees and slough drains. OPG is currently completing urgent repairs required along the waterworks intake channel to protect the dam and levee structures as well as the raw water supply. Once these works are completed, approximately 550m of the waterworks channel will have had repairs at a cost of approximately $5.8 million. Current repairs were only required for be a 50 year solution and as such, the works completed to date will also need to be redone over the 100 year requirement.

Estimated Net Present Value (NPV) based on a 100 Year operations period is approx. $22,870,000.


Page 18


Secondary Evaluation Maintenance of Infrastructure

Utilizes the existing channel and associated infrastructure for raw water supply.

Does not require channel to be maintained independently of the raw water supply for other purposes.

Potentially higher maintenance requirements than fully or partially enclosed alternatives. Contamination and Potential Operational Compatibility

Provides an effective alternative raw water supply source to the Primary alternative (Welland Canal / Lake Moody).

Allow Operations to utilize the volume of Lake Gibson, Lake Moody and the existing Reservoirs as "buffers" in the event of a Welland Canal contamination event. Also allows for the Welland Canal to be utilized in the event of a Lake Gibson or Lake Moodie contamination event.

Higher potential for surface contamination than fully or partially enclosed alternatives. Total Combined Cost of Primary and Alternative Option

Secondary Alternative Cost: $14,610,000

PreferredPrimary Alternative Cost: $10,490.000

Total Combined Cost: $25,100,000

Option 2 is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative. Option 3a – Enclose the Existing Intake With A Box Culvert or Similar Primary Evaluation Technical

Able to supply system demands and Twelve Mile Creek flows.

Potentially low risk for failure of infrastructure.

Potential to reduce source water protection vulnerabilities through the elimination of direct runoff into the waterworks channel, in particular in the area of Highway 406.

Would not improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures.

The existing concrete culvert at the Highway 406 underpass may create a restriction for higher flows. Current flows are accommodated, but significantly higher flows may not be accommodated through the existing box culvert.

This option includes low to moderate risk for impact to existing dam structures. Maintenance and monitoring will be required for culverts installed in and around dam structures.

Natural Environment

These works would require to the entire channel to be fully enclosed with no light. These conditionals are negative in regards to fish passage.

Slough drainage will be consistent with the existing configuration. It is possible that the installation of culverts could raise the profile of the existing channel and in turn affect existing natural runoff from non-agricultural lands.


Page 19


Due to flow being confined to culvert it is not anticipated that any erosion problems should arise for the majority of the channel. Consideration for erosive potential at the culvert inlet and outlets will need to be considered and mitigated appropriately.


Social Environment

Contained within the existing canal infrastructure and will only potentially impact three (3) cultural heritage resources. These works have the potential to alter CHL3 and CHL8. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.

Low archaeological potential due to disturbed lands.

No significant alterations to current accessibility except during maintenance/construction activities.

Potential for visual impacts due to the elimination of the open water channel.

Channel is not considered to be "navigable"; however trails adjacent to the channel provides recreational opportunities for residents and could be maintained.

These works will be in conformance with most current plans and policies. The current source protection plans will need to be revised/updated.

There is a concern with the safety around inlet and outlet portions of the culvert. Safety measures should be considered during design to mitigate this issue.




Utilizes existing channel and associated infrastructure for raw water supply. Does not require channel to be maintained independently of the raw water supply for other purposes.

Potentially lower maintenance requirements than partially enclosed alternatives.

Maintenance of slough drains and property accessibility will continue to be issues. Contamination and Potential Operational Compatibility



Limited potential for surface contamination. Total Combined Cost of Primary and Alternative Option


Primary Alternative Cost: $10,490.000



Page 20


Option 3a is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative.

Option 3b – Enclose Selected Sections of the Existing Intake With A Box Culvert or

Similar Primary Evaluation Technical


Potentially moderate to high risk for failure of infrastructure due to portions of the existing channel remaining in service.

Potential to reduce source water protection vulnerabilities through the elimination of direct runoff into the waterworks channel, in particular in the area of Highway 406.


Culvert can designed to incorporate flexibility for future flow increases (i.e., increased culvert dimensions, etc.).

The existing concrete culvert at the Highway 406 underpass may create a restriction for higher flows. New pipe with sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows to be installed adjacent to or below existing culvert.

Raw water quality would effectively match existing conditions. It is not anticipated that any modifications would be required. Maintenance of the pipe is not anticipated to require significant effort.

This option includes low to moderate risk for impact to existing dam structures. Maintenance and monitoring will be required for pipes installed in and around dam structures.

Natural Environment


Due to flow being confined to culvert it is not anticipated that any erosion problems should arise in the areas with culverts installed.

Alterations to flow patterns from remediation works could result in additional erosion along the unprotected areas of the existing waterway.

It is not anticipated that there will be any impacts to existing structures or existing groundwater (well) supplies.

There is a potential for temporary disruption due to construction dewatering.


Social Environment

Contained within the existing canal infrastructure and will only potentially impact three (3) cultural heritage resources. These works have the potential to directly impact the rail bridge associated with CHL11 and alter CHL3 and CHL8. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.


Page 21



Potential for visual impacts due to the partial elimination of the open water channel.


The box culverts could be buried to reduce potential vandalism. If the culverts are not buried there would be an increased risk for vandalism.


There is a concern with the safety around inlet and outlets associated with the culverts. Additional safety measures should be considered during design to mitigate this issue.





Potentially higher maintenance requirements than fully enclosed alternatives.




Moderate potential for surface contamination. Total Combined Cost of Primary and Alternative Option




Option 3a is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative.


Page 22


Option 3c – Replace Intake Channel With Raw Water Pipe Running Along the Route of the Channel

Primary Evaluation Technical



Pipe can designed to incorporate flexibility for future flow increases (i.e., increased pipe diameter, etc.).

The existing concrete culvert at the Highway 406 underpass may create a restriction for higher flows. Current flows are accommodated, but significantly higher flows may not be accommodated through the existing box culvert.

A temporary intake would be required during all maintenance/construction works. It is also anticipated that the concerns relating to both dam safety and the integrity of the levees/dykes would increase over time.

Construction activities would be comparable to the works currently being undertaken by OPG. Existing Slough Drains would need to be maintained and/or replaced.


Natural Environment

Dewatering of the channel will be required for the maintenance/construction works. In addition, impacts to fish passage/habitat may be incurred due to installation of the pipe depending on the depth of installation.


Due to flow being confined to pipe it is not anticipated that any erosion problems should arise for the majority of the channel. Consideration for erosive potential at the pipe inlet and outlets will need to be considered and mitigated appropriately.




Social Environment


Potential for visual impacts due to the potential elimination of the open water channel (Dependent on depth of pipe).



Page 23


The pipes could be buried to reduce potential vandalism. If the pipes are not buried there would be an increased risk for vandalism.


There is a concern with the safety around inlets and outlets associated with the pipe sections. Safety measures should be considered during design to mitigate this issue.








Allow Operations to utilize the volume of Lake Gibson, Lake Moody and the ex. Reservoirs as "buffers" in the event of a Welland Canal contamination event. Also allows for the Welland Canal to be utilized in the event of a Lake Gibson or Lake Moodie contamination event.





Option 3c is being carried forward for the ‘secondary’ alternative. Option 3d – Replace Intake Channel With Raw Water Pipe Running Along Selected

Sections of the Channel Primary Evaluation Technical


Potentially moderate to high risk for failure of infrastructure due to portions of the existing channel remaining in service.

Potential to reduce source water protection vulnerabilities through the elimination of direct runoff into the waterworks channel for the enclosed areas, in particular the area adjacent to Highway 406.


Page 24



Pipe can designed to incorporate flexibility for future flow increases (i.e., increased pipe diameter, etc.).

The existing concrete culvert at the Highway 406 underpass may create a restriction for higher flows. New pipe with sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows to be installed adjacent to or below existing culvert.

A temporary intake would be required during all maintenance/construction works. Assuming proper maintenance it is not anticipated that any major impacts to water course crossings, local water users or dam safety would be observed.


Natural Environment

Dewatering of the channel will be required for the maintenance/construction works. In addition, impacts to fish passage/habitat may be incurred due to installation of the pipe depending on the depth of installation.

Flows to Twelve Mile Creek and DeCew Falls will be maintained as per the existing system configuration.

Slough drainage will be consistent with the existing configuration with the potential for implementation of surface drainage for the sloughs.

Due to flow being confined to pipe it is not anticipated that any erosion problems should arise in the areas with pipes installed.

Alterations to flow patterns from remediation works could result in additional erosion along the unprotected areas of the existing waterway.




Social Environment



Potential for visual impacts due to the potential elimination (partial) of the open water channel (Dependent on depth of pipe).


Sections of the pipes could be buried to reduce potential vandalism. If the pipes are not buried there would be an increased risk for vandalism.

These works will be in conformance with most current plans and policies. The current source protection plans will need to be revise/updated.


Page 25


There is a concern with the safety around inlets and outlets associated with the pipe sections. Safety measures should be considered during design to mitigate this issue.













Option 3d is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative. Option 4 – New Raw Water Pipe Along DeCew Road Primary Evaluation Technical



Potential to reduce source water protection vulnerabilities Compared to an open channelWould not improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures. Response time would be decreased if raw water is delivered directly to the WTP rather than the existing reservoirs. Operation of valves would be controlled by the Region and could be designed to include automation to increase reaction time.

Pipe can designed to incorporate flexibility for future flow increases (i.e., increased pipe diameter, etc.)

Intake pipe could be constructed with minimal impact to existing water supply.


Page 26


Numerous (4) major watercourse crossings will be required.

Route primarily utilizes existing R.O.W.'s, but land acquisition may be required in the area of the Welland Canal (New and Old).

Construction constraints would be applied within navigable waterways. It would be expected that all construction equipment be moved from the area when ships are passing.

Constructing a new intake will require coordination with The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC). Pre-consultation with SLSMC indicated that a new intake was feasible.

Minor modifications may be required for the operations of the plant to allow for water to be directed to either the WTP, reservoirs or both. Turbidity levels at the WTP may vary if the raw water is received directly at the WTP, as opposed to existing reservoirs.

Raw water would be similar to existing raw water. There may be the potential for changes in turbidity depending if the reservoirs are utilized. Design will include for water to enter either through the reservoirs (allow for settlement) or directly to the plant (no settlement). The operation of the water pipe along DeCew Road would be solely maintained and operated by the Region and would provide operational flexibility.

Maintenance in areas around intake would involve minor access restrictions due to shipping. When a ship is passing through canal, the work would have to stop and all equipment would have to be moved from the area until the ship has cleared.

Construction of new raw water pipe would be away from existing dam structures. Maintenance of existing works within close proximity of the dam/levees would have to be considered to ensure safety.

Natural Environment

Only short term, localized construction related impacts are anticipated. Mitigating measures and rehabilitation would be implemented to minimize any potential impacts. Watercourse crossings would be completed using trenchless technologies.

Flows to Twelve Mile Creek and DeCew Falls will be maintained through a connection of the raw water pipe to the existing reservoirs.

It is not anticipated that there will be any impacts related to erosion for this alternative.

Consideration for erosive potential at the intake and reservoir outlet to be considered during the design.





Page 27


Social Environment

Potential to impact twenty three (23) cultural heritage resources. Of the twenty three (23), works have the potential to directly impact seven (7) cultural heritages resources and the potential to alter sixteen (16) resources. Two (2) of these are cemeteries which should be avoided, and would require a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment to be completed. Works along this alignment would also require a Stage 2 assessment to be completed prior to construction. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.

These works will be in conformance with most current plans and policies. The current source protection plans will need to be revised as a new source will be utilized.

A new/amended PTTW will be required at this location and will require coordination with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management and MOE.

No significant visual impacts anticipated outside of short term construction activities.

Potential for short term impacts on the Welland Canal and adjacent water bodies may be significant.

Construction would occur within ROW but will also pass through an established community.

Potential for impacts to major navigation route (mitigating measures would be required).

There would be a requirement for easements or leases across federal and rail transit property.

Infrastructure would be buried and inaccessible by residents or recreational users reducing risk of vandalism and safety concerns. Associated chambers would be secured and would have minmal exposure for vandalism.

No significant safety concerns with the intake in the canal are foreseen. Economical/Financial

Initial investment for this option is high. It is anticipated that operation and maintenance costs will be relatively low and will include maintenance on the electronic actuators and SCADA updates. It is anticipated that the actuators will need to be replaced every 10 to 15 years.

To allow for the decommissioning and maintenance of the existing water works channel 20% of the projected annual maintenance and repair costs for Option 2 was used. This percentage was based on the assumption that the bottom portion (HWY 406 weir to slide) will be abandoned and repairs will be required to protect required levees and dams. It is also assumed that the works being completed to prevent transference of water between the slough drains and the canal will not be a security of supply concern and can be left as is to naturalize.



Does not utilize the existing channel as part of the raw water supply. Existing channel may need to be maintained for purposes other than raw water supply (i.e., fish habitat, recreational activities, drainage, etc.) and would present a long-term liability.


Page 28


Contamination and Potential Operational Compatibility


Allow Operations to utilize the volume of Lake Gibson, Lake Moody and the ex. Reservoirs as "buffers" in the event of a Welland Canal contamination event. Also allows for the Welland Canal to be utilized in the event of a Lake Gibson or Lake Moodie contamination event.

Limited potential for surface contamination.

Would require additional reporting to St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for Niagara Region. Total Combined Cost of Primary and Alternative Option




Option 4 is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative. Option 5 – Lake Gibson Intake Primary Evaluation Technical



Source water protection vulnerabilities currently identified for the existing Lake Gibson intake would continue to be applicable.

Would not improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures over the existing intake. Response time would be limited if raw water is delivered directly to the WTP rather than the existing reservoirs.

Previous studies and reports have indicated elevated levels of PCBs and heavy metals in the sediments. It has been confirmed by Public Health through testing that the water is safe to drink (following typical surface water treatment) as long as sediments are not disturbed. Additional education may be required to address any concerns the public may have. It should also be noted that the design of the intake structure will be such that the uplift or disturbance of sediments will be prevented.

Intake pipe could be constructed with minimal impact to existing water supply.

Intake would be located outside of the dam structure to eliminate dam safety concerns related to the intake operation.

The design of the intake would incorporate concerns relating to water quality and sediment, and construction mitigation measures for environmental impacts.

Raw water would be similar to existing raw water. There may be the potential for changes in turbidity, and associated treatment requirements, depending if the reservoirs are utilized. Design will include for water to enter either through the reservoirs (allow for additional settlement) or directly to the plant (no settlement).

Construction of new raw water pipe would be away from existing dam structures. Maintenance of existing works within close proximity of the dam/levees would have to be considered to ensure safety.


Page 29


Natural Environment


Critical fish habitat in lake that may be temporarily disrupted during construction works. Mitigation measures will be implemented.

It is not anticipated that there will be any impacts related to erosion for this alternative.

Consideration for erosive potential at the intake and reservoir outlet to be considered during the design.


Social Environment

Potential to impact seven (7) cultural heritage resources with the potential to directly impact one (1) resource and six (6) have the potential to be altered. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.

There is a potential of a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment to be required depending on the alignment of the intake pipe along the shoreline.

Infrastructure would be buried and inaccessible by residents or recreational users reducing risk of vandalism and safety concerns. Associated chambers would be secured and would have minimal exposure for vandalism.


No significant safety concerns with the intake in Lake Gibson are foreseen as recreational activities are not prominent in this area.





Secondary Evaluation Not applicable as the water would not be supplied from a difference source than the ‘primary’ alternative.

Option 5 is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative.


Page 30


Option 6a – Lake Moodie Intake Primary Evaluation Technical



Source water protection vulnerabilities would need to be assessedWould slightly improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures over the existing Lake Gibson intake. Response time would be limited if raw water is delivered directly to the WTP rather than the existing reservoirs.

Intake pipe could be constructed with minimal impact to existing water supply. The design of the intake would incorporate concerns relating to water quality and sediment, and construction mitigation measures for environmental impacts.

An amendment to the PTTW will be required. Current PTTW includes Lake Gibson and the existing channel.


Construction of new raw water pipe would be away from existing dam structures. Maintenance of existing works within close proximity of the dam/levees would have to be considered to ensure safety. Assume a new intake structure and piping will be used. The depth of the new intake would be designed to be lower than levee and as such to not affect the integrity of the levee.

Natural Environment


Important fish habitat in lake that may be temporarily disrupted during construction works, mitigation measures will be implemented.

It is not anticipated that there will be any impacts related to erosion for this alternative. Consideration for erosive potential at the intake and reservoir outlet to be considered during the design.


Social Environment

Potential to impact four (4) cultural heritage sources with the potential to directly impact one (1) resource and alter three (3) resources. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.



Page 31



No significant safety concerns with the intake in Lake Moodie are foreseen as recreational activities are not prominent in this area.





Secondary Evaluation Not required as this was identified as the preferred primary alternative.

Option 6a is being carried forward for the ‘primary’ alternative. Option 6b – Lake Moodie Intake Primary Evaluation Technical



Source water protection vulnerabilities would need to be assessed, but would be expected to consistent with those identified for the existing Lake Gibson intake.

Would slightly improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures over the existing Lake Gibson intake. Response time would be limited if raw water is delivered directly to the WTP rather than the existing reservoirs.

Intake pipe could be constructed with minimal impact to existing water supply. The design of the intake would incorporate concerns relating to water quality and sediment, and construction mitigation measures for environmental impacts.

An amendment to the PTTW will be required. Current PTTW includes Lake Gibson and the existing channel.



Page 32


Construction of new raw water pipe would be away from existing dam structures. Maintenance of existing works within close proximity of the dam/levees would have to be considered to ensure safety. Assume a new intake structure and piping will be used. The depth of the new intake would be designed to be lower than levee and as such to not affect the integrity of the levee.

Natural Environment

Alignment passes through provincially significant wetlands.


Important fish habitat in lake that may be temporarily disrupted during construction works, mitigation measures will be implemented.

It is not anticipated that there will be any impacts related to erosion for this alternative. Consideration for erosive potential at the intake and reservoir outlet to be considered during the design.


Social Environment

Potential to impact four (4) cultural heritage sources with the potential to directly impact one (1) resource and alter three (3) resources. Refer to Appendix E – Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.



No significant safety concerns with the intake in Lake Moodie are foreseen as recreational activities are not prominent in this area.






Page 33


Secondary Evaluation Not applicable as the water would not be supplied from a difference source than the ‘primary’ alternative.

Option 6b is not being carried forward for the ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ alternative.


Page 34


5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION

5.1 Introduction

Based on the Project Team’s assessment of the proposed project, the team identified that there was a requirement to conduct two Public Information Centres and to meet with various key agencies in both a formal and informal setting.

5.2 Public Notification and Consultation

An Notice of Study Commencement was published in the St. Catharines Standard inviting public input and comments to be incorporated into the planning and design of the project. The Public Information Centres provided residents with an opportunity to meet the Project Team review the project scope, address issues related to the project, and review the evaluation and proposed preferred solutions. The Public Information Centres were held as follows:

November 8, 2012

September 16, 2013

Notice was given in local newspapers as follows:

Table 8: Publication of Notices Notice Dates Publication

Notice of Study Commencement October 4, 2012 St. Catharines Standard

Notice of Public Information Centre #1 October 25, 2012 November 1, 2012

St. Catharines Standard

Notice of Public Information Centre #2 September 10, 2013 September 12, 2013


Notice of Study Completion December 10, 2013 December 12, 2013


Public Information Centre #1

On November 8, 2012, Niagara Region hosted a Public Information for the DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Alternatives at the Niagara Region Headquarters. A total of ten (10) people signed in over the course of the evening (7:00 to 9:00pm). Project Team representatives present at the meeting included:

Deanna Barrow, P.Eng., Niagara Region Heather Sim, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Niagara Region Bill Andrews, P.Eng., BDS, PMP, Hatch Mott MacDonald Gillian Harris, P.Eng., Hatch Mott MacDonald Carl Bodimeade, P.Eng., Hatch Mott MacDonald

Summary of Comments from Written Comments

100% indicated that the displays assisted them


Page 35


100% said their questions answered to their satisfaction

87.5% were satisfied with the project as presented

Reside In Study Area Do Not Reside in Study Area

Resident 2 2

Business

Concerned Agency 1 2

Elected Representative

Other 1

The following are the written comments received on the comment sheets from participants at the Public Information Centre on November 8, 2012:

Table 9: Public Information Centre #1 Comments and Responses Resident Comment Project Team Response

Regardless what option is finally chosen, I feel it is important that the channel right of way be retained so that it continues to be recreational trail providing a scenic link between a possible future Fonthill Spur Trail and the Greater Niagara Circle Route.

Noted. The Project Team will communicate with the consultant for the Beaverdams Road Bridge Project Team to ensure that future recreational opportunities are included in the evaluation. Additional studies and/or consultation may be required to determine the final use of the trail if it is not included as part of the preferred water supply alternatives.

I am concerned with the negative evaluation being given the proposed option to use water from the Welland Recreational Canal. This appears to be the only gravity based system being proposed which would reduce the risk of contamination from the Welland Canal which could take place in the advent of a shipping accident. If the Welland Recreational Canal is not utilized, they study should look for ways to reduce pollution into the existing system. Measures which should be taken include the establishment of a more complete forest buffer around the reservoir and water channels from the Welland Canal and measures to reduce pollution in Lake Gibson and its upstream Beaverdams Creek. Such pollution controls should include a dyke and constructed wetland adjacent to residential development on Lake Gibson, and measures to reduce contaminate sources in Beaverdams Creek, especially the removal of fill in its floodplain.

Concerns are noted. A response was provided to this stakeholder and can be found in the appendices. The response provided was as follows: The Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/

http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/


Page 36


Resident Comment Project Team Response

I think that the safety portion of the technical criteria should be a criteria category by itself. It should include the safety (quality) of the water and the impact on the dams. I think that we would not want to use the Lake Gibson intake if it causes disturbances of the sediments which could affect water quality.

Noted. For the evaluation, safety is part of the technical criteria. The Project Team will ensure safety concerns receive an appropriate portion of the weighting. Additionally, the Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/

I would increase the cost criteria percentage to 25% over the social environment criteria which would become 15%.

Noted. No change will be made to weighting at this time. The Project Team will continue to evaluate the Weighting as the project continues.

Will removing the intake channel out let to Lake Gibson for OPG impact negatively the circulation in Lake Gibson? Could it cause algae issues in that area? Last summer, there were lots of algae on top of the northwest portion of Lake Gibson.

Circulation will not be affected. Flow patterns through Lake Gibson are primarily governed by the existing generating station.

Will the operating costs include the increase in contaminant loads in the filter backwashes if higher TSS sources are used or if less settling time is allowed?

Operating costs will be considered when evaluating the alternatives. It is not anticipated that the TSS concentrations will differ significantly from the existing conditions as the ultimate source of water will remain the same. Provisions are in place currently, and will remain in the place for the treatment of the backwash water.

When you mention that the decommissioning/maintenance of water works channel, if required, to be considered, I hope that you mean that they are part of the cost calculations.

Requirements associated with the decommissioning/maintenance of the water works channel will be considered (i.e. social, environment and financial costs) in the evaluation. Additional studies and/or consultation may be required to determine the final use of the channel if it is not included as part of the preferred water supply alternative.



Page 37



Leaving the channel may require circulation to ensure it does not go septic. In addition, any option which bypasses the upper and mid reservoirs may have to include aeration of these reservoirs to ensure they don’t become septic.

Noted. Concerns will be addressed during the design phase.

I would add to the technical side the ability to control the flow of the intake as it may cause variability in the Beaverdam creek. We don’t know what impact that would have.

Noted. The flow required for Beaverdams Creek (and the Morningstar Mill) will be taken into consideration for the evaluation and design.

Ability to detect spills which could affect the water quality should be included too (It is easier to look at an open stream than a pipe). You may want to include the ability to install pH, TSS or dissolved carbon analyzers on the proposed design to improve the ability to detect spills.

Noted. The potential advantage with using a pipe option is that the risk of spills will be lowered to do the water channel not being exposed. Spills which could occur within the Lakes or Welland Canal are monitored and reported to all appropriate agencies. The residence/travel time of any contaminates from any point in the system to the plant will also be considered. Additionally, the Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/

Ability to stop the intake flow easily could be a criterion.

Noted. This will be considered under the safety portion of the technical criteria.

I am not sure if the cost estimates will include the security measures to protect the source and option.

Source Water Protection Policies have been put in place are enforced independent of this project.

Public Information Centre #2

On September 16, 2013, Niagara Region hosted a Public Information for the DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Alternatives at the Niagara Region Head Quarters. A total of seven (7) people signed in over the course of the evening (7:00 to 9:00pm). Project Team representatives present at the meeting included:



Page 38


Deanna Barrow, P.Eng., Niagara Region Kelsey Ewart, Niagara Region Mike Janas, Niagara Region Adrian Rittner, Niagara Region Jeff Carl, Niagara Region Dean Norton, OPG Bill Andrews, P.Eng. BDS, PMP, Hatch Mott MacDonald Gillian Harris, P.Eng., CAPM, Hatch Mott MacDonald

Summary of Comments from Written Comments

In Study Area Not in Study Area

Resident 5 1

Business

Concerned agency 1

Elected representative

Other

The following are the written and verbal comments received from participants at the Public Information Centre on September 16, 2013.

Table 10: Public Information Centre #2 Comments and Responses Resident Comment Project Team Response

As a Lake Gibson corridor resident I believe this work should be undertaken within a more comprehensive programme involving all stakeholders. This would include the Region of Niagara, the cities of Saint Catharines and Thorold, Ontario Power Generation, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Authority and the public.

Please note that the consultation process is being conducted in accordance with the Municipal Class EA Planning Process. A comprehensive stakeholders list has been developed and maintained as part of the public consultation process which includes, but is not limited to, the stakeholders identified in your letter dated October 9, 2013.

The primary delivery pipeline should continue to follow the existing route along the more sparsely populated south side of the Decew – Lake Gibson corridor (as in Options 2 and 3a through 3d). This would cause the least disruption to homes, businesses and roads. Others (options 4, 5, 6a and 6b) would require construction along the more urbanized north side. Maintenance of the existing route would also avoid recurring disruptions when repairs to the pipeline are needed.

Your concerns are noted. Consideration has been given to the potential construction impacts to local residents for each alternative. Further consideration will be given to minimizing potential construction impacts during the detailed design of the preferred alternatives.

The two causeway structures between Beaverdams and the north shore of Marlatts Pond were constructed for dual purposes, to act as water barriers for

Your concerns regarding the current ecosystem health of Marlatts Pond are noted. The potential remediation or enhancement of Marlatts Pond is beyond the scope of this project. Your concerns


Page 39



upper and lower reservoirs and to carry roads across the pond. As I understand it, these sections of Marlatts pond are effectively redundant as practical reservoirs. Provided this is the case, I would recommend measures be taken to improve the health of Marlatts Pond, which, because of the causeway structures, is for the most part an idle water body, infested during warm weather by weeds and algae. Modifying the causeways to allow freer water movement through the two pond sections could rectify this.

in this regard are noted and will be provided to the appropriate agency(s) and/or individual(s) for further consideration.

We have seen the imposition over recent years of a series of obstructions to public access to the Decew-Lake Gibson waterway and its adjacent lands. These have included: -The construction of an unsightly fence, topped by barbed wire, around the field and hillside adjacent to the water control house at Beaverdams. While the control house was always fenced and gated, the newer fence has no setback from the street and has increased manifold the space that is off-limits to the public. A pathway along the east side of the old Beaverdams School that was a popular public access to Beaverdams Park and Lake Gibson is now closed. The now fenced-off hillside had for many generations been a popular walk-to recreation area for local children, especially for sledding and tobogganing in winter. -The closure of Water Commission Park, barring public access to one of this region’s most attractive parklands. -The proliferation of unsightly signage at the remaining access points to the waterway, to discourage recreational water use. From a point of view of realistic security, the effectiveness of these half-measures

Your concerns regarding the current limitations of public access and recreational use are noted. Issues related to public access and recreational use of the existing waterway and adjacent lands is beyond the scope of this project. At this time, no additional access restrictions are anticipated to be implemented as part of the proposed alternatives. Your concerns in this regard are noted and will be provided to the appropriate agency(s) and/or individual(s) for further consideration.


Page 40



is unconvincing. No one believes that fences and occasional security service drive-bys will deter anyone with serious criminal intent. Only the casual, law-abiding user (i.e. the public) is denied, and one wonders if this, and the minimization of the public utilities’ liability risks, was the true intent of these obstructions. These restrictions should be reduced to a minimum, determined and limited by the public utilities’ essential operations and security needs. Perhaps it would be in the interest of all to consider whether properties not essential to these needs should be transferred to the custody of another public agency better suited to abide with public access.

“Social Environment” should not be grouped with “Financial” in a single evaluation category. These very different interests are not realistically compatible and may frequently be in conflict. “Social Environment” and “Financial” should be evaluated independently to keep one priority from compromising the other in an awkward, combined result. Determine and reveal which options are superior from a strictly “Social Environment” point of view and which are superior from a strictly “Financial” standpoint.

Please note that these categories were presented on the same PIC board for presentation purposes only and that the “Social Environment” and “Financial” categories were evaluated independently by the project team to ensure that appropriate consideration was given to each category. Individual criteria within each category were also independently evaluated.

Is it possible to naturalize the lands around the DeCew Falls raw water reservoirs (instead of cutting the grass)

Your concerns in this regard are noted and will be provided to the appropriate individual(s) for further consideration as the maintenance around the existing reservoirs is outside of the scope of this project.

Storm water runoff from the East side of the Hwy. 406 drains into the raw water channel and impacts raw water quality.

Your concerns are noted. The Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become


Page 41



enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/

There were concerns regarding contamination sources including:

Port Colborne wastewater effluent impact on DeCew Falls WTP raw water quality.

Richmond Street pumping station overflows into that water - with the lofts residences the wet well time to fill is a lot shorter than previous, there are also various labs (at least 3) which utilize that pumping station which we would not want the effluent to enter the drinking water supply.

Lampman Drive, Richmond St, and Collier Rd storm sewers empty directly into the lake along with many ditches from the highway and main roads. Storm water runoff should be retarded in some way to allow settlement, as well as having some means to intercept oil. A point was also raised about spills easily finding their way to the drinking water supply with no easy means to contain them.

Auto wrecker located on Beaverdams Road

Concerns with contamination of drinking water are noted. The Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/ The future Source Protection Plan will be updated upon finalization of the preferred solutions, design and construction.

If Lake Gibson/Lake Moodie is used as the backup or primary supply, measures need to be taken to prevent contamination of that water.

Your concerns are noted. The Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/





Page 42



Diverting farm runoff away from the channel and into the lake only moves the contamination from one of the sources to the other.

Your concerns are noted. The Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/

Some kind of organized response to spills is needed with simple well planned methods to quickly block watercourses where they enter the lake, and/or have permanent oil booms in place if necessary at the higher risk locations.

You concern is noted. There are gate structures along the Welland Canal, the existing waterworks channel and the OPG hydro channel that can be utilized to isolate/stop water flows. In addition, the Region recently worked with the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Committee to develop the “Proposed Source Protection Plan” as required under the Clean Water Act. The proposed plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment earlier this year and is awaiting approval. Once approved, the policies in the plan will become enforceable and will address Significant Threats to source water within defined areas. For additional information please visit the website http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/

The Lake Moodie intake seems like a waste of money when the path of the existing syphon can be used without a pipeline in the road being required. Whether it be syphon, gated weir or submerged inlet it’s still all cheaper and less disruptive than a pipeline and inlet in a new area.

The existing syphon design is a temporary measure and is not intended for extended use. One of the critical evaluation criteria was dam safety which was considered for all alternatives. An exposed syphon over the dam would cause continuous disruptions to OPG operations restricting access along the service corridors and would present a significant risk in relation to dam safety.




Page 43



One thing missing off the alternatives was any mention of existing major services which really would have made things clearer - I know there are treated water lines somewhere in the vicinity of the proposed Lake Moodie intakes, and there are various other services and obstructions crossed in the pipeline to the canal alternative. That helps give a better idea of costs, and environmental impact which I found very lacking in the presentation materials - there really was no detail on the scoring used to arrive at the preferences.

Existing major services were considered at a high level during the evaluation. Any major crossings, watercourse or utility, will be completed using trenchless methods. The costs of these crossings are taking into consideration in the economical evaluation.

Cutting down the trees on the berms of the raw water channel cause the roots to die and impact the integrity of the berm (roots keeping the berm together). A suggestion would be for new plantings to take place when a tree had to be removed.

Your concerns in this regard are noted and will be provided to the appropriate individual(s) for further consideration of ongoing maintenance work.

The repair work (installation of culverts) that is occurring right now in the raw water channel should have been coordinated with the long term solution. If the culverts need to be taken out before they have reached their life expectancy and replaced with a concrete pipe – this is a big waste of money!

The work that is currently being completed is being done as emergency repairs. It was the result of these required repairs that instigated this study. Due to the time requirement to complete this study, and for the Region and OPG to do their due diligence, these emergency works were required for the safety and integrity of the Lake Gibson dam, and certain sections of the waterworks water canal.

Contaminated sediments in Lake Gibson will effect on raw water quality when Lake Gibson is used as the raw water source for DeCew Falls WTP, specifically if the sediments are disturbed.

It is understood that there are contaminated sediments within sections of Lake Gibson. Part of the design process will be to select an exact location of the intake and to design the structure to minimize the potential for disturbance of and contaminated sediments. The location of the intake will ideally be in an area with limited if not negligible contaminated sediments. Raw water sampling and testing is carried out regularly in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Clean, safe drinking water is paramount.


Page 44


5.3 Agency Notification and Consultation

Agencies with a potential interest in this study were notified in the same manner as the public (that is they received the same letters and notices). A complete list of agencies to which notice was given is included in Appendix B. The project team met with members from Niagara Conservation Authority, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources. Concerns regarding land restrictions and specific habitat were discussed. The MNR has expressed concerns relating to the presence of Swamp Rose Mallow and Snapping Turtles. Swamp Rose Mallow was not found within areas of potential threat of disturbance from the work. It was agreed that an inventory, or additional studies would not be required for the location of Snapping Turtles as it was known that they inhabited Lake Moodie and Lake Gibson. Mitigating measures, such as not dredging during turtle hibernation will be utilized to protect these species. In addition the written correspondence was maintained with the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) and the City of St. Catharines (Morning Star Mill). The NEC has indicated that permits will be required for the construction of the Primary alternatives. This is indicated in Section 6.6 below. Morning Star Mill has requested that flow be maintained to the Mill. This has been incorporated into all designs and considered as part of the evaluation process.

5.4 First Nations Consultation

The following First Nations and First Nations Agencies were included in the consultation process (Appendix B):

Six Nations of the Grand River

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat

Chiefs of Ontario

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

A copy of the Notice of Commencement and Notice of Public Information Centres were mailed directly to each of the First Nations listed above. In addition, a copy of the Notice of Completion will be mailed directly to the First Nations Stakeholders. Responses received for the identified First Nations Stakeholders are included in Appendix B.


Page 45


6 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SOLUTIONS Phase 2 of a Municipal Class EA includes the identification of alternative solutions for subsequent evaluation and the establishment of the preferred solution, taking into consideration public and review agency input. The results of the public and stakeholder consultation support the recommended solutions identified in the project team’s evaluation. As a result, the preferred ‘primary’ solution is to construct a Lake Moodie Intake (Option 6a) and the ‘secondary’ solution is to replace the intake channel with a raw water pipe running along the route of the channel (Option 3c). These proposed works will include the following:

A new intake structure in Lake Moodie

A new outlet structure in the Middle Reservoir

Enclosing the existing channel by installing a new raw water pipe, discharging to the upper reservoir.

The reference to ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ alternatives/solutions relate only to the part of the two-stage evaluation process in which they were identified as preferred. It is anticipated that the preferred source for raw water under normal operating conditions will be from the enclosed raw water channel (Option 3c) and that the Lake Moodie intake (Option 6a) will be utilized as a standby or redundant source to be utilized during construction and/or maintenance activities or in an emergency event. Operation of the raw water supply system will be at the discretion of Niagara Region Operations Staff in accordance with the conditions/limitations of the required approvals and permits.

This project file provides for a review of the impact of the proposed work on the natural and socio-economic environment. The review is based on archaeological assessments, natural heritage assessments, environmental reviews, capital cost projections and social impact assessments. These reports and technical memorandums can be found in Appendix E. A summary of the findings is presented below.

6.1 Archaeological Impacts

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment background study and property inspection was conducted to support the evaluation of the proposed alternatives. The assessment determined that seven (7) archaeological sites have been registered within 1 km of the study area. A review of the geography and history of the study area suggested that the study area has a potential for the identification of Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources. The property inspection determined that the majority of the study area does not retain archaeological potential but that part of it will require Stage 2 archaeological assessment as well as Stage 3 Cemetery Investigations should such areas be impacted by the proposed works (Refer to Appendix E).

6.2 Natural Environmental Impacts

The preferred primary solution, under Option 6A, will not result in a significant impact to the surrounding natural environment. Potential impacts under Option 6A are expected to be minimal with appropriate mitigation measures.


Page 46


The solution under Option 3C may result in impacts to the surrounding environment which, depending on the methods and results associated with construction and/or the decommissioning of the channel, may potentially result in undesirable impacts to the natural environment. Prior to construction, it is recommended that construction works that will or may potentially affect trees be subject to a tree preservation plan, as prepared by a qualified ecologist or arborist. It is further recommended that any mitigation-related vegetation plantings be monitored for survivorship at 2 and 5-years post planting. Furthermore, it is recommended that suitable turtle nesting habitat be surveyed prior to and during construction by a qualified biologist. Should nests be found, a qualified biologist should prepare and execute a plan to relocate and protect turtle nests.

6.3 Cultural Heritage Assessment

The results of historical research and the field review confirm that the study corridor features historically significant resources dating back to the early nineteenth century. These resources include waterscapes, farm complexes, roadscapes, rail lines, cemeteries, monuments, industrial sites and a mill. The identified cultural heritage resources are historically, architecturally and contextually associated with nineteenth century land use patterns, agricultural processes and historic settlement in the City of Thorold. Based on the proposed construction, it is understood that the waterworks canal will be altered and will no longer be considered a cultural heritage landscape. Modifications will be made to Lake Moodie to install the new intake, but overall intent and shape of Lake Moodie will remain the same. Modifications will also be made to the reservoir to install the new outlet for Option 6a but these works will allow for the continued operation and use of the reservoir. There will be a temporary visual impact to the house located at 2598 DeCew Road related to the construction of the intake pipe along DeCew Road relating to Option 6a. One mitigating measure to be considered during detailed design would be to install this section of pipe using trenchless technologies. At the time of writing, it is not anticipated that any other resources will be affected by the construction of the preferred alternatives.

6.4 Socio-Economic Impacts

The installation of the new intake pipe associated with Option 6A (Lake Moodie Intake) will include temporary social impacts. These are all associated with the construction and relate to noise, vibration and dust and potential road closures. Mitigating measures will be incorporated to reduce impacts caused by noise vibration and dust. It is recommended that microtunnelling, or an alternative trenchless technology be used to reduce road closure impacts. The installation of a new raw water pipe along the existing water channel route will result in some permanent impacts. Currently portions of the channel do provide aesthetic enjoyment for the public. These portions of open water channel will be removed when the pipe is installed and covered with earth.


Page 47


7 IMPLEMENTATION

7.1 Approvals Process

Following the Public Information Centres, the Region’s project team confirmed the preferred solution taking into account the comments received from the public and review agencies. This report is a Project File for the DeCew Falls WTP raw water supply and it documents the study carried out by the Region in satisfaction of the Class EA planning process. This Project File will be placed on the public record for a thirty (30) day review period during which time, any objections or concerns that cannot be resolved through discussions with the Region may be forwarded to the Minister of the Environment by requesting a “Part II Order”. Alternatively, the public can request that the Region voluntarily elevate the project to a Schedule ‘C’ undertaking. The public will be notified of the publication of the Class EA Project File through a newspaper notice at the appropriate time, or through direct notification if requested. The Region will be in compliance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment approvals process for the proposed DeCew Falls WTP raw water supply once the specified public review process is completed without objection.

7.2 Commitments and Mitigation Measures

The proposed mitigating measures to be implemented include, but are not limited to the following:

Trenchless technologies (i.e. microtunnelling, tunnel boring machines, etc.) will be used for water crossings and around water retaining structures.

For open cut watermain construction, the length of trench excavated (or open) at any given time will be minimized (i.e., generally limited to immediate working requirements), and will typically be backfilled at end of each working day;

Traffic management measures, to Provincial Standards, will be implemented;

Mud and dust control measures will be implemented (mud mats, tire racks, etc.);

Size of working (disturbed) areas will be kept to a minimum;

Sediment and erosion control measures will be utilized when working in the vicinity of watercourses and storm sewers that discharge to watercourses. (i.e., Silt fencing, straw bale check dams, etc.);

Construction staging and temporary works will be put in place to facility supply of raw water to the plant during construction.

The construction of the Lake Moodie Option will be constructed first to allow for the supply of raw water while the works are being completed in the Channel.

Contractor’s working hours for construction activities will be stipulated in accordance with local by-laws.

7.3 Class Environmental Assessment Requirements

In order to satisfy the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act), the Region initiated this Class EA study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. This study addresses Phases 1 & 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment planning process for water projects as specified in the Notice of Completion.


Page 48


7.4 Notice of Completion

For the purposes of this review, this Project File is being made available to the public and agencies for a specified review period. All potentially affected members of the public, stakeholders and those expressing an interest in the study, as well as relevant review agencies were notified by advertisements in the local newspaper and by letter where appropriate, that this study was complete and available for review. The Notice of Completion stated the date by which written comments and a Part II Order request must be submitted to the Ministry of Environment.

Written comments on this Project File should be submitted to:

Deanna Barrow, P.Eng. Manager, Quality and Compliance (Water) Niagara Region Water and Wastewater Services 3501 Schmon Parkway, PO Box, 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Phone: 905-685-4225 ext. 3543 Fax: 905-685-5205 Email: [email protected]

Part II Order requests must be received by the Minister before the end of the specified review period. Part II Order requests received after the specified review period will not be considered. Part II Order requests should be directed to:

Minister of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West 15th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5

A copy of the letter requesting a Part II Order must be sent to the Niagara Region’s Clerk. If no concerns are expressed by the conclusion of the specified review period, the Niagara Region may proceed with the design and construction of the project as described in this Project File.

7.5 Objections to the Project

If a party objects to this project, then the objector should discuss their concerns within the public review period with the Niagara Region directly. Within the specified public review period, if a resolution to the concerns cannot be achieved in consultation with the Regional Municipality of Niagara, an objector may request that the Minister of the Environment consider issuing a Part II Order which may require the Niagara Region to undertake an additional study. Alternatively, the public can request that the Region voluntarily elevate the project to a Schedule ‘C’ undertaking. For any party with a concern that they feel has not been adequately addressed, the opportunity exists for a party to request that the Ontario Minister of the Environment review the status of the project. This is called a Request for a Part II Order. This request must be in writing providing reasons for the request and copied to the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

mailto:[email protected]


Page 49


The Minister will consider the request and make one of the following decisions, with the Minister’s decision being final:

Deny the request, stating the reason for the decision;

Deny the request with conditions, such as requiring that the proponent prepare additional work related to a potential environmental impact of the project;

Refer the matter to mediation, whereby a mediator will be appointed to endeavour to resolve the concern; or

Issue what is referred to as a Part II Order, which requires that the proponent comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act and undertake the planning and design for the project and documenting it in an “Individual Environmental Assessment”. An Individual Environmental Assessment once completed, must be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for government review and approval prior to carrying out the project.

Members of the public are responsible for bringing any concerns to the attention of the Niagara Region early in the planning process. In considering the acceptance or denial of a request for a Part II Order, the Minister shall consider the following issues:

Extent and nature of public concern;

Potential for significant adverse environmental effects;

Need for broader consideration of alternatives;

Consideration of urgency;

Frivolous or vexatious nature of the request; and

Degree to which public consultation and dispute resolution has taken place. If in the opinion of the Minister, a request is made with the intent of delaying the planning or implementation of a project, or which does not contain a reasonable amount of supporting information, that request may be denied by the Minister on the basis of being unsubstantiated. The resolution of concerns in consultation with the Niagara Region is preferable to having the Minister intervene later in the decision-making process. Upon receiving a request for a Part II Order it is likely that the Minister will encourage continued opportunities for an amicable resolution to be reached by ensuring direct consultation between the proponent and the person or party raising the concern. It is best to consult directly with the proponent first.

7.6 Agency Approvals

Compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process does not preclude the Niagara Region from additional agency approvals for the recommended projects. Following the completion of the Class Environmental Assessment process, the Niagara Region must undertake discussions with relevant agencies to ensure that all applicable approvals are received prior to implementing projects. The following list highlights some of the approvals which may be necessary to carry out the proposed project.

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority The following approvals may be required from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority:

Application for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse.

Ministry of Environment: The following approvals may be required from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment:


Page 50


Drinking Water Works License & Permit Amendments; Permit To Take Water (PTTW)

Niagara Escarpment Commission: The following approvals may be required from the Niagara Escarpment Commission:

Development Permit.

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 0 4 PROJECT … Falls WTP Raw... · 2013-12-13 · Maintain...

Documents

Transcript of CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 0 4 PROJECT … Falls WTP Raw... · 2013-12-13 · Maintain...