River Street Pump Station
Twin-Forcemain Extension and
Ravensview Trunk Sewer
Twinning
Environmental Assessment
Screening Report
Prepared for
Utilities Kingston
January 2012
Prepared by
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
Contents
1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Background ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Report Organization .............................................................................................. 1-3
2.
Municipal Class EA Planning Process ........................................................................... 2-1
2.1
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act ............................................................. 2-1
2.2
Municipal Class EA Process.................................................................................. 2-2
2.3
Municipal Class EA Schedule ............................................................................... 2-5
3.
Problem Statements ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
River Street Pump Station Twin-Forcemain Problem Statement .................... 3-1
3.2
Ravensview Trunk Sewer Problem Statement ................................................... 3-1
4.
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1
Natural Environment ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Groundwater .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ........................................................... 4-2
4.1.4 Natural Heritage........................................................................................ 4-2
4.2
Social/Cultural/Legal Environment ................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2 Archaeological Resources......................................................................... 4-3
5.
Initial Screening of Options ............................................................................................. 5-1
6.
Route Options ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1
Forcemain ................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.1 Existing Alignment ................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 New Forcemain Alignment Options ...................................................... 6-1
6.2
Gravity Sewer ......................................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.1 Existing Alignment ................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2 New Gravity Sewer Alignment Options ................................................ 6-5
6.2.3 Summary .................................................................................................... 6-7
7.
Evaluation Criteria and Methodology ............................................................................ 7-1
7.1
Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2
Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.1 Alternatives Scoring .................................................................................. 7-3
7.3
Scenario Analysis.................................................................................................... 7-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
i
CONTENTS
8.
Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1
Phase 2 Evaluation: Considerations .................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1 Natural Environment Evaluation ........................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Social/Cultural/Legal Evaluation ......................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Economic Evaluation ................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.4 Technical Evaluation ................................................................................ 8-1
8.2
Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 8-2
8.3
Discussion ............................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.1 Forcemain................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.2 Trunk Sewer............................................................................................... 8-3
9.
Consultation Program ....................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1
Consultation Plan Activities ................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.1 Mailing List ................................................................................................ 9-1
9.1.2 Notice of Commencement ....................................................................... 9-1
9.1.3 Public Information Centers ..................................................................... 9-2
9.1.4 Agency Consultation ................................................................................ 9-2
9.1.5 First Nations Consultation....................................................................... 9-3
9.1.6 Direct Notifications................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.7 Meeting with Barriefield Village Association ....................................... 9-3
9.1.8 Project Website .......................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.9 Project Email Account .............................................................................. 9-4
9.1.10 Notice of Completion ............................................................................... 9-4
9.1.11 Federal CEAA Screening ......................................................................... 9-4
10.
Recommended Alternatives ........................................................................................... 10-1
10.1
Forcemain .............................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.1 Forcemain Rehabilitation ....................................................................... 10-1
10.1.2 New Forcemain Route ............................................................................ 10-3
10.2
Trunk Sewer.......................................................................................................... 10-3
10.2.1 Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation ................................................................... 10-3
10.2.2 New Trunk Sewer Route........................................................................ 10-3
10.3
Connection of Forcemain to Trunk Sewer ........................................................ 10-3
10.4
Flows and Sewer Sizing ...................................................................................... 10-4
10.5
Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................................... 10-6
10.5.1 Natural Environment ............................................................................. 10-7
10.5.2 Social and Cultural Considerations ...................................................... 10-8
10.6
Compliance Monitoring Measures .................................................................. 10-10
11.
Technical Considerations ............................................................................................. 11-11
12.
Construction Staging, Schedule, Costs and Approvals .......................................... 12-14
12.1
Staging and Schedule ........................................................................................ 12-14
12.2
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost............................................................ 12-14
12.3
Required Permits and Approvals .................................................................... 12-14
13.
References ......................................................................................................................... 13-1
ii
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CONTENTS
Tables
5-1
6-1
6-2
7-1
8-1
8-2
10-1
Alternative Solutions .......................................................................................................... 5-2
Summary of Existing and Proposed Forcemain Alignments ........................................ 6-4
Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages for Proposed Forcemain Route
Options .................................................................................................................................. 6-4
Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................. 7-1
Forcemain Alternative Scenario Rankings ....................................................................... 8-2
Trunk Sewer Alternative Scenario Rankings................................................................... 8-2
Forcemain Rehabilitation Techniques ............................................................................ 10-2
Figures
1-1
2-1
6-1
6-2
10-1
Project Study Area ............................................................................................................... 1-2
Overview of the Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process......................... 2-3
River Street Forcemain Extension Routing Options ....................................................... 6-3
Ravensview Trunk Sewer Routing Options .................................................................... 6-6
Design Flows – Existing Connectivity ............................................................................ 10-5
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
F
Reference Figures
Geotechnical Report
Natural Environment Report
Route Option Figures
Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Public Consultation
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
III
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
CH2M HILL Canada Limited has been retained to assist Utilities Kingston (UK) in
completing a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the River Street Pump Station
(RSPS) Twin Forcemain Extension and Ravensview Trunk Sewer (RTS) Twinning.
The study is being planned under Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007). Phase 1 of this process involves
identification of the problem or opportunity to be addressed by the project. Phase 2 involves
development of alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity. The
alternatives will be evaluated to identify a preferred solution that minimizes impacts on the
natural and social/cultural environment, while optimizing capital and operating
investments.
The purpose of this memorandum is to detail various alternatives developed to address the
project objectives and to summarize the methodology employed to identify the preferred
solution.
Wastewater collected from the central portion of the City of Kingston is directed to the River
Street Pumping Station (RSPS) and discharged through the recently constructed twin
forcemains across the Great Cataraqui River. The twin forcemains currently join and connect
to a single, older forcemain on the east side of the river. Flows are pumped up the
Barriefield hill and discharged to the Ravensview gravity trunk sewer (Figure 1-1). The
Ravensview trunk sewer carries the flow through CFB Kingston to the Ravensview
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), while also receiving sewage at various locations from
CFB Kingston. CH2M HILL worked with UK to complete a Sewage Infrastructure Master
Plan for the City of Kingston Urban Area in September 2010. The Sewage Infrastructure
Master Plan identified both the RSPS forcemain (single portion) and the Ravensview gravity
sewer as requiring attention and further study for a number of reasons:
•
Condition assessments identified the 50+ year old Ravensview Trunk sewer as being in
generally poor condition
•
The Ravensview Trunk is a critical link in the sewer collection system (carrying the
entire wastewater flow from the central and east portions of the City to the Ravensview
WWTP) which lacks redundancy, and is in a location with difficult or restricted access
along much of the length
•
Proposed increased flows from the River Street pumping station (as part of a strategy for
reducing combined sewer overflows) plus proposed future development in the
catchment area results in the sewer capacity being exceeded in the future
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
1-1
INTRODUCTION
FIGURE 1-1
Project Study Area
1-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
INTRODUCTION
The completion of the twinning of the final 960 m of the River Street Forcemain was also
recommended in the Master Plan. In addition to providing redundancy in this critical piece of
infrastructure, hydraulic analysis demonstrated that completion of the forcemain twinning
would increase the capacity of the RSPS and forcemain system and contribute to a reduction
in combined sewer overflows (CSO) during wet weather. Improvements to these sewers are
important elements in the City of Kingston’s long-term plan for eliminating CSOs.
1.2
Report Organization
The purpose of this report is to document the planning process and its results, including the
public and agency consultation activities to determine the preferred alternative for
establishing a new trunk sanitary sewer to the Ravensview WWTP; this includes
consideration for rehabilitation of the existing Ravensview Trunk Sewer, and the
determination a preferred approach and alignment for the completion of the twinned section
of the River Street forcemain. This report is intended to address the requirements of the
Municipal Class EA Planning process as well as the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency (CEAA) requirements. This report contains the following thirteen sections:
•
Section 1:
Provides background information that led to initiation of this study and
describes the Environmental Assessment Screening Report format.
•
Section 2:
Begins with an overview of the EA Act and Municipal Class EA planning
process and identifies the Class EA planning schedule that was followed
for this project.
•
Section 3:
Outlines the EA problem statements.
•
Section 4:
Describes the existing conditions in the project study area, including its
location, existing land uses, and socio cultural and natural environmental
features. This information was considered when reviewing alternative
solutions and design concepts.
•
Section 5:
Describes the initial screening of alternatives and identification of those
carried forward through to the detailed screening phase.
•
Section 6:
Provides details related to each of the routing alternatives carried through
for the detailed screening.
•
Section 7:
Describes the evaluation criteria and methodology applied to the
alternative screening.
•
Section 8:
Provides a summary of the evaluation results, including a discussion of key
criteria that influenced selection of the preferred routing alternatives.
•
Section 9:
Describes public and agency consultation activities undertaken as part of
this Class EA.
•
Section 10: Identifies the recommended alternative solutions and design alternatives.
The section also describes recommended measures to mitigate
disturbances, includes a discussion of compliance monitoring measures,
schedule and cost and required permits and approvals.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
1-3
INTRODUCTION
Section 11:
Provides details related to specific technical details associated with design
and implementation of the preferred alternative.
Section 12:
Describes the staging and schedule of the proposed works, includes a
preliminary opinion of probable cost, and outlines required permits and
approvals.
Section 13:
Provides a list of references.
1-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
2.
Municipal Class EA Planning Process
2.1
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act
Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) was passed in 1976 and first 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 are most easily resolved—and to select a preferred
alternative with the fewest environmental impacts.
The EA Act defines the environment very broadly as:
•
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.
The following two types of EA planning and approval processes are applied to projects to
meet requirements of the EA Act:
•
Individual EAs (Part II of the EA Act): Projects for which a Terms of Reference (TOR)
and an individual EA are carried out and submitted to the Minister of the Environment
(MOE) for review and approval.
•
Class EAs: Projects that are approved subject to compliance with an approved Class EA
process with respect to a class of undertakings. Provided that the appropriate Class EA
approval process is followed, a proponent will comply with Section 13(3) a, Part II.1 of
the EA Act.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
2-1
MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING PROCESS
2.2
Municipal Class EA Process
All municipalities in Ontario are subject to provisions of
the EA Act when undertaking public works projects. The
MEA’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
(September 2007) 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.
The EA planning process includes the following key
components:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consultation early and throughout the process
Reasonable range of alternatives
Consideration of effects on the environment and ways
to avoid/reduce impacts
Systematic evaluation of alternatives
Clear documentation
Traceable decision making
MEA Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Document
Figure 2-1 illustrates the process followed in the planning and design of projects covered by
a Municipal Class EA, including the River Street Pump Station Twin-Forcemain Extension
and Ravensview Trunk Sewer Twinning. The figure incorporates steps summarized in the
following sub-sections that are considered essential for compliance with the EA Act.
Phase 1
Identify the problem (deficiency) or opportunity.
Phase 2
Identify alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity by taking into consideration the
existing environment and establish the preferred solution accounting for public and agency
review and input. Document the planning process in a Municipal Class EA project file and
make such documentation available for scrutiny by review agencies and the public.
Phase 3
For Schedule C projects, examine alternative methods of implementing the preferred
solution based on the existing environment, public and government agency input,
anticipated environmental effects, and methods of minimizing negative effects and
maximizing positive effects.
2-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING PROCESS
FIGURE 2-1
Overview of the Class Environmental Assessment Planning Process
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
2-3
MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING PROCESS
Phase 4
For Schedule C projects, document in an ESR a summary of the rationale and the planning,
design, and project consultation process, and make such documentation available for
scrutiny by review agencies and the public.
Phase 5
Complete contract drawings and documents, proceed to construction and operation, and
monitor construction for adherence to environmental provisions and commitments. Where
special conditions dictate, also monitor the operation of the completed facilities.
The MEA Municipal Class EA document also serves as a public statement of the decision
making process followed by municipalities in planning and implementing infrastructure.
Based on the September 2007 MEA Municipal Class EA document, projects are classified as
either Schedule A, A+, B, or C projects. Each classification requires a different level of
review to satisfy Municipal Class EA requirements and comply with the EA Act.
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 approved and may be implemented without following 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.
Schedule A+
The purpose of this Schedule is to ensure some type of public notification for certain projects
that are pre-approved under the Municipal Class EA. However, there would be no ability
for the public to request a Part II Order. Examples of Schedule “A+” projects include
modifications to a retention/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.
Schedule B
Projects 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 ensure that they are aware of the project and
that their concerns are 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
2-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING PROCESS
proponent may proceed to project implementation. However, if the screening process raises
a concern that cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order procedure (formerly referred to as a
“bump-up”) may be invoked. Alternatively, the proponent may voluntarily elect to plan the
project as a Schedule C project.
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 including consultation with
those who may be affected. Examples of Schedule B projects include activities such as the
establishment of new sewage pumping stations and expanding a wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) to existing rated capacity where new land acquisition is required. As a result,
the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process (Phases 1 and 2) including
consultation with stakeholders and public who may be affected.
Schedule C
Schedule C projects have the potential to significantly affect the environment; therefore,
these projects are subjected to the full planning and documentation procedures (Phases 1 to
4) that are specified in the Municipal Class EA document. An ESR must be prepared for
Schedule C projects and submitted to the public for review. The Part II Order procedure
may be invoked if concerns are raised that cannot be resolved.
An example of a Schedule C project is the siting or construction of a new WWTP or
expansion of an existing WWTP beyond existing rated capacity, including an outfall to a
receiving body of water.
2.3
Municipal Class EA Schedule
The project described in this report involves a Schedule B Environmental Assessment. This
report provides documentation of a summary of the project as required to satisfy Phase 2 of
the Class EA process.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
2-5
3.
Problem Statements
Phase 1 of the five-phase Municipal Class EA planning process requires proponents of
projects to document why infrastructure improvements are needed and to develop a
Problem Statement that identifies what is being investigated.
A Municipal Class EA begins with a Problem Statement that becomes the central integrating
element throughout the course of the project and helps to define the scope of work. A
number of information sources were considered in developing the Problem Statement, as
discussed in the following sub-sections.
Problem statements were developed collaboratively with UK staff to properly reflect the
technical issues at hand and the goals to be achieved by the project.
3.1
River Street Pump Station Twin-Forcemain Problem
Statement
The recently installed twinned section of the River St. Sanitary Sewer Forcemain (Cataraqui
River crossing) currently terminates on the eastern shore of the Cataraqui River, after which
it continues in a single forcemain. This portion of the original single forcemain has been in
service for more than 50 years, lacks redundancy, and represents a hydraulic bottleneck in
the sewer system. An assessment of the options for completion of the twinning of the
forcemain and rehabilitation or replacement of the remaining section of original single
forcemain is required.
3.2
Ravensview Trunk Sewer Problem Statement
The Ravensview Trunk Sewer is a large gravity sewer main that represents a critical and
essential link in the sanitary sewage collection system as it conveys all sewage from the
Central and East portions of the City of Kingston to the Ravensview Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The Ravensview Trunk Sewer is deteriorating and requires remedial action, a
problem accentuated by a lack of redundancy and poor access for maintenance.
Consequently, a study is required to assess future opportunities and develop a strategy for
providing continuous, safe, and efficient sewage conveyance for this vital link.
Given the interconnected nature of the forcemain and the Ravensview Trunk sewer, the two
infrastructure needs must be evaluated concurrently.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
3-1
4.
Existing Conditions
This section describes existing conditions in the project study area and references locations,
applicable aspects of the City of Kingston’s Official Plan, existing land uses, and socioeconomic and natural environmental features.
The project study area is generally located in the eastern part of the City. It is bordered to
the north by James Street and Highway 2 and to the south by Lake Ontario. It is bordered by
the Ravensview Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the east and by the Great
Cataraqui River to the west. Ground surface elevation slopes southerly towards the
St. Lawrence River and westerly towards the Cataraqui River.
4.1
Natural Environment
4.1.1
Hydrology
As per Schedule 6 of the City of Kingston’s Official Plan (OP), the western portion of the
study area is situated within the Butternut Creek Watershed while the eastern portion is in
the St. Lawrence Watershed (Appendix A). A report was prepared by Aqua Terre Solutions
Inc. for Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Department of National
Defence titled “Stormwater Management Study – Canadian Forces Base Kingston, Kingston,
Ontario” in March 2008. This report provided a characterization of the 24 watershed and 66
subwatersheds identified on the Base, as well as the 15 outfalls that drain into the Cataraqui
and St. Lawrence Rivers. A copy of the Watershed Delineation and Stormwater Outfall
Locations figure from the March 2008 report is included in Appendix A. Existing
stormwater management practices were reviewed and opportunities for water quantity and
quality control were identified. It was concluded in this report that the presence of shallow
soils overlying fractured limestone bedrock results in infiltration rates that are exceptionally
high across the base.
Although there are smaller ephemeral drainage courses which serve localized areas of the
base as well as some sewer system outfalls, no significant water features are present.
4.1.2
Groundwater
As part of the current project, a report was prepared by Houle Chevrier Engineering titled
“Soil and Bedrock Inventory Environmental Assessment – River Street Pump Station Twin –
Forcemain Extension and Ravensview Trunk Sewer Twinning, Kingston, Ontario”. A copy of the
complete report is included in Appendix B. As detailed in this report, a MOE Water Well
Records search was carried out for the study area. The search identified a total of 231 wells,
all of which appeared to be installed in bedrock. As summarized in the report, homes on
Cartwright Point and within the east part of the study area are serviced by water wells.
Although a number of wells are mapped in the Barriefield development within the west
part of the site, it is reported that the homes in this area are all currently serviced by
municipal water.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
4-1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
It was noted in the Houle Chevrier Engineering 2011 report that groundwater levels often
reflect topographic features and that groundwater typically flows towards nearby lakes,
rivers, and wetlands. As such, it is expected that the shallow groundwater flow in the study
area either flows to the west to the Cataraqui River or to the south to the St. Lawrence River.
4.1.3
Physiography, Geology and Soils
As noted in the Houle Chevrier Engineering 2011 report (Appendix B), the surficial geology
of the study area is formed from the last period of glaciations in the region completed
approximately 10,000 years ago. Large amounts of debris or eroded Palaeozoic and
Precambrian rocks were transported to the region and deposited as glacial till. These
deposits are in turn overlain by glacio-lacustrine deposits composed of clay, silty clay, and
silt, which are locally overlain by thin lenses of sand. Clay, silty clay and silt are mapped
along Highway 2 and north of Highway 2, and likely overlie the glacial till. The glacial till is
characterized as a thin sandy till layer over bedrock and covers most of the area to the south
of Highway 2 and a section east of the Cataraqui River and north of Highway 2. In general,
the overburden in the area, where present, is thin.
Geology maps indicate that the study area is located on a limestone plain with shallow
bedrock described as limestone of Gull River Formation. The Gull River Formation bedrock
is underlain by sandstone followed by Precambrian bedrock, which, in areas along the
shorelines of Cataraqui River and St. Lawrence River, is exposed at ground surface. MOE
water well records indicate exposed Precambrian bedrock near Cartwright Point, and to the
east of the Ravensview WWTP. Bedrock geology maps indicate that Karst topographic
conditions may also be present at the site. The study area is mapped as inferred or potential
Karst zones.
4.1.4
Natural Heritage
As per the City of Kingston OP Schedule 7-A (Appendix A), the shoreline along both the
Great Cataraqui River and St. Lawrence River is classified as riparian habitat. Schedule 8-A
from the OP (Appendix A) identifies areas adjacent to the St. Lawrence River, primarily
though Cartwright Point and CFB Kingston as having Contributory Woodland with a small
area of Significant Woodland identified along the inner cove of Deadman’s Bay extending
into the CFB Kingston lands. The City’s OP (Section 6.1.22) indicates that these areas are
important areas of wildlife habitat and are critical to the movement of wildlife. Therefore,
the City’s goal is to protect, enhance, and restore these linkages and corridors in the long
term.
As part of the evaluation of existing conditions, Ecological Services completed an inventory
of natural features in the study area. The report is included in Appendix C. The potential
for environmental impact was assessed with regard to the natural heritage features
identified in the Provincial Policy Statement. Meadows, shrubland, and woodlands through
the study area were found to contain migratory birds including the Eastern Kingbird,
Downy Woodpecker, Cedar Waxwing, Oriole, Meadowlark, and Flicker. Butternut trees
were also identified along Sterling Avenue which are classified as endangered under the
Species at Risk Act.
4-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The ecological land classification (ELC) was determined for various sites. In general, it was
determined that the bulk of the study area was classified as Cultural, which are sites that
have been strongly influenced by human activity and have low ecological value.
The forested area situated south of Highway 2, west of Sterling Avenue and extending
south towards the St. Lawrence River, has an area of about 35 hectares. The forest is
dominated by Sugar Maple with Red and White Oak being secondary dominants. This
woodlot has been labeled as contributory (i.e. not significant) by the Cataraqui Region
Conservation Authority; however, this labeling was based on remote sensing and not based
on field work. A more detailed analysis of this woodlot was conducted as part of the
current project. The woodlot was found to have a low score with respect to interior habitat
and linkages, but was found to have a high score with respect to erosion buffering and
water protection. As such, this area was classified as significant woodland based on field
assessments.
4.2
Social/Cultural/Legal Environment
4.2.1
Land Use
A review of Schedule 3-A from the City’s OP (Appendix A) reveals that the predominant
land use within the study area is institutional. The majority of this area, Canadian Forces
Base Kingston, is operated by the Department of National Defense (DND) as a military
establishment including lands for military purposes, staff colleges and training facilities,
administrative offices, dining areas, enclosed storage areas, residential accommodation,
recreation facilities, and museums.
The study area also has residential, commercial, and parkland uses (Barriefield Rock
Garden, Arrowhead Beach Park, Ravensview Park, etc.). Schedule 9 from the City’s OP
(Appendix A) includes lands designated as Heritage District. This area, referred to as
Barriefield Village, is situated north of Highway 2 and west of Highway 15. As per the
City’s OP (Section 7.3.C.7), the Barriefield Heritage District is a designated Heritage
Conservation District containing historic buildings, laneways, and landscapes that have
preserved a 19th century village setting.
A commercial development is also situated within the study area in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive.
4.2.2
Archaeological Resources
A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was undertaken to determine whether proposed
works related to the forcemain and trunk sewer would have a negative impact on any
archaeological resources.
Because of its proximity to Fort Henry, the Village of Barriefield, the core of the City of
Kingston, and the mouth of the Cataraqui River, the study area west of Highway 15 is
potentially the most sensitive area. However, some recent archaeological investigations, and
subsequent development have removed some areas from further consideration. Additionally,
a historical cemetery is assumed to exist along the southern edge of James Street.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
4-3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The lands within the study area which lie east of Highway 15 were found to offer little
archaeological potential because of the extent or prior developments. Until the twentieth
century much of this area remained in the hands of a series of small scale farmers. A
number of dwellings and outbuildings are known to have been present in the area, although
their precise locations have not been identified. Nevertheless, while parts of this area have
clearly been affected by modern developments, extensive portions of the land adjacent to
the shoreline of Lake Ontario have not been affected by development and exist as essentially
undisturbed woodland. These areas have a high potential to contain Pre-Contact and
Historic archaeological sites.
4-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
5.
Initial Screening of Options
The Municipal Class EA Document (June 2000, as amended in 2007) defines “alternative
solutions” as:
“feasible alternative ways of solving an identified problem
(deficiency) or addressing an opportunity, from which a
preferred solution is selected”.
The “Do Nothing” alternative must be considered in the Class EA process as a baseline
condition against which alternative solutions are evaluated.
Summarized in Table 5-1 are various alternative solutions that were considered.
Alternatives including those that do not require new infrastructure, those that include
rehabilitated infrastructure, and those that involve construction of new infrastructure were
identified. Only alternatives that satisfy the problem statement are carried through for
evaluation.
Where feasible, rehabilitation of existing infrastructure has been investigated as such works
typically result in reduced cost as compared to new infrastructure and have the potential for
less impact on surrounding properties during construction. Details related to specific
rehabilitation projects, including their relative advantages and disadvantages, are described
in Section 6.
For a complete project, two forcemain options and two trunk sewer options are required to
satisfy the respective Problem Statements with respect to redundancy and capacity
considerations. For example, a complete project could be the combination of:
•
Rehabilitate the existing forcemain (EF #1)
•
Construct a new forcemain parallel to the existing (FM #1)
•
Rehabilitate the existing Ravensview Trunk Sewer and construct a new Trunk Sewer
parallel to the existing trunk
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
5-1
INITIAL SCREENING OF OPTIONS
TABLE 5-1
Alternative Solutions
Carry
Satisfies
Forward
Problem
For
Statement? Evaluation?
Notes
Initial Alternatives Without New Infrastructure Requirements
Alternative 1
Do Nothing
No
No
Alternative 2
Limit Community Growth
No
No
Alternative 3
Reduce Flows
No
Does not satisfy the requirements of the
City of Kingston's Official Plan and
Utilities Kingston's Sewage
Infrastructure Master Plan (2010),
specifically related to the planned
growth within the City Urban Area.
No
Does not satisfy the requirements of
Utilities Kingston's Sewage
Infrastructure Master Plan (2010),
specifically related to increased capture
of combined sewer flows.
Forcemain Alternatives (Rehabilitation and New Construction)
Existing Forcemain Options
Option EF #1 Rehabilitate existing
Yes, in
forcemain in current location combination
with new
twin sewer
Yes
Option EF #2 Install two new parallel twin
forcemains and abandon
existing forcemain
Yes
No
Option EF #3 Abandon existing forcemain
and service with new, larger,
single forcemain sized to
address the hydraulic
constraint
No
No
Does not meet the Problem Statement
with respect to required redundancy for
the forcemain.
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Twin Forcemain are considered viable,
and are carried forward for more
detailed evaluation.
Existing forcemain is assumed to be a
candidate for rehabilitation (e.g. lining)
to extend service life.
Rehabilitation techniques need to be
reviewed for constructability and
technical considerations as part of
conceptual design.
Constructing two new forcemains is not
recommended because:
• Existing forcemain is assumed to be
a good candidate for rehabilitation
(e.g. lining) to extend service life
• Cost and impact of construction of a
new forcemain is anticipated to be
greater than for trenchless
rehabilitation
• Current forcemain location is
relatively accessible for future
maintenance
New Twin Forcemain Options
Existing FM
Route
5-2
Locate adjacent to/parallel
with existing forcemain
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
INITIAL SCREENING OF OPTIONS
Carry
Satisfies
Forward
Problem
For
Statement? Evaluation?
Notes
Option FM #1 Locate along Duty Drive/
Navy Way to Highway 2,
then along Highway 2 to
connect to trunk sewer near
Highway 15 intersection
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Twin Forcemain are considered viable,
and are carried forward for more
detailed evaluation.
Option FM #2 Locate along James Street
roughly parallel to existing
forcemain to Highway 15,
then connect to the trunk
sewer on Highway 2
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Twin Forcemain are considered viable,
and are carried forward for more
detailed evaluation.
Option FM #3 Locate along James Street,
then through new sports
dome parking area to
Highway 2, then along
Highway 2 to connect to
trunk sewer near
Highway 15 intersection
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Twin Forcemain are considered viable,
and are carried forward for more
detailed evaluation.
Yes, in
combination
with new
twin sewer
Yes
Existing sewer is assumed to be a
candidate for rehabilitation (e.g. lining)
to address identified deficiencies and
extend service life.
Trunk Sewer Alternatives
Existing Trunk Sewer Options
Option ET #1 Rehabilitate existing sewer
Rehabilitation techniques need to be
reviewed for constructability and
technical considerations as part of
conceptual design.
Option ET #2 Replace existing sewer in
current location
Yes
No
Reconstruction in the existing location is
considered viable as part of an overall
solution involving construction of a
second sewer. However:
• Existing sewer is assumed to be a
candidate for rehabilitation (e.g.
lining) to address identified
deficiencies and extend service life
• Construction disruptions and costs
for full reconstruction are typically
greater than for trenchless
rehabilitation and would have an
unacceptable level of
impact/disruption on CFB Kingston
and residents of Cartwright Point
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
5-3
INITIAL SCREENING OF OPTIONS
Carry
Satisfies
Forward
Problem
For
Statement? Evaluation?
Option ET #3 Install two new parallel twin
sewers and abandon
existing sewer
Yes
Option ET #4 Abandon existing sewer and
replace with single new
sewer in a new location
sized appropriately for future
flows
No
No
Notes
Constructing two new trunk sewers is
not recommended because:
• Existing sewer is assumed to be a
candidate for rehabilitation (e.g.
lining) to address identified
deficiencies and extend service life
• Cost and impact of construction of a
new trunk sewer is anticipated to be
greater than rehabilitation
• Improvements to maintenance
accessibility for the current sewer
location can be made to address
current access issues
• Abandoning the current trunk sewer
location would require significant
modifications to sewer servicing for
CFB Kingston areas south of
Highway 2
No
Construction of a new sewer in a new
location is not recommended because:
• Does not address redundancy
requirements identified in Problem
Statement
• May require significant modifications
to sewer servicing for CFB Kingston
areas south of Highway
New Trunk Sewer
Existing TS
Route
Locate adjacent to/parallel
with Existing Sewer
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Trunk Sewer are worthy of
consideration and are carried forward
for more detailed evaluation.
Option TS #1 Locate along new corridor
through CFB Kingston
following established rightsof-way/road allowances
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Trunk Sewer are worthy of
consideration and are carried forward
for more detailed evaluation.
Option TS #2 Along Highway 2 to Gates
Blvd, along Gates to tie in to
plant headworks
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Trunk Sewer are worthy of
consideration and are carried forward
for more detailed evaluation.
Option TS #3 Along Highway 2, turning
south just west of Elva, then
east just south of Sterling to
Gates Blvd, along Gates to
tie in to plant headworks
Yes
Yes
All identified route options for the new
Trunk Sewer are worthy of
consideration and are carried forward
for more detailed evaluation.
In addition, where multiple options exist, further evaluation is required to determine the
preferred alternative.
5-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
INITIAL SCREENING OF OPTIONS
Based on the initial screening of alternatives, the Preferred Solution will be comprised of:
•
•
Rehabilitation of existing trunk sewer
Rehabilitation of existing forcemain
Plus
•
•
One of the Route Options for the new trunk sewer, and
One of the Route Options for the new forcemain
As discussed in Section 7, evaluation criteria have been developed for the analysis and
review of the various gravity sewer and forcemain route options.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
5-5
6.
Route Options
Potential routes for the twinned sections of the forcemain and trunk sewer were developed
based on a high level review of logical routes. Summarized below are details regarding the
existing alignment of the forcemain and gravity trunk sewer, as well a description of various
alternative routes for each twinned section. Refer to Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for schematic
layouts of the various options. Preliminary profiles for each of the routes are included in
Appendix D.
6.1
Forcemain
6.1.1
Existing Alignment
The existing 1,050 mm diameter reinforced concrete forcemain runs from a chamber on the
eastern shore of the Cataraqui River (the termination point of the currently twinned section of
forcemain) to a manhole situated approximately 110 metres west of the intersection of
Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive, where it discharges to a gravity sewer for subsequent
conveyance to the Ravensview WWTP. The total length of the existing forcemain between
these points is approximately 945 metres. From the chamber on the eastern shore of the
Cataraqui River, the forcemain runs south along the eastern side of James Lane and then east
along the southern side of James Street. The forcemain is routed south of the James Street
water booster station and then runs in an easterly direction south of James Street, uphill
through the CFB Kingston lands and the Barriefield Rock Garden. The forcemain crosses to
the southern side of Highway 2, just east of Highway 15, where it continues on the south side
of the Highway to the point where it discharges to the gravity sewer. There are three
connection points to the forcemain east of the Cataraqui River: the B64 pumping station; a
private connection servicing a residence near the intersection of James St. and Main St.; and a
gravity sewer connection northwest of the intersection of Highway 15 and Highway 2 that
receives flow from the upstream B40 & B64 sanitary pumping station catchment areas.
6.1.2
New Forcemain Alignment Options
Option 1
The first option for the new forcemain alignment follows the same route as the existing
forcemain from the chamber on the eastern shore of the Cataraqui River to the intersection
of James Lane and James Street. From this point, the forcemain would be directed south
along Navy Way/Duty Drive to the intersection with Highway 2 where it would then
follow the highway alignment east towards the chamber situated approximately 110 metres
west of the intersection of Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive, where the forcemain
discharges into the gravity sewer. The total length of this option is approximately
1,230 metres.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
6-1
ROUTE OPTIONS
Option 2
The second option for the new forcemain alignment follows the same route as the existing
forcemain from the chamber on the eastern shore of the Cataraqui River to the intersection
of James Lane and James Street. From this point, the forcemain would run east along the
James Street corridor within, or directly adjacent to, the Municipal right-of-way and
continue under the intersection of Highway 15 and Highway 2 where it would connect to
the chamber situated approximately 110 metres west of the intersection of Highway 2 and
Niagara Park Drive, where the forcemain discharges into the gravity sewer. This route
option effectively parallels the existing forcemain route. The total length of this option is
approximately 1,000 metres.
Option 3
The third option for the new forcemain alignment follows the same route as the existing
forcemain from the chamber on the eastern shore of the Cataraqui River to the intersection
of James Lane and James Street. From this point, the forcemain would be aligned along the
southern side of James Street for approximately 150 metres where it would then cut across
the parking lot for the future CFB sports facility dome to the southern side of Highway 2.
The forcemain would then follow the highway alignment east towards the chamber situated
approximately 110 metres west of the intersection of Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive,
where the forcemain discharges into the gravity sewer. The total length of this option is
approximately 1,145 metres.
6-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
ROUTE OPTIONS
FIGURE 6-1
River Street Forcemain Extension Routing Options
11x17
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
6-3
ROUTE OPTIONS
Summary
Table 6-1 provides a summary of the existing and proposed routes with respect to length
and diameter. As described above, each reach begins at the chamber on the eastern shore of
the Cataraqui River and terminates approximately 110 metres west of the intersection of
Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive, where the forcemain discharges into the gravity sewer.
TABLE 6-1
Summary of Existing and Proposed Forcemain Alignments
Forcemain
Length (m)
Diameter (mm)
Existing
945
1,050 (existing)
Option 1
1,230
1,050 (proposed)
Option 2
1,000
1,050 (proposed)
Option 3
1,145
1,050 (proposed)
Table 6-2 provides a summary of general advantages and disadvantages to each of the route
options (including the existing route).
TABLE 6-2
Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages for Proposed Forcemain Route Options
Route
Option 1
Option 2
(Existing
Route)
Option 3
6-4
Advantages
•
Generally follows existing road rights-of-way
•
Avoids narrow and congested James Street
•
Avoids the need for rock excavation on James Street
•
Connection of flows from B-64 PS, Highway 15
sewers may be more challenging
•
Potentially less disturbance of Highway 15/Highway 2
intersection
•
Parallels existing forcemain route, providing a single
corridor for both sewers
•
Stays mainly within Municipal right-of-way
•
Shortest forcemain length
•
Could potentially be coordinated with other work (e.g.
watermain, road improvements) on James Street
•
Avoids majority of construction along Highway 2
•
Second shortest length
•
Avoids other utilities on Duty Drive
•
•
Disadvantages
•
Requires DND approval for use of
Duty Drive
•
Traffic impacts on Highway 2 during
construction
•
Narrow Highway 2 corridor through rock
cut
•
Requires disturbance of rock garden
•
Close proximity to residences on
James Street
•
Potentially greater impacts of Highway 15/
Highway 2 intersection
•
Routing requires avoidance of high
archaeological potential areas south of
James Street
Avoids construction in Duty Drive//Highway 2
intersection
•
Traffic impacts on Highway 2 during
construction
Potentially less disturbance of Highway 15/Highway 2
intersection
•
Narrow Highway 2 corridor through rock
cut
•
Requires DND coordination with
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
ROUTE OPTIONS
construction of parking lot
6.2
Gravity Sewer
6.2.1
Existing Alignment
The existing 1,200 mm diameter gravity sewer begins at the chamber situated approximately
110 metres west of the intersection of Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive, where the
forcemain discharges. From this point, the gravity sewer flows east along the southern side
of Highway 2 and then south along the western side of Niagara Park Drive. The gravity
sewer then heads east along Remorquage Drive and through residential development. The
sewer crosses Lundy’s Lane at approximately Queenston Heights Crescent and then travels
east through the back side of residences at the northern edge of Cartwright Point. The sewer
follows the alignment of the lake, approximately 60 to 80 metres north of the shoreline to the
northern side of Lasalle Boulevard. The 1,200 mm diameter sewer becomes a 1,350 mm
diameter approximately 260 metres west of Gates Boulevard and continues as a 1,350 mm to
its tie-in point at the Ravensview WWTP approximately 225 metres east of Gates Boulevard.
The total length of the sewer is approximately 3,405 metres. Slopes range from 0.25% to
5.0%. The existing alignment has a depth of cover over the obvert of the pipe of up to
8 metres but is actually above ground at two locations along the alignment.
In addition to the option of constructing a twin sewer generally adjacent and parallel to the
existing sewer, three other route options have been developed for consideration.
6.2.2
New Gravity Sewer Alignment Options
Option 1
The first option for the new 1,200 mm diameter gravity sewer alignment begins at the
chamber situated approximately 110 metres west of the intersection of Highway 2 and
Niagara Park Drive, where the forcemain discharges. From this point, the gravity sewer
flows east along the southern side of Highway 2 and then south along the western side of
Niagara Park Drive. Unlike the existing alignment that turns east through the shopping
plaza on Niagara Park Drive, this option would follow Niagara Park Drive towards the
south and then head east following Lundy’s Lane, south along Canal du Nord, east on Byng
Avenue, north on Signal Avenue, and then east on Radar Street. Beyond Radar Street, the
sewer would cut through an existing clearing and wooded area towards the western end of
LaSalle Boulevard where it would then match the existing alignment for the rest of the
distance to the WWTP. The total length of this sewer would be approximately 3,330 metres
and would range in slope from approximately 0.4% to 0.9%. The depth of cover over the
obvert of the pipe given this alignment would range from approximately 2 metres up to
15 metres.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
6-5
ROUTE OPTIONS
Figure 6-2
Ravensview Trunk Sewer Routing Options
11x17
6-6
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
ROUTE OPTIONS
Option 2
The second option for the new 1,200 mm diameter gravity sewer alignment would begin at
the same chamber that the existing sewer does, but would continue easterly along
Highway 2 for approximately 2,600 metres before turning south along Gates Boulevard and
then east along LaSalle Boulevard towards the WWTP. The total length of this sewer would
be approximately 3,200 metres with slope ranging from approximately 0.5% to 4.5%. Due to
the approximately 14-metre drop in ground surface elevation between Highway 2 and
LaSalle Boulevard (i.e. along Gates Boulevard), a series of drop structures would be
required along this section of the proposed sewer alignment.
Option 3
The third option for the new 1200 mm diameter gravity sewer alignment would follow the
same path of Option 2, with the exception of being directed behind the residential properties
situated in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway 2 and Gates Boulevard.
The total length of this sewer would be approximately 3,200 metres with slope ranging from
approximately 0.5% to 4.5%. As with Option 2, a series of drop structures would be required
along the section of alignment between Highway 2 and LaSalle Boulevard.
6.2.3
Summary
Table 6-3 provides a summary of the existing and proposed routes with respect to length,
diameter, and slope. As described above, each reach begins approximately 110 metres west
of the intersection of Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive where the forcemain discharges
into the gravity sewer and terminates at the headworks of the Ravensview WWTP.
TABLE 6-3
Summary of Existing and Proposed Trunk Sewer Alignments
Gravity Sewer
Diameter (mm)
Length (m)
Slope (%)
1,200
3,180
0.4 – 5.0
1,350
220
0.3
Option 1
1,500*
3,300
0.4 – 0.9
Option 2
1,500*
3,200
0.5 – 4.5
Option 3
1,500*
3,200
0.5 – 4.5
Existing
*Note: Diameter to be confirmed and finalized through hydraulic analysis during conceptual design
Table 6-4 provides a summary of general advantages and disadvantages to each of the
gravity sewer route options (including the existing route).
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
6-7
ROUTE OPTIONS
TABLE 6-4
Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages for Existing and Proposed Gravity Sewer Route Options
Route
Existing
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
6-8
Advantages
Disadvantages
•
Shallowest burial depth for sewer
•
Poor access
•
Likely open-cut construction
•
Heavy tree cover in sections
•
Minimal traffic disruption during
construction
•
Constrained right-of-way at Cartwright Point
•
Routed through DND property including areas of
potentially heightened security
•
Located mostly in existing rights-ofway for upper two-thirds of route
•
Routed through DND property including areas of
potentially heightened security
•
Avoids construction on Highway 2
corridor
•
Disruptions to CFB traffic and intersections during
construction
•
Depth requires tunneled construction through
potentially variable rock conditions
•
Poor access along lower third of route
•
Servicing CFB areas south of Highway 2 will be
challenging, potentially impossible without pumping
•
Straight forward alignment allows
flexibility in sewer grades
•
Depth requires tunneled construction through
potentially variable rock conditions
•
All sewers within municipal right-ofway, avoids DND property and
Cartwright Point
•
Installation depth is below groundwater table and
near private wells
•
•
Shortest length of any option
Need for drop structures along Gates Blvd may
result in odour and corrosion issues
•
Servicing CFB areas south of Highway 2 will be
challenging, potentially impossible without pumping
•
Same as Option 2
•
Same as Option 2
•
Route may alleviate potential
impacts on some wells
•
Will impact woodlot which is considered ‘significant’
woodland
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
7.
Evaluation Criteria and Methodology
7.1
Evaluation Criteria
Project-specific evaluation criteria that addressed four categories – the technical, natural,
social/cultural, and economic environments – were developed. The evaluation criteria’s
development was influenced by discussing opportunities, constraints, and heritage aspects,
and was guided by the requirements of the Class EA process.
The following table summarizes the identified criteria for each of the four categories listed
above.
TABLE 7-1
Evaluation Criteria
Criteria
Name
Description
Measure
Natural Environment
N1
Impact on Surface
Water Resources/
Aquatic Habitat
Potential construction or
operations impacts on
surface water resources
including aquatic habitat,
fisheries, lakes, rivers and
streams etc.
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
N2
Impact on
Terrestrial
Resources (e.g.
parks, woodlots,
etc.)
Potential construction or
operations impacts on
terrestrial resources
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
N3
Impact on Birds and Potential construction or
Waterfowl
operations impacts on birds
and waterfowl
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
Social/Cultural/Legal
S1
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
Number of residents
impacted/duration of impacts
during construction including
traffic disruptions, noise,
dust, etc.
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
S2
Impact on
Groundwater /
Private Wells
Potential construction or
operations impacts on
groundwater resources
and/or private wells
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
S3
Cultural/Heritage
and Archaeological
Resources
The potential for the option
to avoid cultural and heritage
and/or archaeological
resources
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
7-1
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
Criteria
Name
Description
Measure
S4
Property
Requirements
Potential land requirements,
including temporary and
permanent easements
Fewer property requirements / easements than
other options – 10;
Property requirements are roughly the same as
other options – 5;
More property requirements/easements than other
options – 1.
S5
Impact on Services
– Sewers
Ability to maintain sanitary
sewer services during
construction or rehabilitation
Negative impacts are lower than other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are higher than other options – 1.
S6
Public Acceptance
of Solution
Public acceptance and
support of option, including
perception of construction
disruptions, potential longer
term impacts (e.g.
groundwater), and
comparison with other
Options
Strong public support for option anticipated, or
with easily mitigated concerns – 10;
Public concern anticipated to be generally same
as other options – 5;
Significantly more public concern anticipated, and
difficult or impossible to mitigate – 1.
Economic
E1
Estimated Capital
Costs
Estimated Capital Costs
Estimated capital costs of option are low
compared to other options – 10;
Estimated capital costs are approximately the
same as other options – 5;
Estimated capital costs are higher than other
options – 1.
E2
Estimated O&M
Costs
Estimated annual operating
costs for staff resources,
ongoing operation and
maintenance activities
Estimated O&M costs of option are low compared
to other options – 10;
Estimated O&M costs are approximately the same
as other options – 5;
Estimated O&M costs are higher than other
options – 1.
E3
Business Impacts
Number of Businesses/
Duration of Business
interruption during
construction (based on
businesses directly along
construction routes)
Fewer businesses anticipated to be negatively
impacted than with other options – 10;
Impacts are approximately the same as other
options – 5;
Negative impacts are anticipated to be higher as
compared to other options– 1.
Technical
7-2
T1
Ease of
Implementation
The ability of the option to be
easily implemented on a
technical, regulatory and
practical basis
The option is easier to implement in comparison to
other options with respect to approvals and
construction – 10;
The option has similar implementation challenges
as compared to other options – 5;
The option is more difficult to implement than other
options – 1
T2
Operation and
Maintenance
The ability of the alternative
to be operated and
maintained with ease,
including requirements for
routine O&M activities
O&M requirements are lower relative to other
options – 10;
O&M requirements are roughly the same as other
options – 5;
O&M requirements are greater than other options
–1
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
Criteria
Name
Description
Measure
T3
Infrastructure
Accessibility
The ability of the option to be
accessed for operations and
maintenance under normal
and emergency conditions,
with consideration to
seasonal impacts
The option has easier access along entire length
of sewer than other options – 10; Access roughly
the same as other options – 5; More challenging
access than other options – 1.
T4
Capacity for Future
Growth
The ability of the option to
provide capacity for growth
beyond current projections,
flexibility for integration into
future requirements
The option provides significant additional capacity
for growth as compared to other options – 10;
The option provides limited additional capacity for
growth – 5;
The option provides no additional capacity for
growth as compared to other options – 1.
T5
Compatibility with
Planned
Infrastructure
Upgrades
The ability of the alternative
to be implemented in
conjunction with planned
infrastructure upgrade
programs
The option allows greater coordination with other
planned infrastructure upgrades than other options
– 10;
Potential coordination with other infrastructure
upgrades is similar to other options – 5;
Minimal opportunity for coordination with other
planned infrastructure upgrades than other options
– 1.
T6
Utility Conflicts
The potential for the
alternative to require
relocation of other existing
utilities
Less required utility relocations required as
compared to other options – 10;
Required utility relocations are similar to other
options – 5;
More utility relocations required as compared to
other options – 1.
7.2
Evaluation Methodology
7.2.1
Alternatives Scoring
Each Alternative received a criteria score for each of the various criteria identified in each
category. Criteria were assigned a score of 10, 5, or 1 based on how that Alternative
compared to the other alternatives being considered, with 10 being the best score and 1
being worst. The criteria score for each alternative was determined as follows:
10
Alternative generally has less or lower negative impacts, is lower priced, or is easier to
implement as compared to the other Alternatives
5
Negative impacts, costs and ease of implementation are roughly the same as the other
Alternatives
1
Negative impacts, costs and ease of implementation are considered worse than the other
Alternatives
Scoring of the criteria was based on qualitative and/or quantitative measures as appropriate
for the criteria in question.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
7-3
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
7.3
Scenario Analysis
Two scenarios were analyzed as part of the evaluation process. For Scenario 1, the four
categories of criteria were equally weighted (i.e. Technical: 25%; Natural: 25%; Social/Cultural:
25%; Economic: 25%). The scores generated by alternatives in each criteria category were
totaled and then normalized so that each of the four criteria categories were equally
weighted, even though each have a different number of individual criteria. The
normalization process involved dividing a category’s raw score by the total possible score
for that category. The normalized scores from all four categories were totaled for each
alternative, providing an overall score. The measures are designed such that an Alternative
that scores higher than another is considered to be a better solution.
A questionnaire was sent out to UK staff ahead of a workshop on June 28, 2011, which asked
each team member to weight each of the four main categories as well as the respective subcategories under these headings. The purpose of this exercise was to establish weightings
that were subsequently applied to Scenario 2. Project team weightings from the workshop
were as follows: Technical: 48%; Natural: 15%; Social/Cultural: 16%; Economic: 21%.
Details of the criteria rankings for both the four main categories, as well as for each of the
sub-categories, are summarized in Appendix E.
7-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
8.
Evaluation Results
This section presents results of the Phase 2 Evaluation of the forcemain and trunk sewer
routing options. A detailed evaluation of alternatives was carried out based on the
evaluation criteria presented in Section 7. Available information was supplemented by
additional field work and studies.
8.1
Phase 2 Evaluation: Considerations
8.1.1
Natural Environment Evaluation
The environmental evaluation criteria generally centered on impacts to land, water, and
associated aquatic and vegetation species, as well as on terrestrial resources including parks
and woodlots.
The key differentiating criteria determined during the natural environment evaluation for
the forcemain alignment were potential impacts to park land, including the Barriefield Rock
Garden. Key differentiating criteria for the trunk sewer from a natural environment
perspective included impacts on terrestrial resources including woodlots.
8.1.2
Social/Cultural/Legal Evaluation
The social and cultural evaluation criteria were impacts on residents and institutions due to
the proposed sewer alignments and the associated construction activity. The cultural factors
included known and likely archaeological impacts including the impacts on cultural and
heritage features.
The key differentiating criteria for both the forcemain and trunk sewer, determined during
the social and cultural evaluation, were direct impacts to residents from potential
construction activity. Potential impact on groundwater wells was also a key criterion in
selection of the preferred trunk sewer alignment.
8.1.3
Economic Evaluation
Economic criteria were focused on capital and operational and maintenance costs associated
with the alternatives under consideration. The key differentiating criteria determined
during the technical and economic evaluation were ease of construction and capital costs of
the alternatives.
8.1.4
Technical Evaluation
Criteria used to complete the technical evaluation included the ease of construction
including the ability to phase in proposed works with other construction projects in the
study area as well as factors such as utility conflicts and road crossings.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
8-1
EVALUATION RESULTS
8.2
Evaluation
Details of the alternative evaluation are included in Appendix E. Table 8-1 summarizes the
final ranking of forcemain routing alternatives using equally weighted rankings for each of
the four categories (Scenario 1) and based on rankings derived from UK staff (Scenario 2):
TABLE 8-1
Forcemain Alternative Scenario Rankings
Alternative
ID
Description
Scenario 1
Ranking
Scenario 2
Ranking
Option1
Locate along Duty Drive/Navy Way to Highway 2, then
along Highway 2 to connect to trunk sewer near
Highway 15 intersection
2
3
Option 2
Locate within James Street corridor roughly parallel to
existing forcemain to Highway 15, then connecting to
the trunk sewer on Highway 2
2
1
Option 3
Locate along James Street, then through new sports
dome parking area to Highway 2, then along Highway 2
to connect to trunk sewer near Highway 15 intersection
1
2
As shown in Table 8-1 and in Appendix E, the preferred alternative based on equal ranking
of the four criteria categories (i.e. Scenario 1) is Option 3. However, the preferred
alternative is Option 2 when criteria rankings derived from UK staff are applied to the
analysis.
Table 8-2 summarizes the final ranking of trunk sewer routing alternatives using equally
weighted rankings for each of the four categories (Scenario 1) and based on rankings
derived from UK staff (Scenario 2):
TABLE 8-2
Trunk Sewer Alternative Scenario Rankings
Scenario 1
Ranking
Scenario 2
Ranking
Locate adjacent to/parallel with Existing Sewer
4
4
Option 1
Locate along new corridor through CFB Kingston
following established rights-of-way/road allowances
3
3
Option2
Along Highway 2 to Gates Blvd, along Gates to tie in
to plant headworks
1
1
Option 3
Along Highway 2, turning south just west of Elva,
then east just south of Sterling to Gates Blvd, along
Gates to tie in to plant headworks
2
2
Alternative ID
Existing Route
Description
Results from the routing alternative evaluation analysis indicate that there is no difference
in the final ranking of alternatives based on weightings applied to both Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2. Under both scenarios, Option 2 is identified as the preferred alternative.
8-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
8.3
Discussion
8.3.1
Forcemain
As noted above in the evaluation, the results change for the highest weighted forcemain
route depending on whether unequal or equal weights were applied to the categories and
criteria. With equal weightings, Forcemain Option 3 receives the highest score, while using
unequal weightings results in Option 2 being scored highest. In reviewing the differences
between the two results, the following observations are noted:
•
From a traffic perspective, although both options have the potential to disrupt traffic,
Option 2 is likely to impact less people for a shorter period due to the reduced length of
construction on Highway 2.
•
Option 2 simplifies the necessary interconnection between existing and new forcemain
at Pumping Station B-64, and may simplify construction staging due to required
connection details at the starting point of the new forcemain near the Cataraqui River.
•
Option 2 presents a great likelihood for coordination of construction with other
infrastructure projects (e.g. watermain and steamline work along the James Street
corridor).
•
Option 3 presents potentially significant geotechnical challenges that could complicate
construction techniques due to potential rock issues through the Highway 2 rock cut.
Geotechnical concerns may in fact result in higher construction costs than currently
forecast.
•
Without minimizing in any way the importance of social and environmental impacts of
construction, these impacts are mainly short term in nature and specific to the
construction period, and are generally able to be mitigated during and after
construction.
Based on the additional review, results of the unequal weighted analysis appears justified,
and it is recommended that Option 2 be taken forward for as the preferred alternative.
8.3.2
Trunk Sewer
Both equal and unequal weighted categories and criteria resulted in Trunk Sewer Route
Option 2 receiving the highest score. This result is not surprising, given the straightforward
nature of the route, the ability to construct exclusively within municipal road rights-of-way,
and the general lack of impacts from a natural environment perspective. However, Option 2
is not without challenges; potential groundwater interferences, traffic impacts during
construction, and the potential need for tunneled installation of sections of the sewer all
need to be adequately considered and evaluated during design.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
8-3
9.
Consultation Program
Consultation minimum requirements for EA studies are outlined in the Municipal Class EA
(October 2000, as amended in 2007). A Schedule B Class EA requires two mandatory points
of contact plus a Notice of Completion. This mandatory consultation is often achieved
through the publishing of the Notice of Commencement and either a Public Meeting or a
mail out to directly affected stakeholders. Given the nature of this project and the potential
public and stakeholder interest, two Public Information Centres (PIC) were held in addition
to publishing the Notices of Commencement and Completion.
Consulting with project stakeholders is an important element in the process of building and
maintaining community trust and credibility and ultimately achieving community
endorsement and acceptance of the study recommendations. Starting consultation efforts
early in the decision-making process can help to identify issues and concerns early enough
that they can be effectively addressed before final decisions are made.
The objectives of the public consultation plan prepared for this project were as follows:
•
To conduct a consultation program that is meaningful to those involved
•
To deliver a program that is understandable, accessible, and transparent
•
To engage stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process
•
To provide educational value to participants by providing information on the issues and
challenges of Kingston’s sewer system
9.1
Consultation Plan Activities
The consultation activities undertaken as part of this project are presented below.
9.1.1
Mailing List
Two mailing lists were developed (one each covering the public contacts and the agency
contacts) and were maintained by CH2M HILL for the duration of the study. The data was
augmented with new additions to the list as stakeholders became engaged in the process.
The public mailing list included names and mailing information for members of the public,
special interest groups, and stakeholders that are on current mailing lists of UK. The agency
mailing list was compiled from the most recent list issued by the Ministry of the
Environment and modified using previous mailing lists developed by UK. The agency
mailing list was updated and modified based on responses to the first mail out of the Notice
of Commencement (NOC). The initial and final mailing lists are attached in Appendix F.
9.1.2
Notice of Commencement
The NOC includes a clear statement of the purpose of the study and is an invitation for
interested persons to participate in the process. It also includes contact information,
including a project website hosted by UK
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
9-1
CONSULTATION PROGRAM
(http://www.utilitieskingston.com/Water/Projects/RiverStreetPumpStation.aspx). The NOC was
published in local papers on February 22, 2011. The NOC was also posted to the UK
website. Responses received from the notice were documented and shared with the study
team. Contact information was added to the mailing list for notification of project activities.
An Agency Contact Letter was also prepared and sent to the various contacts. Both the NOC
and Agency Contact Letter are included in Appendix F.
9.1.3
Public Information Centers
Two PICs were conducted for this study. The purpose of the PICs was to provide the public
with an opportunity to meet with the project team at key points in the decision making
process to discuss the study and provide comments, questions, and concerns. Each PIC was
designed as a drop-in Information Centre with a display of project information, a take-home
Information Brief, and a Comment Sheet to provide feedback.
The purpose of PIC #1 was to introduce the study, present the problem statement and
rationale for the study, provide an overview of the decision-making process, and explain the
types of investigation and data collection activities that were undertaken. Outcomes of
PIC #1 included a growing public awareness of the key issues, initial reaction, and comment
on the problem statement and purpose of the study, and suggestions for options to consider.
PIC #1 was held on March 29th, 2011 with a Notice being published in local newspapers on
March 15 and 22. Copies of the Notice were also hand-delivered to residents in the vicinity
of the project study area as described below. A copy of the Notice of PIC#1 is attached in
Appendix F. Copies of the presentation material as well as completed comment sheets from
PIC #1 are also included in Appendix F.
The purpose of PIC #2 was to present the analysis and results of the investigations and
evaluation of alternative strategy solutions. The outcome of PIC #2 was an understanding of
the key issues, questions and concerns of the recommended alternative, confirmation that
the public understands how the preferred alternatives were selected, confirmation that key
public issues were addressed and incorporated into study recommendations, and
identification of issues regarding implementation.
A Notice for PIC #2 was published in local newspapers on September 27 and October 4,
2011. PIC #2 was held on October 5, 2011. A copy of the Notice of PIC #2 is attached in
Appendix F. Copies of the presentation material as well as completed comment sheets from
PIC #2 are also included in Appendix F.
Comments received from each of the PICs were compiled and reviewed by the Study team
prior to continuing work.
9.1.4
Agency Consultation
Agencies were mailed the Notice of Study Commencement at the beginning of the project
and asked if they wished to continue to participate in the process. Those who respond with
a request to maintain participation in the study continued to receive project information and
notices. Agency comments were carefully reviewed by the project team so that issues,
concerns, and comments were incorporated into the decision-making process as the study
progresses. Copies of messages and letters received from various agencies are included in
Appendix F.
9-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CONSULTATION PROGRAM
A meeting was also held with the Department of National Defence on April 18, 2011 to
present the issues, alternatives evaluation, and proposed design criteria and solution. The
purpose of this meeting was to obtain and document DND’s approvals in-principle with the
proposed plan prior to finalizing design criteria and the selected alternative solution.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency was contacted to update the Agency on
the objectives of the project and to confirm requirements under the CEAA. A copy of the
CEAA letter is attached in Appendix F. Once the preferred alternative is identified through
the Class EA process, the project was filed with the CEAA.
9.1.5
First Nations Consultation
The City of Kingston currently has a working group specifically engaged on First Nations
consultation. The project team used this working group to identify various First Nations
groups that were subsequently contacted as part of the study. In addition, a copy of the
Agency Letter and Notice of Commencement was sent to Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada as per the Public and Agency mailing list included in Appendix F.
9.1.6
Direct Notifications
In addition to the Public and Agency mailing lists and the project website, direct notification
has been used to notify residents/stakeholders in the immediate study area via handdelivered mail-drops. These areas included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Barriefield
Royal Military College
CFB Kingston
Cartwright Point
Highway 2 residents/businesses up to the Ravensview WWTP entrance
Residents along Elva Ave., Ridge Ave., Sterling Ave., Gates Blvd. and LaSalle Blvd.
Copies of the Notice of PIC #1 and PIC #2 were hand-delivered to the above areas
approximately two weeks before each meeting.
9.1.7
Meeting with Barriefield Village Association
A meeting was held with the project team and representatives of the Barriefield Village
Association on October 25, 2011 to discuss the proposed sewer-twinning project as well as
other planned infrastructure plans in the area. The proposed routing of the forcemain,
anticipated construction techniques and potential impacts on the Heritage Area were
reviewed. With the proposed forcemain following route generally south of James Street and
offset from the Heritage homes will exist, mitigating many of the concerns. Possible impacts
on the Barriefield Rock Garden were discussed, with recognition of the need for restoration
to existing conditions following construction. Agrement was reached to continue the
dialogue with BVA throughout design.
9.1.8
Project Website
In order to promote effective and timely communication, relevant project documents were
posted to the UK website (http://www.utilitieskingston.com/Water/Projects/
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
9-3
CONSULTATION PROGRAM
RiverStreetPumpStation.aspx). This website served to enhance collaboration and improve
communications by providing up-do-date information and background documents for review.
9.1.9
Project Email Account
A project e-mail account was set up to allow for stakeholders to contact the project team.
The email address was published in the Notice of Commencement as well as in each of the
PIC notices and was included on all information made available to the public. The email
address was: [email protected]. The email account was managed by UK
with messages automatically forwarded to the CH2M HILL team.
9.1.10
Notice of Completion
A NOC will be prepared for publication by the UK. The Notice will be distributed to the
public and agency mailing list and will be published in the local papers as determined
appropriate by UK. The Notice of Completion will also be posted to the UK website. The
Notice will conform to the content outlined in the Municipal Class EA document. A suitable
review period will be determined in consultation with UK and will not be less than 30 days.
9.1.11
Federal CEAA Screening
It is anticipated that final sign-off of the CEAA will occur during the 30-day Class EA
review period. The CEAA and relevant federal agencies will be kept updated with the
progress of the study through the course of the project.
9-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
10.
Recommended Alternatives
Based on evaluations completed in Section 8, the preferred alternative for the forcemain and
trunk sewer are as follows.
10.1
Forcemain
In general, the preferred alternative for the River Street Pump Station forcemain involves
rehabilitation of the existing forcemain as well as installation of a new forcemain to provide
redundancy and additional capacity.
10.1.1
Forcemain Rehabilitation
The existing forcemain is a 1,050 mm diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) which has
been in service for more than 50 years. The physical condition of the forcemain pipe is
unknown because, as the only means of conveying sewage from central Kingston to the
trunk sanitary sewer, is has not been feasible take the forcemain out of service to allow for
inspection. Nevertheless, given the age of the pipe, it is reasonable to assume that at least
some degree of rehabilitation is required.
The rehabilitation work will require the forcemain to be taken out of service, consequently
the work cannot be undertaken until a new twin forcemain has been constructed and put
into service. Before the rehabilitation work can begin, a full condition assessment must be
completed to confirm the condition of the pipe and determine the appropriate restoration
requirements. The general sequence of steps is outlined below:
•
Construct and commission new forcemain
•
Take old forcemain out of service
•
Inspect old forcemain (CCTV, profiling, non-destructive testing, material sampling or
testing as needed)
•
Complete condition assessment (if condition permits, forcemain can be returned to
service in the interim)
•
Evaluate and select a preferred rehabilitation method(s)
•
Prepare rehabilitation design, contract documents, tendering
•
Take the old forcemain out of service, conduct rehabilitation (cleaning, rehabilitation,
post-CCTV or other inspections)
•
Return rehabilitated forcemain to service
Scheduling of the rehabilitation work should consider seasonal flow variations. For example,
it may be necessary to undertake the work during the winter when flows are lower.
A variety of techniques can be considered for rehabilitation of RCP in a forcemain
application, including spot repairs, cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) and sliplining. Depending on
the nature, degree and location of pipe deterioration, a combination of rehabilitation
techniques may be appropriate (e.g. spot repairs at specific locations, relining elsewhere).
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
10-1
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
CIPP involves insertion of a resin-impregnated felt sock into the pipe which is inflated using
water pressure against the side of the pipe and then cured using heat (steam or hot water) to
form a new structural liner within the old pipe.
Slip lining is the insertion of a smaller diameter pipe, typically plastic such as HDPE, into
the old pipe and grouting the annular space between the old and new pipes.
Spot repair methods could include replacement of short segment of pipe by open cut, and
trenchless methods to remove protrusions (e.g. displaced gaskets), grouting of poor
joints/cracks/defects, or localized use of CIPP or slip lining.
A summary of rehabilitation techniques and considerations is provided in Table 10-1 below.
TABLE 10-1
Forcemain Rehabilitation Techniques
Method
Spot Repairs
Advantages
• Useful if deterioration is
localized or limited to
short segments
Disadvantages
• Access to repair
locations may require
excavation
• If locations are
numerous, it may be
more cost effective to
rehabilitate entire pipe
Features/Materials
• Replacement of short
segments of pipe (open cut)
• Localized use of trenchless
repair methods
• Materials
• Pipe
• Grouts (for joint repair)
• CIPP
• Sliplining
Cured-in-place
Pipe (CIPP)
• Faster installation than
open cut
• Full bypass pumping
necessary
• Thermosetting resins and
felt liner
• No excavation
• High setup costs on
small projects
• Standard and custom sizing
available
• Does not correct lateral
defects or sags
• Pre-inspection and highpressure cleaning required
• Spot repairs may be
required prior to
installation
• For gravity and pressure
pipelines
• Accommodates bends
and minor deformation
• Maximizes capacity
• Annulus grouting not
required
• Internal lateral reopening
• Designed for full
structural conditions
• Extensive history of
successful installations
Sliplining
• Designed for full
structural pipe
• Extensive history of
successful installations
• Relies on existing pipe
for installation
• Curing: steam, hot water,
UV
• Connection treatment
required if I/I reduction
desirable
• Limitation for grade
changes and curved
alignments
• Requires large
excavation pit for
staging
• Materials:
- HDPE
-
PVC
-
GRP
• Removal of structural
obstructions and heavy
debris needed
• Reduction of effective
inside pipe diameter
• Quality control of
annular grout operation
10-2
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
10.1.2
New Forcemain Route
The preferred alignment for the new forcemain generally follows the same route as the
existing forcemain from the chamber on the eastern shore of the Cataraqui River to the
intersection of James Lane and James Street. From this point, the forcemain would run east
along the James Street corridor either within, or directly adjacent to, and south of, the
Municipal right-of-way and continue under the intersection of Highway 15 and Highway 2.
The new forcemain would connect to the chamber situated approximately 110 metres west
of the intersection of Highway 2 and Niagara Park Drive, where the existing forcemain
discharges into the gravity sewer. This route option effectively parallels the existing
forcemain route. The total length of this option is approximately 1,000 metres.
10.2
Trunk Sewer
In general, the preferred alternative for the Ravensview trunk sewer involves rehabilitation
of the existing trunk sewer as well as installation of a new trunk sewer to provide
redundancy and additional capacity.
10.2.1
Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation
UK is undertaking a more detailed review of the rehabilitation requirements for the trunk
sewer and will be identifying access requirements for this work under a separate
assignment. Rehabilitation options for the trunk sewer are expected to be similar to those
listed for the forcemain. The timing and extent of the work will be determined through a
separate study. However, the new trunk sewer will likely be completed in advance of
rehabilitation to allow for the diversion of sewage flows to facilitate the rehabilitation work.
10.2.2
New Trunk Sewer Route
The preferred alignment for the new trunk sewer would begin at the same chamber that the
existing sewer does, but would continue easterly along Highway 2 for approximately
2,600 metres before turning south along Gates Boulevard and then east along LaSalle
Boulevard towards the WWTP. The total length of this sewer would be approximately 3,200
metres. Due to the approximately 14-metre drop in ground surface elevation between
Highway 2 and LaSalle Boulevard (i.e. along Gates Boulevard), a series of drop structures
would be required along this section of the proposed sewer alignment.
10.3
Connection of Forcemain to Trunk Sewer
At present, the existing forcemain discharges to the trunk sewer at a chamber located
approximately 110 metres west of the intersection of Highway 15 and Highway 2. Under the
preferred configuration, an expanded chamber will be required to accommodate the two
discharging forcemains as well as the two receiving trunk sewers. Associated with this
chamber may be the requirement for remote actuation of isolation gates which will facilitate
discharge from either one or both of the forcemains to one or both of the gravity sewers. The
configuration and features of the chamber will be determined during detailed design.
Property acquisition and/or easements in this area will also have to be investigated ahead
of design and construction of this chamber.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
10-3
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
10.4
Flows and Sewer Sizing
A detailed assessment of existing and proposed future sanitary flows was conducted as part
of the Sewage Infrastructure Master Plan for the City of Kingston Urban Area, completed by
CH2M HILL in 2010. In general, trunk sewer design flows were based on the 10-year wet
weather design condition. It was assumed for the current analysis that peak flows tributary
to the RSPS forcemain would be based on the capacity of the twin-forcemain crossing the
Great Cataraqui River from the RSPS. Design flows were also based on the full build-out
condition as described in the 2010 Master Plan. It was also assumed that peak flows from
each of the contributing sewage pumping stations were coincident at the receiving
forcemain and trunk sewer. Pipe design capacities used in the current analysis did not take
into account capacity limits at the Ravensview WWTP.
The following figure (Figure 10-1) provides a schematic summary of contributing sanitary
conveyance systems and their associated peak flow rates.
10-4
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
B-40 PS
Peak (firm) – 90 l/s
Existing Ravensview TS
Capacity ~2,200 to
2,400 l/s
Butternut Crk PS
Peak (firm) – 200 l/s
Surcharged flow in
certain sections during
peak flow conditions
JE Horton School
Peak (firm) – ?
Hwy 15 Flow (Total)
Peak (firm) ~ 300l/s
CFB Flows (North)
Peak – 37 l/s
River St. PS*
Peak (firm) – 1,750 l/s
Peak (max) – 2,400 l/s
Peak max to be re-confirmed
After FM twin completion
B-64 PS
Peak (firm) – 110 l/s
CFB Flows (South)
Peak – 51 l/s
Ravensview WWTP
Capacity
Avg – 1,100 l/s
Peak Day – 2,153 l/s
Peak Hr – 2,228 l/s
Current firm cap. Is sufficient
for wet weather flows
= FORCEMAIN
= TRUNK SEWER
Sketch not to scale
*Flows once FM twin complete. Modeled flow
based on current pump curves
Note: Flows based on full build-out conditions,
peak flow conditions (sewers) or firm capacity (PS)
as noted, based on Master Plan recommendations
of 10-y wet weather event
FIGURE 10-1
Design Flows – Existing Connectivity
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
10-5
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
As summarized in Figure 10-1, the future total peak flow tributary to the Ravensview trunk
sewer under full build-out condition is approximately 2,900 L/s. The objective of the
twinning project is to allow for full redundancy in the trunk sewer whereby both the
existing and proposed trunk sewers have sufficient capacity to convey peak flows from
under most conditions from the upstream tributary area, assuming that one of the sewers is
offline. In addition, the proposed capacity of the trunk sewer will also take into
consideration potential future upgrades to the River Street Pumping Station, development
on the CFB Kingston property, and possible expansion of the urban boundary.
A preliminary assessment of ground profile and existing connection inverts along the
proposed trunk sewer alignment indicates that the slope of the trunk will likely range
between approximately 0.25% and 0.50%. The following table (Table 10-2) summarizes the
full-flow capacity of various pipe diameters as well as their respective velocities.
TABLE 10-2
Full Flow Capacity of Various Pipe Diameters and Slopes
Slope – 0.25%
Slope – 0.50%
Diameter
(mm)
Capacity
(L/s)
Velocity
(m/s)
Capacity
(L/s)
Velocity
(m/s)
1,200
1,949
1.7
2,757
2.4
1,350
2,669
1.9
3,774
2.6
1,500
3,534
2.0
4,998
2.8
*Based on Manning's 'n' of 0.013
As summarized in Table 10-2, in order to convey the peak flow tributary to the Ravensview
trunk sewer, a diameter of at least 1,350 mm is required given a slope ranging from 0.25% to
0.50%. The final diameter of the trunk sewer will have to take into consideration both
hydraulic constraints as well as construction methods.
Under the proposed twinned condition, average day flows will be divided between the two
lines to ensure self scouring flow velocities are maintained in both sewers. Average day
flows are currently 750 L/s and will rise to 935 L/s in the future as per results included in
the Sewage Infrastructure Master Plan.
10.5
Impacts and Mitigation
This section provides details related to potential impacts and mitigation techniques for each
of the preferred forcemain and trunk sewer alternatives. The components of the natural
environment that may potentially be affected by the new sewer include ground water
resources and impacts on terrestrial systems (e.g. parkland and woodlots). Technical
considerations include the anticipated need for easements on DND property, and
controlling impacts on utilities and other infrastructure. Social/cultural considerations
include the need to mitigate impacts on local residents, such as noise, air quality, traffic,
drainage, erosion, the need to control effects on archaeological and heritage resources, and
the need to protect worker and public health and safety.
10-6
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
10.5.1
Natural Environment
Groundwater Resources
Seepage barriers should be constructed along the proposed forcemain on James Street and
along the trunk sewer on Highway 2 to mitigate possible groundwater flow along the
bedding and backfill material for the sewer, thereby reducing the potential for groundwater
level lowering.
Houses on Cartwright Point, as well as houses on Gates Boulevard, Ridge Avenue, Sterling
Avenue, and Glenview Avenue are known to be serviced with conventional water wells.
Based on MOE Water Well Records, there is potential for construction pits/shafts/tunnels
to intersect the upper water bearing zones that supply some of these well. This could result
in an increase in turbidity, and changes to water chemistry, quantity, and quality in some of
the wells. If tunnelling is selected as the preferred construction method, betonite slurries
and grouting during the shaft construction may reduce groundwater inflow into the
tunnels/shafts, may not necessarily eliminate well interference.
Significant water bearing zones could be encountered at the transition between the
limestone and Precambrian bedrock, which would require significant groundwater
pumping. Groundwater inflow could be reduced using grouting techniques. A Permit to
Take Water will be required from the MOE for the construction. A hydrogeological
assessment will be required to assess the amount of groundwater pumping and the effects
of construction on the groundwater and nearby wells.
Soil and Groundwater
Additional soil and groundwater testing will be conducted during detailed design of the
forcemain and trunk sewer. A Phase 2 EA is planned for the forcemain route. An
appropriate mitigation plan will be developed for the management of contaminated soils
and groundwater should they be identified during testing.
Investigations for detailed design will be required to further characterize the anticipated
groundwater conditions and to develop a comprehensive mitigation approach to protect
private wells from a quality and quantity perspective.
Terrestrial Systems
Physical intrusion and noise generated by construction activities represents a short-term
disturbance to wildlife within the study area. To minimize impacts, the following mitigation
measures are proposed:
•
To minimize impacts on nesting birds, and to correspondingly avoid contravention of
the Migratory Birds Convention Act, construction activities should be restricted within the
potential nesting period. If this is unavoidable, a nest search of the area will be
scheduled a minimum of three days before site work, and will be undertaken by
qualified individuals so that no active nests covered by the Migratory Birds Convention
Act are destroyed or damaged
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
10-7
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
Drainage and Erosion Controls
During pipe line construction, erosion control measures will be implemented to prevent
degradation of the adjacent vegetated areas in accordance with the requirements of
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. The erosion control measures will be tailored to
the site to prevent sediment-laden water from leaving the site. A combination of the
following erosion control measures will be used onsite:
•
Site development will be considered with construction scheduling
•
Maintenance of buffer zones with existing vegetation will remain in place
•
Disturbed soil areas will be stabilized with permanent vegetation
•
Dust control will be implemented on disturbed areas and access roads
•
To protect excavations, runoff will be diverted around the excavation
•
A silt fence will be installed at the limits of work areas
•
Storm drain inlet protection will be implemented (geotextile filter cloth under CB covers)
•
Materials management will include material delivery, storage, and waste management
•
Vehicle and equipment management will include construction practices, cleaning,
fueling, and maintenance
Fuel Spills
In refueling construction equipment, spills could occur and contaminate surface and
groundwater. Proposed mitigation measures include the following:
•
The requirement of health and safety plans for construction activities
•
Preparation of a contingency plan for cleaning up fuel spills, ready for implementation
•
Establishing designated areas for refueling construction equipment with a minimum
separation distance of not less than 15 metres from any watercourse
10.5.2
Social and Cultural Considerations
The majority of impacts will be short term during the construction period, and the primary
groups affected by construction activities will be the residents in the vicinity of James Street
within the Barriefield Village area, residents in the vicinity of Gates Boulevard, and the
commuters using Highway 2. This subsection describes various categories of the potential
impacts and associated mitigation.
Construction Impacts
Hoe ramming, rock excavation, and other construction will cause vibration on and off the
site. Vibrations from these activities are expected to be localized, and are normally not
sufficient to cause damage to nearby structures and services in good condition. The existing
houses along James Street are historic homes. Damage could be triggered if there are any
existing structural issues with the nearby homes. Pre-construction surveys should be carried
out on the existing houses so that any potential construction related claims can be resolved
in a fair manner.
10-8
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
Noise
The following construction traffic and equipment noise mitigation measures will be
implemented:
•
All vehicles and construction equipment will be equipped with effective muffling
devices and operated to minimize noise in the project area
•
The City’s noise by-law will be enforced for all construction activities
Air Quality
To preserve air quality, construction vehicles will not be allowed to idle for more than a
designated period of time, and not more than a designated number of idling vehicles will be
allowed in the same area at any time. For dust control, a temporary truck wash-down
station may be set up to limit dust and dirt on roads adjacent to the residents.
Dust and Mud
Excavation traffic could create dust and mud problems, pending weather conditions. The
proposed mitigation methods include the following:
•
Dust control measures such as the application of water or calcium chloride will be
undertaken as necessary to minimize dust migration
•
Public roadways will be kept clean and free of mud by regular street cleaning and/or by
tire-washing facilities for vehicles exiting the construction site
Traffic Management Plan
The roads affected during the proposed construction will be James Street, Highway 2,
Gates Boulevard, and LaSalle Boulevard. James Street and Gates Boulevard largely carry
local traffic, while Highway 2 is a major road. A minimum of one lane will be available for
traffic in either direction during construction on James Street and Gates Boulevard, and
appropriate flagging and signage will be provided. Temporary access will be provided for
residents on LaSalle Boulevard. Traffic management will also be required at the intersection
of Highway 2 and Highway 15 for construction of the forcemain crossing at this location.
Construction hours may also be staggered and adjusted to avoid work during the busiest
times of the day.
The work restricting access to private driveways will be minimized by limiting the work to
be completed during the business hours and by keeping short trench lengths. An emergency
access via a ramp over the open trench will be provided as required.
It will also be ensured that all pedestrian access and walkways to transit routes are
maintained at all time during construction.
Impact on Emergency Vehicles
The various route options present different challenges and potential impacts on emergency
response times. Highway 2 and Highway 15 are major routes for emergency vehicles with
few or no alternatives. Construction staging and the approach to traffic management needs
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
10-9
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
to ensure acceptable access for emergency vehicles is maintained during construction. This
issue will require further review and refinement during detailed design.
Archaeology
For archeological impact mitigation, a Stage 2 Archaeological assessment will be carried out
during the design stage and recommendation of the same will be implemented as per the
directions provided by the Ministry of Culture.
Worker Health and Safety
The contractor will be responsible for ensuring that a proper health and safety plan is in
place that meets provincial requirements, and that all workers are trained with respect to
health and safety. This process will be ensured through the contract document process and
the contractor will be required to ensure that all staff have appropriate training and follow
required safety procedures. Excavation through the Barriefield rock cut may require
additional health and safety measures to be implemented to protect workers from falling
rock hazards.
Public Information Updates
It is recommended that the local landowners be kept up to date of design and construction
activities through regular information bulletins.
10.6
Compliance Monitoring Measures
Compliance and effectiveness monitoring of the mitigation measures during construction
will be implemented. The monitoring measures will ensure accountability on the part of the
construction team. The primary objectives of the construction monitoring program will be as
follows:
•
Ensure compliance with contractual agreements dealing with the environmental
construction practices specified for the project
•
Assess the overall performance and effectiveness of the proposed mitigating measures
making modifications if and when required
The key operations to be monitored during the construction period could include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10-10
Impacts upon adjacent lands
Noise control activities
Dust and particulate control activities
Clearing of rights-of-way
Compliance with working area designations
Tree maintenance
Site restoration
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
11.
Technical Considerations
The following sections include details related to specific technical details associated with
design and implementation of the preferred alternative.
Requirement for Property/Easements
It is anticipated that lands outside of the municipal right-of-way will be required either
during construction or permanently as a result of the proposed alignments. Further work is
required during detailed design, but specific locations where it is anticipated that works
may encroach on DND property include:
•
Parallel to James Street south of the Municipal right-of-way
•
Between the intersection of James St. and George St. and the intersection of Highway 2
and Highway 15
•
Construction staging area(s) along Highway 2
•
Construction staging area(s) along Gates Boulevard
Communication with DND personnel has been initiated and will continue throughout the
design stage.
Heritage District
Barriefield Village has designation as a Heritage Conservation District under the Ontario
Heritage Act. As such, the heritage impact must be considered when designing and
constructing the proposed forcemain within the James Street corridor. This includes
consideration of native plants, existing structures, and the landscape of the Village. It is
recommended that the Barriefield Village Association be updated on the proposed project
schedule and scope and that the requirement for consultation with the Kingston Municipal
Heritage Committee be confirmed during the design stage of the project.
Utilities
As-built drawings of existing utilities have been provided by UK. In addition, additional
survey work has been completed to identify locations of utilities. As the design progresses
further in to the detailed stage, conflicts with other potential utilities will be ascertained and
addressed. Conflicts or needs to relocate are being identified as the design of the forcemain
and trunk sewer progresses into detailed design.
Connection of Highway 15 sewer to Forcemain
Disconnecting the Highway 15 gravity sewer from the forcemain would allow full
redundancy without the need to connect the Highway 15 sewer to the new forcemain.
Grades and construction issues need to be reviewed to confirm the viability of this proposal.
A review of the existing connection will be conducted in order to assess options for
disconnecting this sewer from the forcemain.
11-11
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Connection of Pumped Discharge from B-64 Pumping Station
Currently B-64 Pumping Station discharges directly to the River Street Forcemain.
Connection of B-64 to the new forcemain will be required to allow for full redundancy of the
system. Depending on which option is selected, a section of forcemain from B-64 to the new
forcemain may be required, and valving installed to allow selection of discharge location.
Sanitary Flows from North of Highway 2
Certain areas of CFB Kingston north of Highway 2 currently flow south to connect to the
existing Ravensview Trunk. A review of the benefits of intercepting these flows with the
new twin trunk should be reviewed in detailed design.
Highway 15 Sanitary Flows
Sanitary flows arising from development north along Highway 15 are directed via
forcemain and gravity sewer to a chamber that is installed on the existing forcemain situated
approximately 100 m west of the intersection of Highway 2 and Highway 15. The existing
forcemain tributary to this chamber is situated on CFB lands north west of the intersection.
Construction of a gravity sewer within the Highway 15 right-of-way, discharging into the
trunk sewer east of the intersection of the two highways is technically feasible. However, the
cost of such an undertaking is likely prohibitive, and the existing connection to the
forcemain, although not ideal, is functional. UK intends to maintain the form and function
of the existing forcemain connection and provide the necessary interconnection between the
old and new forcemains rather than explore further the option of gravity drainage in the
Highway 15 corridor.
Baseflow in Existing Trunk Sewer
Diversion of flows to a new twin sewer would reduce flow in the existing trunk to those
from CFB Kingston only, potentially resulting in velocities lower than those required to
maintain self-scour. The distribution of flows between sewers and required self-scour
velocities will need to be considered and confirmed during detailed design.
Pipe sizing
Sizing of the new twin trunk sewer needs to account for the handling of existing and future
flows, and potential full flow redundancy. However, consideration of construction (e.g.
tunneling) techniques and costs that could vary based on the pipe sizing need to be
accounted for in the decision making during functional design. Pipe sizing in the range of
1,350 to 1,500 mm inside diameter appear adequate depending on final pipe slopes and
grades. A balance of currently forecast capacity requirements, potential future capacity
needs, specific constriction requirements, and present-day construction costs will be
required in the final pipe size selection.
Geological Conditions
Much of the potential forcemain and gravity sewer routes are anticipated to be through
bedrock. For shallower installations, bedrock removal could be carried out using hoe
ramming techniques. Hard and/or thick bedrock beds could require significant effort and
progress could be slow.
11-12
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Bedrock conditions at the level of the proposed tunnel installations are expected to consist of
bedded limestone with potential granitic intrusions. Tunneling through the limestone and
granitic bedrock is considered to be feasible, although tunneling progress may be somewhat
slower through harder rock zones. Intermediate tunnel shafts will be required where abrupt
changes in the tunnel alignment are planned, or as required, based on the tunneling
technique.
Additional geotechnical investigations are planned to better characterize the rock conditions
along the preferred trunk sewer route alignment.
Corrosion resistance of new pipe
The existing Ravensview Trunk Sewer is experiencing deterioration due to hydrogen sulfide
corrosion. The new gravity sewer will need to consider corrosion protection or lining
requirements, particularly in zones of super critical flows or high turbulence (e.g. drop
structures at Gates Blvd.). Chemical dosing at the River Street Pumping Station is currently
being implemented to mitigate such corrosion.
Construction Costs
An Opinion of Probable Cost is currently being developed for the twinned forcemain and
Ravensview Trunk with consideration of new information collected to date, including
geotechnical and groundwater conditions.
Coordination with other Major Projects
Consideration should be given to other major projects within the area affected by
construction to ensure that cumulative impacts are appropriately mitigated. This issue
should be investigated in greater detail during detailed design. Specific projects include CFB
Kingston developments and potential steamline/watermain works on James Street.
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
11-13
12.
Construction Staging, Schedule, Costs
and Approvals
12.1
Staging and Schedule
It is anticipated that forcemain construction will take place during 2012 or 2013. Trunk
sewer construction may begin in 2013 depending on the final cost anticipated for the project
and the availability of funding. Rehabilitation of the forcemain and trunk sewer will take
place following completion of the twin-forcemain and trunk sewer construction.
During construction, access to all businesses and institutions will be maintained at all times.
The access to individual residences will likely be affected for only a day at a time.
Emergency access to residences will, however, be made available at all times.
12.2
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
A preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for the forcemain and twinned trunk sewer
has been prepared based on the proposed route alignment and profile, and taking into
account the current best assumption of methodologies to be employed in the construction of
the infrastructure. For the trunk sewer, the depth of the proposed sewer is such that
tunnelled installation of the infrastructure will be necessary. As such, additional
geotechnical information was collected to verify the geologic conditions and confirm that a
tunnelled installation is viable.
Based on various assumptions, the OPC for the forcemain (including the tunnelled
installation beneath Highway 2) is $3.25 million, while the OPC for the trunk sewer
(including sections of tunnel installation) is $25.4 million (excluding allowances for
engineering and applicable taxes in both cases). These OPC are in 2011 dollars and include
allowances for contractor mark-ups and overheads of 15% and contingencies of 20%as is
appropriate for the current project stage and conceptual level of detail.
12.3
Required Permits and Approvals
MOE Certificate of Approval for construction of the forcemain and sanitary sewer will be
required. A permit from the City of Kingston will be required for the construction of the
sanitary sewer within the City’s roadways. Also, a Permit to Take Water may be required
for dewatering during construction based on results of hydrogeological testing. The
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority may also require permits for erosion and
sediment control and work adjacent to the Cataraqui River. The Kingston Municipal
Heritage Committee should also be consulted to confirm permit requirements under the
Ontario Heritage Act for works conducted in the vicinity of Barriefield Village.
12-14
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
13.
References
Adams Heritage, 2011, An Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1) of the Proposed Forced Main and
Trunk Sewer Route, City of Kingston
Aqua Terre Solutions Inc., 2008, Stormwater Management Study Canadian Forces Base Kingston,
Kingston, Ontario – Prepared for Public Works Government Services Canada and
Department of National Defence (March 3, 2008)
CH2M HILL, 2010, Sewage Infrastructure Master Plan for the City of Kingston Urban Area
City of Kingston, 2010, Official Plan – Approved January 27, 2010, Consolidated as of
August 1, 2011
Ecological Services, 2011, Environmental Assessment: City of Kingston Forcemain Sewage Line
Extension (June 29, 2011)
Houle Chevrier Engineering, 2011, Soil and Bedrock Inventory Environmental Assessment River
Street Pump Station Twin-Forcemain Extension and Ravensview Trunk Sewer Twinning Kingston,
Ontario (September 2011)
416205_WBG062011103040OTT
13-1