ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – DRAFT
Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements – Schedule B Environmental Assessment
Prepared for City of Ottawa
October 2015
CH2M HILL Canada Limited 1101 Prince of Wales Drive Suite 330 Ottawa ON K2C 3W7
CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY
Contents Section Page 1. Introduction ...... 1‐1 1.1 Background ...... 1‐1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1‐1 1.3 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act...... 1‐1 1.4 Municipal Class EA ...... 1‐2 1.4.1 Municipal Class EA Planning Process ...... 1‐2 1.4.2 Municipal Class EA Project Schedules ...... 1‐5 1.5 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ...... 1‐6 1.6 Project Approach ...... 1‐6 1.6.1 Phase 1 – Problem/Opportunity Statement ...... 1‐7 1.6.2 Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions ...... 1‐7 1.6.3 Phase 5 – Implementation ...... 1‐8 2. Background ...... 2‐1 2.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement ...... 2‐1 2.1 Study Area ...... 2‐1 2.1.1 Lemieux Island ...... 2‐1 2.1.2 Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant ...... 2‐2 2.1.3 Ottawa River ...... 2‐3 3. Environmental Inventories ...... 3‐1 3.1 Social/Cultural ...... 3‐1 3.1.1 Social ...... 3‐1 3.1.2 Cultural...... 3‐1 3.2 Natural Environment ...... 3‐2 3.2.1 Bathymetry ...... 3‐2 3.2.2 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems ...... 3‐3 3.2.3 Soil and Groundwater ...... 3‐3 3.3 Technical ...... 3‐3 3.3.1 Geotechnical ...... 3‐3 3.3.2 Ice Conditions ...... 3‐5 4. Alternative Solutions ...... 4‐1 4.1 Identification of Potential Alternatives ...... 4‐1 4.1.1 Alternative 1: Do Nothing ...... 4‐1 4.1.2 Alternative 2: Proximity to Shore Intake (Berm Solution) ...... 4‐2 4.1.3 Alternative 3: Deep Water Intake Under Ice Cover ...... 4‐2 4.1.4 Alternative 4: Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover ...... 4‐3 4.1.5 Alternative 5: Ice Boom ...... 4‐3 4.2 Summary of Alternatives ...... 4‐4 5. Short‐Listed Alternatives ...... 5‐1 5.1 Eliminated Long‐Term Alternatives ...... 5‐1 5.1.1 Alternative 1 ‐ Do Nothing ...... 5‐1 5.1.2 Alternative 5 – Ice Boom ...... 5‐1 5.2 Short‐listed Alternatives ...... 5‐2 6. Detailed Evaluation of Short‐listed Alternatives ...... 6‐1 6.1 Multi‐Criteria Tool ...... 6‐1
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY III CONTENTS
Section Page 6.2 Multi‐Criteria Analysis Set Up and Evaluation Scoring ...... 6‐1 6.2.1 Evaluation Criteria ...... 6‐2 6.2.2 Criteria Weightings ...... 6‐3 6.2.3 Scoring ...... 6‐4 6.3 Evaluation Summary ...... 6‐4 6.4 Preliminary Recommendation ...... 6‐7 6.4.1 Long‐Term Preliminary Recommendation ...... 6‐7 6.4.2 Short‐Term Preliminary Recommendation ...... 6‐7 7. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 7‐1 7.1 Long‐term Preliminary Recommendation – Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover ...... 7‐1 7.1.1 Technical Performance ...... 7‐1 7.1.2 Project Implementation ...... 7‐1 7.1.3 Social Environment ...... 7‐3 7.1.4 Natural Environment ...... 7‐4 7.1.5 Economics ...... 7‐6 7.2 Short‐Term Preliminary Recommendation – Ice Boom ...... 7‐7 7.2.1 Technical Performance ...... 7‐7 7.2.2 Project Implementation ...... 7‐7 7.2.3 Social Environment ...... 7‐7 7.2.4 Natural Environment ...... 7‐7 7.2.5 Economics ...... 7‐7 8. Stakeholder Consultation ...... 8‐1 8.1 Notice of Commencement of EA ...... 8‐1 8.2 Public Information Centre...... 8‐1 8.3 Technical Advisory Meetings ...... 8‐1 8.4 Notice of Completion ...... 8‐2 9. References ...... 9‐1
Appendices A List of Stakeholders and Review Agencies B Notices C Public Information Center Documents
Tables 4‐1 Summary of Alternatives 5‐1 Alternative Solution Descriptions 6‐1 Intake Improvements Multi‐Criteria Analysis Parameters 6‐2 Evaluation of Alternatives 6‐3 Alternative Solution Rankings – Multi‐Criteria Analysis Results 7‐1 Construction Selection Considerations
Figures 1‐1 Municipal Class EA Process 2‐1 Study Area at the Lemieux Island WPP and Intake Pipes
IV CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT CONTENTS
Section Page 3‐1 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Zones 3‐2 Bathymetry of the Ottawa River North of the Lemieux Island WPP and Intake Pipes 3‐3 Geotechnical Study Area 4‐1 Alternative Selection Approach 4‐2 Two Example Locations of an Ice Retention Boom 4‐3 Example Location of an Ice Diversion Boom 5‐1 Lemieux Island WPP Intake Improvement Short‐listed Alternatives 6‐1 MCA Scoring Example
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY V SECTION 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The City of Ottawa (City) operates two water purification plants (WPP) to supply drinking water – Lemieux Island WPP (capacity: 400 ML/d; constructed 1931) and Britannia WPP (capacity: 360 ML/d; constructed 1961). The source water for both plants is the Ottawa River. The two plants serve 825,000 people with the Lemieux Island WPP supplying roughly half of that (including supplying water to downtown Ottawa). The City of Ottawa has experienced issues at the Lemieux Island WPP in the past from frazil ice buildup at the intake piping. Frazil ice forms in open, turbulent, supercooled water which is typical of the conditions in the river near the plant intake. Ice crystals form and accumulate, which can then block the intake pipes. Ice buildup at the bridge piers located directly downstream of the WPP is suspected to further impact icing issues at the intake piping. The Lemieux Island WPP intake consists of four 1,600 mm diameter pipes that extend 15 m from the shoreline to a depth of approximately 2.5 m below the water surface. Because of the relatively shallow depth of water at the inlet of the intake piping, frazil ice builds up below the ice surface and interferes with the flow entering the plant. This frazil ice can block the intake pipe and associated screening, resulting in unplanned WPP shutdowns or significantly restricted plant flows, which puts the water supply at risk. In previous years the frazil ice has restricted the low lift pump flows from the typical 120 to 150 million litres per day (ML/d) down to roughly 60 ML/d. Additionally the City has needed a crew working 24 hours a day, seven days a week to manually clear the frazil ice from the intake screen. The Britannia WPP does not experience the same frazil ice issues due to different intake piping configuration, and a greater depth of water over the inlet. A shortfall at one of the two WPP’s will result in an overall inability to meet demand in the City of Ottawa. This highlights the criticality of maintaining a constant, unimpeded supply of water to both WPP’s. 1.2 Objectives The City of Ottawa has retained CH2M HILL Canada Limited (CH2M) to identify a preferred long‐term solution for reducing risk to water supply in the City caused by frazil ice impacts to the Lemieux Island WPP intake. This project follows the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The objectives of this Class EA are to: describe the background and rationale for the project; explain the risk of frazil ice formation conditions at the Lemieux Island WPP intake; evaluate alternatives for mitigation; document the process of identifying a preferred long‐term solution; and, to receive stakeholder and agency input. 1.3 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) was passed in 1975 and began to be applied to municipalities in 1981. The EA Act requires the study, documentation, and examination of the environmental effects that could result from major projects or activities. The objective of the EA Act is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a preferred alternative with the fewest environmental impacts.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1‐1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The EA Act defines environment very broadly as follows (Ministry of the Environment [MOE], 1990): Air, land, or water Plant and animal life, including humans The social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community Any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by humans Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities Any part, or combination of, the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario In applying the requirements of the EA Act to projects, two types of EA planning and approval processes are identified: Individual Environmental Assessments (Part II of the EA Act): large‐scale, complex projects with the potential for significant environmental effects for which a Terms of Reference is submitted to the Minister of the Environment for review and approval as per Section 6 of the EA Act. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOE) coordinates the review the individual environmental assessment. Streamlined EAs: Streamlined EAs can be used for routine projects that have predictable and manageable environmental effects, and proponents follow a self‐assessment and decision‐making process. Class Environmental Assessments (Class EAs) fall under this category (Part II.1 of the EA Act). A proponent will comply with Section 14 of the EA Act. If there are outstanding environmental concerns, anyone may request the MOE to issue a Part II Order to require a project proponent to prepare an individual EA. 1.4 Municipal Class EA 1.4.1 Municipal Class EA Planning Process All municipalities in Ontario are subject to the provisions of the EA Act and its requirements to prepare a Class EA for applicable public works projects. The Ontario Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document provides municipalities with a five‐phase planning procedure approved under the EA Act to plan and undertake all municipal sewage, water, stormwater management, and transportation projects that occur frequently, are usually limited in scale, and have a predictable range of environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures. Key components of the Class EA planning process include the following: Consultation early and throughout the process Reasonable range of alternatives Consideration of effects on the environment and ways to avoid or reduce impacts Systematic evaluation of alternatives Clear documentation Traceable decision‐making Figure 1‐1 illustrates the process followed in the planning and design of projects covered by a Municipal Class EA. The figure incorporates steps considered essential for compliance with the requirements of the EA Act.
1‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1‐1. Municipal Class EA Process Ontario Municipal Engineers Association, October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1‐3 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This page intentionally left blank.
1‐4 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.4.2 Municipal Class EA Project Schedules Projects undertaken by municipalities vary in their environmental impact; as such, projects are classified in terms of Municipal Class EA schedules. The following subsections provide descriptions of the various project schedules as they apply to water and wastewater projects. Based on the MEA Municipal Class EA document and subsequent amendments, projects are classified as one of Schedule A, A+, B, or C projects. Each of these classifications requires a different level of review to complete the requirements of the Municipal Class EA. 1.4.2.1 Schedule A Schedule A projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse effects, and include the majority of municipal sewage, stormwater management and water operations, and maintenance activities. These projects are pre‐approved after Phase 1 and may be implemented without following further phases in the Class EA planning process. Schedule A projects typically include normal or emergency operational maintenance activities, where the environmental effects of these activities are usually minimal. Examples of Schedule A projects include watermain and trunk sewer extensions, where all such facilities are located within the municipal road allowance or an existing utility corridor. As such, these projects are pre‐approved and subsequently do not require any further planning and public consultation. 1.4.2.2 Schedule A+ The purpose of this Schedule is to provide public notification for certain projects that are generally pre‐approved under the Municipal Class EA. Examples of Schedule A+ projects include modifications to a retention or detention facility for the purpose of stormwater quality control, or installation of new standby power equipment where new equipment is located in an existing building or structure. 1.4.2.3 Schedule B Schedule B projects are those which have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. The proponent is required to undertake a screening process involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and relevant review agencies to provide them with awareness of the project and to provide an opportunity for their concerns to be addressed. Schedule B projects require that Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process be followed and a project file report be prepared and submitted for review by the public. If there are no outstanding concerns raised by the public and/or review agencies, then the proponent may proceed to project implementation. If, however, the screening process raises a concern that cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order procedure may be invoked. Alternatively, the proponent may voluntarily elect to plan the project as a Schedule C undertaking. Schedule B projects generally include improvements and expansions to existing facilities, where there is the potential for some adverse environmental impacts. As a result, the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process (Phases 1 and 2) including consultation with those who may be affected. Examples of Schedule B projects include activities such as the establishment of new sewage pumping stations or the expansion of a WWTP to existing rated capacity where new land acquisition is required. 1.4.2.4 Schedule C Schedule C projects have the potential for significant environmental effects and must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures (Phases 1 to 4) specified in the Municipal Class EA document. Schedule C projects require that an Environmental Study Report (ESR) be prepared and submitted for review by the public. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order procedure may be invoked. Schedule C projects typically include the siting and construction of new facilities as well as major expansions to existing facilities, such as water treatment plants or WWTPs.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1‐5 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.5 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act On April 26, 2012, the federal government introduced Bill C‐38, the Jobs, Growth and Long‐Term Prosperity Act, a provision of which repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1994 (CEAA, 1994) replacing it with a new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012) that came into effect on July 6, 2012. Under CEAA 2012, proponents must provide the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) with a description of their proposed project to determine if it is covered by regulations indicating whether a federal environmental assessment (EA) is required. Upon receipt of the proponent's complete project description, the Agency has 45 days to determine if a federal EA will be required. This determination will be based on potential for environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction. Under the CEAA 2012, a federal EA of a designated project may be required when there is the potential for adverse environmental effects that are within federal jurisdiction, including the following: Fish and fish habitat Other aquatic species Migratory birds Federal lands Effects that cross provincial or international boundaries Effects that impact on Aboriginal peoples, such as their use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Changes to the environment that are directly linked to, or necessarily incidental to, any federal decisions about a project The types of projects that are likely to require a federal EA because of their potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects are identified on the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (Government of Canada, 2012). It is up to the proponent to review the Regulations Designating Physical Activities to determine if the project is on the regulations list. If the project is not on the list, then it does not require a federal EA unless it is mandated by the Minister of the Environment. Based on a review of the Regulations Designating Physical Activities, improvements to an existing intake do not qualify as a “designated” undertaking. Therefore, CEAA approval is not required for this project. Even though the project is exempt from a federal EA, the Municipal Class EA process fulfills many of the requirements of a federal EA from the identification and mitigation of environmental effects, including cumulative effects and stakeholder consultation. 1.6 Project Approach This project falls under the Schedule B projects under “Appendix 1” of the MEA October 2000 (amended 2007 and 2011) document as noted: Page 1‐18, Item 11 “Replacement of water intake pipe for a surface water source”. This project follows Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process, during which a final preferred alternative will be selected in consultation with stakeholders, and will then proceed to design and construction.
1‐6 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION The procedure for a schedule B undertaking is summarized below: Phase 1 Identify the problem or opportunity. Problem/Opportunity Phase 2 Identify and evaluate alternative solutions to the problem by taking into account the Alternative Solutions existing environment. Establish the preferred solution taking into account public and agency review input. Document the process in a Project File Report. Review and confirm choice of Schedule EA. Notice of Completion Upon completion of the Project File Report, a Notice of Completion is advertised and issued to the public and agencies expressing interest in the project, for a 30 day review period. If a concern is not resolved through discussions with the proponent, the person raising the concern may request the proponent to voluntarily elevate the Schedule B project to a Schedule C project or to an individual environmental assessment. If the proponent declines to elevate the project, and the person with the concern wishes to pursue the matter, they may write to the Minister of the Environment (MOE) and request a Part II Order (i.e. a “bump‐up request”). In this case, the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch at the MOE will review the information and prepare a recommendation for the Minister’s consideration. The Minister will then make a decision whether the “bump‐up request” will be denied or upheld or if the matter will be referred to a mediator. Phase 5 Provided that no Part II Order requests are made to the Minister of the Environment Implementation within the 30‐day review period, the project is approved and may proceed to detailed design, construction, operation and monitoring, if specified, for adherence to environmental provisions and commitments. The following subsections provide an overview of the key steps taken in this Class EA. 1.6.1 Phase 1 – Problem/Opportunity Statement The following tasks were completed to identify the problem and opportunities as part of Phase 1: Reviewed available background information. Developed a communications plan to engage the public, regulatory agencies, and aboriginals. Published Notice of Study Commencement. Identified the Problem/Opportunity Statement. 1.6.2 Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions The following tasks were completed in Phase 2 to develop and evaluate alternative solutions and to select a preferred solution: The existing site conditions were described and inventoried. The study area was described by main components: the terrestrial part of Lemieux Island and its history, the intake and the Ottawa River. The existing conditions were inventoried and framed according to the social/cultural, natural environment and technical aspects of the environment. Inventories included the following: – Social and Cultural Environment . Review of surrounding land uses, official plans, and policies . Completion of a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment – Natural Environment . Review of the river bathymetry . Site visit and desktop review of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat and wildlife in the environmental impact study area
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1‐7 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION . Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (site visit and records review) to determine if any additional environmental investigation is warranted to understand the liability risks associated with the site – Technical Environment . Review of existing intake . Geotechnical site visit and desktop review of the site . Review of the ice conditions and modelling of the ice formation in the river Alternative Solutions were identified and screened based on their ability to address the Problem/Opportunity Statement to arrive at a short list of alternatives. Short‐listed alternatives were evaluated and compared using a multi‐criteria analysis. A preferred alternative was recommended. Public Information Centre No1 was held on 30 September 2015, to present the preferred solution and shortlisted alternatives. A Notice of Completion was published on [to be inserted after publication] marking the start of the 30‐day public review period. 1.6.3 Phase 5 – Implementation If no changes to the project are required as a result of the 30‐day public review period, then it will be implemented as described in this report. Contract drawings and documents will be prepared, and the project will proceed to construction, commissioning, and operation subject to the necessary regulatory approvals. Construction and operation activities will be monitored for adherence to environmental provisions and commitments.
1‐8 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 2 Background 2.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement As noted in Section 1, the City of Ottawa has been experiencing issues at the Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant (WPP) from frazil ice buildup at the intake piping. Because of the relatively shallow depth of water at the inlet of the intake piping, frazil ice builds up below the ice surface and interferes with flow entering the plant. This frazil ice can block the intake pipe and associated screening resulting in unplanned WPP shutdowns or significantly restricted plant flows, which puts the water supply at risk. Based on a review of the problems experienced at the Lemieux Island WPP, the problem/opportunity statement for this project can be stated as follows:
To improve the existing drinking water intake in order to mitigate the impacts of frazil ice impeding flow to the Lemieux Island WPP over the long‐term.
2.1 Study Area 2.1.1 Lemieux Island The Water Purification Plant is located on the Lemieux Island. This Island has been used in this capacity since 1912. It has undergone several changes throughout its time as a purification plant. Lemieux Island is located north of Lot 37, Concession A in the Ottawa River. The Island has been landscaped with the addition of soil, grass and trees throughout its use as a water treatment facility. Prior to land reclamation the northeast end of Lemieux Island was a separate island known as Lyons Island. However after the construction of the Prince of Wales Bridge the land between these two Islands was slowly filled. The South half of Lemieux Island is used as park land while the northern portion of it is used for water purification. It contains several buildings and a pond. Bedrock is visible in some areas of the Island including the west section of the study area near the shoreline. The west shoreline is natural and unfilled. This area includes both grassed sections and parking lot. A large water inlet pond is present. This pond is not natural but man‐made. The area immediately surrounding the pond has been allowed to grow freely and has some garden variety plant life mixed in with natural vegetation. To the east of the pond is the present water intake. This area is green along the shoreline but is paved to the immediate south. The shoreline here has been filled in and evidence of the fill in the form of large boulders can be seen along the shoreline from east of the pond to the Prince of Wales Bridge. The shoreline to the east of the water intake makes a sharp south turn followed by a 90 degree turn to the east. This area was originally the channel which existed between Lemieux and Lyon Island but which was filled. A fence is present along the eastern shore line separating the water treatment facilities from the Prince of Wales Bridge. This bridge is no longer in use and the vegetation surrounding it has become quite high. To the west of the bridge there is a paved parking lot and a slope which leads up to one of the treatment buildings. The following figure identifies the location of the Lemieux Island WPP, and the part of the island where the current intake pipes are located (site area).
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 2‐1 SECTION 2 – BACKGROUND
Figure 2‐1. Study Area at the Lemieux Island WPP and Intake Pipes
2.1.2 Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant The Lemieux Island WPP intake consists of four 1,600‐mm‐diameter intake pipes that extend approximately 15 m into the Ottawa River to a depth of 2.5 m (above the intake obverts). During the winter of 2012–2013, the WPP experienced significant issues related to ice build‐up in the plant intake. The ice build‐up was thought to be the result of unusual levels of frazil ice accumulation in the river due to the cold temperatures in December and early January, as well as other contributing factors. The ice accumulation initially necessitated continuous manual removal of the ice from the travelling screen and multiple emergency plant shuts. The capacity of the intake was reduced to approximately 60 MLD, which meant the WPP could only treat 60 MLD. Many emergency solutions were tried by the City in an attempt to increase the capacity of the intakes, including air compressors and warm water flushing in the intake well. Unfortunately, the problem persisted and the City decided that the only available alternative was to install temporary pumps to pump water from a deeper section of the river directly to the intake well. The City installed five rental diesel pumps along the shore of the river with separate HDPE suction pipes extending approximately 30 m into the river and down to a depth of 6 m (beneath the frazil ice). The five pump discharge pipes were routed through the doorway into the Low Lift Pumping Station and into the intake well. Other necessary modifications included temporarily relocating the alum feed to the intake well and relocating the influent sample point. Even with these emergency measures, plant capacity was severely reduced and operations staff worked continuously to maintain the emergency system in operation. The temporary pumps remained in operation for a period of six weeks. In August 2013, the City contracted CH2M to assist in developing temporary mitigation measures that could be implemented within the 2013 construction season. That timeframe was felt to be critical due to the construction work being carried out at the Britannia WPP that impacts overall City water production. The assignment was intended to identify temporary measures only until the City completes a permanent intake improvement project.
2‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 2 – BACKGROUND The selected temporary solution was to extend the four existing intakes. The design consisted of the extension of the intakes into deeper water by approximately 15 m beyond the current end of pipe. The optimal design for conveyance and constructability was to extend the intakes with 750 mm diameter pipes; this required installing plates across the openings of the four existing 1,600 mm diameter intakes and connecting the four extensions to the individual slide plates that fit over the intake openings. The design allowed for easy removal of the plates while leaving the extensions in place (by disconnecting the intake pipes from the steel plates) to allow for higher flows into the intakes during non‐frazil ice periods. The intake extensions are held in place by large concrete blocks that were designed to withstand the river currents. The intake extensions were designed to allow each entire intake extension (including the concrete blocks) to be installed pre‐assembled on shore. The profiles of the intake extensions match the river bed profile. Given that the intake extensions still carried a certain degree of risk of being impacted by frazil ice, it was decided to proceed with soliciting proposals from pump rental companies to provide temporary pumps and piping should the need arise. Proposals were received from pump rental companies through a standing offer process. This provides the City with an additional contingency plan beyond the intake extensions for the short‐term should extreme frazil ice conditions be encountered. 2.1.3 Ottawa River The Lemieux Island WPP is located in the reservoir created by the construction of the Chaudière Dam. The reservoir serves as the headpond for the Hydro‐Québec, Energy Ottawa, and Domtar Paper Mills hydropower plants and has limited storage, thus operating essentially in a run‐of‐river mode. Inflows, measured at the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) gauge at Britannia (WSC 02KF005, Ottawa River at Britannia) during the winter period ranged from 860 m3/s to 1,710 m3/s, with a long‐term average of about 1,340 m3/s. Current hydropower production uses a flow of about 760 m3/s, with the remainder – about 580 m3/s in an average winter – spilled over the Ring Dam via the sluiceways. During the winter, water levels are kept relatively constant at a geodetic elevation of about 52.8 m by the operation of sluice gates on the Ring Dam. Flows over the sluiceways varying as a function of the inflows and the amount of flow going through the three hydropower plants. The reservoir pool extends from the Chaudière Dam upstream more or less to the foot of Deschènes Rapids – a distance of about 7.8 km. The pool is punctuated by the Remic Rapids (located about 1.6 km upstream of the dam) and the rapids just below Champlain Bridge (located some 2.9 km upstream of the dam). The reservoir bathymetry is highly variable with local maximum water depths ranging from about 5 m at the Ring Dam to between 12 m and 15 m in the middle part of Lac Deschènes. The reservoir top width ranges from 350 m to 1,600 m, with an average top width of about 1,200 m. The Lemieux WPP is located at a point where the width is the narrowest. Water levels along the reservoir are controlled mostly by the two sets of rapids mentioned above. However, the settings of the sluice gates at the Ring Dam exert some influence over the water levels, typically adding about 2 m of depth. The volume of the reservoir is about 44,000 dam3, with a residence time of about 9 hours at the average winter inflow rate of 1,340 m3/s. At that flow rate, the mean velocity in the Ottawa River varies from about 0.1 m/s in the deepest and widest parts of the reservoir (i.e., in Lac Deschènes) to about 2 m/s in the rapid sections. Immediately in front of the Lemieux WPP, the mean velocity would be about 0.6 m/s.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 2‐3 SECTION 3 Environmental Inventories To inventory and document existing environmental conditions as part of the Class EA, preliminary assessments and site investigations involving both desktop reviews and site visits were completed. 3.1 Social/Cultural 3.1.1 Social The WPP occupies most of the Lemieux Island. There is also a park on the southeast side of the Lemieux Island. River access east of the train Bridge, just downstream of the Lemieux Island WPP, is not permitted due to the risks associated to the dam location, a few hundred meters away. Some recreational paddlers, such as river rafting paddlers, access the Ottawa River upstream of the Lemieux Island. 3.1.2 Cultural Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by CH2M to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the property located along the north and east shores of Lemieux Island. The study area is delineated in red in the Figure 3‐1. The archaeology report, Original Report Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements, North of Lot 37, Concession A, Geographic Township of Nepean, Carleton County Ottawa, Ontario, PIF Number: P311‐0299‐2014, dated November 11 2014 is available for review at City of Ottawa Town Hall [add address here] and on the City’s website at [add address here]. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment has provided the basis for the following recommendations: 1. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment be conducted in areas identified as having archaeological potential and that would be disturbed by works associated with the intake improvement using the test pit survey method at 5 m intervals in all areas of archaeological potential within the subject property, as none of these areas have ever been ploughed precluding pedestrian survey – see Figure 3‐1 below. 2. No further archaeological assessment is required for areas which have been determined to be disturbed or the result of fill; these areas have no archaeological potential. 3. An underwater archaeological assessment should be considered prior to any impact of the riverbed. This assessment should be conducted by a qualified underwater or marine archeologist. 4. Should areas of the riverbed be impacted on the Quebec side of the river, the Quebec Ministry of Culture and Communication should be consulted to determine if additional archaeological assessment is required. The Directorate of Archaeology and Museums (Quebec Government), has provided some insight as to the potential archaeology requirements if the intake were to be extended past the Ontario‐Quebec border. The following response was received: ‘[…] In Quebec there is not a requirement that applies specifically to maritime archaeology. It is included in the overall archaeology. As there are different laws and regulations that cover archaeology and cultural heritage, other than the law on cultural heritage which is applied by the Ministry of Culture and Communications, I cannot tell you the legal requirements of the project you mention.[…]’ Valerie Janssen, Archeologist, Management of Archaeological Permits, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Quebec Government, dated 19 September 2014.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 3‐1 SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORIES
Figure 3‐1. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Zones
Archaeological potential No Archaeological potential
3.2 Natural Environment 3.2.1 Bathymetry The bathymetry of the Ottawa River was provided by the City (Baird & Associates) and is presented below. The depths presented are in m. Figure 3‐2. Bathymetry of the Ottawa River North of the Lemieux Island WPP and Intake Pipes
3‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORIES 3.2.2 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems Golder was retained by CH2M to conduct a natural environment assessment of the site’s existing conditions. The study area is delineated in red in the Figure 3‐1 above. The natural environmental assessment report, Technical Memorandum, Project Natural Environment Assessment – Existing Conditions: Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment and Functional Design, dated September 2014, is available for review at City of Ottawa Town Hall [add address here] and on the City’s website at [add address here]. The Natural Environment Assessment documented the existing conditions within the vicinity of the Lemieux Island WPP Intake that may be impacted by the proposed project. Based on these findings, the following natural heritage features need to be considered when designing and constructing the intake improvements: 1. Fish and fish habitat associated with the Ottawa River and embayment and shoreline along the east side of the Lemieux Island where fish and spawning habitat may exist. As well, any in‐water works need to consider their impacts to species at risk that may be within the open water of the river including Lake Sturgeon and River Redhorse. 2. Bird nesting habitat associated with the rocking outcrops and outbuildings particularly in relation to Chimney Swift, Common Nighthawk and Barn Swallow. 3.2.3 Soil and Groundwater Golder was retained by CH2M to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for a portion of the Lemieux Island. The study area is delineated in red in the Figure 3‐1 above. The Phase I ESA report, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment and Functional Design, dated November 2014, is available for review at City of Ottawa Town Hall [add address here] and on the City’s website at [add address here]. Based on the information obtained during the Phase 1 ESA, two areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APEC) related to potential impacts on soil and/or groundwater were identified, as summarized below: 1. Based on the widespread potential presence of fill of unknown quality across the site, it is recommended that soil and groundwater be assessed for the contaminants of potential concern (metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)) in areas where construction work is proposed to be conducted (reference basis: site representative, FIPs, aerial photographs and historical maps). 2. Based on the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) in the subsurface at the site, it is recommended that soils and groundwater encountered during construction work be assessed for signs of PHC impacts including presence of sheens, odors, free phase project and organic vapors. If signs of impacts are identified, samples should be submitted for the contaminants of potential concern (PHCs) (reference basis: interview with Site representative). 3.3 Technical 3.3.1 Geotechnical Golder was retained by CH2M to conduct a Geotechnical Assessment for a portion of the Lemieux Island. The study area is delineated in red in the Figure 3‐3 below. The geotechnical assessment technical Memorandum, Subsurface Conditions and Preliminary Geotechnical Comments Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment, dated November 2014, is available for review at City of Ottawa Town Hall [add address here] and on the City’s website at [add address here].
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 3‐3 SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORIES
Figure 3‐3. Geotechnical Study Area
Based on a review of the available borehole records, the following general comments are provided on the subsurface conditions for the study area: 1. Within the basin area, the subsurface conditions consist of up to about 2.5 m of alluvium and glacial till overlying the limestone bedrock. Locally, there is as little as about 0.2 m of soils over the bedrock. The alluvium contains organic matter as well as variable proportions of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. 2. Off‐shore, in the area of the existing intakes, the river bottom sediments are typically no more than about 1 meter thick (at least in the area investigated) and in many locations it appears that bedrock is directly exposed on the river bottom. 3. On‐land, in the area between the low lift pumping station and the shoreline adjacent to the existing intakes, the available information indicates that the ground conditions consist of 2 to 3 m of random fill material overlying limestone bedrock. In some boreholes, at least the upper portion of the bedrock is indicated to be relatively fractured. There is no existing borehole information extending beyond the area of the existing intakes. A geotechnical investigation will ultimately need to be carried out during a later phase of this project, to confirm the subsurface conditions. A staged approach to that investigation may be appropriate, as the
3‐4 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORIES design progresses. For example, a limited geotechnical (or geophysical) investigation could be considered at the functional or preliminary design stages, while a more complete investigation should be carried out at the detailed design stage. 3.3.2 Ice Conditions 3.3.2.1 Frazil Ice Ice modelling was completed to assist in understanding the ice problem at the Lemieux Island WPP. The following is a brief summary of the general guiding principles of frazil ice formation at Lemieux Island. The ice dynamics at the intake site are mainly driven by winter air temperatures and hydraulic conditions. The three main processes which contribute to the ice characteristics are: 1) the growth of border ice; 2) the production of frazil in the open‐water areas; and 3) the transport and deposition of the frazil. The downstream portion of Lac Deschenes through to the Remic Rapids remains open for longer periods than does the upstream stretch. The duration depends on the winter flows and the severity of the winter air temperatures. High flows limit the formation of the border ice due to high local velocities and prevents the accumulation of ice on the surface due to the effect of the flow over the sluiceways at the Ring Dam. Cold temperatures will still allow some border ice to form, but it will do so at a relatively slow rate as it extends out from the shore towards the middle of the river channel. Border ice in front of the WPP intake will form to a width that varies over the winter, but that ultimately scales with river discharge and air temperatures. The open‐water area produces frazil ice due to the heat transfer between cold air and the water surface. The frazil is transported past the front of the intake. A portion of the frazil remains suspended in the flow, and the rest floats to the surface forming ice pans. The surface consists of a mixture of granular ice and water, and is commonly known as passive frazil or “slush”. When the surface ice is conveyed into an area with a solid ice cover, the slush either accumulates on the surface or gets entrained under the leading edge of the ice cover. Typically, if the flow velocities are below approximately 0.5m/s, the slush will accumulate under the ice cover and form what is referred to as a ‘hanging dam’. The water is supercooled in the open‐water during the frazil ice production process to a few hundredths of a degree below its freezing point. Supercooled water reaching the intake could form active frazil on the river bed and on the intake ports as a results of direct heat transfer between the supercooled water and the surfaces. The blockages events of 2013 suggest that passive frazil transport and deposition were dominant during the blockage event. 3.3.2.2 Learnings from 2013 Frazil Ice Event According to the work carried out by NHC, the combination of high winter river flow rates and the sequence of warm and cold temperatures seem to have been responsible for the surges in the frazil generation that led to the deposition of slush and the subsequent blockage of the WPP intake in 2013. Two potential ice‐related issues that could create problems at the intake were identified: 1. the growth of active frazil ice on various intake components that come in contact with the supercooled water, and 2. the accumulation of slush (passive frazil) at the ports and within the conductor pipes due to the ingestion of frazil while the intake is operating. Observations in 2013 confirm that the presence of accumulated slush in the vicinity of the intake was the main source of the problem. The severity of the accumulation was related to: 1) the formation of ice cover in front of the intake (either a complete ice cover or a substantial width of border ice), and 2) the production of a large amount of slush over the winter period in open‐water areas upstream of the intake, which ultimately accumulates beneath the border ice adjacent to the intake. Winters with high
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 3‐5 SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORIES flows would tend to reduce the extent of the border ice, thereby likely reducing the propensity for frazil ice accumulations – but only if the border ice is quite narrow. As a preliminary criterion, it is suggested that adverse ice conditions would not occur if the border ice width is less than 50 m or greater than about 100 m. The former results in insufficient border ice where slush can stored and the latter is associated with reduced open areas upstream, thereby reducing the production of frazil slush. A recent “mini‐event” (observed January 7, 2015) occurred with nearly “free‐flow” conditions in the River (with slush and floating frazil ice pans), and minimal border ice at the intake site. In this event, a diver found frazil ice to be accumulated around a significant part of the outer inlets of the upstream extender pipes. Small frazil ice pans, consisting of flocculated frazil crystals, were also found at the joint between the original concrete intake and the metal connection plates for the new intake extension pipes.
3‐6 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 4 Alternative Solutions Based on the environmental inventories and consultations with ice and hydraulic experts, CH2M has identified multiple alternatives to improve the existing drinking water intake in order to mitigate the impacts of frazil ice impeding flow to the Lemieux Island WPP over the long‐term. The alternatives were then narrowed down to a short‐list of alternatives based on their ability to meet the Problem/Opportunity Statement. The short‐listed alternatives where assessed using a Multi‐Criteria Analysis to identify the most appropriate solution and provide a preliminary recommendation. Figure 4‐1. Alternative Selection Approach
Assessment of Environmental Inventories Results Consultation with Ice and Hydraulic Experts Identification of Potential Alternatives
Short‐Listed Alternatives
Multi‐Criteria Analysis
Preliminary Recommendation
4.1 Identification of Potential Alternatives The MEA October 2000 (amended 2007 and 2011) document defines “alternative solutions” as: “Feasible alternative ways of achieving an identified problem (deficiency) or addressing an opportunity, from which a preferred solution is selected.” The alternative solutions evaluated in this Class EA are described below. 4.1.1 Alternative 1: Do Nothing As part of the Class EA process, the “Do Nothing” alternative solution must be considered and compared with other alternative solutions. For this project, “Do Nothing” would involve leaving the WPP intake unchanged. This alternative could involve continuing to use the temporary intakes. The temporary intake was a solution that was designed, procured and built in a short period of time to provide some means of minimizing the risk of the extreme frazil ice issues experienced in the winter of 2012–2013. The temporary intake extensions were not designed for current full plant capacity of 420 MLD, as they were intended to only serve as a temporary solution based on typical winter water demands and only used during winter.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 4‐1 SECTION 4 – ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 4.1.2 Alternative 2: Proximity to Shore Intake (Berm Solution) This alternative consists of a new intake to be located approximately 50 m off shore on the east side of Lemieux Island. The intake would be protected from frazil ice using an exposed rock berm just north of the intake. The rock berm would be constructed in the river, a very short distance downstream of the existing Low Lift Pumps Station. Conceptually, the berm would span from the island to the first railway bridge pier at the south end of the bridge. The berm would be constructed of large rocks 1.0 to 1.5 m in diameter and top out just below normal river level. A high porosity berm would be needed to allow water movement through the berm while, blocking out slush and frazil ice. The intent would be to deflect and/or stop ice from getting to the new intake. The new intake would be located in an area which has been identified as varying between 2.5 to 5.0 m water depths. Some excavation of the river bottom between the new berm and the existing shore would be necessary to accommodate the new intake and pipe. The new intake would be connected to the Low Lift Pumping Station intake well either on: 1) the east wall at the south east corner, or 2) the south wall at the south end of the well. The original rock berm for the Low Lift Pumping Station construction, with its clay core and sheet piling, should still be in place except for the area immediately around the existing intake. This may be of assistance when dewatering for excavations adjacent to the Low Lift Pumping Station. The tie‐in to the intake well would need to be carefully planned to confirm the most efficient approach and minimize operational impacts. The new intake would also require a new chemical injection point and its location would need further investigation. 4.1.3 Alternative 3: Deep Water Intake Under Ice Cover Although zones in proximity to Lemieux Island where an under‐ice water depth equal to or greater than 1.0 m are limited, there appears to be an area centered approximately 100 m off the north shore of the island where the likelihood of experiencing ice‐related issues is significantly reduced. This area is a pocket of deep water that would be large enough to house a deep water intake structure. The footprint of the optimal area is roughly 15 m2. Constructability of the tie‐in to the existing intake manifold will have to be investigated further, however, based on a preliminary review, a connection is feasible. Connection to the existing intake manifold would allow for the existing coagulant injection point to be re‐used. However, this does present some construction challenges that would have to be evaluated and mitigated, as this would likely require shutdown of the existing intake for a period of time. The intake structure itself in the deep intake area would be such that the intake velocity around the suction area would be reduced. This would involve either a bellmouth structure, or a number of small, individual upturned elbow structures, pointed downstream, within the deep intake pocket. This would be similar to the intake structure at the Britannia WPP. Initial hydraulic and pipe velocity calculations suggest that the new intake pipe size would be approximately 2,400 mm in diameter, in order to maintain an intake pipe velocity of less than 2.0 m/s (not the approach velocity near the intake entrance), and to keep the hydraulic losses through the new intake similar to the existing intake piping. There are multiple alternative means of installing the new intake pipes including: Pipes supported on foundations on the river bed. Removal and disposal of the alluvium, where present would be required since that soil is likely quite compressible. Depending on the magnitude (if any) of the horizontal forces against which the pipe and foundations need to be anchored (such as due to the current), it could in fact be necessary to excavate away all of the river‐bottom sediment, to reach the
4‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 4 – ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS bedrock surface, so that the foundations can be anchored. It should also be noted that, if wood waste is present in significant thicknesses along the river bed, then it may not be very practical to remove that material and to support the pipe on such foundations. A deep foundation system or different installation method might be required. Long‐term stability of the pipe would be difficult to achieve with this approach. Pipe trenched into the river bed (in the wet). This would involve excavation into bedrock. There would be regulatory constraints on the work. Trenchless construction methods could also be technically feasible. For example, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methods could potentially be used. However, there could be constraints on the size of bore which could be constructed (and therefore the size of pipe), based on the availability of equipment, and depending on the length of the bore. Multiple bores and pipes would likely be needed, to achieve an intake with sufficient capacity. A more feasible alternative could be tunneling. This approach would include an on‐shore shaft, a horizontal bore from that shaft, extending under the river bed, to terminate at a new intake structure on the river bed. Some form of in‐water work would likely still be required for either method, in order to create the intake structure on the river bed. With the second alternative, there would be the added challenge of dealing with groundwater inflows to the shaft (and from the progressing bore), which could be significant. For any trenchless alternative, it would also be very important to investigate the bedrock quality/condition along the bore, particularly given the apparent faulted nature of the bedrock in this area. 4.1.4 Alternative 4: Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover Another alternative is to construct a new intake into deeper water beyond the ice cover. This would be a significant distance into the river – an estimated 225 m from the existing shore, across the Ontario‐ Quebec border. It would require similar pipe size diameter to Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately 2,400 mm, or twin pipes of lesser diameter in order to limit headloss. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, the constructability of the tie‐in to the existing intake manifold needs to be investigated further. Connection into the existing concrete structure would be beneficial in order to maintain the existing coagulation dosing system, and to maintain the existing intake as a secondary emergency intake. Similar to Alternative 3, the intake structure itself would be such that the intake velocity around the suction area would be reduced. This would involve either a bellmouth structure, or a number of small, individual upturned elbow structures, pointed downstream, within the deep intake pocket. This would be similar to the intake structure at the Britannia WPP. 4.1.5 Alternative 5: Ice Boom The primary objective of an ice boom would be to alter the river’s ice drift pattern so that inactive frazil is either not carried to the intake; or that the quantity of inactive frazil reaching the intake is reduced. An ice boom consists of one span cable. The span cable is attached at each end to a buoy. The buoy is then attached to an anchor cable, which is in turn attached to an anchor in the riverbed. The span can be in any size, however most booms in operation vary between 50 m and 300 m wide span. Ice booms are designed to be submerged under extreme loading conditions, avoiding structural failure. The initial cost of the boom is low relative to other means. The ice boom would be installed only once and its seasonal removal would not be necessary. For the Lemieux Island WPP intake, there are two general ways in which ice booms may be deployed to achieve these objectives:
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 4‐3 SECTION 4 – ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 1. As a retention boom – In this case, the boom would be placed across the river channel upstream of the intake to form an ice cover there, under which inactive frazil would be deposited. Figure 4‐2 below shows two potential locations for ice retention booms. The retention boom would be intended to prevent or reduce the amount of inactive frazil reaching the intake. It should be noted that for inactive frazil to remain under the upstream ice cover, the currents must be low. Otherwise, the slush will be transported under the ice and boom and downstream. Figure 4‐2. Two Example Locations of an Ice Retention Boom
2. As a diversion boom – In this case, the boom would be located with the intention of diverting the drifting slush pans away from the intake and into the “main” river channel on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. Figure 4‐3 below shows a potential location for ice diversion boom. Figure 4‐3. Example Location of an Ice Diversion Boom
4.2 Summary of Alternatives A summary of the basic alternatives that were considered for improving the intake at the Lemieux Island WPP to mitigate the impacts of frazil ice is provided in Table 4‐1 below.
4‐4 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 4 – ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Table 4‐1. Summary of Alternatives Number Alternative Description
1 Do Nothing No changes to the existing intake.
2 Proximity to Shore New intake to be located approximately 50 m off shore on the east side of Lemieux Intake (Berm Solution) Island. The intake would be protected from frazil ice using an exposed rock berm just north of the intake.
3 Deep Water Intake New intake to be located approximately 100 m off the north shore of the island at a Under Ice Cover maximum depth of 9‐10m range. This area is a pocket of deep water that would be large enough to house a deep water intake structure. The footprint of the optimal area is roughly 15 m2. This location is typically under ice cover in the winter months.
4 Deep Water Intake New intake to be located approximately 225 m from the existing shore, across the Beyond Ice Cover Ontario‐Quebec border, with maximum water depths in the 15‐17 m range. This location is not under ice cover in the winter months.
5 Ice Boom Installation of a boom in the river channel to either divert frazil ice away from the intake (diversion boom) or retain frazil ice to prevent ice migration (retention boom) towards the intake.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 4‐5 SECTION 5 Short‐Listed Alternatives Each alternative solution was short‐listed based on their ability to meet the Problem/Opportunity Statement which is: To improve the existing drinking water intake in order to mitigate the impacts of frazil ice impeding flow to the Lemieux Island WPP over the long‐term. Alternatives that met this Problem/Opportunity Statement were carried forward for more detailed assessment. 5.1 Eliminated Long‐Term Alternatives Alternative 1 Do Nothing and Alternative 5 Ice Boom were not short‐listed for further assessment Alternative 1 was removed as it does not meet the project goal to minimize the risk of frazil ice impacts to the Lemieux Island WPP intake and develop a long‐term solution. Alternative 5 Ice Boom only partially addresses the Problem/Opportunity Statement as it does not provide improvements to the existing water intake but it can mitigate the impacts of frazil ice impeding flow to the WPP over the long‐ term. Therefore, Alternative 5 was not carried forward as standalone alternative. However ice booms can be used as an alternative to supplement other alternatives as discussed below. 5.1.1 Alternative 1 ‐ Do Nothing With the Lemieux Island WPP providing approximately half of the City’s potable water, the temporary intake solution must be replaced with a robust permanent alternative which is designed and built to sustain the impacts for major frazil ice events for the upcoming decades. In other words, the risk of a future frazil ice event that would significantly impact water production even with the intake extensions is unacceptable. As well, the temporary intakes do not have adequate hydraulic capacity for the rated plant flow. This Do Nothing alternative would leave the Lemieux Island WPP vulnerable to potential future impacts due to frazil ice and could compromise the ability to provide a sustainable supply of drinking water to the City of Ottawa. This is not an acceptable outcome and therefore the Do Nothing Alternative has been removed from the list of alternative solutions and will not be considered further. 5.1.2 Alternative 5 – Ice Boom A retention or diversion ice boom can prevent and reduce the amount of frazil ice flowing to the WPP intake. The efficiency of an ice boom is quite site specific. A few years worth of data collection under various winter conditions would be required to confirm the effectiveness of the boom at the Lemieux Island site. The City is looking for a permanent solution to be implemented in the near future to confidently address the frazil ice issues. In this light, this boom alternative has been eliminated as a stand alone permanent solution. However, with its relatively low capital and maintenance costs, an ice boom would be a good solution to be used as an interim measure or in conjunction with a new intake location. The appropriate boom design would be defined within the context of the intake site as well as the proposed intake configuration to improve intake performance. The following combinations are possible: 1) Interim Measure – In this case, the boom would be the primary ice defense and would be used at a temporary measure while the long‐term solution is being designed and constructed. The boom could be a replacement to the existing backup plan to the temporary intake (rental of temporary pumps). Either a retention boom or a diversion boom could potentially meet this role. Installing a boom may significantly assist in reducing the potential presence of frazil ice hence reducing the
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 5‐1 SECTION 5 – SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES likelihood of the City having to deal with frazil ice issues on the temporary intake. An engineering evaluation would be required, starting with the review of the river current survey results. 2) Alternative 2 – Proximity to Shore Intake (Berm Solution): The main ice concerns in this case are that: (i) the intake is shallow making it vulnerable to frazil ingestion; and (ii) inactive frazil could get carried back into the intake due to the back‐eddy that is assumed to be present. A diversion boom would probably provide the best ice performance here as it would tend to divert slush towards the center of the Ottawa River thereby reducing the amount of inactive frazil that could potentially be carried back into the intake. 3) Alternative 3 – Deep Water Under Ice Cover: Only the retention boom would help in this case, as it would be intended to prevent frazil ingress downstream from the upstream ice cover. 5.2 Short‐listed Alternatives The following table summarizes the list of short‐listed alternatives.
Table 5‐1. Alternative Solution Descriptions Number Alternative Title Short‐listed? Justification
1 Do Nothing No Does not solve Problem/Opportunity and meet long‐term project objective.
Proximity to Shore The intake would be protected from frazil ice using an exposed rock berm 2 Intake (Berm Yes just north of the intake. Solution) This solution improves the intake and meets long‐term project objectives.
The intake would be located at a greater depth, i.e. 9‐10 m – this would Deep Water Intake reduce the presence of frazil ice. This location is typically under ice cover 3 Yes Under Ice Cover in the winter months – this would also contribute to reducing the presence of frazil ice.
Deep Water Intake The intake would be located at a greater depth, i.e. 15‐17 m – this would 4 Yes Beyond Ice Cover significantly reduce the presence of frazil ice.
Only partially solves Problem/Opportunity However, this alternative can be used in conjunction with Alternative 2 5 Ice Boom No (Proximity to Shore Intake Berm Solution) and Alternative 3 (Deep Water Intake Under Ice Cover) to improve intake performance. This alternative could also be used in the current setting, as an additional temporary measure to the existing temporary intake.
Figure 5‐1 below illustrates the proposed layout of the short‐listed alternatives.
5‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 5 – SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES
Figure 5‐1. Lemieux Island WPP Intake Improvement Short‐listed Alternatives
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 5‐3 SECTION 6 Detailed Evaluation of Short‐listed Alternatives Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were evaluated in greater detail using a Multi‐Criteria Analysis to identify a preliminary recommendation. The magnitude of net positive and negative effects for each short‐listed alternative with respect to environmental factors (technical, natural, cultural and financial) were identified. The alternative solution with the least negative impacts is considered as the preferred. 6.1 Multi‐Criteria Tool A Multi‐Criteria Analysis (MCA), a decision making tool used to assess alternatives where multiple criteria must be considered, was used to assess the alternatives presented. This analysis also includes an overall review of the alternatives, including the technical performances of each alternative as, project delivery, natural environment, social environment and the costs (capital & Operation and Maintenance).
6.2 Multi‐Criteria Analysis Set Up and Evaluation Scoring The approach to the MCA was a collaboration between the City and CH2M. The following steps were followed to develop the alternatives, select the MCA criteria and assign weighs to them, assess each alternative and identify a preliminary preferred solution. Technical Memorandum #1: We developed a list of alternatives for consideration. Initial design work was done at this stage in order to properly develop the functional alternatives to the point where they could be adequately and accurately developed. A draft evaluation criteria list was developed by CH2M as well as their respective weights. They were captured in the draft Technical Memorandum #1 and presented to the City for review. Workshop #1: The objective of this workshop was to review the alternatives and evaluation criteria put forward by CH2M in the draft Technical Memorandum #1 and to gain the City’s feedback prior to evaluating the alternatives in more detail. The alternatives being carried forward as well as the evaluation criteria and their respective weights were captured in the final version of Technical Memorandum #1 as was the City’s overall feedback.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 6‐1 SECTION 6 – DETAILED EVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES
Technical Memorandum #2: While evaluating the alternatives in detail, CH2M expanded on the expected impacts for the agreed upon functional alternatives from Workshop #1. The detailed social/natural/economic impacts, and finalize mitigation opportunities were finalized. The outcomes captured in the evaluation of the functional alternatives were documented in a draft version of Technical Memorandum #2 and submitted to the City for review. Workshop #2: During Workshop #2, the recommendation put forward in Technical Memorandum #2 was subjected to a rigorous review with the City. This workshop ensured a consensus was achieved on the evaluation methodology/scoring for each alternative. The consensus from Workshop #2 was the basis of the recommended preferred solution. Preliminary Identification of Preferred Alternative: The City’s input and consensus from Workshop #2 was captured in the final version of Technical Memorandum #2. A summary of the assessment and the identification of the preliminary preferred alternative is documented in the sections below. 6.2.1 Evaluation Criteria The proposed MCA includes a total of 11 parameters across five categories. A general description of each is noted below. 6.2.1.1 Technical Performance This Technical Performance criterion was used to compare each alternative based on the efficiency and adequacy of their technical solution. The following three parameters were used as a break down for this category: 1) Risk of frazil ice impacting intake operations: this parameter assesses how well the alternative will perform in terms of reducing the risk of frazil ice issues 2) Potential degradation of water quality: deterioration of the water due to the intake location and/or depth 3) Redundancy of the intake: the new solution provides a ‘second intake’ whilst preserving the existing one 6.2.1.2 Project Implementation This criterion compares the alternatives in terms of the complexity of the required upgrades. It also considers the duration and staging required for the various construction phases and if there would be any technological or implementation difficulties. The following three parameters were used as a break down for this category: 1) Construction impact on the plant operations: this indicates disruptions to plant operations and/or shutdown times (if required) 2) Construction impact on the water quality: this accounts for the construction activities in the river and whether or not and/or how the effect of construction and machinery can be mitigated 3) Construction schedule: this evaluated the construction schedule required whilst taking into consideration the instream timing restrictions
6‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 6 – DETAILED EVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES 6.2.1.3 Social Environment This criterion assesses the likelihood of finding artifacts on the site during construction. It also assess the impact to the community in regards to access to the nearby park and the waterway for recreational activities. 6.2.1.4 Natural Environment This compares the alternatives in regard to the short term and long term effects the construction and infrastructure would have on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, vegetation and habitat. The following two parameters were used as a break down for this category: 1) Impact on ecosystems: this included the assessment of the relative sensitivity of aquatic habitat, permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat and preliminary impingement/entrainment potential. 2) Permitting complexity and risks: this is another angle from which the impacts to the ecosystem were measure – this factored in the extent of the anticipated approval and consultation process and the need for additional studies. 6.2.1.5 Economics This item evaluates the overall cost of the alternative including the capital costs and operational & maintenance costs. 6.2.2 Criteria Weightings The parameters and their respective weightings are based on the requirements of the project and discussions with the City. Each of the parameters above were given a proposed criteria weighting, for a total sum of all factor weightings of 100%. Each factor was considered on the basis of how important or adverse the impact would be if left unmitigated, and the duration of the impact and its effects. The criteria weighting was used as part of the evaluation method as described in the section below. The proposed criteria weighting for each factor was determined collectively by the City and CH2M.The MCA parameters along with their respective weights are presented in Table 6‐1. Table 6‐1. Intake Improvements Multi‐Criteria Analysis Parameters Parameter Weights Category Categories Multi Criteria Analysis Parameters Weights Parameter Overall
Risk of frazil ice impacting intake operations 60% 27% Technical 45% Potential degradation of water quality 30% 14% Performance Redundancy 10% 5% Construction impact on plant operations 40% 4% Project 10% Construction impact on water quality 40% 4% Implementation Construction schedule 20% 2% Impact on aquatic Ecosystems 50% 10% Natural Environment 20% Permitting complexity and risks 50% 10% Social Environment 5% Cultural & heritage resources/Archaeology 100% 5% Capital costs 80% 16% Economics 20% Operation and maintenance costs 20% 4%
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 6‐3 SECTION 6 – DETAILED EVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES 6.2.3 Scoring The scores (1‐10, one being poor and 10 being the best) from each evaluation parameter were multiplied by parameter weights to generate a weighed parameter score. All weighted parameter scores for each category were added up for final alternative scope. Figure 6‐1 below is an example of how scores are developed for an alternative solution. The alternative with the highest score is ranked as the preferred, as it has the least negative net effects of all alternatives. Figure 6‐1. MCA Scoring Example Parameter Weighted Parameter Weights Score Parameter Category Multi Criteria Analysis Categories Score Weights Parameters Parameter Overall
Risk of frazil ice impacting 60% 27% 2 0.54 intake operations X = Technical 45% Potential degradation of water 0.54 Performance 30% 14% X 4 = quality
Redundancy 10% 5% X 10 = 0.45 Total Technical Performance Score 1.53
6.3 Evaluation Summary The following section provides a summary of the impacts for each alternative solution and their overall scores. Table 6‐2 summarizes the evaluation of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
6‐4 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 6 – DETAILED EVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES
Table 6‐2. Evaluation of Alternatives Impacts Categories Parameters Alternative 2 Proximity to Shore Intake (berm) Alternative 3 Deep Water Intake Under Ice Cover Alternative 4 Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover Technical Risk of frazil ice Rock berm could divert both surface and suspended frazil in transport away from Active frazil is not expected to be a concern for Alternative3 due to its Due to its depth and location, this alternative represents the least risk with Performance impacting intake the intake ports. location on the river. respect to frazil impacting the intake operation of the plant. operations Risk of eddy formation and shallowness of area could expose the intake to the The intake could be susceptible to passive frazil that gets deposited risk of frazil ice accumulation. underneath the shore ice and around the intake, eventually clogging it. Potential The low‐velocity region created by the berm may increase sedimentation and Presence of a relatively small depression within the river bottom, which Conventional intakes with a good track records of similar installations elsewhere, degradation of water water stagnation in this area, which could lead to a potential long‐term would potentially be more susceptible to an accumulation of sediment or such that the location of the intake would not significantly adversely affect water quality maintenance issue for the City. stagnant water. Conventional intakes with a good track records of similar quality. installations elsewhere, such that the location of the intake would not significantly adversely affect water quality. Redundancy Slightly higher level of redundancy ‐ a new connection would be made directly The existing 2,550 mm diameter intake piping does represent a single point of The existing 2,550 mm diameter intake piping does represent a single point of into the Low Lift Pump Well, providing an additional, wholly independent failure for both the new and existing intake structure, as it would be re‐used. failure for both the new and existing intake structure, as it would be re‐used. connection into the Pump Well that does not rely on the existing 2,550 mm diameter intake pipe. Project Construction impact Although the connection is intended to occur while the LLPW remains in service, During construction, the potential risk of water quality impacts to the existing Construction requirements and construction sequencing for Alternative4 are Implementation on plant operations the potential of affecting the existing plant operations is higher with this intake are higher than with Alternative2, as construction is occurring within nearly identical to that of Alternative3, except the intake would be longer alternative, as work is being done directly in the LLPW. the vicinity of the existing intake for a short period of time. (approximately 275 m). Construction impact During construction, the potential risk of water quality impacts to the existing Although silt curtains would be installed during construction, the potential for As per Alternative3, water quality degradation during construction would only be on water quality intake are minor, as the existing LLPW is isolated, and the new intake increased silt and turbidity in the area of the existing intake, while a potential concern when completing construction within proximity of the shore construction is not in the vicinity of the existing intake. construction is within proximity of the shoreline, is higher. (approximately 30 m). Construction It is expected that this work could be completed in a single construction season It is expected that this work could be completed in a single construction The additional length would likely extend the construction schedule to two river schedule with the in‐water work being done between July 15 and approximately October 1. season with the in‐water work being done between July 15 and construction seasons, as the work is expected to be too extensive to be complete approximately October 1. in a single season. Social Cultural & Heritage/ For all alternatives, the risk of archaeological impacts are low and similar For all alternatives, the risk of archaeological impacts are low and similar For all alternatives, the risk of archaeological impacts are low and similar Environment Archaeology between the alternatives. between the alternatives. between the alternatives. Restricted access to park during construction. Restricted access to park during construction. Restricted access to park during construction. No impacts to land use once the construction is complete. No impacts to land use once the construction is complete. No impacts to land use once the construction is complete. Natural Impact on aquatic The intake and the berm are in the littoral zone observed to contain aquatic Alternative 3 has a greater footprint hence, from the perspective of the Alternative 4 has a greater footprint than hence, from the perspective of the Environment ecosystem vegetation and support nursery and potential spawning habitat. project activities, using open cut trenching, it would have a greater negative project activities, using open cut trenching, it would have a greater negative Fish habitat is near a portion of Lemieux Island that may be associated with a impact on the ecosystem in comparison to Alternative2. Shifting a pipe impact on the ecosystem in comparison to Alternatives 2 and 3. Shifting a pipe historic fill zones. The length of the intake pipe and resulting footprint impact is location to deeper waters may result in reduced impingement and location to deeper waters may result in reduced impingement and entrainment shorter than other alternatives. The intake and berm is are in a littoral zone entrainment potential, subject to habitat present at the intake location and potential, subject to habitat present at the intake location and use of this area as observed to contain aquatic vegetation and support nursery and potential use of this area as a spawning, staging or migratory corridor. a spawning, staging or migratory corridor. spawning habitat. A Fisheries Act Authorization will most likely be required. Flow The permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat, the relative The permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat, the relative sensitivity of measurement analysis of the area would be required. The constructability sensitivity of aquatic habitat and the preliminary impingement/entrainment aquatic habitat and the preliminary impingement/entrainment potential are approach needs to be detailed with the objective of preventing/reducing the potential are expected to be minimized with a trenchless approach. Even with expected to be minimized with a trenchless approach. Even with the tunneling impact to water quality and fish habitat. the tunneling approach, there would still need to be a significant section of approach, there would still need to be a significant section of the intake installed the intake installed using open cut (i.e. installation of the end section with the using open cut (i.e. installation of the end section with the intake ports). Where intake ports). Where fractures in the bedrock of underlying channel substrate fractures in the bedrock of underlying channel substrate exist, the possibility of a exist, the possibility of a frac‐out or unsuitable tunnel stability may increase frac‐out or unsuitable tunnel stability may increase to the extent that trenchless to the extent that trenchless methods are determined not feasible. methods are determined not feasible. Open trench methods represent a higher environmental risk due to the potential Open trench methods represent a higher environmental risk due to the potential for sediment generation or need for using blasting to remove bedrock. for sediment generation or need for using blasting to remove bedrock. The constructability approach needs to be detailed with the objective of The constructability approach needs to be detailed with the objective of preventing/reducing the impact to water quality and fish habitat. preventing/reducing the impact to water quality and fish habitat. Permitting It is believed that the complexity of the permitting and associated requirements It is believed that the complexity of the permitting and associated It is believed that the complexity of the permitting and associated requirements complexity and risks for approvals needed for Alternative 2, including addressing residual impacts, are requirements for approvals needed for Alternative3 is greater than for for approvals needed for Alternative 4 is greater than for Alternative 2. likely to be less than for Alternatives 3 and 4 when the latter are using open cut Alternative 2. When considering tunneling as the constructability approach for Alternatives 3 techniques. When considering tunneling as the constructability approach for Alternatives and 4, the permitting complexity and risks category is rated similarly for all three When considering tunneling as the constructability approach for Alternatives 3 3 and 4, the permitting complexity and risks category is rated similarly for all alternatives. and 4, the permitting complexity and risks category is rated similarly for all three three alternatives. Regardless of the constructability approach, Alternative 4 extends into Quebec. alternatives. Therefore, additional approvals will be required from the Quebec provincial regulatory agencies.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 6‐5 SECTION 6 – DETAILED EVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES
Table 6‐2. Evaluation of Alternatives Impacts Categories Parameters Alternative 2 Proximity to Shore Intake (berm) Alternative 3 Deep Water Intake Under Ice Cover Alternative 4 Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover Economics Capital Costs Lower capital cost. Medium capital cost. Highest capital cost. Operational & Less susceptible to pipe maintenance (since there is physically less pipe to Low maintenance costs. Low maintenance costs. Maintenance Costs maintain). Closer to shore hence it would be easier to access when maintenance is required. However, since the risk of frazil ice entering the Alternative2 intake is higher, the potential for costs associated with special frazil ice maintenance procedures, such as hot water flushing, backflushing, air backwashing, etc., would be higher, so the costs associated with such maintenance procedures would also be higher compared with Alternative3 and Alternative4. OVERALL WEIGHTED 5.4 5.8 6.4 SCORE (OUT OF 10)
6‐6 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 6 – DETAILED EVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED ALTERNATIVES 6.4 Preliminary Recommendation 6.4.1 Long‐Term Preliminary Recommendation The table below provides the initial overall ranking of each alternative based on their scoring and identifies the preliminary preferred alternative. Alternative 4 – Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover ranked as the preferred solution. Alternative 3 – Deep Water Intake Under ice Cover followed in second place. Alternative 4 rated much higher than the other alternatives in the Technical Performance category. This alternative is the preferred solution for the following reasons: Due to its depth and its location this alternative represents the least risk with respect to frazil impacting the intake operation of the plant. The design is a conventional intake with a good track record of similar installations in similar environments. Impingement/entrainment potential are expected to be minimized if a trenchless approach can ultimately be used. Lesser operation and maintenance impacts As the construction approach has not yet been selected, a sensitivity analysis was done on the MCA. This allowed for a better understanding of the implication of the construction approach in regards to its influence on the recommended alternatives. The final outcome is the same regardless of the construction approach: Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and Alternative 3 ranks second.
Table 6‐3. Alternative Solution Rankings – Multi‐Criteria Analysis Results Alternative# Ranking
2 Proximity to Shore Intake (Berm Solution) 3
3 Deep Water Under Ice Cover 2
4 Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover 1
Based on the above evaluation, the preliminary recommendation is Alternative 4 – Deep Water Intake Beyond the Ice Cover. 6.4.2 Short‐Term Preliminary Recommendation In Section 5.1.2 of this report, the use of an ice boom was eliminated from the long‐term alternatives. It was however highlighted that the boom could work well in conjunction with the current intake as an interim measure or in combination with Alternatives 2 or 3. As the recommended alternative is Alternative 4, the boom would not supplement the reduction in frazil ice impacts. Therefore, consideration of the boom is in the context of reducing frazil ice risks until the intake is constructed. Although the goal was not to identify both a long‐term and a short‐term preliminary recommendation, it would be beneficial to look in to the ice boom as a potential short‐term solution which may or may not assist the City in reducing their cost associated with handling issues related to frazil ice while the long‐ term solution is being designed and built. It is recommended to further investigate the applicability of the ice boom for this site and to complete a cost comparison estimate of the ice boom versus the current backup plan (pump rentals).
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 6‐7 SECTION 7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Construction and operation of the preliminary recommendation will lead to potential impacts, both positive and negative, upon the social, natural, technical and economic environments. It is understood that the main guiding principle for regulatory agencies for pipeline associated watercourse crossing parallels the DFO guiding principal of “no net loss” of productive capacity of fish habitat. The following sections summarize these potential impacts and present mitigating measures that are proposed to reduce any negative impacts. These will be developed in more detail to match the level of design as the project progresses. 7.1 Long‐term Preliminary Recommendation – Deep Water Intake Beyond Ice Cover 7.1.1 Technical Performance 7.1.1.1 Water Current Survey Understanding the water current and confirming the river velocities will assist in developing the design of the new intake and accounting for design components impacted by river current and velocities. Following up on previous recommendations, a water current survey was carried out to: Confirm the existing bathymetry data; Collect and analyze current velocity results to be used for frazil ice study analysis at the design stage of the project. 7.1.1.2 Geotechnical Understanding the geotechnical makeup of the area will assist in determining which construction approach is best suited for the preferred recommendation which in turn ties into developing the design appropriately. To do so, and following up on previous recommendations, a geotechnical investigation was carried out to confirm the subsurface conditions. This information will be used at the design stage. To support the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design, Golder has been hired to collect geophysical data to the north and west of the existing plant. The objectives of the geophysical study are: Determine the depth to the bedrock subsurface in a continuous, non‐intrusive approach. Determine the thickness and type of significant sediment (>30 cm) or wood debris layers. Collect information suitable for marine archaeology analysis at a later date. 7.1.2 Project Implementation 7.1.2.1 Construction Technique Each construction technique has its own risks. Selecting a construction technique must be done with a full knowledge of the risks. The risks associated with each technique will vary according to many factors. This includes but is not limited to: project scope; contractor’s ability, experience and commitment, pipe size and season of construction.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 7‐1 SECTION 7 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES High level investigations of the construction techniques appropriate for this site and intake size have been completed. Further assessments will be completed at the design stage of the project with the required geotechnical and river current data. Example of potential risks to be evaluated include: unexpected extended periods in water course, erosion of instream spoil storage, loss of ditch as a result of unstable bed materials, drill mud seepage directly into watercourse and so on. Table 7‐1 below presents the construction technique selection considerations for pipeline crossings as referenced in Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition, October 2005. This document has been indorsed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and recognized as a reference document for use both by industry and department employees in all regions. There are many similarities between the construction of an intake and one of a pipeline hence this document is used as a guideline in the selection of the construction technique for the new intake. Based on preliminary discussions with industry experts, considering the size of the intake diameter, the river currents and velocities as well as the preliminary geotechnical information and bathymetry available, the most adequate construction methods for open trenched and trenchless would be the dredging and boring respectively, both highlighted in the table below. Moving forward, the environmental sensitivity of the Ottawa River at Lemieux Island will need to be determined in consultation with provincial and federal fisheries authorities. The environmental sensitivity levels of watercourses are dependent on factors that vary regionally across Canada. Parameters such as species present, habitat use, season, downstream use by water users, flow, thermal regime and the findings of an aquatic assessment may be included in a determination of sensitivity. The criteria for the three classification of environmental sensitivities at this site (low, moderate and high) will need to be provided by the provincial and/or federal fisheries authorities. This information will assist in guiding the identification of the most adequate open trenched and/or trenchless construction approach. Based on the initial environmental assessment produced by Golder for this site, the environmental sensitivity is expected to range from low to moderate. Table 7‐1. Construction Selection Considerations Watercourse Construction Method Environmental Sensitivity Low Moderate High Open Trenched Plow n/a n/a n/a Wheel Ditcher n/a n/a n/a Backhoe Y Y x Dragline Y Y x Dredging Y Y x Trenchless Boring Y Y Y Punching S $ $ Micro‐tunneling $ $ Y Horizontal Drill $ Y Y
Notes: Y ‐ the method is generally environmentally suitable, but may require habitat compensation measures $ ‐ the method is environmentally acceptable, however, may not be practical due to the high construction cost x ‐ this method is generally not environmentally suitable, but may be permitted if habitat compensation is implemented n/a ‐ not usually practical from an engineering or construction standpoint
7‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 7 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1.2.2 Construction Duration The construction duration is a key parameter of the project implementation. The duration of construction activities for each of the selected construction methods will be defined and discussed at a high level with regulators, as certain works that are beneath the river bed may or may not need to adhere to timing window constraints. The main environmental objectives in terms of construction duration will be to minimize the duration of time spent working instream and abide by instream timing restrictions (i.e. avoid seasonal high risk periods within lifecycle or resident aquatic organisms). 7.1.2.3 Project Implementation Several impacts will arise from the construction activities necessary to upgrade the existing intake. As discussed previously, temporary mitigation efforts will be implemented to address construction impacts. Quality assurance practices can also be implemented during design and construction that will contribute to offsetting the impacts of construction. Some examples include: Pre‐qualification of the consultant engineer and contractor to enable the City to evaluate and select suitable firms to undertake the design and construction of the proposed works. Establish clear roles and responsibilities for the engineering team, contractor and the City representatives (project team). Project specific plans related to safety, environmental impact mitigation, and constructability and treatment requirements will be established. Construction supervisory personnel will be on site full time to ensure that all identified mitigation requirements are adhered to and the design intent is being carried forward through construction. 7.1.3 Social Environment 7.1.3.1 Recreational The following are the impacts and mitigation measure on the recreational activities in the area anticipated during the construction period: River access: Safety measures will need to be put in place to ensure that river rafting and paddling is limited to a safe distance from the river construction site. Lemieux Island Park access: Access to this park would most likely remain outside of the daytime construction schedule/hours of work. It is assumed that, with potentially high traffic of heavy vehicles, access to the park may be limited for specific periods of time during the daytime construction hours. Safety measures will be put in place to ensure safe access to and from the WPP and the park. 7.1.3.2 Trucks and Traffic Impacts Lemieux Island is located near areas set up for recreational activities, such as the Lemieux Island Park and the Parkway bike path. The construction of the proposed works will result in a temporary increase in traffic flow. The increase traffic during construction may negatively impact the users of the recreational areas. The high flow/attendance in these areas are likely to be outside the normal construction hours. Road circulation plan will need to be submitted by the Contractor to ensure that access to the recreational areas is continuous and to account for the safety of the residents accessing the recreational areas.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 7‐3 SECTION 7 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1.3.3 Noise and Air Quality Noise impacts during the construction period will be expected due to onsite activities from standard construction methods. This will be mitigated through requirement of standard daytime construction schedule/hours of work. The nature of the construction activity is expected to have no adverse impacts on local odour or air quality. 7.1.3.4 Cultural As noted in a previous section, on‐shore work for all alternatives would occur in areas of fill and therefore not subject to further archaeological assessment. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment noted that an underwater archaeological assessment should be considered prior to any impact of the riverbed. This assessment is scheduled to be done at a later stage of the project, within the next few months. However the data for it is being collected shortly as per the geotechnical investigation noted in the previous sections above. The intake which extends into the middle of the Ottawa River, into the province of Quebec, may require additional archaeological approvals as it crosses a provincial border. 7.1.4 Natural Environment The positive and negative effects of the preliminary recommendation on the natural environment as well as its mitigation measures are an important part of this assessment. Moving into the design stage of the project the following consideration will be included: The spatial extent of physical infrastructure or projects activities that would temporarily alter, permanently alter or destroy fish habitat will be initially quantified for each of the potential construction methods through conducting a Fisheries Act self‐assessment. A request for review will be submitted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), as a precursor to a subsequent Application for Authorization unless serious harm can ultimately be avoided. 7.1.4.1 Instream Sedimentation Control Special care is required when designing and installing instream sediment controls, particularly in flowing watercourses. Selection of the appropriate instream sedimentation control method for this site will be based on the following criteria: flow velocity and volume; intake depth and diameter; seasonal conditions; environmental sensitivity; bed material; and trench excavation method. Generation of sediments is a risk that needs to be considered for the construction of the intake, for both open trenched (dredging) and trenchless (boring) construction techniques. Boring would require sedimentation mitigation measures as the machinery will need to resurface at the far end of the intake. As described in a previous section, the intake will be an estimated 250 m into the river, at a 15 m maximum depth. With average winter inflow rates of 1,340 m3/s and mean velocities of ranging from 0.1 m/s in the deepest and widest parts of the reservoir to about 2 m/s in the rapid sections. The subsurface conditions consists of as little as about 0.2 m of soils over the bedrock.
7‐4 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 7 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Between the high velocities and the anticipated quantity of suspended materials, these suspended materials may not settle at all hence they may not be a significant issue in terms of risks to the natural environment. Data from additional geotechnical investigation will need to be assessed to confirm this hypothesis. Methods that may be used to minimize and control the location, dispersion and extent of sediments transported downstream includes turbidity curtains, mats and the use of sheet pilling and coffer dams. Turbidity curtains may not be practical at this site as they are generally limited to slow flowing rivers with maximum velocities of 0.5 m/s. Another alternative could be sediment mats. The mats are flat 1.2 x 3.0 m pads which are laid singly or in multiples on the streambed immediately downstream of the worksite. The placement of these woven mats downstream of the crossing, especially in the sensitive habitats, traps large amounts of bedload and suspended sediments. These mats can be removed after construction and, if biodegradable, can be used during bank restauration. However, these mats can sustain velocities of up to 1.0 m/s hence they may not provide a practical approach. Sheet pilling and coffer dams are very expensive and have doubled the costs of recent intake projects. The use of sheet pilling may be cost prohibitive to the project. The following types of instream sediment controls have been used in the past although no information has been collected on the acceptability of these techniques by regulators nor their effectiveness: deflector approach by installing logs, rocks or geotextiles to divert sediment laden flow from sensitive fish habitat and to promote deposition of suspended solids in artificially created back eddy; and covering spawning beds with geotextiles, or other suitable material, until construction is complete. These will be further discussed with regulators. 7.1.4.2 Instream Blasting Instream blasting may be necessary as an approach to remove the bedrock for both open trenched and trenchless construction techniques. Boring (trenched approach) may require instream blasting to retrieve the machinery at the far end of the intake. If less destructive or more controlled methods of removing bedrock (e.g. ripping) are not possible and that instream blasting is unavoidable, these measures are expected to be followed: Consult with provincial fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists and regional DFO representatives in addition to other regulatory agencies early in the planning phase should blasting in or near streams be considered. Consult with DFO as early as possible in the planning process to identify and discuss practical alternatives, aquatic resources and mitigation measures. DFO may, upon review of a project proposal, provide a letter of advice, issue an Authorization under Section 32 and/or Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, or decide not to issue Authorization(s). In arriving at one of these determinations, DFO will take into account, among other things, whether: the use of explosives is the only technically feasible means of breaking bedrock such that it can be excavated from the trench; sensitivity of habitat, fish presence and timing; and the use of explosives is required to alleviate an emergency situation.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 7‐5 SECTION 7 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1.4.3 Backfilling Backfilling should be performed in a manner that ensures erosion does not occur along the trench and that it does not result in a loss of fish habitat. The following are backfilling considerations to be taken forward with the project: Ensure backfill is well compacted on approach slopes and streambanks. Backfill with clean coarse material (e.g., 2 cm diameter gravel or larger rock). All fill material is to be obtained from off‐site and not from below the average high water level of any watercourse. Discuss with regulatory agencies if the rocks from the bedrock removal can be reused as backfill. Backfill from the center of the watercourse towards the bank forcing silt‐laden water back towards the ditch plugs. Silt‐laden trench water should then be pumped onto vegetated land or into a sump. Lower backhoe bucket into water before releasing the backfill. Consider not backfilling instream trench, where sediment transport and sloughing will fill in trench and backfilling with existing or select backfill will create excessive downstream sedimentation. 7.1.4.4 Clean‐up and Reclamation Clean‐up and reclamation should be performed to stabilize the disturbed area and to restore its aesthetic appearance. At this stage, the following general clean‐up and reclamation considerations will be taken forward with the project: Commence clean‐up immediately following backfill and erosion control operations. Attempt to complete all phases of clean‐up as quickly as practical. Where winter clean‐up is hampered by frozen spoil and topsoil piles, complete rough clean‐up prior to break‐up and final clean‐up after break‐up. Regrade streambanks and approaches to preconstruction profile, or to a maximum of 3:1. Replace topsoil and any salvaged trees or shrubs. Revegetate streambanks and approach slopes with an appropriate native seed mix or erosion control mix. Broadcast seed, harrow in or hand rake on slopes. A seed drill should be used on level areas such as floodplains wherever practical. 7.1.5 Economics In selecting the construction approach of an intake, the economic consideration must be evaluated. Ideally, the cost of protective measures should be related to the social or environmental "value" of the resource potentially at risk. For this reason, the economic costs associated with various construction techniques must be balanced against the potential adverse environmental effects. The direct costs of various construction techniques are difficult to predict. Here are some of the reasons: depth of cover, pipe diameter and substrate composition will strongly influence the costs; all crossings and site conditions are different and the actual costs may vary significantly; many contractors are reluctant to give actual prices since the industry is competitive based on bid prices; and maintenance costs of fish habitat mitigation /compensation. The cost of protective measure will be compiled and assessed at the design stage when more information is available.
7‐6 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 7 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 7.2 Short‐Term Preliminary Recommendation – Ice Boom 7.2.1 Technical Performance 7.2.1.1 Water Current Survey Understanding the water currents and confirming the river velocities will be key in assessing the potential effectiveness of the ice boom. Information from the water current survey mentioned in the previous section will be used at the design stage to design the ice boom and identify the most effective location for it. 7.2.1.2 Geotechnical Understanding the geotechnical makeup of the area will assist in determining the impacts of the anchors in the riverbed. Anchor sizes vary depending on the boom type and the operating environment. Information from the geotechnical investigation mentioned in the previous section will be used at the design stage to design the anchors and identify their location. 7.2.2 Project Implementation Fast water boom systems are designed to operate in moving water where current exceeds 0.8 knots. Fast water booms are equipped with high‐current boom and skimmers. These systems are usually deployed from small vessels or skiffs. Impacts to the river will be localized and of short duration during the installation of the rock anchor. 7.2.3 Social Environment The river area east of Lemieux Island, just east of the bridge should not be accessed by recreational boating most likely due to the proximity of the dam. There is an explicit warning sign on the bridge. Only river rafting crafts have been spotted in the area. They typically disembark on the islands just west of the Lemieux Island. Discussions with Transport Canada will be required to confirm/identify the zoning of the river at this location. This will be used to identify any safety measures required or any signage needed. 7.2.4 Natural Environment The positive and negative effects of the preliminary recommendation on the natural environment as well as its mitigation measures are an important part of this assessment. Booms have negligible effects on the natural hydraulic conditions of the river, causing minor changes to current velocity. They typically do not cause the deposition of sediments, nor do they present a barrier to migrating fish. In addition, floating structures avoid the foundation settlement problems typical of fixed structures in rivers and lakes. The boom would likely be a short‐term solution, covering the period required for the design and construction of the new intake. Impacts would be the short‐term disturbance of riverbed, sediments during the anchoring of the boom to the riverbed. Mitigation would involve typical sediment control measures. 7.2.5 Economics Considering its simple installation and its short duration requirement, the cost of protective measures are expected to be negligible.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 7‐7 SECTION 8 Stakeholder Consultation One of the essential components of the EA process is public and agency participation. Stakeholders and review agencies have been notified of the project by e‐mail and/or regular mail. The list of stakeholders and review agencies is included in Appendix A. Further information, including the invitation to the Public Open House, was issued to those stakeholders and review agencies who confirmed that they would like to continue receiving information about the project as it continues to be developed. 8.1 Notice of Commencement of EA The Notice of Commencement was published in Le Droit on the October 2nd 2014 as well as in the EMC Community Newspaper from September 29th 2014 to October 3rd 2014. The Notices are included in Appendix B. 8.2 Public Information Centre The Public Information Centre was advertised in Le Droit on September 18, 2015 as well as in the EMC Community Newspaper on September 17 2015. A copy of the notice is included in Appendix B. The Public Meeting was held on September 30, 2015 at the Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant, 1 River Street, Ottawa, ON K1Y 2C4. The sign‐in sheets, comment sheets and presentation materials are included in Appendix C. No comments were received at the Public Information Centre hence no change to the alternatives presented was required. 8.3 Technical Advisory Meetings To date we have not had meetings with the main interested agencies and stakeholders: Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Transport Canada. Due to the potential for environmental impacts of the various alternative solutions, we have had a phone conversation with the above listed agencies to notify them of the project and the draft Project File has been sent to them. The responses we have received to date are summarized as such: Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Department of Fisheries and Oceans will not review the draft due to lack of resources nor are they able to discuss the project in detail and provide advice at this early stage of the project. They will review the final Project File in 30 days. If they believe that there are sufficient details in the document they may advise to proceed without further required information. It is more likely that we will need to demonstrate environmental risk mitigation when the project enters subsequent design phases and when more information in regards to project implementation is developed and available. Ministry of Natural Resources: We have not yet received any response from the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have followed up on 19 October 2015 and have not yet received a response. Transport Canada: Transport Canada requested that we send through the draft Project File using their Notice of Works form which was done on September 1, 2015. However in the receipt acknowledgement letter, this agency specified that they require a level of detail that will only be available later on this the project (following the first stage of design, i.e. conceptual design).
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 8‐1 SECTION 8 – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 8.4 Notice of Completion A Notice of Completion was published in the Le Droit on [to be inserted after publication] as well as in the EMC Community Newspaper [to be inserted after publication] and sent to the stakeholders with the requirement to submit comments to the City within 30 calendar days. If there are no issues identified and unresolved during this 30‐day review period, the City can assume that the selected preferred alternative is acceptable to the stakeholders and proceed with the detailed design of the preferred solution and application for approvals from the various agencies. Copies of the Notice of Completion and the mailing list are included in Appendix B.
8‐2 CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 650389_WT0804151025OTT SECTION 9 References CH2M HILL, Technical Memorandum No.1, Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment and Functional Design – Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria, Rev. 1, dated February 3, 2015. CH2M HILL, Technical Memorandum No.2, Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment and Functional Design – Evaluation of Alternatives (FINAL), Rev. 2, dated June 12, 2015. Canadian Associate of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), Canadian Gas Association (CGA), Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings 3rd Edition, dated October 2005. Golder Associates, Original Report Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements, North of Lot 37, Concession A, Geographic Township of Nepean, Carleton County Ottawa, Ontario, PIF Number: P311‐0299‐2014, dated November 11 2014. Golder Associates, Technical Memorandum, Project Natural Environment Assessment – Existing Conditions: Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment and Functional Design, dated September 2014. Golder Associates, Technical Memorandum, Subsurface Conditions and Preliminary Geotechnical Comments Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment, dated November 2014. Golder Associates, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment and Functional Design, dated November 2014. Edward P. Foltyn and Andrew M Tuthill, Design of Ice Booms, Cold Regions Technical Digest No.96‐1, dated April 1996. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant Intake Improvements – Environmental Assessment and Functional Design Report Interim Report (Final), dated 5 February 2015.
650389_WT0804151025OTT CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 9‐1
Appendix A List of Stakeholders and Review Agencies
LEMIEUX ISLAND WPP INTAKE IMPROVEMENTS
List of Stakeholders and Review Agencies
The Notice of Commencement was sent by email and/or regular mail to the following organizations:
REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS Ville de Gatineau City of Ottawa, Heritage Section - Planning and Growth Management City of Ottawa Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
PROVINCIAL STAKEHOLDERS Ontario Ministry of Environment (Local) Ontario Ministry of Environment (EAs) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ontario Ministry of Labour Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Ontario Ministry of Energy Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term-Care Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Employment & Infrastructure Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs Ontario Ministry of Transportation Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Ontario Provincial Police Ministère de l'Énergie et des Ressources Naturelles de Québec
FEDERAL STAKEHOLDERS Transport Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Environment Canada Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Health Canada Correctional Service Canada Public Works and Government Services Canada National Capital Commission
Page 1 LEMIEUX ISLAND WPP INTAKE IMPROVEMENTS
NONGOVERNMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS Ottawa Riverkeeper Ducks Unlimited Mohawks of Kanesatake Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office Ottawa Region Métis Council Métis Nation of Ontario Head Office Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg
COMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS Hydro Ottawa Hydro Quebec
Page 2
Appendix B Notices
New house rules – curse and confuse
f I asked you about your that this incident has caused useful today, write a letter to in the form of taxes and recent trip to Maine and anyone who has seen it to your member of Parliament. contributions and puts it in a you responded by talk- BRYNNA say, ‘woah, this is way over In the letter, remind your collective account, it is your Iing and swearing about the line.’” MP that he or she is there to expectation that the govern- your mother’s house on LESLIE Levy, for one, is hopeful serve you. Remind your MP ment will use those dollars Vancouver Island and blam- the shock may shake people that he or she is accountable for the public good. ing me for always hating out of their political apathy. to you. Remind your MP that And remind your MP that that place, someone within Admittedly, I do too. when the government takes serving the public is a privi- earshot may question your Capital Muse If you do nothing else up to half of your paycheque lege, not a right. state of mind. But, you know, maybe you just didn’t hear me properly ment’s position on Israel. the House, Andrew Scheer the fi rst time. In his irrelevant mono- , who is meant to neutrally Notice of Study If I asked you again about logue, he quoted an apparent enforce centuries old rules of your Maine vacation, adding NDP fundraiser, including procedure and decorum, has Commencement more detail and punctuation swear words and infl amma- unapologetically stated that to ensure understanding, and tory statements. Not once did it is not his job to interfere in Lemieux Island WPP Intake you responded by repeating he mention Iraq. Question Period. Improvements Environmental Assessment your curse-laden monologue Mulcair asked a follow-up As a pithy Maclean’s blog about your mother’s house question about Iraq. noted last month, this trend The City of Ottawa (the City) has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for on Vancouver Island which I Calandra repeated his of defl ection has always improvements to the Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant (WPP) intake. apparently hated, I’d contem- party line on Israel, curse been. “For surely as long plate calling a psychologist. words and all. as the human species has The City operates two WPPs to supply drinking water to the city—the Lemieux If I asked a third time Mulcair attempted a third been able to engage in oral Island WPP (capacity of 400 ML/d; built in 1931) and the Britannia WPP (capacity of about that Maine trip, with time to ask the government politics, there has been some 360 ML/d; built in 1961). The source water for both plants is the Ottawa River. The more context, and you about Canadians in Iraq. desire for obfuscation,” two plants serve 825,000 people, with the Lemieux Island WPP supplying roughly repeated your fi rst two an- In response, Calandra wrote Aaron Wherry. “And half of the water consumed. swers almost swear word for monologued about Israel. for likely as long as there swear word about Vancouver And then all his Con- have been Question Period, In the past, the City has had issues at the Lemieux Island WPP, with frazil ice buildup Island, and your friends all servative buddies cheered governments have prob- at the intake piping. Frazil ice forms in open, turbulent, supercooled water which stood up behind you and and jeered, except for one ably found it handy to give is typical of the river conditions near the plant intake. Because of the relatively cheered your answer and guy who admittedly looked someone the job of throwing shallow depth of water above the intake piping, frazil ice builds up below the ice jeered at me, I’d think about shocked. himself or herself in front of surface and interferes with the flow entering the plant. This frazil ice can block the calling the riot police. You should care, because uncomfortable questions.” intake pipe and associated screening, resulting in unplanned WPP shutdowns or And yet, that’s essentially the Conservative Party, But maybe, just maybe, significantly restricted plant flows, which puts the water supply at risk. what happened in the House which also happens to be in it will all backfi re. Maybe of Commons last month. government, is in cam- Calandra went a little too far, The City is currently investigating solutions for improving the intake to mitigate During question period, paign mode. If Calandra’s taking the trend of low-level the impacts of frazil ice on the WPP. This could involve the extension of the existing the leader of the offi cial Op- behaviour is anything to go discourse and obfuscation to intake further into the river to locate the piping in deeper water. position, Thomas Mulcair, by, they don’t seem to have a disturbing extreme. asked a pretty straightfor- any issue using your time “If there’s a silver lining This study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements for Phases 1 and ward question about Cana- and your money to campaign to this, it’s that pretty much 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000, amended 2004, 2007 and dian troops in Iraq. for their own party inside everyone agrees that what 2011). Phase 1 involves identification of the problem or opportunity to be addressed In response, Conserva- the House of Commons. happened is a travesty,” said by the project. Phase 2 involves development and evaluation of alternatives to tive cabinet minister Paul They are also withholding Greta Levy, NDP press sec- address the problem or opportunity. The final deliverable for this project will be an Calandra rhymed off rhetoric information that belongs retary. “If a wider concern is environmental assessment report outlining the preferred alternative for modifying about the Canadian govern- to you. And the Speaker of voter apathy, it’s worthwhile the inlet structure to prevent restrictions to the plant intake due to frazil ice. This report will be filed and available for public review for a period of 30 days upon completion.
Stakeholder (public and agency) consultation is a key element of the Class EA process. One Public Information Centre (PIC) is planned for this project (with an Gloucester Centre - 1980 Ogilvie Road, Ottawa, ON K1J 9L3 advertised notice also provided prior to the session), and project information will be available on the City of Ottawa website, ottawa.ca. A notice of completion will be INVITES YOU to issued upon close of the project. A Special FREE Consumer Evening Upstairs Loblaws Cooking School A mailing list for notification of project activities and the PIC is now being compiled. Wednesday October 22 ~ 7:30pm to 8:30 pm If you wish to receive notification of the EA activities (PIC), or if you have any questions regarding the project, please contact one of the people listed below. Come and Discover the World Comments are welcome at any time during the study. Through a Special Presentation by our Guest Speaker from Collette Vacations André Bourque, P. Eng. Learn about our 2015 Groups (& Much More) Tebogo Mabote, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager Senior Project Engineer Discover Croatia (12 Days) - $2769 CH2M HILL Canada Limited City of Ottawa R0012920511-1002 Italy Family Discovery (9 Days) - $2879 1101 Prince of Wales Drive 1 River Street Shades of Ireland - Family Discovery (10 Days) - $2719 Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7 Ottawa, ON K1Y 2C4 Tel.: 613-723-8700, ext. 73106 Tel.: 613-580-2424, ext. 22080 RSVP Today at 613-748-3600 / [email protected] [email protected] Limited seating available [email protected] Light refreshments will be served #04345856 This notice published: October 2, 2014 Rates are per person, based on double occupancy for land tours only. Insurance, transfers and airfare are not included. Other dates, rates, and destinations available. R0012921245-1002 Ad # 2014-03-7010-24760-S Ottawa East News - Thursday, October 2, 2014 9
Inattentive drivers targeted
Continued from page 22 “It is a high number and it is con- “Maybe some people, they were cerning where schools are impacted, borderline, like fi ve kilometres over,” Police, including school resource where kids are walking around,” Ben- said Benoit. “So they were educated.” and patrol offi cers, zeroed in on speed- oit said, adding that motorists should But the 40-kilometre-per-hour ers, as well as motorists who failed to know better by now. school zones are in place for every- stop at stop signs and who did not “But they … kind of tunnel vision one’s safety. yield to pedestrians at school cross- their days and they don’t think about “It’s the breaking distance, the ings, as well as those who didn’t obey the start of school.” amount of people who are on the crossing guards or school bus signs Offi cers also gave verbal warnings street,” he said. “Speed zones – they’re and incidents of distracted driving. to some motorists. all studied for a reason.”
Open House Lemieux Island WPP Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment Noce of Filing of Addendum Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 Glen Cairn Flood Invesgaon Environmental Study Report Time: 4 – 6 p.m. Morrena Road Major Drainage Improvements Location: Filter Gallery Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant The City of Oawa has idenfied an opportunity to upgrade the Stormwater Major Drainage Network within the Morrena Road area. Work currently idenfied as part of the project includes re-grading 1 River Street, Morrena Road, reconstrucon of the Morrena Road roadway structure, installaon of an underground Ottawa, ON K1Y 2C4 stormwater major drainage network and installaon of a stormwater management pond adjacent to the Hazeldean Library. The City of Ottawa (the City) has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for improvements to the Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant (WPP) intake. Currently, the project is proposed to be constructed in two phases under one contract. Construcon Phase 1 is scheduled for spring 2016 with the installaon of a stormwater management pond adjacent The City operates two WPPs to supply drinking water to the city—the Lemieux Island to the Hazeldean Library. Construcon Phase 2 is scheduled for summer 2016 with the installaon of WPP (capacity of 400 ML/d; built in 1931) and the Britannia WPP (capacity of 360 ML/d; an underground stormwater major drainage network, as well as re-grading and reconstrucon of the built in 1961). The source water for both plants is the Ottawa River. Morrena Road roadway structure. Construcon phasing has been developed to migate impacts to the daily roune of the Glen Cairn Public School during the acve school year. In the past, the City has had issues at the Lemieux Island WPP, with frazil ice buildup at the intake piping. Frazil ice forms in open, turbulent, supercooled water which is typical of Subject to comments received as a result of this Noce and receipt of necessary approvals, the City of the river conditions near the plant intake. Because of the relatively shallow depth of water Oawa intends to proceed with the compleon of the detailed design, tendering and construcon of above the intake piping, frazil ice builds up below the ice surface and interferes with the this project. flow entering the plant. This frazil ice can block the intake pipe and associated screening, In March of 2011, major drainage improvements within the Morrena Road area were approved as part resulting in unplanned WPP shutdowns or significantly restricted plant flows, which put of the Glen Cairn Flood Invesgaons Environmental Study Report . Due to a change in stormwater the water supply at risk. The City is currently investigating solutions for improving the conveyance strategy as well as re-grading works along Morrena Road, an addendum to the original intake to mitigate the impacts of frazil ice on the WPP. Environmental Study Report has been prepared which details the planning process used to idenfy the preferred Morrena Road major drainage design. The addendum to the Environmental Study Report is This study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class available for review at the following locaon: Environmental Assessment (2000, amended 2004, 2007 and 2011). The final deliverable for this project will be an environmental assessment report outlining the preferred Oawa Public Library – Hazeldean Branch alternative for modifying the inlet structure to prevent restrictions to the plant intake due 50 Castlefrank Road to frazil ice. This report will be filed and available for public review for a period of 30 days Oawa, ON K2L 2N5 upon completion.
Interested persons may provide wrien comments to the City of Oawa on the proposed works within Stakeholder (public and agency) consultation is a key element of the Class EA 30 calendar days from the date of this noce. Comments should be directed to: process. The purpose of this upcoming Public Information Centre is to present the draft recommendation for improving the intake to mitigate the impacts of frazil ice on the WPP.
Max Ross, P. Eng. Edson Donnelly, C.E.T. Residents and other interested parties are invited to drop-in anytime during the Public Senior Project Manager Senior Project Manager Information Centre for the opportunity for further information about the project and the Design & Construcon Municipal West Novatech Environmental Assessment process. Staff from the City and the consulting team will be Infrastructure Services Department 200-240 Michael Cowpland Drive available to explain the project and answer questions. City of Oawa Oawa, ON K2M 1P6 100 Constellaon Crescent, 6 th Floor Tel: 613-254-9643, ext. 230 Project information will be available on the City of Ottawa website Oawa, ON K2G 6J8 Fax: 613-254-5867 (http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-consultations). A notice of completion will be issued Tel: 613-580-2424, ext. 16011 Email: [email protected] upon close of the project. Fax: 613-580-2587 Email: Max.Ross@oawa.ca Comments are welcome at any time during the study.
If concerns arise regarding this project that cannot be resolved in discussion with the City of Oawa, a For further information, contact: person or party may request that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change make an order for André Bourque, P. Eng. Tebogo Mabote, P. Eng. the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order) Senior Project Manager Senior Project Engineer which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests must be received by the Minister CH2M HILL Canada Limited City of Ottawa within 30 calendar days of this Noce (Hon. Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate th 1101 Prince of Wales Drive 1 River Street Change, 11 Floor, Ferguson Block, 77 Wellesley Street W, Toronto, ON M7A 2T5). A copy of the request Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7 Ottawa, ON K1Y 2C4 must also be sent to the City of Oawa’s Project Manager at the address noted above. If no requests Tel: 613-723-8700, ext. 73106 Tel: 613-580-2424, ext. 22080 are received by Monday, October 19, 2015 the project will proceed as detailed above. E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
th th This Noce issued on Thursday, September 17 & 24 , 2015. This Notice published Thursday, September 17, 2015 Ad # 2015-502-S_Glen Cairn_17092015 R0013460922_0917 Ad # 2015-112-S_Lemieux OH_17092015 R0013460936-0917 Ottawa West News - Thursday, September 17, 2015 23
Appendix C Public Information Center Documents
Lemieux Island WPP Intake Upgrades Environmental Assessment
Comment Sheet
The City of Ottawa is interested in receiving the community’s comments, questions, and concerns regarding the Lemieux Island Intake Improvements Environmental Assessment project. Please take a few minutes to fill out this brief comment sheet. All comments will be carefully considered while completing the project.
Comments: ______
Name and Contact Details: ______
Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments. Comment sheets may be returned to any of the presenters this evening, or can be mailed or emailed to the following:
André Bourque, P. Eng. Tebogo Mabote, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager Senior Project Engineer CH2M HILL Canada Limited City of Ottawa 1101 Prince of Wales Drive 1 River Street Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7 Ottawa, ON K1Y 2C4 Tel.: 613-723-8700, ext. 73106 Tel.: 613-580-2424, ext. 22080 [email protected] [email protected]