Rutherford Design Committee Page

2006 Rutherford Design Updates

Dec_12_06

Rutherford Facility - Update There is ongoing work occurring at the Rutherford site, and the erection of poles and cable along both sides of the channel.

All this is proceeding with no contact of communication to the association, and without any input from the WKABC. This is proceeding despite the association's request that the changes being made to the course cease, so that the association has input on any changes.

The design committee which has worked for four and one half years to provide input is concerned that changes are being made to the course channel, which have in no way been approved, or even discussed by the design committee, or by the association. There is ongoing work to install facilities for slalom gates, while the outstanding safety issues and hazards repeatedly identified over a period of years remain unresolved, and requests to have the developer provide the changes made, which they have committed to in writing, are being ignored.

There were two registered letters sent to the developer (Innergex) on this matter, both with no response, the first was sent on October 17, 2006, the second was sent on November 22. The association has contacted Transport Canada to request a meeting on this matter, and it would appear the developer is proceeding with work throughout the winter, in order to complete work they are now unilaterally performing, before they are forced to respond to the association's concerns by Transport Canada.

To date the River Projects Coordinator, and the WKABC Board of Directors has had no response to those requests to meet, to have an explanation of what is occurring, and has had no response to the letters which have been sent. These items and more were discussed at the November 29 and November 30 Rutherford Meetings.

If you wish to receive updates, provide any input, or to be involved, contact the River Projects Coordinator at the e-mail a the top of the page.

Nov_20_06

Rutherford Facility Update

The summer (and fall) have now come and gone, and with it the possibility that the facility would finally be completed and we would have the facility signed over to the association in time to have it operational this past paddling season.

While the delays we see now are part of a very long series of delays that have occurred, in part, due to the extremely complex and politically charged interrelationships between the various entities involved, there are now new issues which are surfacing.

As has been noted previously, the direct involvement of Innergex, as a financial partner in the proposed Ashlu Project has been a large challenge to handle. Though the paddling community has agreed to disagree on that matter, the communication regarding the Rutherford facility has been extremely challenging as it has proven very difficult for a number of the parties involved to keep the issues separate. The association, Innergex, Peter Kiewit & Sons, and Knight-Piesold have all either been, or presently are, at odds with any/all of the parties involved over various issues related to other power projects, past interactions, construction and/or design of the power project, and other complex issues.

Over the past four and one half years I have spearheaded the representation of the paddling community in the review of the proposed power project, the ongoing discussions with the original developer (Cloudworks Energy as part of the Rutherford Creek Power LP), the oversight of the contractor's efforts, interaction with the engineering firm, and since early in this year, with the new power project owner, Innergex. Since the third week of August Innergex ceased communicating with the WKABC, and has been making changes to the course without even consulting the WKABC.

The association has submitted more than 75 pages of input, on well over a dozen separate occasions since January of this year, with respect to the revision of the course channel in order to attempt to address the issues that were identified after flow testing revealed that a number of features were unsafe. This is in addition to the numerous meetings held with the old developer, new developer, engineering firm, contractor, and in addition to the many days of work on the site during construction in order to have revisions performed as requested.

We have twice written to Transport Canada, requesting that the flow windows (which are to be implemented should the course not be put in place) be held off, to allow the developer time to complete the facility.

While the new owner has come forward and committed significant funding toward the completion of the facility, it has become increasingly clear that the association's input is not directing the revisions which are occurring. To be clear, the course has been improved, and a number of large scale changes have been made. At the same time, many of the items identified by the course design committee have been left unaddressed. These are not new items, nor are they recent ones.

To balance the perspective on the financial commitment which has been made, it must also be noted that there are clear financial benefits which Innergex has accrued due to the flow windows not being in place over the past 2 years. These can be calculated using power models and the historical flow data for the stream. A conservative calculation can be shown to estimate the value of the flow windows during the past 2 years to be in the order of $400,000 - $600,000. This is far in excess of the funds committed to the resolving of the outstanding issues with the facility this past year.

Presently, there exists a long list of items which have not been addressed, though these issues have been identified on multiple separate occasions over a period of years. In many cases the new developer has agreed to revise the channel, to address the specific issues and has even instructed the contractor to perform the work. Yet these items remain outstanding, and incomplete.

This summary, and the identified issues, does not incorporate many ongoing identified areas of concern (for example the roughness of the grouting), nor the clear safety hazards produced by some of the features.

This trend has now become a larger concern as Innergex has independently moved forward with a series of revision to the course channel, with no consultation with the association. Whether these revisions are for the better, or the worse, as far as the course is concerned may be debated, however, the clear issue is that agreed to revisions, and ones identified through a defined process where the paddling community has met over a period of years to provide input, continue to be ignored.

The association has a signed agreement with the developer (Rutherford Creek Power Ltd.) which provides a framework for the interaction of the two parties. As of this date there are a number of items clearly stated in that signed agreement (signed both by the association and the developer) which remain as undelivered. These items are aside from any issues with the specific course features which are also still of concern.

After a number of calls, meetings and letters, involving the new owner of the power project, the association was sent (by Innergex), in February of this year, a letter which put forward their clear commitments to the association, in terms of completion of the facility. To date a number of those commitments have not been provided, on top of the items not delivered from the original agreement.

With both a number of items originally agreed to, plus a number of additional commitments, both as outstanding, there is a significant gap between what was to be delivered, and what is now in place.

To be clear, the association would simply like the items which were committed to in writing delivered, and the facility turned over to the association. All of this has negatively impacted out ability to hire an administrative assistant to work out of the facility, to host our AGM there, and generally further reduced the associations input into the completion of the facility - a facility it will own once completed.

On October 17, the association sent a registered letter to Innergex, requesting a meeting to address a list of items which were committed to, which have not been delivered, and to ask Innergex to speak to the manner in which the last revisions (performed since late August) have been made. In that letter we requested that they respond to our inquiries within 10 days. Having now waited one month, we have no reply.

While we are hoping that Innergex will respond, we are also seeking legal council should there be the need to look at other avenues to resolve the completion, and delivery to the association, of the Rutherford Facility.

Unfortunately, to further complicate matters, members of the slalom paddling community have been working around the process for input into the courses design and construction (which has been open to anyone interested) for many years. It is apparent that the actions of the developer, and the actions of some of the slalom paddling community are not unrelated, and that the input of the association, and the hundreds of volunteers who have contributed over a period of years is being undermined. We would like to believe this is not politically related, however there is a very real possibility that these are not unrelated.

With that as background on the overall situation, there are a number of changes which have been made to the course which cannot be tested (as required in our operation protocol agreement) at the range of flows which the course was designed to be operated at (5 CMS - 17.6 CMS). As has been the case previously we need to ensure the revisions work over the range of operational flows before the facility can be turned over to the association. This is the same reason we had to wait until the second generator was installed, to allow the course to be run at full flows, and ensure it was safe and usable as such.

As the amount of information that can be placed here is limited, and the amount of detail is very large, there will be a meeting of the association's design committee, along with any others interested, in order to examine options for moving toward successful completion and hand over of the facility to the association. This will occur in the next few weeks.

The dates and locations of the meetings are:

Wednesday November 29, 7:00 - 9:00 PM, Harry Jerome Recreation Centre, North Vancouver

Thursday November 30, 7:00 - 9:00 PM, Don Butler's Home, Whistler

If you wish to be involved, to be updated, or to attend, please ensure you are on the update list, and contact the River Projects Coordinator at the e-mail at the top of the page. Alternatively, you may call (604) 815-4113 to get involved, or get more information.

June_2_06

Rutherford Facility Completion - Water in the course is near...

Work continues on the revisions to the course channel, and we are approaching the end of the Stage 1 revisions.

If the work goes according to the schedule from the contractor, we should see water flowing in the revised channel next week.

  Images of the current excavations, and the revised course channel are here.

  Drawings of the revision plans are here

As of the last site visit (June 1), there were a number of items which were not yet completed (the berm to create the take-out eddy, the berm upstream of Tumbleweed, the start pool enlargement, and the pool entrance enlargement).

A number of features are also not yet completed, and these are being worked on now, including: exit hole at Squamish Canyon, V-Box river left wall replacement and slab, Vancouver Wave slab and river left wall, and Twin Falls ramp). There are also a number of hazardous boulders and undercuts which were identified, and these are to be filled with grout.

The deflection berms that are being put in place above Tumbleweed and Twin Falls should produce eddies on the right side of the course, and alleviate concerns identified with those locations.

We have pushed the developer to ensure that Twin Falls functions as a feature (as intended), and the testing with lock blocks will begin at that location once the water can be run through the course, with the goal of reducing the recirculation in the river left chute, and producing a more ramped drop on that side, as well as ensuring that the river right chute does not produce a recirculation which feeds or connects with the river left side.

The revisions have opened up the course a significant amount, with more pools and eddies (start pool enlargement, eddy below Squamish Canyon, eddy below Lone Wolf, eddy below V-Box, eddy below Vancouver Wave) and as well the removal of the river left walls in both V-Box and Vancouver Wave, and the re-angling of the ramps, looks like this should alleviate the recirculations seen at the V-Box and Vancouver Wave, however only testing over the range of course flows will confirm this.

Many of these revisions were at the request of the developer, and were beyond the original scope of the course design parameters the WKABC design team was limited to. The WKABC is contributing some of the ongoing maintenance funding to these revisions to help achieve the goals established by the design team. All of these items should help produce a more usable course.

There are also a number of items which are outstanding and only testing will reveal if these have been resolved by the Stage 1 modifications, or not. These include:
    - the start pool recirculation
    - Squamish Canyon exit recirculation
    - Vancouver Canyon water depth and recirculation
    - Tumbleweed upstream wall issues
    - pool depth
    - Twin Falls recirculation
    - Take-out Eddy

There are also a number of outstanding performance related items which relate to testing of the Stage 1 revisions, including the formation of:
    - a small wave/hole at exit of Squamish Canyon
    - a large wave/hole formed at the V-Box
    - a large wave formed at the Vancouver Wave
    - a usable feature at Twin Falls

We look forward to the testing and the work to ensure all the course goals are met by the revisions which are now underway.

Stage 2 revisions should begin once we have tested the current revisions over the range of course design flows (5CMS - 17.6 CMS)

Questions or comments? E-mail the

May_11_06

Rutherford Facility Completion Update !

After the March Design Group Meeting, comments were submitted to the developer, regarding the proposed design changes. Draft plans were completed, and these were sent to the WKABC this week. Excavations have commenced in order to address the areas of the course where problems were identified by the design group, and to improve the overall usability and safety of the course (more pools and exit points).

You can review the excavation images here

You can review the completion drawings here

A site meeting to review the progress to date and to provide input on the current drawings was held on May 11. There were several areas where revisions were recommended by the WKABC and these are now being incorporated in the revised plans.

This was a very productive and cooperative review of the course, and we are appreciative of the effort put forward by the developer (RCPL and Innergex), the contractor (Peter Kiewit and Sons), and the engineering firm (Knight Piesold) to incorporate the input from the design group into the final solutions.

The completion work is to occur in three Stages, with the 1st Stage being addressing the identified areas where major safety concerns exist. The 2nd Stage will follow a round of testing to view the 1st Stage changes and what impacts they have had, followed by another set of revisions to ensure the performance of the various features is as was intended. The 3rd Stage will be to complete the remaining issues, should they not be captured in Stages 1 and 2.

The contractor is costing some revisions outside of those required for safety reasons and will be informing the WKABC of the costs associated with revision of the V-Box feature - details posted when they become available.

The completion of Stage 1 construction should be finished in the next 10 days, and once finished we will review the placement of the materials prior to grouting occurring, and finally, testing will begin then. Further details will be posted as we receive scheduling information from the contractor.

Mar_22_06

Rutherford Facility Meeting - Agenda & Brief Update

We met this week with the developer Innergex, and have a number of positive efforts to report. There is a lot of information to review, and the meeting below is an important one. Highlights include a financial commitment by Innergex to see the facility completed and potential funding to see a professional course designer assisting with the completion of the facility.

Key items that are potentially on the table include:
- limiting flow through the course
- expansion of the channel in various areas to open the course and provide more eddies
- safety-related resolutions for a number of the features which are currently unfinished
- development of a larger take-out eddy and pool
- finishing of the outstanding safety-related hazardous protrusions

All the potential solutions developed will be reviewed by the design team, and these must also be costed and while we made good progress toward what look like reasonable solutions the costing may introduce limitations and we await word of discussions between the developer and the contractor.

At the meeting on Thursday we will review the potential solutions identified at a meeting earlier this week with the developer and gather input on those, along with other items that we have yet to resolve.

The agenda is here

Mar_10_06

Rutherford Facility Meeting - Thursday March 23

An update on the Rutherford Design Meeting

I have looked at all the responses, and arranged a meeting time and place, and there will be only one location for a meeting, to be held:

Thursday March 23

Howe Sound Inn (Skylight Room), Squamish

7:00 PM - 10:00 PM

We have some important decisions to make regarding the completion of the facility and a lot of very important information to review - so please attend if at all possible. Work will commence soon on the completion of the course channel.

An agenda will be posted next week - and you can submit any agenda items you have to the e-mail below.

If you are unable to attend, and wish to have input we can arrange a conference call, or you can submit comments to the e-mail address above.

Mar_1_06

Rutherford Facility Meeting

There will be a meeting the week of March 13 - 17 to discuss the state of affairs with the completion of the Rutherford Facility. We have indications of the budget to complete the course, and have been in discussions with the new owners of the facility.

The WKABC will need to make some major decisions on what paddlers see as the best way to complete the course. Despite problems with the contractor (Peter Kiewit and Sons), we are moving forward, and the facility will be completed this spring. There are also decisions to be made regarding the operation of the facility.

There will be at least one meeting (likely Squamish, central to Pemberton - Vancouver) and there may be a two meetings (one Pemberton/Whistler and the other in Vancouver).

I will be circulating an agenda in the next few days. Please RSVP to be counted in the meeting locations decisions.

Anyone wishing to attend should e-mail the RPC at the link at the top of the page.

Feb_1_06

Rutherford Course Progress - Update

We enter another year in the quest to have the Rutherford Facility completed... and though the road has been long, we see some hope that June of 2006 will be the end, with the facility opening and in operation.

For now, the latest development is the sale of 50% interest in the project by the original developer, a company controlled by Cloudworks Energy – with whom the association has worked successfully with in the past – to Innergex of Quebec. Innergex now essentially owns the Rutherford Power Project, and we now must deal with Innergex alone on the completion of the facility.

Prior to selling their interest, Cloudworks (to their significant credit) requested, and have in place a contract with the new owner, stating the kayak facility is required to be completed, operational, and turned over to the WKABC by June of this year, ensuring that the commitments made to the association in the past are met by the new owner.

The current challenge; the contractor for the entire project, Peter Kiewit and Sons has been quite a bit less than helpful, and is not delivering on many of their promises, given throughout the construction period. Some of this stems from budget concerns, which are outside of the control of the association. The contractor did take on the entire project, including the course, as part of their bid for the power project. While we sympathize with the budget concerns, we are not satisfied with the course as it sits, and have documented outstanding concerns over the past 2 years.

The other issue which has been extremely difficult to deal with is that both the contractor and the design engineers (Knight Piesold) were also involved in the proposed Ashlu project. Further complicating matters, we also understand Innergex has significant interests in that project.

Attending public hearings for the Ashlu and having employees of both the contractor and design engineers vehemently supporting the Ashlu project, then having to go up to the Rutherford Facility to work with those same people a few days later, was to say the least, very difficult, and the tension was palpable.

Beyond difficult, there appears to be little good faith in this relationship by the contractor, and we are faced with a very unpleasant battle to have the things which were promised, delivered. As the course was expected to require tuning, with many tests/revisions after flow testing, there was no doubt that many things would need to be revisited. While this was supported openly by the engineers and contractor during design, testing and construction, the contractor now feels this is not the case.

While we have met with the new owners and have had ongoing discussions, there has been little activity since the second generator was installed in July of 2005 (essentially eliminating the last physical obstacle to course completion). With paddling season approaching we are facing increasingly steeper ramps to meet the deadlines in place as any live testing dependent upon freshet flows.

The association has been reluctant to focus on these negative items; however we believe that we need to provide a realistic appraisal of the issues we are facing, as there have recently been many questions from a variety of sources.

Updates will be posted when there is new information.


	WKABC - Rutherford Design Committee Update Page - 2006
	To get on the e-mail update list, contact the:
	Updates are classified as either R = Respond, or as I = Information.
Date	Information