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

Transcription

1 DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment Project File Regional Municipality of Niagara December 2013

2 DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment Project File Regional Municipality of Niagara Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description 00 10/25/2013 G. Harris W. Andrews W. Andrews Draft For Region s Review 01 11/29/2013 G. Harris W. Andrews W. Andrews Final Issued For Public Comment This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authorization of Hatch Mott MacDonald being obtained. Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm their agreement to indemnify Hatch Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Hatch Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether through contract or tort, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Hatch Mott MacDonald and used by Hatch Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION Background Existing Facilities Lake Gibson and Lake Moodie Intakes Agreement with Ontario Power Generation PROJECT NEEDS ASSESSMENT Project Objective Performance Requirements Current and Future Demand for Water Problem and Opportunity Statement Problem Statement Opportunity Statement Study Area CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS Class EA Procedures Public Consultation PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION PROCESS Decision Making Process Long List of Alternative Solutions Screening Criteria Evaluation Criteria Scoring PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION Introduction Public Notification and Consultation Agency Notification and Consultation First Nations Consultation IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SOLUTIONS Archaeological Impacts Natural Environmental Impacts Cultural Heritage Assessment Socio-Economic Impacts IMPLEMENTATION Approvals Process Commitments and Mitigation Measures Class Environmental Assessment Requirements Notice of Completion Objections to the Project Agency Approvals...49 Rev. 01 December 2013

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2 Screening of Long List of Alternatives Table 3 Primary Evaluation Criteria Table 4 Secondary Evaluation Criteria Table 5 Primary Evaluation of Alternatives Table 6 Secondary Evaluation of Alternatives Table 7 Evaluation Summary Table 8 Publication of Notices Table 9 Public Information Centre #1 Comments and Responses Table 10 Public Information Centre #2 Comments and Responses LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - DECEW FALLS WTP RAW WATER SUPPLY CLASS EA STUDY AREA FIGURE 2 - CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CLASS EA) PROCEDURE, DEVELOPED BY THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION (MEA) OCTOBER 2000, AS AMENDED IN 2007 & 2011 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A Evaluation of Alternatives APPENDIX B Agency and First Nations Correspondence APPENDIX C Resident Correspondence APPENDIX D Public Information Centres APPENDIX E Technical and Environmental Reports Rev. 01 December 2013

5 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is owned and operated by the Regional Municipality of Niagara. It provides potable water to the City of St. Catharines, and parts of the City of Thorold, Town of Lincoln and Town of Niagara on the Lake. The WTP is supplied by raw water from Lake Erie via the Welland Canal. An intake on the west side of the Welland Canal is operated to convey raw water along a 5.3 kilometre intake channel through a series of three reservoirs and on to the WTP. There is an alternative supply via an intake at the Lake Gibson Dam which can provide water to the WTP during periods of maintenance on the intake channel. The intake channel also supplies water to Lake Gibson and ultimately to the DeCew Falls Power Generating Stations. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) leases a portion of the intake channel from Niagara Region and as part of the lease agreement, OPG is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the intake channel, Lake Gibson intake and associated structures and is currently completing urgent repairs required along the waterworks intake channel to protect the dam and levee structures as well as the raw water supply. OPG is therefore jointly promoting this Class Environmental Assessment with Niagara Region. 1.2 Existing Facilities The existing facilities are shown in Figure 1 and are described below. The DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is located on DeCew Road, approximately 2 kilometres west of Highway 406 in the City of St. Catharines. The WTP services the City of St. Catharines, Thorold (excluding Port Robinson), the Town of Niagara-on-the Lake and the Vineland/Jordon areas of the Town of Lincoln. Due to the location of the WTP on the top of the Niagara Escarpment, the water supply system has the advantage of being able to service the majority of the service area by gravity flow without the need for high lift pumping. The DeCew Falls WTP raw water source originates from Lake Erie via the Welland Canal. Near Regional Road 20, a raw water intake on the west side of the Welland Canal (Allanburg Intake) is operated to convey raw water along the intake channel, through an outfall to a series of three reservoirs (upper, middle and lower) for settling out sediment and for temporary storage. The intake channel is a man-made open conveyance system that was constructed in the early 1900s. Approximately 1.4 km along the intake channel, there is a weir which diverts a portion of the flow to Lake Gibson (known as the Measuring Weir). There is a second weir approximately 4.1 km along the intake channel (known as the Diversion Weir) which also diverts flow from the channel to Lake Gibson, albeit a smaller volume than what is diverted at the Measuring Weir. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) owns the 1.4 km section of the intake channel from the Allanburg intake to the Measuring Weir. The Region owns the remaining 3.9 km section of the intake channel from the Measuring Weir to the upper reservoir. The upper reservoir is the smallest of the three reservoirs and functions as a cushion to dissipate the kinetic energy of the incoming water from the intake channel. The middle reservoir is the largest of the reservoirs and due to the reduced velocity, is where the majority of sediments settle out. Water enters the lower reservoir through a control inlet structure, flows to Rev. 01 December 2013

6 Page 2 the intake building and is pumped to the DeCew Falls WTP. When the middle reservoir is full, water flows over a side weir into a spillway channel which discharges water to the Twelve Mile Creek. The DeCew Falls WTP consists of three separate treatment facilities referred to as Plant 1, Plant 2 and Plant 3. Plant 1 was constructed in Plant 2 was constructed during the period and Plant 3 was built between 1974 and It is a conventional treatment plant with the process consisting of pre-sedimentation, screening, pre-chlorination, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and rapid gravity filtration and disinfection. The current rated capacity of the WTP is million litres per day (MLD). 1.3 Lake Gibson and Lake Moodie Intakes The Region has an alternate intake located in Lake Gibson. This intake is included in the DeCew Falls WTP s Permit to Take Water and is intended to provide an alternate/back up supply in the event the main source is unavailable (i.e. if maintenance work is required in the intake channel). However, the raw water piping associated with the Lake Gibson intake is routed through the earth embankment dam at Lake Gibson and OPG has determined that the intake cannot be operated due to dam safety concerns. There is a second intake in Lake Moodie which historically had the ability to feed the lower reservoir. However, the intake has not been used for many years and its condition/operability is unknown. The Region has made several attempts to verify the condition/operability of this intake without success. The Lake Moodie intake is not included in the current Permit to Take Water. 1.4 Agreement with Ontario Power Generation In 1903, an agreement governing the use of the channel was reached between the Hamilton Cataract Power, Light and Traction Company Limited and the Water Works Commission of the City of St. Catharines and the Corporation of the City of St. Catharines. The 1903 agreement continues to be binding on the Region of Niagara as successor in interest to the Water Works Commission, and on OPG as the successor in interest to Hamilton Cataract Power. In accordance with the 1903 agreement, OPG is required to: Supply at least 60 cfs (147 MLD) of raw water to Niagara Region and if additional raw water capacity is required, any such additional quantity of water as shall be required ; Maintain both the intake channel and the alternative supply valve works from Lake Gibson; Maintain the slough drains under the intake channel which divert overland drainage from the intake channel into Lake Gibson; and Provide the Niagara Region with an alternative water source from Lake Gibson. Rev. 01 December 2013

7 Page 3 2 PROJECT NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2.1 Project Objective The intent of this project is to review alternate solutions and identify a solution for the provision of two cost effective, long-term (100 year), reliable and safe raw water supplies to the DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant. Accordingly the Regional Municipality of Niagara has initiated a Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment to investigate the raw water supply alternatives for the DeCew Falls WTP. 2.2 Performance Requirements The following performance requirements have been identified by the Project Team as key attributes of the preferred option. These requirements will be used as a basis for setting the criteria for evaluating the various raw water supply alternatives and identifying the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative should: Provide a reliable, long-term (100 year) and safe primary raw water supply for the WTP that is sufficient to meet current and future demands (144.5 MLD Build Out maximum daily demand); Provide a reliable and safe alternate raw water supply for the WTP; Provide operational flexibility such that either the primary or alternate raw water supplies can be utilized as the main source of supply to the WTP at any given time to suit operational requirements; Have no negative impact to the flow through the spillway, Twelve Mile Creek, surrounding environment, neighbouring landowners, etc.; Have a low impact potential to surrounding dam structures; and Be able to be constructed without impacting the Region s ability to supply water to its customers. 2.3 Current and Future Demand for Water Raw water supply systems are typically designed for a year design life, and it is important to consider a planning horizon suitably far into the future such that constraints are not introduced. The Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan for the Niagara Region was completed in 2011 and forecasts water demand to the 2031 planning horizon. The Master Plan concludes the following about the DeCew service area: Residential and employment growth is projected across this area, with additional growth possible under a build-out scenario. A ten percent increase in the maximum demand is forecast over the planning period, with maximum daily demands projected to increase from 113 MLD in 2011 to 124 MLD by The build-out scenario maximum daily demand is estimated to be MLD. The DeCew Falls WTP has a rated capacity of 227 MLD which is sufficient to satisfy both the 2031 max day demand and the build out maximum daily demand scenarios. Storage and pumping station capacities within the Regional system are projected to be sufficient for 2031demands. In addition to the projected treated water demands, the following must be incorporated into the projected raw water supply requirements for the DeCew Falls WTP: Rev. 01 December 2013

8 Page 4 Niagara Region is required to maintain water flow to the Twelve Mile Creek/Morning Star Mill at a minimum rate of 9.8 MLD under non-emergency conditions. DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant Annual Summary Reports (2009 through 2012) prepared by Niagara Region indicate that there was an average difference of 15.2% between the raw water and treated water volumes. These values represent the in plant water usage (i.e., backwash water, filter-to-waste, etc.) that will be required to be supplied by the raw water system in addition to the treated water system demands. For the purposes of this study, in plant usage will be calculated as 16% of the projected treated water demands, with a maximum day build out requirement of 23.1 MLD ( MLD x 16%). For the purposes of this Class Environmental Assessment, it is recommended that the buildout scenario maximum daily demand of 177.4MLD be considered as the minimum system demand that all raw water supply options must be able to meet and therefore will be set as a base performance requirement. The build-out scenario demand is the demand that would be experienced if all areas that are zoned for development are built on within the existing urban boundary. This does not allow for growth outside the urban boundary, or additional demand if in the future Niagara Region wanted to restructure the water distribution system and increase the service area for the DeCew Falls WTP. Because both the rated capacity of the DeCew Falls WTP, and the Permit To Take Water limit, are higher than the projected build-out demand (227 MLD) it would be beneficial to Niagara Region to have a raw water supply that is capable of delivering flows up to the rated WTP capacity. The ability of the various raw water supply options to provide flows above the MLD build-out demand will be considered during the detailed evaluation. 2.4 Problem and Opportunity Statement Problem Statement The intake channel is in poor condition: there may be drainage and seepage into the channel from the surrounding agricultural land, leakage from the channel, areas where the channel is being undermined by rodent activity and heavy vegetation growth. Significant repair work is required to bring the channel back into satisfactory condition it is likely that on-going maintenance and repair at an increasing rate will be required Opportunity Statement This provides an opportunity to determine whether investing in the on-going maintenance and repair of the intake channel and associated structures is the best way to proceed, or whether there are other raw water supply alternatives that will provide a cost effective, long-term, reliable and safe primary raw water supply to the DeCew Falls Water Treatment Plant, as well as an alternative raw water supply that can be used to provide raw water to the WTP during periods of outage in the main supply. 2.5 Study Area The study area for this project is defined as the area close to the existing intake channel, Lake Gibson, Lake Moodie, and associated existing raw water supply infrastructure that will be impacted by this project. The northern boundary of the study area runs along the top of Lake Moodie, along DeCew Road to the Welland Canal. The study area is bounded to the east by Rev. 01 December 2013

9 Hwy 406 Regional Municipality of Niagara the Welland Canal and the south and west by the Intake Channel. A 100m buffer has been drawn around these boundaries and all property owners within (or contacting) this buffer will receive formal notification of the project commencement. Page 5 A number of the alternatives may involve investigation outside the study area, for example the possibility of developing new water supplies from Lake Ontario, Lake Erie or a different surface water source. DeCew Falls WTP Lake Gibson Ex. Waterworks Channel Figure 1 - DeCew Falls WTP Raw Water Supply Class EA Study Area Rev. 01 December 2013

10 3 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 3.1 Class EA Procedures Regional Municipality of Niagara Page 0 The Class EA is a planning process to ensure that potential social, economic and natural environment effects are considered and, where possible, mitigated during the planning of municipal projects. Under the Class EA process input and approval is solicited from regulatory agencies, the municipality and the public. By following the Class EA, the process leads to an evaluation of alternative solutions to the problem considering the significance of environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures that could be implemented. Under the Class EA guidelines, a proponent following the approved process has complied with Section 13(3)(a) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The Class EA process approves municipal projects, which can be characterized as being operational in nature as Schedule A: approved. The process also approves municipal projects, which, in general, have insignificant effects upon the environment as Schedule B: approved with screening. Other projects, having larger, but predictable impacts upon the environment, are subject to the full Class Environmental Assessment process (Schedule C) and involve the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR). This project is being completed as a Schedule B Class EA. For a detailed summary of the planning and design aspects covered by the MEA Class EA process, please refer to the previously referenced MEA document entitled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, MEA, October 2000, as amended in 2007 & The steps included in the Class EA, which are required by the Environmental Assessment Act, have been subdivided into five phases of activity, each of which is summarized below: Phase 1 is to identify the problem (deficiencies) or opportunity. Under the EA Act, it is necessary to document the factors, which lead to the conclusion that a given project is needed. Phase 2 is the identification of alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity, bearing in mind the environmental considerations, and establishing the preferred solution taking into account public and review agency input. The planning phase outlined in Phase 2 will lead the proponent to the conclusion that the project is: approved subject to screening; subject to the full five phase Class EA planning process or, that it is subject to an Individual EA. Phase 3 involves examining alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution, taking into consideration environmental effects, public and review agency input, and methods of minimizing negative impacts and maximizing positive impacts Phase 4 is the preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR). The ESR documents the rationale behind the project, and the planning, design and consultation process of the project, as established through the above Phases. The ESR is then made available for scrutiny by review agencies and the public. Phase 5 is the completion of contract drawings and documents, and the proceeding to construction and operation, including monitoring of construction for adherence to Rev. 01 December 2013

11 Page 1 environmental provisions and commitments. Where special conditions dictate, Phase 5 also includes monitoring the operation of the completed facilities. A flow chart of the Class EA process is presented in Figure 2. The proponent is required to undertake Phase 1 and part of Phase 2 up to the determination of the project schedule, if the undertaking is a Schedule A. For Schedule B projects, the proponent is required to complete Phases 1 and 2. For a Schedule C project, the proponent must undertake all five phases of the process. 3.2 Public Consultation An effective public consultation program can generate meaningful dialogue between the project planners and the public, allowing for an exchange of ideas and the broadening of the information base. This, in turn, results in better decision making. One of the principle goals of the public consultation program therefore, is to achieve resolution of differences and points of view, thus reducing or avoiding controversy and ultimately, hopefully avoiding the use of the Part II Order procedures. For Schedule A projects (approved), no formal contact with the public is required. For Schedule B projects (approved with screening), a minimum of two contact points are required. One is Notice of Study Commencement during Phase 2 of the Class EA process and the second is the Notice of Completion. For Schedule C projects, there is a minimum of three required contact points during the planning process. One is during Phase 2 of the Class EA process, the second is during Phase 3 and the third is at the end of Phase 4, upon filing the ESR in the public record. Rev. 01 December 2013

12 DeCew Raw Water Alternatives Schedule B Class EA Page 2 Figure 2 - Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) procedure, developed by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011

13 Page 3 4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION PROCESS 4.1 Decision Making Process The following figure provides an overview of the decision making process that was utilized for this Class EA: Develop Long List of Options Develop and Apply Screening Criteria Screening Select Short List of Options Evaluate Short List of Options Consult with Review Agencies, Public, and First Nations Evaluation Confirm Preferred Option The two-step process ensures that all potential solutions are given equal consideration and allows for early elimination of alternatives that have little chance of becoming a viable solution. Only the solution(s) that meet all of the screening criteria were carried forward for the detailed evaluation. A set of screening criteria was required to screen the Long List of Alternative Solutions and agree to the short list of options that were taken forward for detailed evaluation. The project required that a primary water supply and an alternate water supply be identified. It was expected that both the primary water supply and alternate water supply alternatives will be taken from the short list of alternatives. 4.2 Long List of Alternative Solutions The Long List of Alternative Solutions developed for this project is presented in Table 1 below. Visual representation of these alignments are included in the documents presented during Public Information Centre #1 and can be found in Appendix D. Table 1: Long List of Alternatives Options Description 1 Do Nothing This option includes no change to the existing raw water system and no maintenance/repair to the existing intake channel and associated structures.

14 Options 2 Maintain/improve the existing intake system 3a Enclose the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar 3b Enclose selected sections of the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar 3c Replace intake channel with raw water pipe running along the route of the channel 3d Replace intake channel with raw water pipe along selected sections of the channel 4 New raw water pipe along DeCew Road Description Regional Municipality of Niagara Page 4 This alterative includes no significant change to the configuration/operation of the existing water supply system other than the ongoing repair and maintenance of the intake channel, Lake Gibson intake, slough drains and associated structures. This option involves the full enclosure of the intake channel by a box culvert or similar structure. This was the Primary option that was recommended in the 2004 EA study when source water protection was the main driver. This solution was not implemented due to concerns regarding the implementation. This option involves the enclosure of the intake channel by a box culvert or similar structure, in selected sections only. This option involves the intake channel being replaced by a raw water pipe following the same route as the intake channel. This option involves the intake channel being replaced by a raw water pipe in selected sections along the route of the intake channel. This option involves the construction of a new raw water (buried) pipe from the Welland Canal to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) along DeCew Road and will include a new intake in the Welland Canal 5 Lake Gibson Intake This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Gibson to the WTP. A new intake in Lake Gibson could be routed around the earth embankment dam which would address the dam safety concerns associated with the operation of the existing Lake Gibson intake. The intake would continue to supply water to the upper reservoir. 6a Lake Moodie Intake This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Moodie to the WTP. The existing Lake Moodie intake is not in use and the condition/reliability of the intake is unknown. New intake constructed from the WTP to Lake Moodie in the area of the existing (not functional) intake structure. Work would be generally confined to the existing road allowance along DeCew Road for outlet to the Middle Reservoir to maintain flow to Twelve Mile Creek.

15 Options Description Regional Municipality of Niagara Page 5 6b Lake Moodie Intake This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Moodie to the WTP. The existing Lake Moodie intake is not in use and the condition/reliability of the intake is unknown. New intake constructed from the WTP to Lake Moodie routed along DeCew Road then will follow the existing dike (generally southeast) prior to entering Lake Moodie south of the existing intake structure. Work would be generally confined to the existing road allowance along DeCew Road for outlet to the Middle Reservoir to maintain flow to Twelve Mile Creek. 7 New raw water supply from Lake Ontario 8 New raw water supply from the Welland Recreational Canal 4.3 Screening Criteria This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from Lake Ontario. This option would likely require significant changes to the existing water system and would require water to be pumped from Lake Ontario to the WTP. Watermain routing would present significant challenges. This option would involve the development of a new intake/raw watermain from the Welland Recreational Canal This option may require significant changes to the existing water system. Watermain routing may present significant challenges. The following screening criteria will be applied to the long list of alternatives to identify the alternatives which will be taken forward to the shortlist for more detailed evaluation. The shortlist will comprise alternatives which: Meet the problem statement and performance requirements; Technically, economically, environmentally, and socially practical; and, Consistent with current public policies and legislation. The alternatives which are not being taken forward to the short list, are not considered eliminated as options, and will be reconsidered if an alternative in the short list of options does not pass the evaluation criteria. Table 2: Screening of Long List of Alternatives Screening Criteria Options Meets the problem statement and performance requirements Technically, economically, environmentally, and socially practical 1 Do Nothing Consistent with current public policies and legislation

16 Page 6 Options Screening Criteria Meets the problem statement and performance requirements Technically, economically, environmentally, and socially practical Consistent with current public policies and legislation 2 3a 3b 3c 3d 4 Maintain/improve the existing intake system Enclose the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar. Enclose sections of the existing intake channel with a box culvert or similar. Replace intake channel with raw water pipe running along the route of the channel Improve/Upgrade channel with other features New raw water pipe along DeCew Road 5 Lake Gibson Intake 6a Lake Moodie Intake 6b Lake Moodie Intake 7 New raw water supply from Lake Ontario This option requires >12km of piping. High economic and social cost. Technical requirements for this design are also high.

17 Page 7 Options Screening Criteria Meets the problem statement and performance requirements Technically, economically, environmentally, and socially practical Consistent with current public policies and legislation 8 New raw water supply from the Welland Recreational Canal This option requires >12km of a new gravity pipeline. High economic and social cost. 4.4 Evaluation Criteria An agreed set of criteria were used to evaluate the pros and cons of each of the shortlisted options and identify the preferred option(s). To help in the scoring of options, the attributes of each criterion were defined as far as possible in service or output-oriented terms which will relate to the project objective and performance criteria. Care was needed to ensure that there was no double counting caused by an overlap in the attributes (e.g. aesthetic qualities and attractiveness), that there was no double counting caused by attributes being covered by costs (e.g. including a 'reliability' attribute when reliability was already provided for by inclusion of maintenance costs) and that all relevant attributes are included, even if they are common to all the options. For this project, the evaluation criteria will be guided by the agreed project objective as defined in Section 2.1 above and the set of performance criteria listed in Section 2.2 above. The suggested criteria are presented in Table 3 below. The evaluation criteria presented in Table 3 was used to identify the preferred primary water supply option. A secondary evaluation was then undertaken to identify the best secondary water supply option, which when combined with the primary water supply option, will provide the best overall performance. The secondary evaluation requirements are outlined in Table Scoring A weighted scoring method is typically used for evaluating the preferred option in Class EA studies such as this. The weighted scoring method is a form of multi-criterion analysis and involves identification of all the attributes that are relevant to the project, the allocation of weights to each of them to reflect their relative importance, and the allocation of scores to each option to reflect how it performs in relation to each criterion. The result is a single weighted score for each option, which may be used to indicate and compare the overall performance of the options in non-monetary terms. The preferred primary and secondary water supply will be the alternatives that receive the highest score in their corresponding evaluations.

18 Page 8 Table 3: Primary Evaluation Criteria Factors & Criteria Rationale 1.0 Technical (40% of Total Score) Reliability of Supply (Quantity) (20%) Safety of Supply (Quality) (20%) Scalability and Flexibility (15%) Constructability (7.5%) The preferred option needs to reliably supply (as a minimum) the current build out maximum daily demand for water identified by the 2011 Master Plan (144.5 MLD), Twelve Mile Creek requirements (9.8 MLD) and 'in plant' usage (23.1MLD). There is a risk of contamination of the raw water supply options that provide better protection will be considered more reliable. The current WTP capacity is 227 MLD and the Permit To Take Water limit is also 227 MLD. Options that can provide raw water flows greater than MLD ( MLD), and ideally up to 227 MLD, will be considered preferable. The easier it is to implement an option (design, approvals, construction and integration), the greater the advantage of the option. Attributes Extent of required water supply provided by the option. Potential for failure of infrastructure. Potential risk to the source water from contamination: sources of contamination. estimate of time for contaminant to reach WTP. operational flexibility to respond to contamination. Clean Water Act Vulnerability Score considerations including: Great Lakes vs. connecting channel source, land characteristics (landcover, slope) proximity to transport pathways (outfalls, watercourses, drains, etc.), depth of potential intake, distance from land, historical water quality. Scalability of the option (ability to provide additional capacity). Ability to maintain water supply during construction. Permit Requirements Water course crossings, potential impact to local water users, dam safety, dewatering requirements, etc.

19 Page 9 Factors & Criteria Rationale Attributes Integration into Existing System (7.5%) Operation and Maintenance (17.5%) The easier it is to integrate into the existing water system (water supply, treatment and distribution) the greater the advantage of the option. The easier it is to operate and maintain the option, the greater the advantage. Additional infrastructure, new plant or expansions or modifications required to implement the option. Potential system operation modifications. Potential maintenance requirements. Impact to Surrounding Dam Structures (12.5%) Impact to the existing dam structures needs to be minimized to ensure dam safety. 2.0 Natural Environment (20% of Total Score) Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat (30%) Surface Water Impacts (15%) Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Area of Natural & Scientific Interest, Environmental Protection and/or Conservation Areas, Species at Risk (35%) Potential that aquatic habitat could be negatively affected by an option (e.g., direct or indirect loss of aquatic communities, direct or indirect loss of aquatic habitats and functions, encroachment on wetland ecosystems, adverse effects on significant flora and fauna communities, adverse effects on rare, threatened, endangered or local concern species and etc.) Flows over the spillway in the middle reservoir to Twelve Mile Creek need to be maintained for the downstream water users. Surface runoff from adjacent users will need to be maintained including slough drains. Any work or construction work planned in areas which have been designated, or any change to the operation of the raw water supply which has the potential to adversely impact a protected species or habitat, will make obtaining the required permits more difficult and could introduce constraints into the operation and maintenance of raw water supply. Pumping or gravity operation. Potential of option to impact dam structures. Potential impacts to aquatic habitat and fisheries (loss or alterations). Potential of option to impact (reduce) flows to Twelve Mile Creek and DeCew Falls. Potential impacts related to inadequate surface runoff from adjacent lands. Planned construction work, operation in a protected area. Potential for species at risk within the study area to be impacted by the construction/operation of the raw water supply.

20 Page 10 Factors & Criteria Rationale Erosion Impacts (10%) Groundwater and Geology Impacts (10%) Existing waterways could be impacted if the flow regimes are changed, or left unaltered, thereby impacting erosion potential. Proposed works may have an impact on groundwater which may adversely impact existing structures or existing well supplies. 3.0 Social Environment (20% of Total Score) Built Heritage and Archaeological Features (25%) Conformance with Provincial, Regional, Municipal, and Source Protection Plans and/or Policies (25%) Potential Impacts on Local Community and Recreational Users (25%) Potential Impacts Relating to Vandalism and Public Safety (25%) Potential impacts to built heritage and archaeological features due to construction, operation and maintenance activities need to be minimized. The option must comply with Local, Regional and Municipal Plans or Policies. It will likely be harder to obtain approval for options which deviate from these plans/policies. Community effects occur when any of the following factors are compromised: Access to property or public space Transportation Visual impact Potential for residents to be injured, or to vandalize infrastructure should be minimized. Attributes Potential to impact erosion along existing/proposed waterways. Potential impact to local well supplies, existing structures. Potential impact to heritage and archaeological features. Potential deviation from Local, Regional and Municipal Plans and Policies. Potential impact (major, moderate or minor) associated with the number of community factors compromised. Potential for surrounding residents or recreational users to be injured or exposed to potentially unsafe conditions by the associated alternative. Potential for individuals to vandalize infrastructure which may include physical damage or aesthetic impacts.

21 Page 11 Factors & Criteria Rationale 4.0 Economic/ Financial (20% of Total Score) Estimated Cost of Option (Capital, Operating and Life Cycle) Solution must be cost effective from both a capital (initial) and life cycle (operation and maintenance) cost basis. Attributes Net Present Value and Return on Investment Analysis considering Capital and Operating/Life Cycle Costs. Lifecycle cost to be calculated over a 100 year period. Decommissioning/maintenance of water works channel, if required, to be considered. Table 4: 'Secondary' Evaluation Criteria Factors & Criteria Rationale Attributes Water Supplied from a Different Water Body/Source (Pass/Fail) Maintenance of Infrastructure (7.5%) Contamination Potential and Operational Compatibility (7.5%) Total Combined Cost of Primary and SecondaryOption (5%) The preferred secondary option needs to provide water from a source that can be considered "separate" or "different" from the preferred alternative. Provides an efficiently maintainable system with consideration to existing infrastructure. Provide optimal security and flexibility for the operation of the water supply system and reduce risks from contamination events. Provide the most cost effective solution when combined with the preferred preliminary alternative. Provides an effective secondary source of water that provides Operations Staff the capability to react to potential water quality incidents through operational changes and/or travel time. Provides efficient use of existing infrastructure. Does not require maintenance of existing infrastructure that does not form part of the water works supply system. Provides Operations with flexibility in controlling and mitigating contamination events in conjunction with the primary alternative. Provides operational compatibility with the primary alternative. Lowest combined 100-year NPV cost (Primary + Secondary)

22 Table 5 Primary Evaluation of Alternatives Regional Municipality of Niagara Page 12

23 Page 13 Table 5 Primary Evaluation of Alternatives (cont d)

24 Page 14 Table 5 Primary Evaluation of Alternatives (cont d)

25 Page 15 Table 6 Secondary Evaluation of Alternatives Cost of combined scores are relative to the lowest combined score. Ie. the larger the difference in cost between Option 3d and the option being compared, resulted in a lower rating.

26 Page 16 Table 7 Evaluation Summary A summary of the evaluation is provided below; the detailed evaluation in provided in Appendix A. Option 2 Maintain the Existing System Primary Evaluation Technical Source water protection concerns identified remain applicable. Currently there is limited time to respond to potential spills near Highway 406 and to implement mitigation measures.

27 Page 17 This option presents a potential moderate to high risk to the existing dam structures. Recent works provide some protection, but ongoing monitoring and maintenance will be required. OPG is currently completing urgent repairs required along the waterworks intake channel to protect the dam and levee structures as well as the raw water supply. Initially it was planned to complete repairs in four (4) key areas. While these repair works were being completed, an additional location was identified as requiring immediate repair works. The repair works included the enclosing of specific sections of the waterworks with corrugated steel pipe and backfill. A temporary intake would be required during all maintenance/construction works. It is also anticipated that the concerns relating to both dam safety and the integrity of the levees/dykes would increase over time. Construction activities would be comparable to the works currently being undertaken by OPG. Existing Slough Drains would need to be maintained and/or replaced. Natural Environment As is currently being observed around levees and dams, there are erosion issues resulting in structural concerns. Additional areas of concern are anticipated to develop as time progresses. Dewatering of the channel will be required for the maintenance/construction works. In addition, impacts to fish passage/habitat will be incurred due to installation of potential remedial works. Construction works involving dewatering would require temporary fish relocation. Refer to Appendix E Natural Heritage Report (October 23, 2013) prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited for additional information. Social Environment Contained within the existing canal infrastructure and will only potentially impact three (3) cultural heritage resources. Refer to Appendix E Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information. Potential for impacts would be similar to existing conditions. There is a potential for vandalism at existing culvert/pipe repair locations. There is also a potential safety concern with the open channel and culvert locations, in particular Hwy 406 and the "Beaver Slide" (Discharge weir to the Upper Reservoir). Economical/Financial It is anticipated that works will be required on an ongoing basis specifically around the dams, levees and slough drains. OPG is currently completing urgent repairs required along the waterworks intake channel to protect the dam and levee structures as well as the raw water supply. Once these works are completed, approximately 550m of the waterworks channel will have had repairs at a cost of approximately $5.8 million. Current repairs were only required for be a 50 year solution and as such, the works completed to date will also need to be redone over the 100 year requirement. Estimated Net Present Value (NPV) based on a 100 Year operations period is approx. $22,870,000.

28 Page 18 Secondary Evaluation Maintenance of Infrastructure Utilizes the existing channel and associated infrastructure for raw water supply. Does not require channel to be maintained independently of the raw water supply for other purposes. Potentially higher maintenance requirements than fully or partially enclosed alternatives. Contamination and Potential Operational Compatibility Provides an effective alternative raw water supply source to the Primary alternative (Welland Canal / Lake Moody). Allow Operations to utilize the volume of Lake Gibson, Lake Moody and the existing Reservoirs as "buffers" in the event of a Welland Canal contamination event. Also allows for the Welland Canal to be utilized in the event of a Lake Gibson or Lake Moodie contamination event. Higher potential for surface contamination than fully or partially enclosed alternatives. Total Combined Cost of Primary and Alternative Option Secondary Alternative Cost: $14,610,000 PreferredPrimary Alternative Cost: $10, Total Combined Cost: $25,100,000 Option 2 is not being carried forward for the primary or secondary alternative. Option 3a Enclose the Existing Intake With A Box Culvert or Similar Primary Evaluation Technical Able to supply system demands and Twelve Mile Creek flows. Potentially low risk for failure of infrastructure. Potential to reduce source water protection vulnerabilities through the elimination of direct runoff into the waterworks channel, in particular in the area of Highway 406. Would not improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures. The existing concrete culvert at the Highway 406 underpass may create a restriction for higher flows. Current flows are accommodated, but significantly higher flows may not be accommodated through the existing box culvert. This option includes low to moderate risk for impact to existing dam structures. Maintenance and monitoring will be required for culverts installed in and around dam structures. Natural Environment These works would require to the entire channel to be fully enclosed with no light. These conditionals are negative in regards to fish passage. Slough drainage will be consistent with the existing configuration. It is possible that the installation of culverts could raise the profile of the existing channel and in turn affect existing natural runoff from non-agricultural lands.

29 Page 19 Due to flow being confined to culvert it is not anticipated that any erosion problems should arise for the majority of the channel. Consideration for erosive potential at the culvert inlet and outlets will need to be considered and mitigated appropriately. Refer to Appendix E Natural Heritage Report (October 23, 2013) prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited for additional information. Social Environment Contained within the existing canal infrastructure and will only potentially impact three (3) cultural heritage resources. These works have the potential to alter CHL3 and CHL8. Refer to Appendix E Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information. Low archaeological potential due to disturbed lands. No significant alterations to current accessibility except during maintenance/construction activities. Potential for visual impacts due to the elimination of the open water channel. Channel is not considered to be "navigable"; however trails adjacent to the channel provides recreational opportunities for residents and could be maintained. These works will be in conformance with most current plans and policies. The current source protection plans will need to be revised/updated. There is a concern with the safety around inlet and outlet portions of the culvert. Safety measures should be considered during design to mitigate this issue. Economical/Financial Estimated Net Present Value (NPV) based on a 100 Year operations period is approx. $24,280,000. Secondary Evaluation Maintenance of Infrastructure Utilizes existing channel and associated infrastructure for raw water supply. Does not require channel to be maintained independently of the raw water supply for other purposes. Potentially lower maintenance requirements than partially enclosed alternatives. Maintenance of slough drains and property accessibility will continue to be issues. Contamination and Potential Operational Compatibility Provides an effective alternative raw water supply source to the Primary alternative (Welland Canal / Lake Moody). Allow Operations to utilize the volume of Lake Gibson, Lake Moody and the existing Reservoirs as "buffers" in the event of a Welland Canal contamination event. Also allows for the Welland Canal to be utilized in the event of a Lake Gibson or Lake Moodie contamination event. Limited potential for surface contamination. Total Combined Cost of Primary and Alternative Option Secondary Alternative Cost: $24,600,000 Primary Alternative Cost: $10, Total Combined Cost: $35,090,000

30 Page 20 Option 3a is not being carried forward for the primary or secondary alternative. Option 3b Enclose Selected Sections of the Existing Intake With A Box Culvert or Similar Primary Evaluation Technical Able to supply system demands and Twelve Mile Creek flows. Potentially moderate to high risk for failure of infrastructure due to portions of the existing channel remaining in service. Potential to reduce source water protection vulnerabilities through the elimination of direct runoff into the waterworks channel, in particular in the area of Highway 406. Would not improve time available to respond to potential spills from Welland Canal and implement mitigation measures. Culvert can designed to incorporate flexibility for future flow increases (i.e., increased culvert dimensions, etc.). The existing concrete culvert at the Highway 406 underpass may create a restriction for higher flows. New pipe with sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows to be installed adjacent to or below existing culvert. Raw water quality would effectively match existing conditions. It is not anticipated that any modifications would be required. Maintenance of the pipe is not anticipated to require significant effort. This option includes low to moderate risk for impact to existing dam structures. Maintenance and monitoring will be required for pipes installed in and around dam structures. Natural Environment These works would require to the entire channel to be fully enclosed with no light. These conditionals are negative in regards to fish passage. Due to flow being confined to culvert it is not anticipated that any erosion problems should arise in the areas with culverts installed. Alterations to flow patterns from remediation works could result in additional erosion along the unprotected areas of the existing waterway. It is not anticipated that there will be any impacts to existing structures or existing groundwater (well) supplies. There is a potential for temporary disruption due to construction dewatering. Refer to Appendix E Natural Heritage Report (October 23, 2013) prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited for additional information. Social Environment Contained within the existing canal infrastructure and will only potentially impact three (3) cultural heritage resources. These works have the potential to directly impact the rail bridge associated with CHL11 and alter CHL3 and CHL8. Refer to Appendix E Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Report (November 2013) and the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (July 31, 2013) prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. for additional information.