environmental project file - final · the completion of a municipal class environmental assessment...

Env i ronmen ta l P ro jec t F i l e - F INAL

James Street Booster Station – Schedule B Environmental

Assessment

Prepared for

Utilities Kingston

April 2014

1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330

Ottawa, ON, K2C 3W7

473583 COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Contents Section Page

Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Project Need and Justification ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ...................................................................... 1-2

1.3.1 Schedule A .......................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Schedule B .......................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.3 Schedule C .......................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.4 Determination of Schedule ................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4 Project Team .................................................................................................................................... 1-5

Class EA Phase 1 – Problem/Opportunity Statement .......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study Area........................................................................................................................................ 2-1

Class EA Phase 2 – Identification of Alternative Solutions ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Evaluation and Reporting Process ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Technical Studies ............................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.4.1 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2) ......................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Natural Environment Evaluation ........................................................................................ 3-4 3.4.3 Heritage Impact Assessment .............................................................................................. 3-4

3.5 Potential Impacts and Mitigation During Construction ................................................................... 3-5 3.5.1 Trucks and Traffic Impacts .................................................................................................. 3-5 3.5.2 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.5.3 Excavation and Construction Impacts ................................................................................ 3-5 3.5.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.6 Potential Impacts and Mitigation During Operation ....................................................................... 3-6 3.7 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 3-6 3.8 Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 3-8

Class EA Phase 5 – Implementation of Preferred Design ..................................................................... 4-9

Consultation ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Consultation ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Notice of Completion ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Public Consultation Materials and Comments Received ................................................................. 5-1

References ........................................................................................................................................ 6-1

Appendices

A Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2) B Natural Environment Review C Heritage Impact Assessment D Public and Agency Consultation Materials

473583 i COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

SECTION 1

Introduction and Background

1.1 Background As a result of projected long term growth and age of existing infrastructure, the James Street Booster Pumping Station (BPS) requires upgrades to provide reliable water pumping in future to the residents and businesses of Kingston East. The completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) project was undertaken to allow for this upgrade project.

The 2007 Water Supply Master Plan for the City of Kingston provided guidance for management and expansion of Kingston’s Water Distribution system to the year 2026. Since the time of the Master Plan, there have been physical changes to the Water Distribution system in Kingston East, including the construction and commissioning of the Innovation Drive elevated storage tank. In addition, desired future changes to storage in the east system (decommissioning of the Gore Road standpipe, the CFB Kingston Elevated Storage Tank and potentially the Milton Standpipe) require a new look at the long-term configuration and operation of the east system, as well as consideration of how the new infrastructure will operate in the short-term prior to system build out and ultimate water demands.

The James Street Booster station is fed from twin watermains which cross the Great Cataraqui River, boosting pressure and delivering the required flows to meet demands of the East water system. Under the current booster station and system configuration, only one of the three installed pumps at James Street can operate at a time due to the potential impact of high discharge pressures on nearby users. With the eastern pressure zone covering a relatively large range of ground elevations (lows near 77m ASL in Barriefield and Royal Military College (RMC), with highs approaching 110 m ASL in CFB Kingston and along Highway 15) satisfying all users pressure requirements can be challenging. Further, ensuring adequate fire flows in the entire system, including Milton, can be challenging, especially when considering the issue of water age and chlorine degradation in the system.

A recent assignment was completed to review the recommendations of the 2007 Master Plan to assess how best to implement the desired modifications to the east system while meeting the service demands for Kingston East out to the designated planning year. As part of that larger assignment, evaluation of the James St BPS for either rehabilitation or relocation, in order to meet long term operational needs, was included. The EA portion of the project focuses only on the James St BPS.

1.1.1 Project Need and Justification The James St BPS was originally built in 1956, and refurbished in 1991. With 1991 being the most recent upgrade to the station, much of the infrastructure is approaching its end of useful life. Along with the requirements determined in the update to the Master Plan noted above, and the age of the infrastructure – the James St BPS requires upgrades to the facility and equipment to provide water service to Kingston East to the year 2033. The station also provides water to CFB Kingston and this study has taken into consideration these needs in cooperation with DND.

1.2 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) was passed in 1976 and began being applied to municipalities in 1981. The EA Act requires the study, documentation, and examination of the environmental effects that could result from major projects or activities.

The objective of the EA Act is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a preferred alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. The EA Act defines environment very broadly as:

473583 1-1

COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

• 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, odor, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly form human activities

• Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario

In applying the requirements of the EA Act to projects, two types of environmental assessment planning and approval processes are identified:

• Individual Environmental Assessments (Part II of the EA Act): projects for which a Terms of Reference and an individual environmental assessment are carried out and submitted to the Minister of the Environment for review and approval.

• Class Environmental Assessments (Class EAs): projects that are approved subject to compliance with an approved class environmental assessment 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.

1.3 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process An approved Class EA document describes the planning process for a class or group of undertakings that a proponent must follow in order to meet the requirements of the EA. The approved Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association outlines the procedures to be followed for projects of the type considered here to satisfy the EA Act requirements. The Class EA planning and design process is shown in Figure 1-1.

The Class EA deals with various aspects of municipal water and wastewater projects, including:

• Maintenance and operational activities • Reconstruction and modification of existing collection/distribution systems • Construction of treatment and pumping facilities (new or expanded)

All projects falling under the Class EA designation must have the following important characteristics in common:

• Recurring • Usually similar in nature • Usually limited in scale • Have a predictable range of environmental effects • Responsive to mitigating measures

Projects that do not display these characteristics would not be able to use the planning process of the Class EA and must undergo an individual environmental assessment. The Class EA planning process is a self-directed process, which represents an alternative for municipalities to carrying out individual assessments for most municipal water and wastewater projects in Ontario.

Since projects undertaken by municipalities vary in their environmental impact, projects are further classified in terms of schedules as follows.

1-2 473583



1.3.1 Schedule A Projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental effects and include a number of municipal maintenance and operational activities. These projects are pre-approved and may proceed to implementation without following the Class EA planning process. Schedule A projects generally include normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities.

1.3.2 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. If there are no outstanding concerns, then the proponent may proceed to implementation. Schedule B projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities.

1.3.3 Schedule C Projects have the potential for significant environmental effects and must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA document. Schedule C projects require that an Environmental Study Report be prepared and filed for review by the public and review agencies. Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities.

1.3.4 Determination of Schedule This project falls under the Schedule B projects under Appendix 1 of the MEA October 2000 (amended 2007 and 2011) document as noted:

Page 1-17, Item 4 “Increase pumping station capacity by adding or replacing equipment and appurtenances where new equipment is located in a new building or structure”. This project is therefore being completing per Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process, during which a final preferred alternative will be selected in consultation with stakeholders, and will then proceed to design and construction.

473583 1-3



FIGURE 1-1 Municipal Engineers Association's Municipal Class EA Process

1-4 473583



1.4 Project Team Utilities Kingston has retained CH2M HILL Canada Limited to complete the Municipal Class EA for this project. The specific project team includes engineers and planners from CH2M HILL, as well as biological experts from Ecological Services, archaeological services from Adams Heritage and heritage impact assessment from Smith Heritage.

473583 1-5


SECTION 2

Class EA Phase 1 – Problem/Opportunity Statement

2.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement Due to steady growth and expected development, and age of existing infrastructure, the James St BPS requires facility and equipment upgrades to meet future needs. This study builds upon recommendations from previous studies including the City of Kingston Official Plan, the 2007 Water Master Plan, and the update report to the Water Master Plan (Kingston (2011), SEG (2007), CH2M (2014)). The problem statement for this project can be stated as follows:

“Utilities Kingston has determined the need to update the 2007 Drinking Water Master Plan to accommodate current (2013) drinking water demands and to plan for additional infrastructure requirements to satisfy the short-term (2013), mid-term (2026) and long-term (2033) drinking water requirements for the area of Kingston East. This project will identify the preferred alternative to satisfy the future (2033) water demands in the Kingston East Water System, while considering operation both in the short term and long term through the phasing process towards future infrastructure build out, while minimizing the impacts on the natural and social/cultural environment. The ability of the alternatives to allow for decommissioning of existing infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life will be incorporated into the evaluation of alternatives, along with the potential for cooperation with Department of National Defence for completion of the project and its impacts on water supply to their facilities.

Water is supplied to the Kingston East System through the James Street Booster Station, which is currently in need of rehabilitation and upgrades. The impact of anticipated changes from the Master Plan update need to be considered to ensure future requirements are met at the station. Consequently, a study to assess options and develop a strategy to address the current and future operational and capacity needs of the James Street Booster Station is required.

This Study is being undertaken as a “Schedule B” project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.”

2.2 Study Area The following Figure 2-1 outlines the existing Kingston East Water System including the James Street BPS.

473583 2-1


2 CLASS EA PHASE 1 – PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT

FIGURE 2-1 Existing Kingston East Water System

473583 2-2


SECTION 3

Class EA Phase 2 – Identification of Alternative Solutions

3.1 Description of Alternatives The EA for the upgrade to the existing James St BPS has been undertaken as part of the larger Water Master Plan update assignment, as outlined in earlier sections. As such, evaluation of alternatives that include the upgrade to the station itself, has been completed as part of the larger context of the project, including upgrades to the entire Kingston East water system (involving distribution system, storage and pumping). In addition to upgrades required to meet future demands in the Kingston East water system, the removal of aging storage facilities including the CFB Kingston Elevated Storage Tower, Gore Road Standpipe, and the Forest Drive Standpipe were investigated as part of the Water Master Plan update. However only the James St BPS upgrades are included in the specific Schedule B EA as outlined in this report.

Several options for provision of water to Kingston East were reviewed. The alternative solutions that were generated considered the following: James St BPS location, James St BPS pumping capacity (and any other pumping capacity in the system), water storage facilities, and conveyance upgrades. The two locations that were evaluated for the James St BPS were the existing location, and a new location at the top of the Barriefield Hill near the intersection of Highway 15 and Highway 2. To meet the demands and storage requirement for 2033 Growth Scenario C (CH2M 2014), a combination of pumping and storage has been reviewed. Three options were developed to meet the demands and storage requirements: existing storage and pumping capacity at James St BPS to meet peak hour demands and fire flows, a new elevated storage tower in pressure zone 3C to meet peak hour demands and fire flows and pumping capacity at James St BPS to meet maximum day demands, and a new ground storage reservoir and pumping station in pressure zone 3C to meet peak hour demands and fire flows and total pumping capacity to meet maximum day demands. All of the alternative solutions assume that conveyance upgrades will be required in the distribution system. Trunk watermains have been assumed within all new major developments. The hydraulic modeling has identified that conveyance upgrades along Highway 15 are required to meet 2033 Growth Scenario C. In addition to the watermains required for all of the alternatives, there are some upgrades required for alternatives 1A, and 2A along Highway 2. These upgrades would be required to provide the additional conveyance from the James St BPS for firefighting. A summary of the alternative solutions and their major components can be found in Table 3-1.

3.2 Evaluation and Reporting Process The following steps were followed for evaluation and selection of the preferred design concept, for this project.

1. Determination of evaluation criteria and evaluation strategy.

2. Determination of possible alternatives to provide water to Kingston East.

3. Evaluation of alternatives and draft recommendation of preferred alternative.

4. Agency and public consultation presenting the recommended preferred alternative and outlining the evaluation process used to arrive at the recommendation. Receipt of comments.

5. Completion of a draft environmental study file, incorporating comments from the consultation process.

6. Posting of the environmental study file for 30-day review period, advertise notice of completion. Finalize study file based on any comments received.

473583 3-1


3 CLASS EA PHASE 2 – IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

TABLE 3-1 Alternative Solution Descriptions

Alternative Number

James St BPS

Location

James St BPS Pumping Capacity

Other Pumping

Water Storage Facilities Conveyance Upgrades

1A Existing FPC > Max Day Demand - Innovation Dr EST

Conveyance Through Developments Highway 15 Upgrades Highway 2 Upgrades

1B Existing FPC = Max Day Demand - Innovation Dr EST

New EST in PZ 3C Conveyance Through Developments

Highway 15 Upgrades

1C Existing FPC = Max Day Demand

New BPS with

Reservoir

Innovation Dr EST New Reservoir in PZ 3C

Conveyance Through Developments Highway 15 Upgrades

2A New FPC > Max Day Demand - Innovation Dr EST

Conveyance Through Developments Highway 15 Upgrades Highway 2 Upgrades

2B New FPC = Max Day Demand - Innovation Dr EST

New EST in PZ 3C Conveyance Through Developments

Highway 15 Upgrades

2C New FPC = Max Day Demand

New BPS with

Reservoir

Innovation Dr EST New Reservoir in PZ 3C

Conveyance Through Developments Highway 15 Upgrades

Definitions: FPC – Firm Pumping Capacity, BPS – Booster Pumping Station, EST – Elevated Storage Tower, PZ – Pressure Zone

3.3 Evaluation Criteria Table 3-2 provides the criteria used in the evaluation of the list of alternatives, which focuses on key mandatory criteria as established by the project team. A short list was produced using these screening criteria.

TABLE 3-2 Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Description

TECHNICAL

System Performance – Water Pressure

The ability of the strategy to achieve acceptable system pressures.

System Performance – Water Quality

The ability of the strategy to achieve acceptable system water quality.

System Performance – Fire Flow The ability of the strategy to satisfy fire flow demands

Operational Complexity The effort required to operate and maintain the system, including staffing levels. Operational health and safety is a consideration.

Flexibility The adaptability of the strategy to a phased construction approach to accommodate future development.

3-2 473583



TABLE 3-2 Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Description

Constructability The degree of difficulty anticipated to build and commission the system. Maintaining current system operation during construction is a consideration.

Short term impacts to the public during construction.

Sustainability Consideration of the alternative with regard to ability to incorporate green design, energy efficiency, resource efficiency (e.g. water).

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Terrestrial Systems The potential to impact terrestrial habitats or systems, including possible effects on wildlife (including mammals, reptiles, and birds) and terrestrial features/functions.

Environmentally Sensitive Area/ Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

Potential for an alternative to involve disturbance to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) or Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI), including consideration of potential mitigation of any impacts.

Groundwater The ability of an alternative to impact land considered as an established or potential groundwater recharge area (if applicable) for local wells.

Cultural and Heritage Resources The potential of the alternative to protect and promote the heritage landscape features of the City.

Archaeology The potential of an alternative to impact any archeologically significant findings.

Impact to Residents The anticipated long term impacts to residents resulting from the implementation of the alternative. Potential considerations include aesthetics, noise and routine maintenance activity/site access.

ECONOMIC

Capital Costs The relative estimated capital costs including land acquisition, and easements.

O&M Costs The relative annual operating and maintenance.

3.4 Technical Studies Appendices A, B and C include copies of the Archeological Stage 1/Stage 2 Assessment, the Natural Environment Review, and the Heritage Impact Assessment provided as part of this Class EA. The following items were noted by the specialist consultants who completed these studies, with regard to the expansion of the James St BPS, along with any mitigation measures required to address any negative impacts. The following sections are quoted directly from these reports (Adams Heritage 2013, Ecological Services 2013, and Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting 2014) and reproduced here.

3.4.1 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2) The existing James St BPS is located immediately adjacent to James St at the base of the Barriefield Hill, in the City of Kingston. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment has indicated that, based on historical documentation, there is a high potential for the recovery of both pre-contact period and historical sites, within the limits of study area. In light of these results, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study area was completed. The following items and recommendations are noted in the study: 473583 3-3



• Archaeological testing within the proposed expansion area of the James St BPS indicates that the area has been affected by extensive landscaping and fill operations.

• The natural ground surface between the base of the Barriefield Hill and the Cataraqui River has been covered with up to 1.4 metres of modern (20th century) fill. Testing indicated that over much of the area, this fill had been deposited directly on top of a natural ground surface and buried topsoil which in turn, overlay sterile, natural clay. No culturally significant deposits were identified in this area.

• Archaeological remains were encountered within 5 test units within the study area at the base of Barriefield Hill. Where native subsoil was reached, it occurred between 0.70 and 1.25 metres below ground surface. Analysis of the materials indicates that the artifacts are mostly late 19th and 20th century in origin and relate to secondary depositional activity, are not in a primary context, and are not of cultural heritage value.

• The archaeological assessment report was filed with the Minister of Tourism & Culture in compliance with Section 65 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The ministry reviews reports to ensure that the licensee has met the terms and conditions of the license and archaeological resources have been identified and documented according to the standards and guidelines set by the ministry, ensuring the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. It is recommended that construction not proceed before receiving confirmation that the Ministry of Tourism & Culture has entered the report into the provincial register of reports.

• Should previously unknown or unassessed deeply buried archaeological resources be uncovered during development, there may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The office of the Heritage Operations Unit, Ministry of Tourism & Culture (416-314-7146) should be contacted immediately.

• Any person discovering human remains must immediately notify the office of the Heritage Operations Unit, Ministry of Tourism & Culture (416-314-7146), the police or coroner, and the Registrar of Cemeteries, Cemeteries Regulation Unit, Ministry of Government Services (416-326-8404).

3.4.2 Natural Environment Evaluation The environmental site evaluation has indicated that the project is to occur on landscaped parkland and developed infrastructure, which has minimal ecological value. The report concludes that nearby significant natural heritage features will not be negatively impacted due to intervening barriers and the temporary nature of the project construction. The following recommendations have been provided with respect to the adjacent natural heritage features:

• No construction work occurs north of James St within the intervening woodlot.

• If runoff from the project area flows unimpeded into the river, then appropriate silt barriers will be used to prevent sediments from entering the river.

• The work area, which is mostly landscaped lawn, does not provide habitat for species at risk.

3.4.3 Heritage Impact Assessment The heritage impact assessment has indicated that the James St BPS is located within the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The key potential for impact to the Barriefield HCD is the design of the station upgrades, and the extent to which it achieves compatibility with the heritage character of the district. The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential negative impacts:

• The new addition/building should be compatible with the existing building and with properties on the north side of James Street, and should utilize traditional building forms and proportions.

3-4 473583



• The new addition/building should have a low- or medium-pitch roof, clad in black or grey asphalt shingles, cedar shingles or metal, and roof vents, solar panels, skylights and dormers should be located at the rear.

• Windows should use vertical and rectangular proportions.

• Clapboard, limestone and white or grey stucco are preferred for wall cladding (in that order) but plain, red-clay, Ontario-sized brick is also possible.

• The size of the surface parking pad should be minimized, and soft landscaping should be installed around the booster station and between the parking area and James Street, using plants identified in the HCD Plan.

• If construction will involve excavation, pre-construction surveys of adjacent buildings should be undertaken. Less-intrusive, mechanical methods should be used for any rock removal, and any damage to buildings or structures older than 40 years should be assessed by a qualified heritage professional.

• Staging areas should be placed to minimize damage to trees, hedgerows, fences and stone walls, and should be restored to their pre-construction condition following construction. If necessary, James Street should be restored, following construction, to its existing alignment, elevation, width and materials, with gravel shoulder and grassed boulevard, and without sidewalks and curbs.

The following policy measures are recommended in the report:

• Utilities Kingston will require a heritage permit for this project, obtained through the Heritage & Urban Design section of the Planning & Development Department, and with the consent of the Municipal Heritage Committee and Council. The Heritage & Urban Design section recommends that a scope HIA be prepared with respect to the preferred design. A pre-consultation at the detail design stage is advisable.

• Parks Canada should be circulated on the project as it progresses.

3.5 Potential Impacts and Mitigation During Construction 3.5.1 Trucks and Traffic Impacts Because the James St BPS is located in a low density area, it is not expected that traffic impacts due to trucks or earth-moving or construction equipment entering or exiting the site will pose significant disturbances to surrounding residents, however it will have temporary disturbance in terms of noise/traffic during construction. The Barriefield community is located to the north of the BPS, and the Department of National Defense (DND) sports dome is located to the southwest of the BPS. Main St or possibly through CFB Kingston (RMC) by means of Navy Way would be the expected main construction route.

3.5.2 Noise The proposed addition to the James St BPS is located within the area of the existing BPS site boundaries and will be located south of the existing building. Noise impacts during the construction period will be expected due to onsite activities from standard construction methods. This will be mitigated through requirement of standard daytime construction schedule/hours of work.

3.5.3 Excavation and Construction Impacts Due to the nature of the construction on-site, excavation will be necessary, which may cause impacts to the quality of stormwater runoff within the watershed. While this will be minor in nature, the contractor will be required to contain runoff and provide sediment control, to contain eroded material on-site. This will be specified in the Contract Documents.

3.5.4 Air Quality The nature of the construction activity is expected to have no adverse impacts on local odour or air quality.

473583 3-5



3.6 Potential Impacts and Mitigation During Operation The increase in BPS capacity is not expected to create a significantly different operation than is currently in placeat the station. A minimal operations schedule including chemical deliveries, and maintenance vehicle access is currently in place, with the schedule of these operations not expected to increase to any extent that would significantly impact the local area.

3.7 Evaluation During the preliminary hydraulic evaluation of the alternatives in Section 3.1, alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C were deemed to be infeasible. The hydraulic analysis showed that moving the James St BPS to a higher elevation, resulted in suction pressures that fell below 20 psi. Due to these scenarios having insufficient suction pressures, they were not carried forward in the analysis. Therefore only alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C were assessed in the evaluation of alternatives. Table 3-3 provides the results of the evaluation of alternative design concepts to satisfy the future (2033) water demands in the Kingston East Water System.

TABLE 3-3 Evaluation of Alternatives

Category Evaluation Criteria Qualitative Score1,2

Scoring Notes ALT-1A ALT-1B ALT-1C

TECHNICAL System Performance –

Water Pressure B G E

1A - Low suction pressures, and large variation in downstream system pressures, 1C - Lower HGL needed for ground reservoir filling resulting in less high pressure areas

System Performance – Water Quality E G E

1B - Storage volume more difficult to phase with an elevated tank, which could result in some temporary water quality issues which would need to be mitigated through flushing

System Performance – Fire Flow B E E 1A - Available fire flow lower than 1B or 1C

Operational Complexity B E B

1A - More complex pump operating strategy to meet peak hour and fire flow, 1C - Requires the highest operation and maintenance effort due to two pump stations

Flexibility G G E 1A & 1B & 1C - Additional pumps can be added over time, 1C - Reservoir can also be phased over time

Constructability G B B

Each alternative involves modifications to existing James St BPS, retrofitting existing infrastructure requires careful planning. 1B & 1C - Additional construction impacts to public from construction of new storage facility

Sustainability G E B

1A - Moderate efficiency due to additional pumping rates and higher dynamic head requirements, 1B - High efficiency due to passive elevated storage tower, 1C - Low efficiency due to additional need for hydraulic energy and double pumping

3-6 473583



TABLE 3-3 Evaluation of Alternatives

Category Evaluation Criteria Qualitative Score1,2

Scoring Notes ALT-1A ALT-1B ALT-1C

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Terrestrial Systems E G G

1A - Only one site, so least impacts to terrestrial systems, 1B & 1C - Each have two sites so more impacts to terrestrial systems than A. Impacts from any alternative expected to be addressed through mitigation, no species at risk or high risk natural environmental impacts expected.

Environmentally Sensitive Area/ Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

G G G No environmentally sensitive areas were found at the pump station site. The location of the proposed storage facilities in 1B and 1C will be finalized at a later date.

Groundwater G G G Not expected to have impacts at any site that cannot be mitigated. The location of the proposed water storage facilities in 1B and 1C will be finalized at a later date.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Cultural and Heritage Resources G G G

Heritage impacts at the James St BPS will be mitigated. The location of the proposed water storage facilities in 1B and 1C will be finalized at a later date.

Archaeology G G G

No archaeologically artifacts of significant cultural heritage were found at the James St BPS site. The location of the proposed water storage facilities in 1B and 1C will be finalized at a later date.

Impact to Residents G G B

Each alternative will have some impacts on residents during operations such as maintenance activities, etc., but can be minimized through design features. 1C expected to have slightly more impacts due to increased maintenance activities at new pump station.

ECONOMIC Capital Costs G G B

1A - Expected to have moderate capital costs associated with pump station upgrade, and likely conveyance upgrades to provide fire flows using only pumps (i.e. no elevated storage) therefore areas of the system will require pumping upgrades, 1B - Expected to have the lowest capital costs, 1C - Expected to have the highest capital costs

O&M Costs G G B

1A & 1B - Expected to have similar operating costs, 1C - Expected to have the highest operating costs due to a second booster pump station required with the ground reservoir

Notes:

1. See Table 3-1 or Table 3-4 for detailed description of alternative system components

2. Score Definitions: E – Excellent, G – Good, B – Below Average

473583 3-7



The scores for each alternative solution in Table 3-3 have been summed and the final ranking of alternatives can be found in Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4 Ranking of Alternatives

Rank Alternative Number Description of Alternative Major System Components

1 1B Pumping: Expansion of Existing James St Booster Station (Maximum Day Demand) Storage: Innovation Dr Elevated Tower, New Elevated Tower in Existing Pressure Zone 3C Conveyance: Conveyance Through Developments, Highway 15 Upgrades

2 1A Pumping: Expansion of Existing James St Booster Station (Capacity Increase Beyond Maximum Day Demand) Storage: Innovation Dr Elevated Tower Conveyance: Conveyance Through Developments, Highway 15 Upgrades, Highway 2 Upgrades

3 1C

Pumping: Expansion of Existing James St Booster Station (Maximum Day Demand). Additional Pumping with New Booster Station With New Ground Reservoir. Storage: Innovation Dr Elevated Tower, New Ground Reservoir in Existing Pressure Zone 3C Conveyance: Conveyance Through Developments, Highway 15 Upgrades

3.8 Preferred Alternative The recommended design solution for provision of additional capacity to meet growth needs, per the Problem/Opportunity Statement for this Class EA, is as follows:

1. Phase 1 (Part of this Class EA) – Upgrade the James St BPS in its existing location including new pump configuration and capacity to address discharge pressures and to increase the firm pumping capacity to satisfy short and long term growth requirements to a maximum daily flow of 385 L/s (33,264 m3/day). The James St BPS pumping capacity will be phased over time as required, starting with a firm pumping capacity of 170 L/s (14,688 m3/day).

2. Phase 2 (To be assessed in future Class EAs) – Construct a new elevated storage tower east of CFB Kingston and construct conveyance upgrades on Highway 15. A new elevated water storage tower and conveyance upgrades (on Highway 15, and through new developments) would be required if the total projected growth in the system is approved. Details of the phasing of this infrastructure are described in the update to the Water Master Plan (CH2M 2014). The elevated storage tower and the conveyance upgrades are not included in this Class EA and would require review to determine EA requirements prior to construction.

Based on the requirements for pumping capacity, and water storage related to population projections outlined in Section 3, this preferred solution would satisfy the requirements for pumping capacity and water storage required in the City of Kingston East Area over the planning period noted (through 2033).

3-8 473583


4 CLASS EA PHASE 5 – IMPLEMENTATION OF PREFERRED DESIGN

SECTION 4

Class EA Phase 5 – Implementation of Preferred Design The implementation of Phase 1 of the preferred design solution is to complete the detailed design and construction for upgrades to the James St BPS. This includes a building addition, and pump capacity expansion. The ultimate pumping capacity of the James St BPS will be 385 L/s (33,264 m3/day) with an initially installed capacity of 170 L/s (14,688 m3/day).

It is expected that this will occur in the short term, i.e. within the next 1-3 years.

473583 4-9


SECTION 5

Consultation

5.1 Consultation Because this project falls under a Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment, the Environmental Assessment Act requires consultation with the public and agencies on matters that may affect the environment. Proponents must also contact relevant agencies and affected members of the public, who must be given an opportunity to comment on or ask questions about the study, solution alternatives, and preferred solution.

A contact list for this project, for those parties in addition to the general public, is included in Appendix D.

Consultation for this project included the following:

• Phase 1 Class EA – Notice of Study Commencement was advertised in Kingston Whig-Standard November 19, 2013, and the Utilities Kingston website, and was provided directly through mailing to the contact list

• Phase 2 Class EA – Public Information Centre, held on January 28, 2014, advertised in the Kingston Whig-Standard on January 16th, and January 21st, 2014. Notice directly emailed to the Barriefield Community Association Chair, January 15th, 2014.

5.2 Notice of Completion Notice of completion was published on or about Tuesday February 11th, 2014 in the Kingston Whig Standard newspaper and the Utilities Kingston website. This Environmental Study Report is now available for 30 day comment period prior to finalization.

5.3 Public Consultation Materials and Comments Received Input from the public and agencies contacted, as received via written comments sheets, emails and/or letters is included in Appendix D of this report.

473583 5-1


SECTION 6

References AH (2013) “An Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2) of the proposed expansion of the James Street Pump

Station, Utilities Kingston, Military Reserve (Geographic Township of Pittsburgh, City of Kingston” Prepared by Adams Heritage.

CH2M (2014) “Water Supply Master Plan – 2013 Update for the Kingston East Water System” Prepared by CH2M HILL.

ES (2013) “Environmental Site Evaluation, City of Kingston, James Street Booster Pump Station” Prepared by Ecological Services.

Kingston (2011) “City of Kingston Official Plan” Approved January 27, 2010. Consolidated as of August 1, 2011.

LSHC (2013). “Heritage Impact Assessment, James Street Booster Station, 213 James St., Kingston” Prepared by Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting.

MOE (2008) “Design Guidelines for Drinking-Water Systems (PIBS 6881e)” Prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Environment

SEG (2007) “Master Plan for Water Supply for the City of Kingston Urban Area and the Class Environmental Assessment (Completed to the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2)” Prepared by Simcoe Engineering Group Limited.

473583 6-1


Appendix A Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2)

Appendix B Natural Environment Review

Appendix C Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix D Public and Agency Consultation Materials